Monday, February 02, 2009

talk radio

When I'm in the car I usually listen to either NPR or to talk radio. We have an Air America affiliate here but neither their coverage nor NPR's reaches all of my roaming area so sometimes I find myself listening to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or another talker of that stripe.

I understand that they need to keep an audience and that means pushing things a bit, but... but... but...

I have to say that I am more than a little miffed when they say they hope Obama fails. Now I am no fan of the W. I think and thought the first election was stolen and possibly the second one too. I think he was a disaster as a president. But I never once wished he would fail. I fully expected he would, but I never hoped for it. Why? Because his leadership impacted the entire world. If he failed. We failed. Jobs were lost. Unnecessary wars were fought. People died. I didn't want him to fail.

Now, of course, had he succeeded, it would have been very difficult for the dems to get power and for a dem to get elected as president, but that was a price I was willing to pay if it would have made the world more stable and people's lives fuller.

No, when they hope for Obama to fail, they are hoping for people to lose their homes and their jobs. They are hoping for my neighbors to lose their healthcare and to have to make choices between medicine and food. They are hoping for the world to erupt in violence and for innocent children to die as collateral damage. They are being absolutely unpatriotic. They are sinning against all of humanity.

The second piece that I've been hearing makes me laugh. I can't tell you how many times I've heard these apologists for the Bush administration attack Obama and say, as good Republicans, they are for fiscal restraint and a balanced budget. Did they sleep through the last 8 years? Did they forget that Bush came into office with a surplus (left to him by a Democrat) and left with the largest deficit ever? Or did they forget that in large degree the last administration, a Republican administration, virtually did exactly what it wanted to do for 8 years and in doing so, put our economy in the toilet, decimated our military, shredded the constitution, and destroyed our standing in the world? Or maybe they just think their audience is so stupid that they have forgotten who got us into the current mess.

Now they also spend a lot of time talking up the Bush administration's legacy. They remind us that during the final 7 years of Bush's administration no terrorist attacks took place on US soil. That is true. But no aliens from outer space attacked us either. Is either one due to the diligence of the Bushies? Got me, but given the way they ran the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the economy at home, and took care of the constitution, I have my doubts they were responsible for fending off either attack. At the same time, we do know who was president when 9/11 happened and we do know that reports were ignored that gave warnings about Osama Bin Laden. They seem to forget that as well.

Well, I guess they do succeed in accomplishing their primary objective though. I get upset. And I listen some more.

4 comments:

Dave Miller said...

I have always thought that if Bush was to get credit for keeping us safe after 9/11, then Clinton should also be praised for preventing another attack on our soil after the first twin tower bomb attack.

Consistency is not a hallmark of politicians... of either party.

PS Congrats on the Steelers.

fernando said...

In mid 2002 reality to ceased to matter anymore to the Bush apologists. The whole thing stopped being a debate about politics and ideas, about different ways to solve real problems and became mythic and chimerical.

Bush really only has one legacy, the appointment of Gen of Petraeus. The irony there is, of course, that of Petraeus is exactly the kind of strong intellectual (attuned to sociological reality and cultural difference) that was ridiculed for so long by the Bush apologists.

Michael Mahoney said...

I'll agree with what you said, Roy. I hope this guy does like gangbusters. Sadly, I'm where you were eight and four years ago... I don't believe he will, but I hope he does. Already I look at this spend-happy, pork-loaded "stimulus" package and think "same old tax-and-spend idealism."

I don't know about California, but the economy was going great here on the east coast during the Reagan/Bush years. We all had money, we could afford to live. Clinton came in and the slide started. The Fed may have had a surplus, but we sure didn't. Not that (and I agree with you here) W did any great shakes to fix it. I still support the ideas of why we needed to go to Iraq, but the cost was tremendous, and we are only beginning to pay the price.

I still think the single biggest cause for our economic woes is the CRA. And CRA is a Democrat program all the way. This is what keeps me up at night.

roy said...

As for the economy under Reagan/Bush 1, I was back east then - PA & upstate NY - and I don't remember it as being nearly as rosy as you imply, Michael. Remember, the slogan Clinton ran on, and won was, "it's the economy, stupid." Certainly the blue collar sector was devastated in western PA during those years.

As for Clinton's economic policies, I think they were more in line with Reagan than with traditional Democratic policies.

The CRA may have been a piece of the puzzle, but I would lay more of the blame on deregulation and that is Republican all the way. Plus, the CRA didn't force banks to make loans to people they knew would never be able to repay them... and from what I've read, the majority of subprime loans were not made by CRA regulated banks. Check out the links from the Wikipedia article on the CRA for more info.