Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises
By CHUCK GREEN
Columnist
Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Denver Post/Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a lifelong Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece...
Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.
Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.
Wow. Talk about change.
Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.
Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.
George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.
He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.
Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.
If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.
Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).
If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.
All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.
Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.
Two disastrous decisions.
Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.
Need more proof?
You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.
Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.
Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.
It is all George Bush’s fault.
Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?
Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at chuckgreencolo@msn.com
Chuck Green on Obama
By Tracy Tomlinson
Today I opened a forwarded copy of the Chuck Green article condemning Pres. Obama on every level of his political record.Admittedly, I am a disenfranchised Republican moderate, who in his fury to depose the neoconservative wing, has unwittingly thrust his nation into still another boiling pot of the same party politics.
Nevertheless, the Chuck Green article is a one dimensional approach that represents just another expression of public frustration lacking insight.
This sort of abrupt utterance feeds into a media frenzy popularized by hot button issues placing controversy over solutions. It will become one of the most referenced articles by the right as an example of the left's dissatisfaction with Obama performance. Unfortunately, rehashing public sentiment will keep people focused on everything but the realities and sources of social dilemma ultimately effecting the national climate. This is the main reason why I avoid mainstream public media in general.
Chuck Green is a journalist who writes a column for the Aurora Sentinel. His critique of Pres. Obama's performance emphasizes failure through a procession of statements sarcastically employing the blame tactic this administration has used against its Republican predecessor.
It looks like intelligence cooked by a right wing conservative think tank, rather than the work of an objective investigative writer with a degree in journalism. In any case the point stands as a matter of perception depending on how the reader is politically aligned. Subjectively, whatever Green really represents in this unbearable rant (if anything) is a mute point and simply detracts from the nature of the issues.
When my eyes are ravaged by shoddy, uninspired articles like this one, I defensively fall back on the logical assumption that most people who have opinions are trapped within a mindset limited by what is perceived as reality. In other words, the parameters for accepting or rejecting information are filtered through a static personal belief system. Thus, if a fact doesn't fit into those preset parameters it is left out of the equation. If it jives, it is integrated as a truth supporting elements of a set belief.
To be frank, most of us aren't looking for truth, reality or fact. We are simply applying a set of rules to build upon something we already think or believe as truth, reality. One obvious example is how many of my friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members have acquiesced to the patriotic notion that America is fighting a war on terrorism. In fact there is a plethora of information and evidence illustrating that our government has been covertly giving material support, organizing and expanding the rise of terrorist groups within regions that US policy places its highest economic and energy interests.
As for the pro-Bush, anti-Obama rhetoric by Chuck Green, it is a view that really doesn't consider the elemental, multi-level factionalism which has encroached upon the intentions of the White House.
The conditions that exist within the internal power struggle between parties and corporate power brokers, has had adverse consequences for the former Bush administration, as it now exerts upon the Obama agenda.
The growing influences of money mongering, power brokering corporate enterprise and the political inroads of foreign interests (political organizations acting as agents of foreign interests) has since WWII compromised national security interests and individual rights, and has reduced the constitutional superstructure which traditionally served as a foundation for the rule of law, the balance of justice and fair-handed foreign policies. As a result, political endeavor has also lost its place in protecting the hopes and aspirations of economic opportunity.
The private, strategic interests of wealthy and powerful people (domestic and foreign) have increasingly taken precedence over the economic welfare and security of the average American, and there is very little evidence of Washington representation of the voter. Simply stated, congress is bought and owned by a higher power.
In the midst of this morally corrosive, fascist collective we call a Congress; Americans are naively charmed by controversial articles that do little more than reiterate frustrations, while avoiding dialogue that identifies core issues and events that have brought us to the brink of social chaos.
I ask you, what are the possibilities of an altruistic first term president surviving a crucible where a defunct body of officials, which has effectively outlived its intended purpose, holds the keys to the failure or success of every beneficial agenda?
Even in the face of this enraging crisis, most Americans are intelligibly preoccupied by debates about the divisive nature of party politics, rather than the historical causation of this internal conflict.
Perhaps it is easier for people like Green and other gossip columnists to succumb to the mantras of the time rather than offering to interface the people with information pertinent to their needs. Let's concede the fact that those writers are as interested in keeping their jobs as anyone and are therefore unwilling to swim against the tide of corporate power and controls shaping public perception. After all, this is a web that is sown into every corner of American life and thought. And how about the fact that the average person is so conditioned by media traps like this that they have forgotten the discordant state of affairs they have helped to create?
Does anyone here know that a Republic is a form of government run by the people?
This means that folks are involved with politics from their neighborhoods to the White House. Citizens represent their neighborhoods in regular town meetings. They connect through the community with mayors and city council members, state representatives. Common people are the ones responsible for rearing their congressional representatives according to the Republic system.
The fact is that the voter is out of touch with Washington, not the other way around. This is the sad fact of a once great nation that has lost its vision. Those with the prime responsibility for saving the nation (the people) are no longer involved in the process.
The values which once reassured the national interests of the whole have been replaced by expressions of self-gratification and material individualism.
Freedom, which is based on decision-making, has been left to the unreachable bureaucrat and untouchable privileged.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty". Thomas Jefferson
