Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘George W. Bush’


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2010

"It's yours." "No, it's yours."

It’s fairly common.

Talk radio hosts will field phone calls from liberal callers who, when asked to offer their take on President Obama’s skyrocketing deficit numbers, will inevitably, unfailingly, reflexively bring up George W. Bush. (I think it’s a law now). After all, as is made evident on a daily basis by this administration, there wasn’t anything in all of recorded human existence impervious to W’s gross mismanagement and downright destructiveness, particularly during the dark wilderness that defined America’s “BB” days (Before Barack). The inexpungible mark President Bush left on this nation was (and is) so ubiquitous, even eight disastrous years (God forbid) of Barack Obama can (and will) be overlooked by rational people, because no man – not even a Messiah – could ever hope to salvage anything from the splintered wreckage left by W.

Barack Obama’s budget, even by conservative estimates, will catapult America’s deficit to levels never seen before – and yet somehow, astoundingly, Democrats are talking about fiscal responsibility. It’s like a Weight Watchers class going out for chili dogs and cheeseburgers after the meeting.

And while this administration continues to count on the stupidity of the American public to buy into their “let’s spend our way out of debt” approach, they have no problem continuing to cite the deficits they inherited from George W. Bush when confronted with challenges to their own spend-and-more-spend agenda.

“Look at the hole Bush dug us into before we got here,” they say.

“You best look at what Bush did before you start pointing fingers this way,” they’ll exclaim.

But as political analysts Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write at, Obamacrats are not telling the whole truth.

President Obama was disingenuous when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

As Joe Wilson said, “You lie.”

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on Oct.1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan, and $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

So what, pray tell, happened once The One set up shop in the White House?

Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

It’s interesting to note that while the President continues to claim he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, he takes full credit for rescuing America’s financial institutions.

I admit to being quite impressed.

Being able to speak so well out of both sides of the mouth is no menial task.

It is the TARP money – $700 billion – that is credited with saving the banks, which is more than half of the deficit Obama says he inherited from Bush. To date, as Morris and McGann point out, $500 billion of that has been paid back.

It takes real talent to do what Obama does. He blames Bush for the deficit created by TARP, but takes credit for the results.

Too clever.

The fact is, President Obama is the proprietor and general manager of the largest deficit and largest budget on record – and no matter how many pins lefties keep sticking their little “W” dolls, it won’t change the fact that Obama owns it now.

It is all his.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2010

The horrific scenes of chaos and destruction coming from Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake are as disturbing as any I’ve seen a long time. The country has descended into total bedlam. Reports of violent gangs running wild are abundant. Grizzly accounts of corpses lining the streets as far as the eye can see have become commonplace. No one knows who is in charge. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are in immediate need of assistance, unable to get the help they require.

Words like “catastrophe” and “unspeakable” fall short.

The humanitarian response has been overwhelming. But the airport there is small and dangerously congested. There are at least a dozen airplanes full of supplies sitting on the tarmac with many more waiting on the grass with nowhere to go. There is no reliably functioning communications system and no real idea on how to coordinate the distribution of badly needed supplies.

The people of Haiti are desperate. It is difficult to imagine the situation there getting any worse.

My heart is breaking.

But imagine for a moment a Republican was in the White House. Imagine George W. Bush being the Chief Executive while the enormous difficulties in getting relief to Haiti’s beleaguered citizens were taking place. (Hint: Think about how the Left reacted to President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina).

Talk show host Mark Levin – the Great One – on his radio program Friday evening put it this way:

It needs to be said, and you know it … If Ronald Reagan were President, or Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford, or either of the Bushes, this would be an issue of race and politics … It would be said we’re not doing enough, no matter how much we do, no matter how difficult the circumstances, it would be said we’re not doing enough; it would be politicized; it would be called racism, because that’s exactly what happened with (Hurricane) Katrina.

No matter how much supplies we sent, no matter how much military went down there, it never mattered. And Bush, foolishly, apologized. And he’s still attacked for it.

Meanwhile, in Haiti – before we know exactly what’s going on down there – we’re told that the job we’re doing is terrific.

