Bush On Obama

On Fox News...

WALLACE: Do you think there's a rush to judgment about Barack Obama. Do you think voters know enough about him?

BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.

WALLACE: I hope not. But so you don't think that we know enough about him or what he stands...

BUSH: It doesn't seem like it to me, but this campaign is plenty of time for candidates to get defined. He is yet his party's nominee.

WALLACE: So why do you think he's gotten this far if people don't know what he stands for?

BUSH: You're the pundit. I'm just a simple president.

Responds Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

“Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation."

Comments

At least he's consistent. Bush has apparently researched and considered Obama's positions with the same integrity he brought to the analysis of the WMD situation in Iraq. "None at all", in other words.

ON the other hand, I'm glad to see that at least he's still out there. For a few months now, I've sort of forgotten that we HAD a sitting president.

Posted by Sean | February 10, 2008 1:53 PM

George Bush is a moron and as well as a long time personal friend of the Clintons.

Posted by Jay | February 10, 2008 1:55 PM

Not that Bush is a great critic based on his standing with the public to be a credible analyst of other critics, but he certainly reflects the public's opinion on not knowing much about what Obama's actual platform and priorities are. Whereas the media is engaged in a fellating contest to see who can love the vague Messenger of Hope&Inspiration more, and deliberately avoiding the "Where's the Beef, Obama"? context.

Frankly, Bush is an outside observor of Democrat politics like most of us are.

Whereas he should have more credibility is in the Republican ranks, but he has alienated them. His pronouncement McCain is a conservative has little weight.

But what credilitity he does have should have been exercised on two Primary matters as Head of Party. The 1st is demouncing the media for setup questions from democratic plants and moderation biases that kept Republican candidates mired in "religion & values" rather than issues for the 1st 4-5 debates, notably the CNN debate and the abysmal performance of the editor of the Des Moines Register. The second was that Bush as an evangelical of good standing should have told Huckabee and his Fundies to knock off their sly anti-Mormon bigotry.

Posted by chris ford | February 10, 2008 1:58 PM

Bush is right. Nobody knows where Barack Hussein Obama stands. It's all rhetoric and happy feelings. No substance. What a scary thought that he would win the democrat nomination.

Posted by Mark | February 10, 2008 2:25 PM

Chris, you should've stopped your post with the words "credible analyst." Is anyone, other than the 20% - 30% of the population, even believe what Bush has to say? And his remarks of not knowing what Obama believes is classic denial or stupidity - take your pick. You know, denial about WMDs, the deficit, Brownie, and the handling of the entire Iraq war just to list a few Bush debacles. The words "analyst" much less "credible" do not describe this President. So anything he says about anyone, Obama, McCain, Clinton should be either written off, laughed at, and/or ignored.

Posted by SN | February 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Chris, you should've stopped your post with the words "credible analyst." Does anyone, other than the 20% - 30% of the population, even listen to much less believe what Bush has to say anymore? And his remarks of not knowing what Obama believes is classic denial or stupidity - take your pick. You know, denial/stupidity about WMDs, the deficit, Brownie, and the handling of the entire Iraq war just to list a few Bush debacles. The words "analyst" and "credible" do not describe this President. So anything he says about anyone, Obama, McCain, Clinton should be either written off, laughed at, and/or ignored.

Posted by SN | February 10, 2008 2:29 PM

Pakistan being the country Osama is supposedly hiding. Let's talk about him George.

Wallace sucks.

Posted by joe | February 10, 2008 2:40 PM

The GOP know that McCain will lose in a landslide to Obama.

Posted by V. | February 10, 2008 2:54 PM

Wow Mark,

It's almost like this:

barackobama.com/issues

doesn't exist!

Posted by James in NJ | February 10, 2008 2:55 PM

Chris Ford,
There is no question that you share President Bush’s political and philosophical ideologies. If your motivation for contending that the public does not know Senator Obama’s political platform and priorities is driven by ignorance, you could be helped. Please see the link below to get educated information on Senator Obama’s political views on variety of issues to avoid projecting yourself as intellectually weak you are not.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

President Bush has lowered himself to argue in a pedestrian manner by positing what Obama says about Pakistan in error. Senator Obama says that when he is the US President and there is actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda leadership and if Pakistan does not act, US will. But this statement is a paraphrased statement of US Foreign Policy already passed into law by the Congress.

Posted by Edmonsky | February 10, 2008 3:05 PM

I take this as further proof that the GOP has no freakin' clue how to go about attacking Obama effectively.

