Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I hate to say it, but that was my impression too. Tim Russert kept throwing charts and accusations and pointed questions at him, and his one-line answers were a.) often poorly worded, phrased, thought-out and b.) more often poorly delivered.
|
Wow, do you really think so? That is interesting (not sarcastic). I actually logged on to post that although I'm sure crackpots around the greater Berkeley area were as pissed as I was during some of the things he said, Bush's supporters would find much to like during that speech. I thought he was shooting for a message to the base that he was still the responsible man of action he's always been, but that he doesn't get caught up in the parsing of words that the media for some reason wants to force him engage in.
In other words, I thought it was a politically savvy move at a rough time in his presidency/campaign. But maybe it's rougher than I thought. Not that you're a typical GWB base supporter, but I would have thought a Hannibal Smith-type like yourself would have liked that vibe.
Quote:
There were a few good core ideas in there, but they got buried in the incoherence. For example, (paraphrasing) "I'm not going to change based on polls", "I'm not talking about Skull and Bones because its a secret society", "sometimes people don't like those people/nations who are doing what needs to be done because they falsely blame the problem-solver as the problem-creator" etc.... But fuck, this guy (and most politicians) should not give unscripted interviews if they hope to come out looking good, unless they completely anticipate the expected questions and answers. The stuff about the budget was the worst part, though the stuff about tax cuts sounded like an excellent defense.
Hello
|
I missed the good tax cut justification, but I was probably predisposed not to hear that one. For general funniness I enjoyed his "It's OK to beat on me, that's politics, but I pity the fool that denigrates the National Guard" riff. For general annoyingness my favorite was this one:
Quote:
Russert: But your base conservatives and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.
President Bush: Well, they're wrong.
Russert: Mr. President
President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
|
...when the actual annual growth in discretionary outlays was for the last two years was 13% and 12%, both of which were greater than the same percentage for any single Clinton year.
(Ty I would be forever grateful if you could help a technically illiterate brother out and put this table into this post but if not you can click here to see a graph the Heritage foundation put together on this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Bud...m&PageID=53575)
Although it's technically true they're declining I'm not sure that is really relevant. And although Russert cites the Heritage Foundation as critical of the admin on this one I guess I'm more confident that their numerical anlysis than in GWB's. I would welcome someone showing me where Bush's statement was derived from, if not these numbers.
In other news, the Simpsons and Curb Your Enthusiasm were awesome tonight. That is all.
[eta Thanks, Ty.]