Well, let me say this … the men and women who are actually doing the work are terrific. But why is it that if supplies are stuck at the airport, that’s not Obama’s fault, but it would have been Bush’s fault?

I’ll tell you why.

Because the media in this country is so bastardized that they will take facts and twist them any way they wish to. And we’ll be told to focus –and focus only – on the desperate condition of the Haitians. Fair enough. But during Katrina, half the focus was on politics was it not?

I don’t hear Charles Rangel, or John Conyers, or Jesse Jackson, or Not-so Sharpton. I don’t hear them. I don’t see the liberal media, the anchors, going on and on about the failures of American assistance and leadership at the top.

And you won’t.

And I might add, you shouldn’t.

After Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, it was utterly reprehensible to hear many claim that George W. Bush’s supposed laxidasical response had anything to do with the fact that predominantly black areas of New Orleans were hit particularly hard. Bush didn’t just react slowly to the tragedy, they groaned; it was his prejudism against blacks that caused more damage and loss of life than there needed to be. He simply didn’t respond with the same urgency he would have afforded primarily white populations, they exclaimed. 

Remember that load of steaming excrement?

One positive to come out of all this is the fact that it may be much easier now to predict when an earthquake is on the way.


Check the thermostat.

Actor Danny Glover – activist, certifiable idiot – says that the Haitian earthquake was the result of man’s inability to deal with global warming … or climate change … or whatever it’s being called this month.


It must’ve been one of the six remaining polar bears known to still exist falling off one of those breakaway blocks of melting ice in the Arctic, hitting the rapidly warming waters with such ferocity that it set off a chain reaction that (naturally) led to the shifting of the earth’s tectonic plates.

Makes sense.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, global climate change, Global Warming, Natural Disaster, politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 11, 2009

Like a man offering his seat to a lady on a New York City subway train, or seeing Derek Jeter in a Boston Red Sox uniform, there are things in this life that just don’t happen. Like an Obamacratic White House invite to Rush Limbaugh, a liberal pushing a policy position without making someone out to be a victim, and finding someone in the Western Hemisphere whom Tiger Woods has not slept with, there are some things one just doesn’t expect to see.

This is one of those instances.

When George W. Bush left office eleven months ago, his approval numbers had dipped so low, he wasn’t even popular enough to be called unpopular. People on both sides of the aisle were sticking pins in their little George Bush dolls as the Messianic Age approached. A CBS/New York Times poll had Bush’s final approval rating at just 22%. His Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index dipped to -30. The man who caused more Hitler moustaches and swastikas to find their way onto demonstration posters since the days of the Third Reich couldn’t have left Washington quick enough.

With the anointment of Barack Obama, it became difficult to imagine a time when every magazine, newspaper, t-shirt, and button would not be about the new boss. He was everywhere – plastered to every dry surface, pouring from every orifice, heard from every corner of the broadcast media, and even had schools named after him before ever taking the Oath of Office. That his approval numbers would ever dip below 70% seemed as likely as having a national holiday named after Donald Rumsfeld.

But, my, have times changed.

In fact, almost a year into the era of Bamification, the percentage of Americans who would rather see George W. Bush back in charge is only six points less than those who favor Bammy.

Ben Smith from Politico writes:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

What analysis of the failure of the Obama presidency would be complete without the obligatory, “It Was That Way When I Got Here” approach.

Still, regardless of how the house looked when Obama moved in, his “pointing the finger” routine is wearing thin with the American people. They’re not buying his “Everything Wrong With the Earth is due to George Bush” nonsense anymore. Obama’s astronomical spending spree and deficit escalation has made the idiotic stimulus checks sent out by Bush in 2008 look like a tax cut.

And while there was plenty I openly opposed President Bush on – illegal immigration, TARP, entitlement increases – he was no socialist. He was a terrific wartime leader, an honorable man, a good man, the antithesis of Barack Obama on many levels – hence, the closing gap between one who couldn’t even garner one quarter support of his own nation a year ago and a Messiah from Chicago.

wordpress statistics

Posted in George W. Buah, politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009

It was all about transparency.


