Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Bush’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 2, 2010

I have taken to the ever-growing national past time of blaming former President George W. Bush for every malady, affliction and woe in my life. It just seems to make everything better somehow. Whether it is a physical impediment, an emotional burden or a natural occurrence beyond my control, it feels good to place the blame on the last pre-Messianic Age President ever to serve in the White House.

And it really does feel good – like finally making it to the restroom after holding it for so long.

It’s a relief.

Thus, as I take inventory of all the ills and imperfections on and around me, big and small, the unseemly weight of personal responsibility and accountability is thrust off my sagging shoulders.

Freedom never felt so good.

Those hangnails that sit like surf boards off the side of my big toe can now be blamed on former President Bush. Cracked molars that absorb the cold of ice cream with the subtlety of an anvil to the skull can be attributed to the man who couldn’t say “nuclear.” Volcano eruptions, twelve-car pileups, fragrant flatulence, unsweet cantaloupes and canker sores can all be laid at the feet of the Crawford, Texas King Daddy … and I can finally kick back and focus on writing poetry and complaining about stuff.

Even divorce can be blamed on “W.”

The news of the separation of climate god, Al Gore, and his wife, Tipper, has spread like wild rice on a tea saucer.

It was the latest chapter in the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) anthology.

From CBS News, via Real Clear Politics, via Zip, at Weasel Zippers:

“It’s been ten years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention. That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for President but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”

QUINN: He obviously suffered a lot. And still is suffering. He’ll never get over that, and neither will she.

George Bush’s election in 2000 did irreparable harm to the Gore’s marriage?

I’m willing to be a sport and accept that there are a host of things that can be pinned to the juggernaut that was the evil of George W. Bush – hail storms, gas pains, in-grown hairs, muscular dystrophy, Keanu Reeves – but the break-up of the Gores?

Sure, I can see blaming Bush for the Gulf oil spill, the Tennessee floods, chronic halitosis, third-world hunger, seasons seven through eleven of M*A*S*H and painful rectal itch, but this too? Al and Tipper’s marital demise?

Very well.

Who am I to say any different?

However, reports that cancer is now being linked to Bush cannot be confirmed.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Al Gore, George W. Buah | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2009

This is not an indictment on President Obama’s inability to open a window he thought was a door. After all, he’s only been at his new place of residence for nine days now. It takes a while to memorize where all the handles are. I empathize with the new Commander-In-Chief.

The whole thing is actually quite amusing in a “Messiahs-Are-People-Too” kind of way.

I would rather focus on how the media is portraying this – if they are at all – and compare it to George W. Bush’s now infamous incident of pulling on a locked door when attempting to exit a press conference in China in November, 2005.

he can "handle" it

he can "handle" it

Headlines such as this one from the BBC appeared all over the place: “Door Thwarts Quick Exit For Bush.”

The Washington Post said: “For Bush in Beijing, It’s Hard to Get Out.”

In Sydney, Australia, the Morning Herald headline read: “One door closes, another opens for Bush.”

Hey, no complaints here. Wordplay, puns and jokes are all fair game.

Bloggers, too, had a field day, as you might expect – although sentiments weren’t quite as measured. One particularly articulate keyboard tapper at at the time posted:

“I saw the funniest report on President Bush on the news in my part of the world. He was attending some boring press conference in China and decided he wanted to end things. George went to the doors and tried to open them, NOT REALIZING THEY WERE LOCKED. HA HA! The idiot had to be shown where the correct exit was! I was laughing my ass off! This dufus is the leader of the free world? God help us all!”

The endless chides about Bush needing a new “exit strategy” ranged from amusing to downright cruel.

Again, no big deal.

Now, let’s see how President Obama’s re-entry gaffe is portrayed.

At the UK website, their coverage may be an indication of the kid gloves approach being applied to The One.

No puns, no bad jokes. Nothing.

In fact, a caption under one of the pictures there actually reads: “Barack Obama’s White House has a more relaxed feel.”

The headline, too, is so clinical, so literal, so antiseptic. No wordplay whatsoever:

“Barack Obama mistakes window for door at White House – Barack Obama has been photographed mistaking a window for a door as he tried to enter the White House.”

Gee, how exciting. How riveting.

Pulitzer Prize anyone?


