[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

No we're not. Obama was President-elect at the time, and was working closely with Bush regarding many things. I remember if clearly because it was impressive how smoothly it seemed to be going, and how people were saying Bush and his wife were making it as easy as possible for Obama's family to move into the Whitehouse.

Saying nice things to each other does not mean that Obama is somehow the de facto President.

Where did I claim anything like that? It is accused of voter fraud apparently, but that really has nothing to do with it. Fact is they shouldn't be getting taxpayer money if they can't run their own company properly. Especially not $5.2 billion dollars worth.

They were never accused of voter fraud. They were the victims of "voter registration fraud" carried out by in the field contractors. There was a lot of nonsense from McCain proxies about this, but nothing ever came of it.

And if states refuse bailout money, the Obama administration vilifies them. Like they did with Mark Sanford, who was actually trying to restructure a plan to reduce his state's debt with the bailout money.

You're missing the point. Here it is: there is nothing in the bailout about giving money to ACORN. There is a provision that allows states and local governments to use ACORN, or another similar organization, as subcontractors. That's all. This whole thing is just Limbaugh-manufactured baloney. Don't fall for it.

Obama, like everyone else in the executive and legislative branches was involved. He shares the blame too.

Just like McCain and Bush share the blame. Except neither of them are President.

OK--so let me get this straight. We can't compare the Obama administration to the Bush administration because the challenges they face are so different. However, we also can't hold Bush responsible for his actions before he left office, because the last actions of the Bush administration are actually and in secret the actions of the Obama administration--because through magic voodoo he took over Bush's brain from Karl Rove and worked him like a meat-puppet when he became president-elect. Moreover, he actually started to control the executive branch at the end of September in 2008, when he was in the midst of a campaign, and Bush was working with Congress to craft a financial bailout plan while Obama was riding around swing states in a decorated bus. I don't know exactly how he did this, but I'm going to guess it involves time travel.

By your logic, Obama is approximately as responsible for these things as former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. Both have roughly equal seniority in their parties, both were about equally involved in drafting the bill, both voted for it. So why aren't we demonizing Norm Coleman? Because that's silly. To borrow your phrase, neither man was President--and there's only one President at a time.

If you want to say Obama sucks, just say it. But blaming him for things that happened before he took office--or even before he was elected--that just reveals that for you the deck is stacked. It doesn't matter what Obama does or does not do--you'll pronounce him a failure anyway, even if you have to revise history to do it.