This administration was going to redefine what it meant to be honest and open with the American people. The backstairs cloak-and-daggerism that characterized the Bush regime would be a nightmare of the past as a brand-new forthrightness – an age of unprecedented lucidity and accountability – came to Washington. The days of covert, black-mask, in-the-shadows leadership would be behind us. It was the dawning of the Messianic Age. The moon would be in the seventh house. Jupiter would align with Mars. It would be as if Barack Obama himself was stopping by after work for Yodels and Yoo Hoos to personally discuss with us all of the happenings at the White House that day. We were all going to be in on it.

But that was then.

This is now.

And less than a year since Obama’s inauguration, Americans are split on whether or not Bammy is more transparent than W.

From Zogby Interactive:

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of likely voters believe the Obama administration is more transparent than the previous administration, but just as many (38%) believe there is less transparency now and 19% believe the level of transparency is about the same, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Republicans and Democrats are split down party lines – 70% of Democrats believe the current administration is more transparent, while 72% of Republicans believe there is less transparency now than under the Bush administration. Among self-described political independents, more (41%) believe there is less transparency now, while 29% believe the Obama administration is more transparent. Twenty-four percent of independents believe the level of transparency in government is about the same under both administrations.

That’s correct, 41% of independents believe that there is less transparency under Obama than under George W. Bush.

Go figure.

And just for kicks, I thought I’d throw this one in: The Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index for Barack Obama, as of yesterday, is -14. That matches the lowest of his presidency so far.

Not that I’m keeping track.

Not that polls matter.

wordpress statistics

Posted in politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2009

Obama Appeasement UniversityIt isn’t often that an opportunity as golden as this presents itself so readily. The only question is whether or not President Barack Obama will step up to the plate and seize the moment. Sure, Bam is sufficiently well-versed in apologizing for his own country on foreign soil, but he hasn’t done it so much from home – certainly to the shagrin of the Blame America First contingency of a Bam-A-Lang-A-Ding-Dong Brigade. And seeing as he probably isn’t inclined to spontaneously hop on his big old jet and fly to some country with a horrible human rights record to grovel and express his shame of America (unless the teleprompter advises him to do so), chances are quite good that the world might be treated to a good old fashioned slice of humble pie – or waffle – from deep within the friendly confines of the U.S.A.

It’s sure to soften the hearts of our murderous enemies everywhere.

The Politico is reporting that the recent winner of the Iranian elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, isn’t happy with our President. He’s even going so far as to compare Obama to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Short of drilling machine screws into Obama’s toe nails, is there anything Ahmadinejad could have done that would have been worse?

Talk about brutality.

From the Politico:

Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.”

“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about… I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he added, according to Reuters.

And from the screeching throats of liberals all across the star-spangled map will come the admonitions that the President should have said nothing – that a statement of condemnation from the White House was nothing more than an ill-advised bone thrown to the war-mongering American right-wing.

See what happens when you appease the God-happy, gun-toting, Dick Cheney lap dogs?

You piss off Ahmadinejad.

How dare Obama agitate the Iranian whack-job when everything was just starting to get better, and world peace was just around the bend.

Bam had better find out what Ahmedinejad’s favorite movies are.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2009


Now that there is no more George W. Bush to lambaste, there is obviously nothing happening in Iraq worth reporting anymore – at least not on any large scale or in any detail. Whereas at one time, there were two fronts in the War on Terror being recklessly and carelessly fought to decisive American defeats – as the mainstream media were all too happy to try and convince the American people at every conceivable turn – the departure of the Cowboy President has facilitated the departure of war coverage.

Oh sure, if you look for it, you’ll find some tidbits here and there on the war – especially if a fresh new angle on how President Bush can be retroactively savaged for it is hit upon by an enterprising young journalist – but for the most part, it’s faded from the front burners of the American psyche.

Corporate America is the new Taliban now.

Prior to the Messianic take over of the White House, a mere glimpse at the mainstream news outlets would have convinced even the most disinterested patrons that America was embroiled in the deadliest, most-contentious battles in its history, facing catastrophic defeat with unprecedented casualties.

Since the Messianic Age began, one might have a hard time realizing that this nation was at war at all. Not only are the words “War on Terror” a no-no anymore (by Obamacratic decree), but what have turned out to be the deadliest bombing attacks in a year in Iraq are getting very little play.