Update: 29 January 2009 8:33 PM

A Blogger at Free called RushIsMyTeddyBear reminded me of this admittedly fake but nontheless amusing Obama pic from the campaign. If this had been George W. Bush, it would have been issued as a t-shirt/nightgown set by Move













A million thanks to Arkady for reminding me that the picture had been “photoshopped.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2008


“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system”

-President George W. Bush, December 16, 2008

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2008

you did it, didn't you?

you did it, didn't you?

He’s going to do it.

I would have wagered a kidney.

With his time in the White House dwindling away, and the Messiah waiting in the wings to fire up his own trillion dollar stimulus package, President George W. Bush has decided to dip into his bag of inexplicable tricks and live up to the “lame” half of lame duck. He is tapping the $700 billion bailout bag – the three-quarters of a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout bag-o-loot originally intended to save the banking industry – and try to make things all better for the failing American automobile industry.

I’d like to say that I can’t believe it, but I do.

I knew this was coming. So did you.

From Fox News:

The federal government will enable Detroit’s ailing automakers to survive a little longer by providing $17.4 billion in short-term financing, President Bush said Friday.

“Allowing the auto companies to collapse is not a responsible course of action,” he said, adding that a bankruptcy was unlikely to work for the auto industry at this time and would deal “an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans” across the economy.

The low-interest loans will be drawn from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund, Bush said.

Of the $17.4 billion, $13.4 billion will be doled out in the next two months with another $4 billion to be added later, he said. The loans will be called back if the companies are not viable by March 31.

(Yelling at the President now)

With all due respect, Mr. President, the car companies themselves allowed this situation to manifest. It is they who have failed, sir. They have been unable remain competitive under their current models in the free market. The creative destruction of capitalism has served its purpose.

Why, then, are you not allowing the free market to be free?

It was their cacophony of failing ideas, union concessions, poor product and miserable planning that lead to this. It is not – nor should it ever be – up to the taxpayers of the United States of America to save an industry that is deserving of death by siphoning their money from them so that these failures are given new life to do it all over again.

How exactly does that responsibility lie with us, Mr. President?

And what if the Big Three do not become “viable,” by whatever definition you choose to implement? How do they pay back the loan? Do you offer them another portion of the $700 billion to pay back the first?

How then do we deny the next failing industry their share of the bailout pie?

If I may amend your words … Allowing government to interfere in the private sector in this way is not a responsible course of action.

(No longer yelling at the President)

The Big Three automakers said anew on Thursday that bankruptcy wasn’t the answer, as did an official of the United Auto Workers who called the idea unworkable and even dangerous. For unions, bankruptcy could mean voided labor contracts and renegotiation of benefits. The car companies argue that no one would buy a vehicle from a bankrupt company for fear that the company might not be around to honor warranties or maintain a supply of spare parts.

The National Automobile Dealers Association also spoke out against bankruptcy “in any way shape or form, orderly or disorderly, prepackaged or unpackaged, managed or unmanaged,” said spokesman Bailey Wood.

This has always been about the unions and nothing else.

Indeed, I hold a great deal of respect for this President – particularly his resolve in fighting the war against Islamo-fascist terrorists. He is a good man. But this is a colossal mistake.

There you go, unions.


Merry Christmas from all of us out here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 14, 2008

bushPresident Bush is in Iraq – his final visit there as Commander-In-Chief.

While shaking hands with the Iraqi Prime-Minister in Baghdad today, an Iraqi reporter apparently threw two shoes toward the President, without hitting him, this according to an AFP journalist.

I will go out on a limb here and say that the reporter was obviously no fan of President Bush – which is why this makes no sense to me.

Assuming the shoes were his (and the reporter was a man), why would he risk losing a pair of shoes over someone he had such disdain for? I certainly wouldn’t take off my shoes and hurl them at someone like Michael Moore or Sean Penn, if given the opportunity. My shoes cost money, dammit. They’d probably be confiscated by the authorities anyway, and then what? I’d have to walk home in my socks? No lefty is worth my shoes.

Besides, Big rocks, half-eaten tomatos and poop-filled baby diapers are cheaper.

Maybe the reporter brought an extra pair of old, beat-up shoes in a carry bag or something.

These things fascinate me.

