While you are blaming Bush, I'll blame Romney.<quoted text>taxes and eminent domain are good for baseball! In April 1989, Rangers owner and oil tycoon Eddie Chiles, sold the team to an investment group headed by George W. Bush, son of the President of the United States, George H. W. Bush. After hearing that Chiles planned to sell the team, Bush headed a group of investors that bought the team for $89 million. While his own equity in the team was a small one (approximately 1%), he was named Managing General Partner of the new ownership group. He increased his investment the following year.
During his tenure, the Rangers and the City of Arlington decided to replace the aging Arlington Stadium with a new publicly funded stadium, at a cost of $193 million, financed by Arlington residents, through a sales tax increase. Ground was broken on October 30, 1991 on what would become The Ballpark in Arlington (now named Rangers Ballpark in Arlington). The city, through the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, also controversially authorized the seizure of 13 acres (53,000 m2) of land through eminent domain for the Rangers future development. Landowners filed lawsuits over the acquisition and eventually won settlements of $22.2 million which the Rangers failed to pay.
Bush left his position with the Rangers when he was elected Governor of Texas in 1994
Mitt Romney missed a golden opportunity during last night's debate. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," Barack Obama said. The perfect comeback would have been: "Oh yeah? Well, the ocean called, and they're running outta ships!" True, Romney delivered a version of this zinger, but much later. His timing was all wrong.
Oh well, maybe Romney can arrange another meeting with the president and get it right this time. We understand Obama will be in Ohio.
Obama went on to tell Romney: "You seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s." So he's Reagan, Eisenhower and Coolidge all rolled into one? Sounds way too good to be true, but one can only hope.(A New York Sun editorial makes the same point, though with a caveat about racial segregation in the 1950s, which we prefer to think of as the decade of Brown v. Board of Education and the first federal civil rights law since Reconstruction.)
Ike and Coolidge aside, the president's dismissive attitude toward Reagan's foreign policy is telling. It underscores why, despite having "won" again by showing up, Obama failed last night. Before the debate, the left was confident that Romney would scare the hell out of voters by coming across as, in the words of New York Times editorialist David Firestone, a "strutting warmonger." After the debate, they started mocking him as "Peacenik Mitt," as in this post from the Washington Post's Greg Sargent.
Just like in the first debate, the left is calling Romney a LIAR!!!! because he did not conform to their stick-figure caricature of him. "By reversing his views on war and peace, Romney has raised a character issue about his ability to be trusted as a steadfast defender of U.S.," tweeted Bloomberg's Jonathan Alter. The New York Times's Bill Keller writes that "I expect he sent the neocon wing of his campaign running for the smelling salts," evidently having misunderstood neoconservatism to be a doctrine of constant armed conflict.
Back in the '80s, they called Reagan a warmonger too--and nowhere more so than in elite universities such as those where a young Barack Obama was indoctrinated. History does not record the name of the person who noticed that you can rearrange the letters of "Ronald Wilson Reagan" to spell "insane Anglo warlord," but that unknown anagramist provided that decade's leftists with many a self-satisfied chuckle.