I bet you didn’t realize peace had broken out.

From Friday’s New York Times:  

A deadly outburst of violence appears to be overwhelming Iraq’s police and military forces as American troops hand over greater control of cities across the country to them. On Friday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 60 people outside Baghdad’s most revered Shiite shrine, pushing the death toll in one 24-hour period to nearly 150.

Like many recent attacks, the bombings appeared intended to inflame sectarian tensions, to weaken Iraq’s security forces and to discredit its government. 

From Thursday’s Times:

The overall level of violence in Iraq is at its lowest since the American invasion in 2003, and Iraqis have been venturing out to parks, restaurants and nightclubs. But a string of recent attacks, highly organized and carried out under tight security, has raised worries that Baathist and jihadi militants are regrouping into a smaller but still lethal insurgency seeking to reassert itself as the American troop presence on the ground is reduced before a full withdrawal in 2011.

Recall that President Obama announced to the world as part of his “Eroding America’s Strength and Greatness Campaign” the precise date of comprehensive American withdrawal from the Iraqi theater.

No one can accomodate anenemy like our President can.

The moment Bam placed his tootsies upon the water, the war against Islamo-facism became irrelevant and the doomsday needle spun toward the economy  – and thus the war against capitalism and the free market began in earnest.

Posted in Media Bias, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2009

President Carter, take notice.

Learn something.

Take a moment to watch former President George W. Bush.

This is precisely how an ex-President of the United States, regardless of what side of the aisle he is on, is supposed to conduct himself when he leaves office. He’s not to behave like a traitorous, venom-spewing, spoiled-sport, crotchety old has-been attempting to create some degree of credibility for himself by picking apart other Presidents and embracing terrorists.

Rob Gillies of the Associated Press writes:

Former President George W. Bush says he won’t criticize President Barack Obama because Obama “deserves my silence,” and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush’s speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.

A few words for Big Jim to consider … dignity, character, etiquette, class, honor, grace …

Posted in politics | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

I recognize that this particular choice as one of the most memorable moments from the George W. Bush presidency may appear painfully cliche and wholly predictable.

I accept that.

That it has been seen many times makes it no less powerful or less stirring.

It is from September 14, 2001 at Ground Zero.

It is the third of three moments I have chosen to commemorate as the Bush presidency draws to a close.

The first two clips I have chosen as ones to remember can be seen here:

George W. Bush – September 20, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.

George W. Bush – September 11, 2001 – We will make no distinction.



Update: 19 January 2009, 12:55 AM

A blogger from Free called Wolfstar commented:

Why does the author have to clothe his praise in such simpering defensiveness? That moment at Ground Zero was wildly uplifting, unique among presidential speeches, and wholly unpredictable.

He is, of course, right. While I certainly did not wish to be defensive in any way (nor did I feel I needed to be), it nontheless seems to have come across that way. It is a fair assessment. My intention, rather, was to present this clip in the spirit of  “No matter how many times you’ve seen it, it is no less moving, no less stirring.”

I should have worded it that way.

The fact remains, it was an unforgettable moment.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

With less than two days before Barack Obama takes the oath of office, and with seemingly every square inch of American humanity and culture consumed with all things messianic, I wanted to recall a few memorable moments of the George W. Bush presidency.

I ‘ve already posted one – a powerful moment from George W. Bush’s speech before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Not surprisingly, for me, they all center around 9/11.

This is the second of those three.

It comes from the night of September 11, 2001 – just about twelve hours after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was attacked.

The clip is only :22 seconds in length, but it is the very essence of how the President chose to approach the war against Islamo-fascist terrorists.

It is, for me, one the most memorable moments from the Bush Presidency.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

In recent days, there have been a host of articles, recollections, retrospectives and commentary tendered on the Presidency of George W. Bush.

As expected, with the grace of a five-year old’s temper tantrum, many of the Bush missives have been mercilessly scathing and unforgiving. Some have been fair, but most have been written by spoiled-brat foot-stompers who cannot stop sticking pins in their “W” dolls long enough to string two coherent thoughts together. Admittedly, there is enough to criticize President Bush for from a conservative perspective, but it’s difficult to take any analysis of his eight years in office seriously that relentlessly punishes him for keeping the United States free from terrorism for seven years.

