Bush missing from USA Today/Gallup poll response options to question about AIG bonuses
SUMMARY: A USA Today/Gallup poll question about who was to blame for the AIG bonuses left out the Bush administration as a suggested response, despite the administration's decision to give AIG billions in aid without requiring that the company withhold the bonuses.
A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 21-22 included the following question: "[W]hich of the following is most to blame for the fact that these [AIG] bonuses were paid?" The poll offered only the following options as responses: President Barack Obama, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Congress, and AIG management. The poll did not provide President Bush or any members of his administration as a possible response, despite the Bush Treasury Department's provision of billions of dollars to AIG with no requirement that AIG nullify its employee bonus contracts. By not providing Bush as a choice, the USA Today/Gallup poll advanced the falsehood that the Bush administration played no role in the AIG bonus controversy. In an article on the poll's results as well as a blog post on the subject, USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page did not note the poll's omission of the Bush administration in the list of provided responses.
As Media Matters for America has noted, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay these bonuses more than a year ago. Neil Barofsky, a Bush-appointed special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), stated in March 19 congressional testimony that the Bush administration Treasury Department specifically considered the AIG bonus contracts in its talks with the company and did not insist on their abrogation as a condition of AIG's receiving bailout money.
From the USA Today/Gallup poll results:
Media Matters has documented numerous examples of the media's disappearance of the Bush administration in their reporting on economic issues, including the controversy over AIG bonuses, which has completely disregarded the effect of the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, its deficit spending, and its aggressively hands-off approach toward the market and financial institutions. On a range of issues, the press has left out relevant information about the role of Bush-era policies or suggested that Obama has greater responsibility for policies or events than he does.
From Page's March 23 USA Today article:
Geithner gets low marks for his handling of the AIG bonuses. By 2-1, those surveyed say they are dissatisfied rather than satisfied with what he's done. Congress' rating is a bit worse, and AIG management has a nearly 7-1 negative rating.
Obama, however, fares pretty well. By 54%-39%, those surveyed say they are satisfied with the way he has handled the issue. The president seems likely to be asked about the subject at his news conference tonight in the East Room.
The fact that Americans are much more likely to blame AIG and even Congress rather than Obama is a sign that his "honeymoon" continues, [Darrell] West [director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution] says. "Obama is the teflon president; AIG is not sticking to him."
From Page's USA Today blog post:
There's a lot of blame to go around when it comes to the $165 million in bonuses paid to executives at AIG, the insurance giant that has gotten $170 billion in federal aid. A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows that Americans hold AIG management itself most responsible.
Nearly half of those surveyed (46%) say AIG management is "most to blame for the fact that these bonuses were paid." Almost one in five (19%) finger Congress, while 8% blame Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and 7% say President Obama bears responsibility.
and it was the bush administration that insisted on a change that ended up taking away limits on future compensation.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/15/51431/166/59/673205
Please. It was CHRIS DODD (D-Conn.) who insisted that those AIG folks get their bonuses!
CNN: "Dodd: [Obama] Administration pushed for language protecting bonuses": "Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language."
CNN: "Geithner: I should have known about bonus problems sooner": "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed Thursday that the department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth in the stimulus legislation that would have strictly limited executive bonuses."
Note to MM and the left: President Bush is no longer President. Get over it.
For MM and the left to pin everything on Bush is downright hysterical.
You sure have a funny definition of "insisted". What other words do you conveniently change the unabridged definition of to make you look smarter than you really are?
P.S. Everything on Bush and republicans? No, just 90%.
i said it was the bush administration that insisted on a change that ended up taking away limits on future compensation. [where there would be no legal challenges] i gave a link. you didn't dispute it.
Shoes89:
9/11 happened eight months after Bush took office. Whose fault was that?
Obama's.
Osama Bin Laden's fault. Do you have any more easy questions?
we know that bin laden was trying to hit us. bush got numerous warnings, including one on aug. 6, 2001 entitled "bin laden determined to strike in u.s." the question is why did he do nothing about those warnings.
He didn't comprehend them. He was too busy imagining the aide who delivered the message with a covered ass.
Actually Easy, Bush spent most of the summer of 2001 clearing Brush from his ranch, ignored warnings about bin Laden so he could rest because he was so busy stealing an election the previous year.
Shameful and should never be forgiven for this failure of leadership!
1. Floyd: "Osama Bin Laden's fault. Do you have any more easy questions?"
LOL! Great answer.
2. As far as the August 6, 2001, PDB, there is probably more ignorance about this very issue than any other related to 9/11. What is a PDB anyway? Do you really know? Find out.
3. Here's Michael Scheuer, former CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda:
4. Here's Clinton-friend Richard Clarke praising the Bush team's 2001 approach to Al-Qaeda in 2002: Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02.