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 3:09 PM

I have to say, Bush is a master of framing. Yup, Obama advocates bombing Pakistan and having dinner with Iranian's nut case. It's easy to dismiss such talk as crude, minimalist, distorted, etc., but we do so at our peril. This is a two term President who is quite capable at painting a poisonous portrait of a person that seeps into the collective conscious.

We simply can't let that happen.

Posted by ChrisNBama | February 10, 2008 3:21 PM

But that's just the thing: this doesn't fit with the normal "peacenik" framing the GOP likes to use against Democrats, thanks to the Pakistan reference.

I suppose they must be thinking they can push the "naive and irresponsible" meme again. But if that is going to be their approach, then the Democrats should not be worried. For one thing, such a strategy has a terrible track record, as Bush himself should know. For another, Obama actually has some pretty well-thought ideas on foreign policy, and his actual foreign policy positions tend to enjoy broad popular support. So, I think attacking him in this way ends up just lowering expectations in a way that is favorable for Obama, since people end up being pleasantly surprised when they learn more.

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 3:48 PM

The meme that Obama doesn't have specifics was very effectively propagated by the Clinton campaign. Evidently Bush was listening.

Posted by Callimaco | February 10, 2008 4:10 PM

If Obama is anywhere on the democratic ticket I'm voting for McCain.

Obama totally creeps me out with preachy personality and his revival tent style campaigning. I would never trust BHO in the White House, or even anywhere near it.

Posted by ken | February 10, 2008 4:11 PM

Well count me in the 20%-30% who do appreciate what President Bush has to say. It's true- what do we know about what Obama believes? For all his charm and inspirational rhetoric, he strikes me as naive.

Posted by Mike | February 10, 2008 4:32 PM

Bush doesn't know what Obama believes? What Bush doesn't know could fill Fed Ex Field.

Posted by Gob Bluth | February 10, 2008 4:43 PM

With that comment, you get the sense that Bill Clinton and George W Bush are using the same straw man argumentation playbook of knocking Obama for something he never said....embracing Ahmenidejad, embracing Reagan...it's the same verbal trick!!

I wonder if Bush is pimping out Karl Rove to the Clinton campaign?

Posted by RKA | February 10, 2008 4:58 PM

Cult leaders don't depend on logic and reason. Bush should know that. They just have to look profound, smile beatifically, and say "Ommmmm..., Ommmmm..., Ommmmmm..., OMMMMMM....".

Posted by robert ethan | February 10, 2008 5:13 PM

Simple president is right. Good for him for knowing his limitations, at least.

Posted by Phoebe | February 10, 2008 5:28 PM

Pakistan doesn't have to worry about an attack from Obama, I don't think. With his well documented proclivity for PRESSING THE WRONG BUTTON, he would probably nuke Norway by mistake, and maybe a couple of other countries. By the time he dug through the MESS OF PAPERS on his desk to find the right button, it would be time for a CIGARETTE BREAK. Maybe even a joint to calm his jangled nerves. By the time he got back he would be all mellow again. Pity about Norway though.

Posted by robert ethan | February 10, 2008 5:46 PM

So Obama's a Iran-hugging, Pakistan-destablizing idiot? This from George Bush? Didn't the military just send predator drones into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden's top aid? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Whenever anyone in his government does something that is rational, competent, or heroic which doesn't meet the criteria of his party's notion that 'elect the democrats and you will die!' they don't tell him in case he f*cks it up. Since he doesn't read much, he probably didn't pay attention. How many days until January 09? Please hurry, hurry!

Posted by Ellen Hamm | February 10, 2008 6:13 PM

I support Obama, but he did say more or less what Bush says he said. His Pakistan comments in particular made one take a deep breath. It's going to be up to Obama not to shoot from the hip and give Republicans ammunition. I agree his positions are no mystery to anyone who truly wants to seek them, but if all one hears are his speeches, one can be forgiven for having only a vague picture of a candidate in the mainstream Democratic tradition, for better or for worse.

My hopes for Obama transcend any of the forgettable palaver of a campaign. I listen to him and hear leadership. The presidency is a less ideological office than commonly believed. There will be very few moments when Obama will get to exercise a particular ideology. So, for me, courage, creativity, intelligence and above all the ability to motivate the public to push the leadership of Congress to move on major priorities -- that's where Obama distinguishes himself.

Posted by John S. | February 10, 2008 6:33 PM

Actually, John S., Sen. Obama's Pakistan position is entirely consistent with longstanding U.S. foreign policy -- to reserve the right to pursue a known terrorist within a nation's sovereign borders *if that nation itself refuses to pursue the terrorist*. And yes, he included the appropriate caveats in the very statement he caught all the criticism for.