Rather than compose a piece trying to summarize the Bush Presidency, as many more have done far better than I could ever hope to, I decided to post a modest little video, just over a minute long, that I consider one of the shining moments of his Presidency – a powerful, moving and unforgettable moment from his time as Commander-In-Chief.

It illustrates his strength as well as his humanity.

It was nine days after the attacks of September 11, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.

It moved me then and still does, to this day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 12, 2009


Lord knows that President George W. Bush has rubbed this conservative the wrong way on more than several occasions – from his propensity to spend like a Kennedy on kahlua, to his declaration that the way to save the free market system is to abandon free-market principals.

Recall, that it was Bush who implemented a stimulus package not too long ago by sending out checks to taxpayers at the expense of other taxpayers. (It all sounds so liberal, doesn’t it?) What a rousing success that was (not really) – so much so that under our new President, we are going to do it all over again, only this time, exponentially larger in scale. (That’s what makes a liberal a liberal. If something doesn’t work, do more of it).

However, with eight days left in his Presidency, Bush is actually stepping up to defend something that absolutely needs ardent defending from the Commander-In-Chief of the United States (particularly in a time of war) – and it’s good to actually hear him fight back for a change.

Bush is defending his record on interrogation.

Good for him.

Patrick O’Conner of Politico writes:

President Bush on Sunday defended controversial interrogation measures established by his administration, arguing that techniques like water-boarding helped save American lives.

“The techniques…were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information to protect the American people,” Bush said during an expansive exit interview that aired on Fox Sunday.

Citing an interrogation with Al Qaeda strategist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, which included simulated drowning, otherwise known as “waterboarding,” the outgoing president said, “We believe the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.”

The Bush administration has been criticized by civil liberties advocates and others for the use of, and legal justifications underpinning, these harsh interrogation methods. President-elect Barack Obama has already promised to review these policies when he takes the oath of office later this month.

One of the great puzzles of the past several years has been this administration’s complete unwillingness to challenge the multitude of false assertions put forth by the cackling left – things have been repeated so often that they are simply accepted as truth.

Indeed, there were no “ready-to-fire” weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but the administration has been absolutely silent on the tons of uranium found there (meant for what? barbecuing?), or the endless documents discovered there that do, in fact, tie Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda in a variety of different ways. Bush has chosen to let falsehood after disingenuous accusation after lie continue to spew from on leftward unchallenged – and it has been supremely frustrating.

But here, the President is standing firm. He rejects the idea that the aggressive interrogation techniques he has defended amount to the condoning of torture.

Said the President:

“I firmly reject the word ‘torture.’ Everything this administration does had a legal basis to it; otherwise, we would not have done it … Look, I understand why people can get carried away on this issue, but generally they don’t know the facts … But I am concerned that America, at some point in time, lets down her guard. If we do that, the country becomes highly vulnerable.”

Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that the past seven-plus years of mainland safety has been the result of nothing more indimidating than dirty looks, name-calling, promissory notes and flaming bags of dog poop on the enemy’s front porch? Save for two car bombs that detonated outside the American Embassy in Yemen in September of last year (killing ten Yemenis), American interests all over the world have been safe from terror attacks since 9/11 precisely because the United States engages in such aggressive tactics when necessary.

Those are the key words: when necessary.

By a show of hands, who out there in the real world believes that bold and forceful interrogation techniques were not used in helping to maintain the security of the United States?

By an equal show of hands, who would be willing to take a chance on how safe things might be without those techniques?

Citing an interrogation with Al Qaeda strategist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, which included simulated drowning, otherwise known as “waterboarding,” the outgoing president said, “We believe the information we gained helped save lives on American soil.”

In the exit interview, Bush specifically mentioned Mohammed, whose interrogation became a flashpoint in the broader legal debate about the rights of suspected terrorists detained abroad.

Mohammed, a top Al Qaeda strategist, was arrested in Pakistan and eventually flown to a secret detention site in Poland, where he reportedly endured a series of harsh interrogation methods, most notably waterboarding. But Bush administration officials have repeatedly argued that that session with Mohammed gave them leads to prevent other attacks.