In other words, there is verifiable proof that President Bush did not "ignore" anything.
i do know what a pdb is, presidential daily briefing. there is no evidence that bush did anything in response to that aug 6, 2001 pdb. and clinton did shoot missiles at bin laden's suspected camps a couple of times and we heard "no war for monica" from a lot of republicans. it would have been hard to capture bin laden in that period , since we had no troops in afghanistan, unlike the situation where we did have troops available when bush was president and we did not go after bin laden at tora bora, as the leader of the cia unit said on sixty minutes. as the 9-11 commission wrote in their report [page 256]: "threat reports surged in june and july [2001] and reached an ever higher peak of urgency". they also wrote: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute." page 265.
1. You're confusing the Iraq bombings and bin Laden on the "No war for Monica" issue. (For the uselessness of the 1998 strikes, read this.)
2. "we did not go after bin laden at tora bora": What?? Of course we did! In fact, if you actually paid attention during that 60 Minutes segment, you would have seen that we thought we had actually killed him!
3. If you look closer at the 9-11 testimony, the threats in the summer of 2001 were believed to be primarily targeted at sites overseas. (Condolleezza Rice, 5/17/02): "In the period starting in December 2000 ... there was a clear concern that something was up, that something was coming, but it was principally focused overseas. The areas of those concern were the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and Europe."
4. And that Aug. 6, 2001, PDB that you claim to know so much about said that the FBI was currently "conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it consider[ed] Bin Ladin-related."
1-you are apparently not aware that the monica investigation went on for many months. 2-as you see in the link i'm providing below, the leader of the cia unit told sixty minutes that his plans to capture bin laden at tora bora were all disapproved. he said whether they were disapproved "by cental command all the way up to the president of the united states, i don't know". 3-and you are pulling a neat trick, trying to mix condi's self serving testimony with the conclusions of the commission. [and did you read in condi's testimony where she thought it was a "good thing" that bush did not go after the cole bombers?] 4-i never said there weren't investigations going on, because that's obviously where the threat warnings came from. what i said, and what i quoted, was the 9-11 commission said no one at the top cared. "they did not have direction..." but feel free to keep flailing away
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml
shoes, you did not even provide condi's "testimony" to the 9-11 commission, but a press conference. neat trick, like i said.
Why are you bolding a section that destroys your own argument?
i agree 150%!
especially since bush was only in office for one week in jan. 2009, just before obama was inaugurated! geez, everyone knows clinton was in office for 16 years before that!
Note to Shoes89 and the incompetent wingnuts: Bush's actions and the damage they left behind will be with us long after he left office. The country may never get over it.
this isn't about blaming Bush, this is about deflecting criticism against OBama and Democrats. Liberals whined for 8 years while he was in office, now they continue to whine after he's gone, how much longer can you keep trying to shift focus away from Dodd/Geithner with this? it's really pathetic.
shift focus from? No, this isn't the left shifting focus from, it's the right trying to shift focus to. I have yet to see a republican take responsibility for his or her actions when wrong, this is just another in a long laundry list of denials.
jamesb really needs to look up the term "revisionist history". Then maybe he'll understand this MMFA item.
There are many things in this world that JamesB does not understand....
focus from Democrats, focus to an ex-president, it's all the same thing. Bush is gone, he left a mess, everyone knows it. but to worry about missing from some poll now is ridiculous.
the old "let's move on" theory so popular amongst a few on here.
Bush was completed excluded from blame in the poll questions. It's only fair to include him and his adminstration and an option for people to choose from. If there are people who fault the past administration more so than the current one, or Giethner, or Congress, their opinions and simply not allowed by this poll.
Kinda reminds me of the Iraq war. Before it started the right was telling us not to question the president because he had access to more information than we ever would, and when it was waged the right kept telling us to not question what was happening right now, because the time for asking questions was when it was done. Now that it's pretty much over, here you are mimicking the right with the old let's not focus on what happened and just move on. Do you guys ever plan on learning something from history?
i would never defend any of Bush's actions on Iraq, nor those who staunchly defended him and his handling of it. just another of his messes he left, all well documented.
so they're "well documented", but it's "useless" to mention them.
yep. if you don't like useless go with nonproductive.
actually, i should be more specific. as far as the economic mess we are in, which is the context of this thread from mmfa, to fixate on Bush is nonproductive and useless at this point. As for Iraq, his legacy and responsibility will remain. So they really aren't the same.
so we just take your word on what to pay attention to? i mean why "fixate" on iraq? according to you let's just forget about it and move on. and you contend it's "useless" to talk about bush. useless for who? you're saying don't be informed on the political process and the recent history of this country.
i just said, this isn't about iraq, this is about the economy. it's not my word on it all, so your crybaby post is well, useless.
not really what i said. i said you want to define what we can discuss. and i will ask you again. to whom is it "useless" to talk about bush and the economy?
people who would rather move forward and fix the mess we are in, instead of whining about blaming people who are no longer in charge.
