CNN challenges Dem congressman: “When does the statute of limitations run out on blaming Bush?”

Things are definitely going in the wrong direction for Team Obama when CNN’s Candy Crowley has the temerity, the nerve, the gall to challenge South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn with a question he didn’t expect.

“When,” Crowley asked, “does the statute of limitations run out on blaming the Bush administration and when is it on you all as the governing — really in the House and the Senate and the White House. When does the economy your baby, so to speak?”

There had to have ben a brief moment when Clyburn did a little internal double take and thought to himself, “What? What? WTF? They’re not supposed to ask Democrats tough questions like that on CNN.”

This post was last modified on June 14, 2010

George W. BushJames Clyburn
editor:

View Comments (35)

  • Obama doesn't have to follow Bush's policies of expenditures. He could do the opposite of what Bush did, but HE DOESN'T WANT TO. He likes spending so why is he and his disciples hating on Bush so much?

    • The difference, Kimmy, was that Bush was not spending money to buy votes - he didn't have to. Obama and his regime are in such deep doo-doo that they are using OUR tax dollars to try and buy themselves back into office.

      Clyburn is just another Demo spendthrift who likes the money to ensure his constituits keep him in office. Dolts!

      • Another difference is that in some cases some not all Bush was using the money for causes that can be arguably good like aid for africa which it seems have been quantified to have ACTUALLY saved over amillion people's lives. Bush was not perfect but one has to see that there is a massive difference between the two people.

        And again if what Bush did was so bad no one has a gun to Obama's face telling him to CONTINUE TO SPEND.

        You are right SCDiver overall he promised so idiots would vote yet he has lied at every turn so he should not be back there again.

    • Hope and CHANGE, remember? His whole campaign was based on the premise that he'd blow down the doors of the establishment, be so much different than ANY other president in history, be so completely transparent that the masses would always know what's going on, kick the lobbyists so far out of D.C. that they'd never find their ways back, get rid of all earmarks....

      He's completely failed (lied) in (about) all of that so what's left?

      Blame Bush.

    • One more try:

      Dubya did bad things. He helped increase the debt. He is partially responsible for the mess we are in right now. I don't think anybody here would argue that. Well, OK... maybe some would, I don't wanna speak for everyone, after all.

      The fact of the matter still remains that Obama has been president for a while now... we would like to see some solutions from our president, not a bunch of finger pointing about who is to blame. This isn't a pre-school playground, it's our way of life and our country. If they spent as much time coming up with solutions as they did whining and crying about how it's not their fault, maybe they could affect some actual good!

      Get with the friggin' program, Darnell.

    • Reagan doubled the income to the federal gov't during his eight years but the libtards in Congress spent it even faster.

  • Not only was this fellow unprepared for a tough question, he misses the point on tax cuts entirely. The problem is too much spending, and the attending "need" for tax dollars.

    Through all them bums out!

    • Then you must have voted against Bush and McCain during the elections? Because Bush tripled the deficit

      • *LOUD BUZZER* Wrong. While the national debt did rise considerably during dubya's administration, it did not triple. It DID go from 56.4 percent of GDP to 83.4 percent, which is frickin' horrendous, but you should still really try to get your facts right before you comment. There are plenty of things you can say about Bush that are horrible without just randomly pulling stuff out of your butt.

        It's also worth noting that the president (neither the current one or past ones) is not completely responsible for the U.S. budget; the president proposes a budget, which is then mangled and raped by congress before it goes back to the president for approval or veto.

      • Don't forget that safety thing. Under Bush--terrorists scared. Under O--terrorists getting creative and feeling America out...

        • You're right SC - under Obama, the terrorists, like Hamas, get our tax dollars .... and Hillary thinks it's great!

    • BTW, if this were a typical Democrat web site, like the Democrat Underworld, someone who voices an opposing view would be kicked off. Hopefully Darnell will stick around, I need the laughs.