2023183793_ec4a92fc95When serious matters – such as national security – are left to the children-of-the-Chomsky left, it is only a matter of time before innocent Americans pay the price. Leftocrats may know how to emote with world-class non-confrontational Zinn moral-equivalency, but the actual safety of Americans needs to be left to the adults. That libs still argue for stopping any and all harsh methods of interrogation for fear that American soldiers will, thus, be treated just as brutally (and worse) if captured in war makes me wonder how lefties can ever be taken seriously at all.

Am I then correct to assume, using dumb-o-crat logic, that if Americans only played nice, then the throat-cutting, embassy blasting, IED exploding, ramming planes-into-buildings Islamo-fascists would follow suit?

The terrorists are following our lead?

Anyone who believes that, stand on your head.

It would surprise me beyond words to know that outside of academia, Young Democrat Clubs, hard-leftists, media types and John Mellencamp that too many Americans are really losing shut-eye over the possibility of human debris terrorist scum-buckets undergoing “intense questioning” – especially when American lives are at stake.

I was not surprised to read, however, that President-Elect Obama “promised to review these policies when he takes the oath of office later this month.”

He views “waterboarding” as torture.

How nice.

That methods of aggresive interrogation don’t always work should not be an issue. There is no institution or practice that is perfect. Should we eliminate police because some criminals get away? Should we abandon the courts because on rare occassions the innocent are jailed? The fact is, aggressive interrogation has worked in the past  – as in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed – and has unquestionably saved countless lives. That alone should keep the option open to anyone who takes national security seriously.

If the choice comes down to innocent Americans versus the toenails, eyelids and nostrils of a terrorist who would slash the throats of my daughters even if we offered back massages and reclining chairs to enemy combatants, there is no contest.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2008

See what happens when you behave like a lefty?

Believe it or not, there are some GOPers who hate it when that happens – and they’re determined to do all that is necessary to make their disdain official.

When the Republican National Committee has their monthly get-together in January, President George W. Bush could be on the hook – along with some less than principled Congressional elephants – for embracing socialism.

Harsh words, indeed.

Ralph Z. Hallow at the Washington Times writes:

rnc-logoRepublican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism,” underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush’s administration.

They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

See what happens when you decide that government bailouts of free-market industries make for sound policy?

See what happens when you make comments like, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system”?  (Yes, President Bush said that).

Hallow continues:

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

Some of the comments from bloggers at the Washington Times website in support of the proposed resolution:

– It’s about time, but it could be too little too late. Bush HAS governed more like a socialist, and it’s high time we get rid of the Bush-moderate-lib-socialist-demokissa$$ types. I guarantee you both Reagan and Goldwater would be VERY disgusted with Bush right now.

– no kidding! i am shocked, shocked! william kristol of the hated NYT had it right a week or so ago. the present republican party is the party of big government. what a shame. can we drop back, regroup and come up with a new contract for america?

– Thank God I’m not the only one living in mortal Terror of the impeding socialist regime. No more Bailouts, stop the political parties from saying whatever will get them elected and then doing everything other once in office.

Some, however, aren’t particularly thrilled with the idea:

– I am a republican but I do not agree with the rnc on this bull-calling Bush a socialist is the dumbest idea I have heard from this party-If the Rnc had gotten off it’s butt and fought harder and given us someone to work with other than McCain, things might be different. Palin was his savior. I’m from Pa and never even got a chance to choose a candidate because of the damn way the RNC chooses it’s candidate. The party supported a rino, now they want to blame Bush.

– You guys are a joke. I don’t know who is conservative enough to meet your needs. Some of you tout Ronald Reagan, but I guess you are in denial that he signed that amnesty back in 1986. President Bush has done a fine job. The RNC and GOP pinheads want to pin the blame on him because the party is dying the death of a sad old man. Why did McCain lose? Because he was the best the GOP had to offer and it sure didn’t persuade the majority in this country.

The resolution, in part, reads as follows:

“WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation’s banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility.”

If I may … Duh.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 31, 2004

our next president

four more years

I was on the Circle Line boat to Ellis Island from Brooklyn’s Army terminal when I was overcome with a strange sense of hopefulness and optimism; unlike any I had felt throughout this entire campaign season up to that point.