so there is absolutely nothing to be learned from the past? it's not important to know the actions that led us to where we are? how do you "fix the mess" unless you know exactly what was done and who made the decisions? sounds like a recipe to keep repeating the same.
we are talking about a poll, not a total rewrite of history. why is it so hard for you to stay on topic?
we are talking about a poll, the one you insist bush doesn't belong on because you would "rather move forward and fix the mess we are in" and those who do talk about bush are "whining about blaming people who are no longer in charge". you don't want to "rewrite history", you want to forget it.
you're a pathetic mess. quote me where I insisted Bush doesn't belong on this poll? no wonder you can't stay on topic, your arguments are so dreary that can't stand up. go ahead and lie, we're finished.
victor asked you if it would be petty to include bush in the poll. you said "maybe not, but useless yes". i would say that qualifies as saying he doesn't belong on the poll.
I like the way he cried "we're finished" *Waa!* just before you got to remind him of his very own words about the poll. Great stuff.
I liked where you all cried "believe me or I'm going home" *Waa!* The truly pathetic ones are those who feel Bush is ONLY to be blamed. You know, the blind followers of Obama who feel he is God and does no wrong. Let's see, that includes every one who whined about Bush being excluded from that poll. How many of you think Geitner or Congress or even Obama had any input in the bonus's being paid?
None? Well, there you go. How simple can proving a point be?
So you think the poll should have listed two options, either AIG or "other"? If they're going to put Obama on the list, they should put Bush on it as well. That has nothing to do with believing Obama does no wrong.
I think the only point is that - if there's going to be a blame game, and in this case, a blame poll - Bush should not be omitted from it. That's really the only point here.
How did Bush write bonus's into company contracts? Obama had his chances to not pay them, he dropped the ball. Let blame fall where it may, but including Bush in this is irrelavent. He wasn't president when they got paid AND he wasn't on the board of directors when the contracts got written. Heck, you may as well blame John McCain, he ran for president during the events that is being discussed. And, since he is a republican that makes him responsible for a private company paying bonus's to its employees.
Holy crap.
"Let blame fall where it may, but including Bush in this is irrelavent. He wasn't president when they got paid AND he wasn't on the board of directors when the contracts got written. Heck, you may as well blame John McCain, he ran for president during the events that is being discussed."
Please tell me about the period of time when a)Bush wasn't president and b)McCain was still running for president.
Please give me the timeline when Bush was director of financial operations at AIG. Please tell me when Bush talked to the employees and promised them bonus's. Please tell me when Bush signed the stimulus package that gauranteed those bonus's. Please, oh please give me that information so I can act like a dolt and blame him for that, too.
I don't see how that addresses your comment about all this happening while McCain was still running for president.
In any event, Bush was president when the bailout was passed. There were no strings attached to the money, and the Bush administration was well aware of the bonuses at the time.
"Obama had his chances to not pay them, he dropped the ball."
Doesn't that apply just as well, if not better, to Bush? He had his chance to force them to cut out the bonuses as a condition of receiving the bailout money. He dropped the ball, right?
The point here is that Bush should be on the list of options, period. MMfA didn't say that Obama or Geithner shouldn't be on the list, just that Bush should be. There's just as much of an argument that he's responsible as there is for Obama, even according to your own poorly-chosen words.
What poorly chosen words did I use to describe the situation? Why are you concerned with my grammar? Did you know AIG gave Obama and Dodd over$300,000 during the campaign? Doesn't this sound like a pay-back to you? Did you also know that AIG gave democrats more money in donations this election cycle than republicans?
If Bush knew about these bonus's (as you claim) how could Obama NOT know about them? Which would make Obama a liar and even more culpable. And if Obama isn't a liar, then you are because there is NO way Bush knew and Obama didn't.
did you miss my post? i asked you when clinton had a chance to get bin laden. you told me i was wrong without giving me the proof.
Is Clinton not getting bin laden the topic?
If you want to avoid it because it's off-topic, then you shouldn't have opened your mouth about it. And if you're concerned about things being off-topic, then you should have said that to MissDee instead of praising her post, since she's the one who brought it up.
shut up! I didn't answer a post by missdee that was off topic. And if you'll notice, it was creeksneakers2 who asked the question that you and mefirst are whining about. Actually, I see you avoiding my question about how did Bush get those bonus's installed in a private companies contracts. Can show how he did that? If not, then Bush is not responsible for bonus's paid nor should he be held liable. Which means he doesn't need to be in the poll.
shut up!
So you must be a graduate of the O'Reilly School of Debate Tactics.
it works.
You most certainly did respond to her post. You should have chastised her for going off-topic, instead of waiting until you put yourself into a position where you had to defend that nonsense.
It isn't MY job to do what you want done. So, by answering 'bin laden' when someone asks who caused 9/11 put me in the position to provide evidence of Clinton not getting him? You have some problems, I think.
I didn't say anything about your "bin laden" answer. I'm talking about your "telephone" post.