There’s video of the incident that has just been released.

View it here directly from Fox News, or from here at Borough

Quipped the President, “All I can report is that it was a size 10.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 29, 2008

Barack Obama ran an exceptional campaign in so many ways. His greatest accomplishment, however, was a shrewd commandeering of the tax issue away from John McCain and the Republicans. (The implosion of the American financial landscape in September didn’t hurt him either). If the 2008 election cycle were held in more “normal” times, and the words “tax cuts” were threshed out, you could expect to see a Republican at the spewing end. “Tax cuts,” after all, historically flow with great abundance from the lips of those on the right – not unlike press conferences flow with great abundance from the “Office of the President Elect” these days.

Yet, it was Obama who peppered Americans with his now legendary “95% tax cut” prattle time and time again, staying on point, convincing enough Americans that two-plus-two was five, making John McCain sound like a Warner Brothers cartoon character after Mel Blanc’s death. (Sure, Yosemite Sam looked all right, but after hearing him speak, you’d scream at the televison, “What the hell is this?” )

taxesAnd now (on cue) … Democrats are already setting themselves up for 2010.

Trying anyway.

If the new Congress sits on their hands regarding the Bush tax cuts next year, which expire at the end of 2010 – and the economy improves even a little bit by then – Dems can continue to own and frame the tax debate in this country, while Republicans scramble to try and reclaim it …

There’s so much bailout bread being baked right now – enough to keep the next sixty-five thousand generations buried in tax withholding hell – that actually raising rates on the American “rich” may not have to happen as originally prescribed.

The Obama-lama-ding-dongs can simply leave them to die, free of fanfare or fingerprints. Clinton-era rates will then zap back into place.

Richard Rubin at CQ Politics writes:

Congressional Democrats have spent the past eight years itching for a chance to undo their least favorite Bush-era policies.

But it increasingly looks like one of the administration’s initiatives most often criticized by Democrats — tax cuts for top earners — won’t get touched by the 111th Congress.

As he worries about doing anything that could dampen his economic recovery efforts, President-elect Barack Obama has been vague about whether he wants Congress to repeal the tax cuts or just let them expire as scheduled Dec. 31, 2010. He said earlier this week that he would wait for a recommendation from his recently appointed economic team.

Good save, Mr. Prez-El.

Take notice out there – especially all of you young, up-and-coming Obamalicious Democrats … That’s called CYA 101.

Study it. Live it. Love it.

Republicans are likely to continue their efforts to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts (PL 107-16, PL 108-27) beyond their expiration date, providing automatic objections to repeal. Meanwhile, and more strikingly, some key Democratic tax writers in Congress are now saying that they, too, want to let the clock run out.

In two years time, as congressional seats everywhere go up for grabs, you may very well see Big Bam and Company making comments like this:

“As you know, Democrats did not raise income taxes on the wealthiest Americans, despite Republican fear-mongering that we would. At the end of this year, the tax rates will simply return to Clinton-era levels, when the economy was very strong, yadda, blah, yeah…”

Of course, it was that side – specifically Bam himself – who kept hammering into our cumulative skulls that the “richest 5% of Americans” would be the ones to see tax hikes in order to stimulate the economy. But as long as trillions – yes, trillions – of dollars are already pledged to be siphoned from the wallets of American taxpayers in the name of rescuing practically everything in God’s creation anyway, why even bother?

tax cutsIndeed, as Rubin alluded to, the Bush cuts – which Democrats revile more than public displays of the Ten Commandments and abstinence education – would have normally been among the very first Bush-era policies to be dumped into the trash bin.

But Dems, who cannot stomach the concept of permitting the wealthiest Americans any kind of tax relief, hate Republican control more.

Therefore, they adapt when and where necessary.

Copping the tax issue, pounding home the word “cuts” at every turn, and manipulating the truth to sound perfectly reasonable was a huge winner.

(But worry not … there will be a plethora of taxes coming from the Obamacrats in twenty other forms or another. Bam the Tax Man, after all, is a lib).

Which brings up the question … If raising taxes is harmful to a sick economy – as even Democratic New York Governor David Patterson recently asserted when talking about possible solutions to the economic troubles befalling his state – why would it ever be beneficial to a healthy one?

Just asking.

Posted in Economy | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »