Sunday, October 4, 2009

Do You Miss Chimpy Yet?

By Manifesto Joe

THE GHOST OF IL DOOFUS STILL WORKS HERE.

I have a right-wing relative who provided me with this priceless photo of Il Doofus. It has been circulating on e-mail among right-wingers. It's odd -- I couldn't have gotten a better favor from a left-wing blog bud.

The main problem I have with Barack Obama is that he's been entirely too nice. So far, he's erred mainly on the side of good manners. As so many Democrats have unfortunately done over the years, and decades, he brought a pair of boxing gloves to a knife fight.

But, even with Obama's early foibles -- do I miss The Monkey Man? Do I miss being crudely lied to, fleeced in taxes for a war that would have been ludicrous had it not been so deadly for so many? Do I miss the wholesale looting of the country for the benefit of the superrich? Do I miss cringing when I hear a man who is supposed to be our president, and he can barely speak English?

The answer, quite unequivocally, is NO, NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.

12 comments:

SJ said...

@Manifesto Joe,
I heard about this but hadn't seen it yet. Thanks for posting: It's as funny as it is embarrassing.

I'm livng in a nation with people who just refuse to see things as they were, -which means they also can't see things as they are.

How this goldbricking c-student, (whose name we wouldn't even know if his father hadn't been president first) is rememebered fondly by anyone except people with over 10 million dollars is mind boggling.
It takes a desperate and frankly irresponsible desire for self-delusion to even try to see the bright side of George W. Bush's Presidency.
--Actually there is a bright side... it's over and I get to look at images like the one you just posted.
-SJ

Manifesto Joe said...

SJ -- I confess that I've been disappointed in Obama so far. I worried last year about his lack of Washington experience. I think it's showing.

But he's already been better than Bush ever dreamed of being. However, there are people who can't remember what they had for breakfast, let alone how the country was governed for eight years. I find it kind of astonishing that Bush left with a 22% approval rating. He was King Midas in reverse -- everything he touched seemed to turn to feces.

SJ said...

--Midas in reverse, ha ha!
Obama's lack of beltway experience and strong political relationships among the older DC establishment is not a plus (Generally senators who run for President are a conundrum, if they've been in the Senate too long they owe too many favors, if they haven't been in there long enough they're not owed any allegiances) but it's been these undermining Blue Dog Democrats, and this new, ultra-concentrated-to-the-extreme GOP that is proving more problematic for this administration and the country as a whole. Obama's mechanics and logistics make sense, it just seems like everybody keeps threatening to through sand in the engine. I don't know that a more seasoned operator (like LBJ, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were), would fare much better right now, -after all Clinton tried Healthcare overhaul in the beginning too, and was thoroughly shot down from all sides. Obama hasn't fully lived up to my expectations, but I'm happy about our Constitution not being treated with contempt anymore. I think my biggest disappointment with this administration has been Rahm Emmanuel. I just thought he'd be tougher and more visible.
-SJ

Jim Foster said...

I think history will be kind to President Bush. Remember, most great presidents were not appreciated while they were in office. Reagan is a good example. So was Lincoln.
President Bush doesn't get credit for a lot of his successes, because of the fact that many peoples' opinion has been shaped by the extreme far-left Liberal Media, as well as Hollywood and academia (both of which are far-left).

President Bush's successes include:
1. No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for seven years, which proved that President Bush's policies after 9/11 were a success.
2. The Surge in Iraq. The Libs laughed when President Bush announced the Surge. They said it would never work. But it did and today, violence is down sharply and order and democracy are on the march in Iraq.
3. The economy under President Bush was strong for seven years. He inherited a recession from Clinton. But thanks to his tax cuts and other policies, American enjoyed 7 years of prosperity and growth.
To anyone who doubts the success of President Bush's policies, I ask: are you better off today than you were, say, two years ago? Obama has truly been a disaster for our great Republic.

Manifesto Joe said...

My first reaction, Jim, would be sort of a John McEnroe thing -- "You can't be serious!" -- but sadly, I think you are.

1. The FBI just foiled a terrorist bomb plot in Dallas, eight months into the Obama presidency. Of course, Obama will get no credit for that. Bush, in contrast, ignored the previous administration's warnings about Al Qaida and went on vacation in Texas for five weeks right after being warned that an attack was imminent. Do you remember this? Or what you had for breakfast?

2. If the "surge" was so successful, why are so many U.S. troops still in Iraq? Simple answer: The place would revert to chaos without that presence. The sad thing is that no "surge" should ever have been needed, as this was an elective war, an invasion based on lies. Now we're stuck over there, waiting for the next phase of their civil war to erupt. And if we left ...

3. On the economy, here's where you surely can't be serious. Bush inherited a record SURPLUS from Clinton, and a downturn after several robust years that has proved modest compared to the Great Recession of 2008-09. It's Obama who has inherited a staggering mess -- from Il Doofus.

Jim, I don't know you personally, so you may be one of the nicest dudes on Earth. But you seem to be letting someone else do your thinking for you. And, they aren't doing that as well as you might do it on your own.

Jack Jodell said...

Great post, Manifesto Joe, and a good and wholly accurate rebuttal to Mr. Foster's points. He must be a multimillionaire to claim that Bush's economy was a strong one. Under Bush's disastrous direction, millions of good paying jobs left this country, never to return; investment was made overseas and not here; and our trade and federal deficits skyrocketed. Meanwhile, wages stayed frozen or were in decline here, and buying powere evaporated. Mr. Foster certainly has a curious definition for a strong domestic economy.

I share and echo your disappointment with Mr. Obama. It's time for a little no more Mr. Nice Guy from him. And naturally, I agree that he is infinitely better than his predecessor or any of the Republicans currently on the political radar screen.

Let's hope that voters see through all this conservative GOP obstructionist nonsense, recognize that they have absolutely nothing of value to offer the country, and will vote them out in large numbers next year. Imagine getting paid $168,000 a year plus lavish benefits to do absolutely nothing---the current Republican congressional delegation is a total waste of taxpayer money!

SJ said...

@Jim Foster,
Not to pile on here, but there is the matter of the 9/11 attack itself.
George W. Bush's administration was in power for 9 months, and he himself was on vacation for far too much of that time. He was on vacation for the almost entire month preceding the attacks.
I still live in Manhattan. I will not forget or forgive his ineptitude as Commander in Chief, nor will I ever be blinded by my love of my country into remembering George W, Bush as something that he wasn't. Don't tell me that he kept my country safe when his term began in January of 2001 and the attacks happened in September.

There is much I could list here, fact after lousy sad fact about George W. Bush's Presidency. But I wouldn't be telling you anything you don't know already Jim, only the things you refuse to believe.
-SJ

dr sardonicus said...

"King Midas In Reverse", a forgotten classic.

Speaking of classic, glad to see that some of those folks who believe that GWB won't be fully appreciated for another 100 years are still around.

Len Hart said...

Miss Bush??? No frickin' way.

Everyone who knew anything about the economy could have predicted that the Bush admin would eventually end in economic disaster.

R. Reagan and Bush have many things in common. Both did what the GOP would have them do. 1) they transferred wealth upward to the base knowing it would crash the economy for everyone else; 2) both empowered the MIC, the latter-day Praetorian Guard whose job it is to protect and defend the RULING ELITE. Fuck everyone else!

The differences between Reagan and Bush are 1) Reagan's economic collapse occurred earlier in his admin; 2) Reagan had to settle for a piss ant 'war' on Grenada (for cryin' out loud) whereas Bush, upon the pretext given him by 911, was able to bankrupt the nation in the sands of Iraq.

By GOP standards (fucked up standards), Bush is, by far, the most successful 'President' and that is to say DISASTROUS for everyone but the screwed up cult called the GOP!

Marc McDonald said...

Re: "King Midas In Reverse," yes: this is a great song. I'm not sure it's what you'd call "forgotten." It sold well and charted in the Top 40 of many nations when it was released in 1967. It continues to feature on oldies radio to this day.

Incidentally, the Hollies continue to record to this day. Their 2006 album, "Staying Power" was quite good---I would take it over 99 percent of the dogshit that clogs up today's music charts and radio.

dr sardonicus said...

Marc: "King Midas In Reverse" was a major commercial disappointment for The Hollies, reaching only #18 in the UK and #51 in the US. The song's relative failure led to tensions between its writer, Graham Nash, and the rest of the group, especially Allan Clarke. Nash wanted to go in a more progressive direction while the others wanted to stick to making pop singles. Mr. Nash would soon after find an outlet for his creativity when he met Mr. Crosby and Mr. Stills.

Marc McDonald said...

As you mentioned, "failure" is a relative concept. A lot of very worthy rock acts toil away for years and years, producing fantastic work and never enjoy any chart success at all. The Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart and the Stooges never enjoyed chart success---and yet their work towers over the dreck that makes up the Billboard Top 40.
The Hollies sold millions of records around the world over the years. There are a lot of "hard-luck" stories in rock, but I wouldn't count the Hollies among them. There are many bands that would kill for their level of success.