Barack Obama spent the first two years of his presidency blaming his predecessor for everything. Bad economy? Bush's fault. Frayed relations with our allies? Bush's fault. Poor reputation in the world? Bush's fault. Wars in the Middle East? Bush's fault. Can't get a great cheeseburger? Bush's fault.
The tactic of constantly blaming the guy who came before worked for a while. A lot of people were fed up with Bush, or at least fatigued. They wanted a change, and Obama grabbed that desire, manipulated it, played on it, and rode it all the way to the presidency. Having seen the tactic work splendidly during the campaign, Obama then put it into play once in office. Any time there was bad news, he trotted out the previous administration and said, "Don't look at me! That guy did it!"
November 2010 changed all of that. By voting for Republicans in droves, giving them control of the House and big new numbers in the Senate, Americans signaled that they had had enough of the blame game. Two years in, it was unseemly, ridiculous, and counterproductive. "Why is he spending all of this time and energy on blaming Bush when he should be expending that time and energy on fixing our problems?" they thought. And they socked it to him and his party.
After November, Obama seemed to get it and began to lay off Bush---until this week, when he reverted to form. In Iowa yesterday, he said, "No matter what you may hear, there's no silver bullet to reverse a decade of economic challenges. We've had problems for 10 years now. It's not going to reverse overnight."
Here we go again. He is pathetically pleading for more time and more money to create jobs. Eight hundred and sixty-one days after he signed the Democratic Congress' $787-billion stimulus bill that he claimed was going to work almost immediately and absolutely keep unemployment below 8%, Obama offered another jobs speech----with unemployment at 9.1%. He wants more time to do what he and his administration promised would be happening 2 years ago.
For Obama, jobs always came after something more crucial to his socialist agenda: health care "reform," financial regulatory "reform," cap and trade, and on and on. As a result, Democrats lost big time in November---but they've won the bigger war in terms of policies that will fundamentally change America.
So they lose some seats, or even control of Congress? So what, if it's for their "greater good?" Ah, but Obama always figured his job would be safe, because he believed he was insulated from the political hurricanes effecting everyone else. Perhaps it's dawning on him that instead of being immune to accountability, he will be held the MOST accountable for the horrific economy.
It is, after all, now Obama's economy. And the job Americans may want to see created most is for a Republican in the White House.