        • darnell-you have not taken over the website. We are all having the time of our lives with your lunacy, unintelligent comments, and complete ignorance to truth.

        • I don't think you're taking over the web site. It's just so rare to meet a Democrat or liberal or progressive or whatever y'all call yourselves these days on this web site who seems to enjoy debating without dropping F-bombs. Over at Democrat Underworld they go into hysterics when someone dares to question their belief system.

      • Well I think I have an answer for you, having served in the U.S. Navy (as an Airman, if that makes sense to any of you).

        To quantify what a boatload is, you have to understand that a boat is smaller than a ship. While neither are well defined (the definition has changed, many times, over the years) it is well accepted that a ship can carry a boat but boats can't carry ships.

        Boats CAN, however, carry shit and ships can carry shit so I suppose both can carry a shitload.

        SO I suppose that since both boats and ships can carry a shitload that a shitload varies in size. But a ship-sized shitload would be larger than a boat-sized shitload so one could reason that a shitload could be larger than a boatload.

        Did that help?

  • When will the fools we call politicians realize that spending is what gets us into financial trouble, not tax cuts? Since it is congress, and not the President, that is the sole originator of spending bills, will they ever step up and take the blame for our spending that is wildly out of control? Not until, to paraphrase obummer, "kick their asses" out come November and hire a separate bunch of (hopefully less damaging) politicians.

    • Where we're you during the Bush years? Spend spend spend but not a peep out of the GOP

      • Most of us WERE (please note the lack of apostrophe) in the same place that we are now; looking at government spending and going "WTF!?!?" It's Obama's bad luck (scratch that... he wanted the damn job) that he's president during the time that most of us finally reached the point where enough was enough and we had to get a bit louder about things. Might have something to do with him tripling the national debt in the space of a year. And before you spout talking points, I'm mad as hell at Bush, too. I like to think that the reason he's hardly shown his face since leaving office is that he knows he screwed up... bad.

  • This administration will stop blaming Bush when they start being somewhat competent...WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN with the keystone cops in charge.What a hoot. This idiot affirmative action POTUS thinks of himself as so cool, and wonderful, and awesome.

    In reality, he is just a thug in the emperor's new clothes.

    • He did didn't it? He never truly answered it. I heard: "It is our baby but please remember that this baby was adopted after the baby was forced on us when it was dropped at our door... "

      Lame.

      • And he said tax cuts are stupid and they're what got us into this mess?????

        WHAAAAT??????

        • It is a proven fact whenever taxes were slashed considerably and business were allowed to self regulate as much as possible and there were no attempts to regulate pricing it makes a lot of things better sometimes seemingly overnight. People dont read history and are not economic experts (who are not paid off nor ideological) need to step back and let someone else (better) do their jobs.

  • Wow! A real honest-to-goodness reporter at CNN? How can this be?? I guess she sees the writing on the wall and needed the footage for her portfolio when she applies to Fox.

    It looked like his eyes narrowed a bit after the question. IMHO, he is clearly angry at that point. I'd sure like to play poker with this guy. Trouble is, I'll bet he wouldn't play unless he could OPM.

    BTW, what IS the SOL on "it's Bush's fault"? I could be wrong but I don't ever recall hearing GW speak about 9/11 as Clinton's fault - even though there was a mountain of evidence. These clowns have no class - NONE.

    • I was thinking about that. Even though he could have Bush never said well it was the foreign policies and the inability to pursue things to the end in the previous administration that caused 9/11. Bush could have done it. It would have been wrong but he could have done it. He didn't. I don't really remember him calling Clinton's name every time he spoke and I don't recall his administration doing it either. I do know they do it now, but cannot recall them doing it during their tenure.

Related Post
  1. AT&T’s DirecTV Cancels NEWSMAX in Censorship Move
  2. Joy Behar is an incoherent plagarist. Whoopi Goldberg says, “Hey, that’s my job.”