En route to the short ceremony welcoming Vice President Dick Cheney to New York City on the Sunday before the start of the Republican National Convention, amongst all the spirited election year banter being tossed about by the nearly two hundred George Bush supporters on board, I was struck by how little I actually heard the name of John Kerry mentioned. In fact, when his name did come up, it was merely in passing or as an aside.

These people, braving near-90 degree temperatures and stifling humidity to hear Vice President Cheney speak along with Governor George Pataki and former mayor-Rudy Giuliani, didn’t much care what was happening with the Democratic nominee.

Not anymore.

Rather, they wanted to focus on President George W. Bush and his re-election bid. They wanted to discuss (and reinforce), with like-minded people, why they felt it was necessary to give the President four more years in office. Not once did I hear the words “flip-flop,” “swift boat” or “Viet Nam” spoken. Never did the terms “botox,” “atrocities” or “Lurch” come into play. Instead, the folks I encountered talked up the President’s record during his first term in office, citing everything from tax cuts to his handling of the war on terror.

Circling toward Ellis Island, with the majesty of New York harbor all around us, it was an incredibly buoyant and uplifting experience – both figuratively and literally. There wasn’t an inkling of anything anti-Kerry anywhere to be found. Instead, it was all about George W. Bush. It was incredibly positive. One gentleman from Staten Island I spoke with said, “I’m voting for Bush because I believe he’s the right man for the job. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter who he’s running against.” Another said, “This is about voting for someone. Not against someone. I’m voting Bush, and that’s that.” There were American flags everywhere, pro-Bush buttons, chants of “four more years” and not a word spoken about the other guy, because it didn’t matter who that other guy was.

The Bush campaign may be hitting a decidedly positive turn that could carry them onward to a return venue at the White House. Recent polls are showing that Bush’s numbers are not only getting better, but that he has actually taken the lead in some key battleground states that were quite recently in the “toss up” column. While that is certainly welcome news to the Bush camp, perhaps more relevant is what’s happening at the grassroots level. Indeed, it is always a tremendously positive sign when the base supporters no longer focus on why NOT to go for the other guy, but start pushing the positives of their own.

The boat trip to Ellis Island was a perfect paradigm of this.

When the core is finally singing a candidate’s praises and pushing forth his strengths as the primary reason to vote for him, it is only then that those on the fence who have yet to make up their minds can come over. Kerry’s camp is nowhere near that point yet, and it may be getting too late.

Obviously, it’s natural to contrast and compare candidates, weighing the positives and negatives of each. But there comes a point where the finger pointing and mud slinging give way to an appreciation of the facts, whatever they may be. Whereas a couple of weeks ago, Bush supporters I spoke with often touched upon the shortcomings of John Kerry as part of the discussion as to why President Bush should be re-elected, the Ellis Island jaunt painted a different picture. At least in New York, the shift seems to be underway.

bushcheneywallpaper500Meanwhile, in Democrat land, it is abundantly clear to me that an overwhelmingly large percentage of John Kerry’s “supporters” couldn’t give two coconuts what Mr. Kerry stands for, what he is promising or even what he is saying. (Granted, all three have yet to be defined). Indeed, these people are not voting for John F. Kerry but against George W. Bush.

In July, an attempt was made by the Kerry camp to trigger that shift by focusing on Kerry’s military service in Vietnam at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not only was the attempt woefully unsuccessful, both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards, realizing that their plan of action had backfired, resorted to attacking the President personally on everything from the so-called “seven minutes” of inactivity after the attacks on the World Trade Center to not denouncing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisements enough.

How do you expect an electorate to refrain from silly personal attacks when the candidate themselves cannot?

John Kerry, by not giving his core supporters anything else besides four months in Vietnam to use to qualify his candidacy for President, left them dangling in the political wind with nothing else but well-worn anti-Bush rhetoric. Attacks can only get you so far. The Kerry campaign now seems to be in a slight state of confusion. They cannot point to the accomplishments of their own candidate, so they look to the other side for things to say. Albeit negative, the dull hum of the Democratic mantra is: Bush, Bush, Bush.