Posted by WGC | February 10, 2008 7:49 PM

Bush is hardly making a point that's controversial. Even Democrats realize that Obamamania is devoid of substance. It's the feel good event of year, but it's low on policy.

The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. Telling people to "go to the website" is hardly a way to win the war of ideals. Maybe ideas aren't important.

Posted by nemov | February 10, 2008 8:21 PM

It’s interesting to me how Obama supporters appear reasonable and give rational answers to questions. Obama detractors resort to name calling and very uneducated responses. I am beginning to lean towards Obama just because I want people who can discuss their views and differences in at least a semi-reasonable way. I’m not sure I want to follow a leader whose supporters don’t know how to frame their responses or opinions without resorting to names and showing real time ignorance.

Posted by suzanna | February 10, 2008 9:17 PM

This is typical parsing of words and taking things out of context and it may have worked in the past, but not now that we have youtube.com.

What Obama said was that he would be willing to use military force to get Bin Laden, IF he had actionable intelligence that Bin Laden were hiding in Pakistan and IF Musharraf (dictator from Hell) wasn't going to allow us in.

Gee, doesn't that kind of sound like a situation that 95% of Americans supported - the invasion of Afghanistan, for example?

Also, he said he would meet with Ahmadinejad. That's what Presidents do. They meet with foreign leaders to solve problems. Oh wait, I forgot, Bush is not a President. He is a lackey who was installed there by his Daddy's Supreme Court.

Posted by Clint | February 11, 2008 12:59 AM

Obama: He's got a lot of sizzle, but where's the steak, people? Even Chimpy's asking the question, and he only has to drop it a couple of times before voters on-the-fence start asking it as well, and more states color themselves red.

To those now basking in the messianic Obama glow: Do you really think the globe's most powerful nation with the largest and most technological army is really going to elect a bona fide newbie? hence, transforming the u.s. presidency into a four-year on-the-job training program?? Don't you think he needs more than just a few good ideas and at least a full term in the Senate?

Posted by havilland smith | February 11, 2008 1:06 AM

Cripes - Obama doesn't want to attack Pakistan - he wants to needle point on the Al Qaeda operation taking haven there that the Pakistani Government hasn't been addressing themselves. He's not suggesting an Afghanistan like throwing over of the Taliban.

Posted by Jay4Obama | February 11, 2008 6:51 AM

I'm amazed at how many people simply parrot the Clintons' line that Obama is all style and no substance. If you ever actually listened to him, e.g. on Meet the Press, you'd realize that he has in-depth knowledge and very well thought out positions on any issue you care to name. What really sets him apart though is the fact that he actually answers the question posed to him, and does so in a very methodical and thorough manner, rather than avoid questions and steer everything towards a few pre-digested sound bites.

Unfortunately, politicians (in the worst sense of the word) like Bush and the Clintons then take such comments completely out of context and twist them beyond all recognition, and then get their misrepresentations repeated ad naseum by the media without calling them on their BS.

People like Obama remind us that "politician" doesn't have to be a dirty word.

Posted by Robodok | February 11, 2008 12:53 PM

Bush can't understand Obama's policies because Obama uses big words that little Bush can't comprehend. Bush should spend more times consulting english grammer books, a dictionary, and possibly a tutor so he can learn to form intelligent answers. Obama does have a website that people can check out if they want to know where he stands. Maybe someone needs to show Bush how to turn on the computer.

Posted by CJ | February 11, 2008 2:22 PM

Bush can't understand Obama's policies because Obama uses big words that little Bush can't comprehend. Bush should spend more times consulting english grammer books, a dictionary, and possibly a tutor so he can learn to form intelligent answers. Obama does have a website that people can check out if they want to know where he stands. Maybe someone needs to show Bush how to turn on the computer.

Posted by CJ | February 11, 2008 2:23 PM

I listened to a group of college kids talk about Obama and you should have seen their faces when they found out what his positions really are. We are reckless to believe that the celebrity factor equals presidential factor. This society needs to stop basing important decisions on how someone makes them feel.

Posted by pmoore | February 13, 2008 9:58 AM

i know how bush makes me feel,angry,angry that the country i love and live in has a moron as president one who does what ever is in the interest of his rich freinds.dont know about you but he has done nothing for me except sink the economy,run massive debts,sink the value of the dollar to the point we can afford gas and heating cost.come on people wake up!anyone as president would be better than what we have had the last eight years.

Posted by mike | March 8, 2008 8:08 PM