Can it be true? Was it really Bush, and not Obama, who was the pantywaist on piracy?

1 comment April 13th, 2009

 

  As we all know by now, in the hours leading up to Sunday’s dramatic rescue of the merchant marine captain from the clutches of Somali pirates, the conservative blogosphere was aflame with assertions to the effect that President Obama was cowardly dithering in the face of crisis.

 Even after the rescue, some of our superpatriotic friends were arguing that Obama was a “pantywaist” on the overall issue of piracy and that it was his weakness that led to this latest incident.

 But what have we here? Why, it’s WORD from David Neiwert over at Crooks and Liars to the effect that it was George W. Bush, not Obama, who greeted the emergence of Somali piracy with lots of weak-kneed hemming and hawing and consultations with the United Nations. 

 That can’t be true, can it? Republican presidents are men of action, aren’t they?  Democratic presidents are supposed to be the weenies. Every red-blooded American knows that.

 But, lo and behold, there’s this wire service report from last Nov. 19:

U.S. President George W. Bush has been briefed about increasing attacks by Somali pirates off east Africa, and the United States is consulting with other U.N. Security Council members on ways to combat the threat, the White House said on Wednesday.

Calling it a “a very complicated issue,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino gave no hint of what, if any, action the United States might take following the hijacking earlier this week of a Saudi supertanker with a $100 million oil cargo.

But she told reporters, “The goal would be to try to help get this ship to safety, secure the crew and then work with our international partners to try to alleviate the piracy problem…

Oh, the disgrace of it all. You try to blame Bush’s recession on Obama, but hardly anybody buys it. And now this piracy thing turns out to be Bush’s fault, too.

Hey, tea partiers! Most Americans aren’t nearly as sour on federal income taxes as you think

19 comments April 13th, 2009

 

 A new Gallup Poll on federal income taxes SHOWS that Americans aren’t nearly as negative on the subject as certain protestors would have us believe.

 Sixty-one percent of poll respondents said they regard the federal income taxes they have to pay this year as fair.

 On the related question of whether they think their income taxes are too high, too low or about right, a plurality said they’re about right — one of the most positive assessments Gallup has measured on the matter since 1956.

 In addition to these somewhat counterintuitive poll results, we also have the fact that the stimulus bill President Obama signed on Feb. 17 includes $288 billion in tax cuts — $237 billion of it in the form of tax relief for individuals.

 So, what’s all this crap about tax-protest tea parties around the country this week? Well, the poorly-kept secret about these demonstrations is that they’re mostly anti-Obama affairs drummed up by extremist elements of the Republican Party.

 Economist Paul Krugman SAYS THIS: “[I]t turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.”

 (Disclaimer: From what I gather, the “tea party” scheduled for Tuesday afternoon behind the Rockford Public Library is not a Fox News creation and seems not to be specifically aimed at dissing Obama. We’ll see.)

 UPDATE: The tea partiers also should take note of two other Gallup Poll results released today:

 In ONE, 71 percent of Americans say they have confidence in Obama’s handling of the economy.

 And in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, Obama’s overall approval rating STANDS at 63 percent.

 POSTSCRIPT: Paul Krugman also makes a good point about the anti-Obama rhetoric we’re sure to hear at some tea parties:

 ”President Obama is being called a ’socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration.”

 Ten percentage points less than it was under Reagan? Why weren’t there tea parties back then? Oh, right. Silly question. Reagan was a Republican.

Piracy episode ends happily, but wingnuts vilify Obama anyway

18 comments April 13th, 2009

 

 In the hours just after the U.S. Navy rescue of merchant marine Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates on Sunday, I put together a LITTLE COLLECTION of unpleasant reactions from right-wing bloggers who couldn’t bring themselves to express anything but invective about President Obama in connection with this episode.

 I see this morning that I wasn’t the only collector of such filth. (Check HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.)

 Wingnut criticisms have ranged  from the ridiculous to the downright insane:

 It took too long to rescue the captain. The Navy Seals initially were forbidden by the president to attempt a rescue. It was Obama’s fault that the pirates took the captain hostage in the first place. The president wanted the standoff to continue indefinitely. Obama didn’t physically participate in the rescue and therefore has no right to take any credit. He’s a pansy for not laying waste to the whole of Somalia just to teach the world a lesson. Etc., etc., etc.

 Imagine what the reaction would have been had Obama triumphantly strutted about on Sunday in a manner even vaguely reminiscent of George W. Bush’s infamous “mission accomplished” performance in his manly flight suit. The craziness on the political right would have been off the charts.