You mean where I implied mefirst needs to do his own research? Umm, where did I mention Clinton or bin laden or even MissDee? My reply to MissDee said nothing about Clinton or bin laden, yet somehow you say I took this off topic. Kool-aid comes to mind when thinking how you could think that.
I'm sorry brabantio, you really have no clue as to what you want, so I'll have to take a pass on further discussion with you. When you stop acting (?) like an idiot I'll be glad to resume.
"when did clinton have the chance to get bin laden?"
"Are you seriously asking that question? If so you definately live in denial. You know a thing called the telephone has been invented, or do you need proof of that, also?"
But you didn't mention Clinton or Bin Laden? Give me a break. You're either hopelessly confused or completely dishonest.
I didn't say you took it off-topic. What I'm saying is that if you have an argument to make, do so. You act as if there is some obvious answer to mefirst's question, as if everyone should know this, but then when pressed you hide behind "off-topic". Either support what you say or be smart enough not to open your mouth in the first place. Is that unfair, really?
There's your proof. YOU provided it. I did not mention Clinton, bin laden or missdee as you claim I did. And, everyone does know about clinton missing bin laden, I don't need to repeat it every time one of you decide to take a discussion off topic. To do so would be unfair to everyone else. That is why there are regulations concerning taking threads off topic. You got a problem with regulations? take it up with media matters.
I didn't say you brought it up.
"If you want to avoid it because it's off-topic, then you shouldn't have opened your mouth about it. And if you're concerned about things being off-topic, then you should have said that to MissDee instead of praising her post, since she's the one who brought it up."
Again, MissDee went off topic. Read back through the thread and see. If you want to invoke the regulations, then (again) you should have chastised her for it instead of praising her post.
which is it, floyd? you claim you didn't mention bin laden in your reply to me. and now you say: "and everyone does know about clinton missing bin laden". so which is it now? you are or you aren't mentioning clinton?
"What poorly chosen words did I use to describe the situation?"
"Obama had his chances to not pay them, he dropped the ball", and the comment about all this going on while McCain was running for president. I didn't say anything about your grammar.
"If Bush knew about these bonus's (as you claim) how could Obama NOT know about them?"
Because he wasn't president when the bailout was passed. And you're incredibly dense on this concept. Let me restate:
"The point here is that Bush should be on the list of options, period. MMfA didn't say that Obama or Geithner shouldn't be on the list, just that Bush should be."
Do you understand? The point is not whether anyone carries all the blame or not. Bush should be on the list of options, because omitting his name is a declaration that he can't possibly be held to account for anything here. It's not appropriate for them to make that assertion.
But Obama was the president-elect! Obama claimed no knowledge of the situation, yet you say the entire Bush administration was well aware of it. Obama lied. And, now you think Bush should be held liable since Obama lied about his knowledge on this? That's why Bush isn't included, he isn't lying about knowledge he doesn't have.
I don't think you could come up with a dumber argument if you tried. The poll was about blame, and Bush still has involvement here no matter what you say Obama did.
"And, now you think Bush should be held liable since Obama lied about his knowledge on this?"
Again:"The point is not whether anyone carries all the blame or not."
Again:"The point here is that Bush should be on the list of options, period."
No, in my opinion he should not because he isn't president when these bonus's are being paid. What is your opinion? Example: should Clinton be held liable for our attacking Iraq? No---he wasn't president then even though he and his political allies ALL said Iraq should be attacked.
he and his political allies ALL said Iraq should be attacked.
Wrong again (as usual). Clinton stated that Saddam should be removed from power. Clinton was too smart (unlike Bush the Lesser) to get bogged down in a never-ending occupation that has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands.
He was president when the bailout was passed. He knew about the bonuses. He could have made cutting those bonuses out a condition of the bailout.
If you can't directly address that, you're done. There's quite clearly an argument that Bush bears at least some responsibility, therefore he should be in the poll.
Obviously your comparison is stupid. Clinton did not institute any policy advocating invasion of Iraq. It's not like Bush inherited anything in that regard.
"Actually, I see you avoiding my question about how did Bush get those bonus's installed in a private companies contracts. Can show how he did that?"
I avoided nothing. He doesn't need to have personally installed anything in contracts to be an option, and neither does anyone else. Your comments are increasingly nonsensical.
brabantio---If you can't directly address that, you're done.
I gave you my answer and reason. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, take it up with someone else.
And your reason was lacking, while you didn't address the point.
Is someone else supposed to represent your opinion? Who do you have lined up to speak for you?
so what if it's lacking. you aint' no teacher and I ain't taking an essay test. You either accept what I say or you don't. I'm assuming you don't. How much further do you need to take this???
That pretty much covers it. If you can't make a reasoned argument, then everyone knows what you're all about.
Yes that covers it. You want me to change my stance to agree with yours and if I don't then I am being unreasonable. Is that how you usually do this? Sorry pal, I'll pass on doing as you demand because I don't care what 'everyone' thinks. I care about what I think.