If the Republicans aren’t talking about Kerry and the Democrats aren’t talking about Kerry, what does that tell you?

Not even a week ago, one young gal approached me on Broadway between 79th and 80th Street in Manhattan with the line, “Do you want to register to vote to help get rid of the President?” I stopped, turned to her very nicely, and asked her directly, “Why should I vote for John Kerry?” Her reply: “We’ve got to get rid of Bush.”

Oh, well why didn’t you say so? Slam dunk. Well thought out. No wonder you hate him so.

There is obviously some time to go between now and the November election. So much can happen during that window. However, in my every day travels in and around the city of New York, I have a feeling that I may continue to see more of this shift among Bush supporters. Meanwhile, the Kerry people, the pundits and the protestors are still modeling their anti-Bush summer wardrobe. Increasingly, as fall approaches, those who are supporting the President will find that they don’t need to push Kerry’s negatives anymore. They only need to look at the President’s record. Unfortunately the Kerry people are doing the same thing.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 25, 2004

he was in vietnam, you know

he was in vietnam, you know

Let’s approach this as a black and white issue. Mr. Kerry admitted that he had participated in atrocities – war crimes – during his tenure in Vietnam. Said Kerry: “There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed … ” Yet, curiously, Mr. Kerry has never been brought up on charges for these atrocities. It seems to me that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is pretty clear about those in uniform who commit war crimes.

In addition to admitting participation in these acts, Kerry claims to have heard countless accounts from other veterans who themselves committed or witnessed atrocities, and that these events occurred “regularly.” That’s quite an accusation to be sure. It would, at the very least, seem to be something that an impartial, objective media might find worth exploring, particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Kerry wishes to be Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces – the very forces he slandered and accused of committing these atrocities. Sounds like a good story.

You can be sure that if George W. Bush had made the same claims in front of the Senate thirty-three years ago, every known news agency in the world would have their most slippery super-sleuths out and about trying to dig up something – anything – to support the accusations. Would the media have been more interested in investigating these claims of Kerry’s had he, say, admitted to embarrassing the VC by putting underwear on their heads?

On the other hand, maybe these claims of Kerry’s depicting war crimes committed by American soldiers and himself in Vietnam are exaggerated. Maybe Senator Kerry misspoke all those years ago. Perhaps these things never really happened quite the way Kerry said they did. Maybe he bad-mouthed his country and brethren-in-arms, under oath, for reasons far more selfish and calculating. Maybe he was just a product of his times – the protest culture, the anti-war spit-on-the-baby-killers crowd. Maybe it can all be placed in proper context by recognizing that his disenchantment and bitterness was fuelled (and seared in him) by the pivotal event of his young life – that is, hearing President Richard Nixon lie about the United States not being in Cambodia during Christmas, 1968, although Kerry knew better. (I’ll let that one go).

The fact is that no one denies that atrocities do occur during war. However, this isn’t about war atrocities in and of themselves.

The purpose here is not to attack Senator Kerry personally. He is, after all, a decorated combat veteran and I have never been anywhere near combat. I’m simply trying to illustrate a point here. These questions regarding Kerry’s service are being raised, not by right-leaning pundits and ideological magazine editors, but by decorated war veterans who, more than anyone else, can speak to these matters with the greatest credibility and authority.

you rang?

you rang?

This is really all about the integrity and character of the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States who chose to make a four-month window of his life 35 years ago the focal point of his bid for the White House. For Kerry, his time in Vietnam is the great qualifier to lead the United States during this time of war.

As much as I’m loathe to criticize anyone’s military record – particularly those who bravely volunteered for combat – an uneasy truth is emerging that many, including Kerry, now wish we didn’t have to visit. For myself, and many others I’ve spoken with since this Swift-Boat controversy has exploded, the bottom line, brought on by Mr. Kerry himself and based on his own words, seems to be this: Either Mr. Kerry is a war criminal, subject to investigation … or he is a liar. Thanks to the way he and his people have decided to approach his campaign, there is no third option.

Either way, neither choice seems to fare well on a resume for Commander-In-Chief.

From Mr. Kerry’s perspective, some worms are best left in their cans.

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