Bush is not the reason the economy is where its at you lame people (Liberals) This all started with Clinton...When he signed into law that made it affordable that anyone.....and I mean anyone can buy a house. He said to Fannie mae and Freedi Mac that if you do not loan these people who cannot afford a home, you will be fined....Thats where these sub prim loans came in....everyone stared buying homes...it was crazy...then in 5 years from when you sign the mortgage papers, you payments will increase....These loans started to increase while Bush was in office....sure the economy boomed during the Clinton years because after he leaves office, the next President will have to worry about the mess...Bush cought on to this and had hearings,thepeople in charge...Barney Frank...said...Nothing wrong here, move along.....people started to loose their homes all over America...That;s when the economy started to drop....
also, when clinton took money away from our Military and security forces....our Special agency's (FBI, CIA,) were not talking to each other because Clinton's administration put road blocks in communications....That's when 911 happened....that also took us to another level.....
I hold Clinton responsible for all this....
Quoting: Me 15187900 But most people who voted have NO idea what you're talking about above. They have been brainwashed to think it was that Devil Bush! And that's ALL that mattered!
This is another HUGE strategic miscalculation by Republicans. Every time Obama would hit them with the "Bush" card, either explicitly stated or implied, what did Romney do? Nothing. The most he could muster is "Blaming Bush is not gonna solve...blablabla".
So even Romney didn't deny that it was Bush fault. If only on a subconscious, subliminal level, that non-denial automatically VALIDATED Obama's narrative.
And exit-polls showed that loud and clear -- while people hate the economy under Obama, they STILL if only reflexively blame Bush for it. That's a killer.
And yes, I understand why Republicans didn't want to "get into it" on an intellectual level -- because by defending Bush, they run the risk to only further associate themselves with Bush policies. They hoped to move on to another topic and pray that Obama wouldn't bring it up in a debate. But Obama is not stupid -- of course he would bring it up any chance he got!
Yes, for Romney and the Republicans to counter-act the Bush card, they would have to explain to people about Jimmy Carter era lending laws you alluded to. About Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagal act. About Fannie & Freddie & Frank (Barney, that is).
And considering that my generation of voters have an short attention span, to be able to "justify" Bush, Republicans would have had to have an incredibly SOPHISTICATED and yet very simply arguement. But apparently GOP didn't feel like they could trust Romney with walking that rhetoric tightrope in a live debate in front of 70 million people watching. "Too risky". "We don't want to bring up Bush unless we're forced to". "We don't want to look like we're bashing Bill Clinton because he's still popular". "Voters are not smart enough to understand how sub-prime mortage bubble work"....
Well yeah, they had a point there, but the ALTERNATIVE is even worse: when you DON'T fight back on Bush, you don't just throw Bush under the bus as Romney people thought --- no, you also ERODE very Republican Party, platform, ideology, philosophy and Republican Brand that's associated with it. Thus, by extension, validating all the outrageous libel Obama people were churning out.
Same thing happened when Republicans refused to punch below the belt, get into the fray with Obama after he kept attacking Bain, Romney's tax returns, or the accusations that Romeny would out-law abortions.... Yes, fighting those issues head-on would have been hard & costly in terms of advertising $$$, but that's what that billion dollars in Romney's campaign war-chest was intended for in the 1st place!
Yes, they GOP apparently tried to save every penny so that they could out-spend Obama at the end of the campaign and have a better-than-usual get out of the vote ground-game ---- but here's the problem with such tactic: yes, the ground-game is imporant, but by the time election rolls around MOST PEOPLE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND. By not answering those character-assassination ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida during the Summer, Romney may have saved some money, but the damage was already done.
Irreversible damage, apparently.