I want you to make a reasoned argument. Your point is basically that you don't think that Bush is responsible, therefore nobody else should be able to vote for him on the poll. Nevermind the fact that you have absolutely no explanation as to how Obama "dropped the ball" by allowing the bonuses to be paid, but Bush didn't "drop the ball" by approving a bailout bill which didn't restrict the bonuses.
If you can make that argument, I'd like to see it. Otherwise you can believe whatever you like, but you can't legitimately claim that Bush's inclusion on the list is inappropriate or unwarranted.
The war in Iraq is part of why the economy is in the mess it is in. the 2 are intertwind more than the right wants to tell us.
Progressive you are correct.
This war has been the basis for so much sadness and insanity.
I only mention Iraq as an example of right thinking, the focus being we never get a full discussion and draw conclusions of any policy that today's republican implements. If we did we wouldn't constantly be rehashing this on a blog post with such heady responses as "that was never proven conclusively" being the key denial of choice.
The left is discovering it's hard to fight from the vanguard.
They can play the blame game all they want, but even Barry O'Gump understands the term "The Buck Stops here". Too bad most on this forum do not.
If by most, you mean right wing posters, then yes, you are correct, y'all don't know the concept of the buck stops here. That's why y'all keep denying responsibility for - well, just about anything.
>falling down laughing> Buck stops here? more hypocrisy from the left. Barney Frank had nothing to do wiith the Fannie Mae Collapse, Chris Dodd as head of the banking comittee had nothign to do with Freddie Mac et all nor AIG (where he was the biggest contribution recipient from them), Acorn has nothign to do with voter registration fraud, The CRA had nothign to do with the legislative push to give out stupid loans that led to collapse, and on and on and on. Of course Clinton wasn't at all responsible for not mabbng Bin Laden when he had the chance. Tell me when you've ever allowed a Dem totake the blame for what they've brought about in terms of national disasters? The hypocrisy rolls on and on and on here.
MissDee, while your statements are true and factual, it does no good to point out; 'to the blind, that they are blind, following blind leaders, while blindly doing/saying as told' are the way they are. So, we are stuck with a 2-year love-fest of Obamamites. That's when the lowest approval rated government in history gets changed again. That's why fewer people approve of his handling of this crisis. He even lost a few who voted FOR him. Barely 50% approve of Obama perofrmance in the most recent zogby poll. That's less than the number voting for him. I guess even his own minion don't like his performance.
Oh, god, my sides are hurting from all the laughter! You just described you and dee, blind followers of limbaugh, doing his bidding because you two couldn't think for yourself if you tried! Take another long draw from the reichspond, the worst administration in the history of the US was replaced january 20th this year.
Oh, and better check your polls again, gallup has Obama at 63% - still. Democrats at 57%. And your vaunted republicans? 22%. Haw, haw!
I'll bet if you search long enough you'll find a poll that has Obama at 99%. I told you where mine came from. It obviously isn't the same one you made up.
I "made up" the gallup poll? it says right there at the bottom, GALLUP POLL. If that isn't obvious enough for you where my poll came from, well, that just says a whole lot about you, doesn't it?
You certainly insinuated that I made up the zogby poll that says Obama is at 50%. If you need to search the internet to find a poll that says what you want it to say, it certainly says a lot about you, too.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1686
that poll says that the percentage who feel favorably towards obama is "unchanged".
Yeah? So?
so, you implied that his support had fallen by a large margin.
when did clinton have the chance to get bin laden?
Are you seriously asking that question? If so you definately live in denial. You know a thing called the telephone has been invented, or do you need proof of that, also?
The only one in denial is you. We know the answer, and the reich wing meme about bin laden being available on a silver platter has been debunked about a thousand times now. But please, feel free to post that lie again so we can make you look like an @ss again.
The only one looking like an "@ss" is you for living where mefirst lives. Maybe you're one in the same, you sure post alike.
answer the question. if it's so easy.
Tell me when you've ever allowed a Dem totake the blame for what they've brought...
Well, considering the fact that the Dem's have not been in the White House for 8 years and only had a slim majority in Congress for 2+ years, then I would say that they get little of the blame because they made NONE of the policy decisions.
That was easy. Anything else?
Tell me when you've ever allowed a Dem totake the blame for what they've brought...
mmm, Sen. Jefferson? Blagovich? Blago's senate choice? That's just a couple who we purged. Meanwhile, on the republican side, Vitter? Still there. Mr. toe tapper? Still there.
Yup, getting scolded about ethics from a party who has none is just entertaining, isn't it?
Yeah and the dems accept blame right? Like Dodd and Frank?
One it is proven they deserve it, and not through opinion columns, but through actual facts.
You're really weak on facts, and your opinions are usually misinformed, so for you (who used to be Cheney2012?) it's a lose-lose situation.
Lets see...more than 60 days?
Are you really so dumb as to think everything changed when Obama took over? It is Bushes fault until it works just like everything else in life. It is your fault until what you broke is fixed, then if it breaks again it's that guys fault.
If they really wanted criticism deflected, MMFA could have criticized the inclusion of Obama in the poll, instead of criticizing the omission of Bush, but they didn't.
You can just as easily say that the poll itself is intended to deflect criticism of Bush, and it would have just as much factual basis.
Conservatives whined for 8 years while Clinton was in office, now they continue to whine after he's gone.
Where does keeping people honest end and shifting focus begin?
"Conservatives whined for 8 years while Clinton was in office, now they continue to whine after he's gone" bingo. and the liberals here have cried get over Clinton all the time, yet now they are doing the same with Bush. you can't have it both ways.
you're sort of reframing the issue. the issue was stop blaming clinton for things that were not his fault. we're still living, and will, with the "mess", as you call it, that bush left.
it's your opinion that Clinton got blame for things that were not his fault. there is more than one opinion on his role in many things, not just his defenders. that isn't the point anyway. you can't whine about Clinton, Clinton after he left office and then start in with Bush after he leaves. it's inconsistent and petty, and useless.
Do you think it would be "petty" to include the Bush Administration in this poll?
maybe not, but useless yes.
it's not merely my "opinion" that clinton got blame for things that were not his fault, it's a fact. he was gone for 8 months when 9-11 happened and the documented record is that bush did nothing on the threat of counterterrorism, but many on the right still blamed clinton.
arguing Clinton is as useless as arguing Bush. Sorry, neither get me flustered at the moment.
James
In a perfect world I think we all want to move on, but it is only been 65 days. Remember 9/11 was 7 1/2 months into the Bush Presidency and may partisans blamed Clinton. Lets be fair if 7 1/2 months is ok to blame the former President why is 65 days not ok?
i never said Bush wasn't to blame, in fact I think I did say exactly the opposite. the point is whining about him not being included in some poll.
I get yourpoint, I am not sure it is whining as much in my view as being fair and showing the entire picture. Time Magazine blamed Clinton in its list of people who were to blame for the economic mess. I thought that was way off base. 8 years after he left office?
but you claimed it was merely my "opinion" that clinton was unfairly blamed. and i pointed out a specific example. so if you aren't interested in "arguing clinton", then why respond to what i said and tell me it's my "opinion". how many different ways do you want to have it?
you, or pete, mentioned Clinton, I did not. and now you want to blame me for not arguing Clinton. sorry, you look like a fool.
here's your contention to me: "it's your opinion that clinton got blame for things that were not his fault". apparently you can say anything you want, but if someone posts a response, that's not allowed. i don't think i'm the one looking foolish.
not allowed? who is not allowing you to post your opinion?
i think it was the way you called me a "fool" because i responded to your post.
only because you foolishly tried to blame me for not arguing a topic I did not introduce on this thread.
if you said it was merely my "opinion", then you were arguing.
This is jamesb's best "Tommy" thread yet.
The young padawan is powerful more getting.... but I still sense stupidity and anger in the young one- A jedi he shall not become!
But a Jed Clampett he may already be.
So does that mean that after September of 2009 it will all be Obama's fault by your logic? I'll wait to see that one come to pass.
try to follow because this might take some actual thinking. ignoring warnings for 8 months like bush did about bin laden does not equate to being handed the biggest economic disaster since the depression as happened to obama. and handing him a huge deficit.
"and the liberals here have cried get over Clinton all the time"
And now the conservatives here are starting to cry "get over Bush" all the time.
You, also, cannot have it both ways.
no argument, some will cling to always blaming someone else, or the other political party for every bad thing in the universe. i never said conservatives don't do it either, some do, of course.
Some will "cling to always blaming someone else" when asked certain Gallop Poll questions - such as this one - but fear not, JamesB, Gallop will protect your man Bush and leave him out of the blame game all together.
my man Bush?, you can't read obviously. For someone who told me to read the threads before commenting, you would do well to follow your own advice.
James
Sadly sometimes when people have different views a few posters go on here smearing claiming you are pro Bush. I mean afterall if you are 100% against anything they think and spout you must be Pro Bush. Different views are usually not tolerated.
james said "liberals whined for 8 years while bush was president..." do you agree with that statement?
No I don't.
I will ask you, does that statement mean james is "Pro Bush"?
actually reading his very first post on here, which is what that quote is from, it's hard not to see it as anything but pro bush. liberals "whining" about bush, "deflecting criticism against obama and democrats". sounds like the limbaugh handbook.
I don't see anywhere where James says he is "pro Bush".
Stop smearing people, you are such a disgrace. You seem to believe you can get away with labeling people on here who you don't like.
OK, dr. jeckyl, mr. hyde, whatever...
i know Casey. pro-Bushers always talk of the mess he left our economy in, and the handling of iraq, just two things I said on this very thread.
well said Casey. people like mefirst want to change the subject, lie about what I said, and then complain. i don't care whether they like different views or not, thanks for your clarity.
mefirst is know for being a board subject breaker. I don't agree with you on this subject of tthe poll but I support your right to talk without being smeared by these guys.
i know, I've read his stuff for awhile. not impressed. thanks again.
To clarify...
"these guys" = who?
mefirst, victor.
i agree, at least pete sticks to the topic.
I smeard you? When? You are a conservative and you voted for Bush, that's all I meant by "your man Bush". Geez, grow a pair.
how do you know who I voted for? show me where I divulged that information, ever?
Just because someone has a different view than you does not mean they voted for Bush.
But he did vote for Bush. That should mean something.
Did he say he voted for Bush?
Indeed he did. And he's been spending the past week protecting Bush from blame regarding all things AIG. Do you type in your sleep?
If he said he voted for Bush, i did not see it. I certainly did not see it on this thread which is the thread we are supposed to be discussing. But you and your "friends" love to disrupt boards.
Casey, victor is a liar - I have never said who I voted for.
I've disrupted nothing. Bush should be in this poll. Period. Gallop and Bush's protectors, such as JamesB, think otherwise. He wants Bush out of the blame picture because he thinks his party has suffered enough. I disagree. That's all. On topic and civil. See?
Yes Bush should be in the poll, you and I agree. James feels different. That is his opinion. That does not mean he voted for Bush. It does not mean it is his "Party".
Well, at least we can agree that JamesB is protecting Bush. That's a start.
No, Jimmy, you are lying.
Prove it, copy a post or refer to it directly where I said I voted for Bush. If you can't do any better than lie, then that is obviously the best you can do.
You are absolutely adorable.
Victor (Governor)
Can you provide a link or quote that shows that james stated he voted for Bush?
it is the best you can do.
"smearing" = quoting james verbatim.
No where did he say he was Pro Bush, but whatever you say.
yep. and I guess quoting me verbatim about where I insisted Bush does not belong in this poll? if mefirst can find my verbatim quote, his words, let him show us. he lies with impunity.
i already did. we had this exact conversation above, and i provided you the quote in my post at 332. and you just moved on and didn't reply.
Did you even read the MM article? If you had read it, you would have learned that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION made the decision to give AIG the aid. What is it with cons and reading comprehension?
No, this is about reality, the facts and assigning responsibility for this mess to whom it belongs and not allowing shrub-shills and gopologists to put the blame for shrub's mess on Obama.
Obama and the Dems are responsible for charting a course to get us out of the gop hell resulting from shrub's incompetence from this point forward.
Obama didn't lie us into Iraq. Bush did. Obama didn't invade Afghanistan and screw it up for more than seven years. Bush did. Make a note of it.
>it's really pathetic.
Heh, let me tell you what's really pathetic.
Apparent reasoning: MMFA noted that Bush was missing from a Poll (so was the standard "Other" response); thus, "this isn't about blaming Bush, this is about deflecting criticism against OBama and Democrats."
When Bush signed the law giving the AIG bail out he and Congress should hve prevented the posibilities of any bonuses but they did not the mistake was on Bush's watch.
This is not revissionist history it is the facts.
Your dam right this isn't about just blaming Bush... this is about Bush being held responsibile for his part in this economic disaster and the subsequent AIG bonuses!
Not to mention that the USA Today poll did not even offer up Bush as a possible answer... PATHETIC!!
JAMESB... Stop being such a useless troll!
The last eight years coming from the so called 'liberal media' was how Bill Clinton was the reason for all the economic troubles and 9/11 and Osama bin Laden still being around...
Just stop it! No one other than brainless rightwing twits believe in the blame Clinton games...
And now the media is doing all it can to make it as if we went from Clinton to Obama!
You know darn well the blame that the Bush regime and conservatives have in this mess! Stop trying to spread rightwing corporate idiocy!
Can you answer a couple of questions. When were the contracts signed? (March of 2008). Who was Pres.(Bush). When was original bail out signed(Sept. 08). Who was president(Bush). Was there language against the bonuses(NO). The bonuses were already protected so this stuff about Dodd is a Red Herring. No one is point blame we are just stating facts. Everyone is trying to place blame on Obama and the dems when they are the ones who have consistently advocated for bonuses.
Who reads USA Today? Seriuosly, there are a ton of valid honest reporting sites. This is not one of them. If you're going to get your lies somewhere at least go to FOX so you can have a consistent lie with the other ignorant fauxnuts.
Call me a dumb right-wing hick, but didn't then Sen. Obama have a chance to vote against ALL OF THIS in October?
George Bush was president when this economic crisis began, therefore he is responsible for it's existence by virtue of the fact he was president. The congress is at fault for the economic crisis for it is the congress who holds the purse strings of this nation. No spending measure can exist without the approval of congress and the oversight of banks and lending institutions are governed by congress, not the executive branch. If we want a comprehensive review of what went wrong with our banks and lending institutions over the last 18 months, then review the Bush administration but focus on the role of congress and it's lack of oversight during that period.
I could almost agree with you, my only beef with your statement is that it is too easy for me to assume you think the current congress is responsible for last year's bills. The current bill is only a small part of the entire picture here.
The Bush Administration is the number one reason we are in this economic mess. I see 8 years of deregulation and 6 years of a "war" on terror that led the Fed Government to keep its eye of Americas finances.
but it means nothing that the last two of those eight years, when everything turned to crap, it was a democratically controlled congress in charge? Like I said, now that the dems control both houses and the white house, I wonder how long it will be before the liberals start owning up to anything.
It's amazing the level of your ignorance. This economic crisis only bloomed in the past several months due to Repubs' policies of planting and fertilizing it for YEARS.
Not so much the spending bill but the bank and lending institution oversight for the last 18 months. I'm certainly holding the Bush administration responsible because he was president, but to make sure this never happens again, hold congresses feet to the fire for the mortgage institution failures and the lack of proper banking regulations, both parties. I'm a conservative but I am sick of the lazy republicans who's own greed and lack of accountability to their constituants has put them in the position they are in today.
OK, in that case I agree with you. Now if you can find a way to get the press on board with balanced reporting of all parties involved I'm all ears.
That'll be the tough part. They always go after the party in power so it will be the dems in their crosshairs for now. Seems like too many reporters want to become the 21st century Woodward or Bernstein, to bring down a president, somehow, and land that legendary book deal with movie rights. Too bad journalism has sunk to historic lows these days. Too much t.v. with the Jerry Springer-like influences but that's what sells nowadays.
Hmmm, not a conservative press, not a liberal press, but a capitalism based press. And we've seen what deregulated capitalism brings. How ironic...
Is it the lack of regulation or the lack of ethics? If we had more ethical standards, then fewer regulations would be needed. It used to be our parents that instilled ethics but now the core family is shattered. Our politicians used to be the ones we looked up to but that has long sinced vanished as a group who inspires values. Organized religion has taken a hit over the last two decades with violations from our clergy. We hear story after story of police abusing their authority so we can't cite them as moral compasses. The media has let us down with examples of falsified news reports and editorials. Our last hope was Oprah but once again she let us down(just kidding). If America's moral values continue to sink, we will be headed for more of a governmental police state in order to reign in greed and corruption with too many regulations in place, crowding out our freedoms.
The lack of ethics is nothing new. (see: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Teddy_Roosevelt - and he died in 1919!) Our government has had to reign in industry's excesses since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And before that there was the issue of slavery. Asusme that there be NO ETHICAL BEHAVIOR and structure the relavent regulations such that ethical behavior is reuqired to be in compliance. (And what these billionaires will see as draconian penalties for non-compliance. Whether or not to OBEY THE LAW should never be made via a business case.)
Here's another gem: "I pity the man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth will starve in the process." - Benjamin Harrison, 23rd President, 1889-1893!
So the excess of large corporations and industry (and even the press!) is NOTHING NEW. It did NOT start with US.
I agree, the ethical challenge is not new. I do field service and am in peoples homes every day. I learned a long time ago and I shared this thought with a co-worker. "I try to live my life as though someone is watching me at all times" and he agreed that this is the best way to live your life. Why haven't we made advances in moral and ethical standards in the last century?
I think regulation and ethics go hand in hand. Who wouldn't think twice if they knew nobody was watching the store? But I don't believe you necessarily need parents to have good ethics - heck, I grew up in a military school, saw my parents at christmas and during the summer, and my ethics are just fine. But a few of my classmates?
In the end, ethics comes from inside. You might have experiences through life that reinforce them, but I'm slowly coming to the opinion that if you don't have them by 5, you most likely never will.
I agree with your second line that you don't need parents to teach these values. Some people seem to have an inate apptitude for moral dicipline but it must come from some teachings or some sort of empathy for others. Maybe the empathy thing is the thing that is missing from some people. I know many people who could care less about the plight of others and there are many who don't sleep at night knowing someone, somewhere is in "pain". It could be the drive that propels some CEO's to the top also strips them of the empathy needed to temper profits in favor of goodwill, I don't know, and you are probably right about the 5 year old "deadline".
My opinion of the media/press is not very high. During the Bush administration we had a press corp. that pandered to Bush, was very light on criticism and rolled over when it came to the war in Iraq. Now we see a press corp. that is extremely critical to the point of making up facts and omitting important information that would help people understand the issues. I am at a loss to understand how the mainstream media that is driven by money and ratings could be balanced at all. The only thing that sells is sensationalism and sensationalism is the farthest thing from balanced.
yes the blame goes back more than 18 months however. There are too many to blame on both sides of the Aisle. The only point that most here are trying to point out is that the blame can not start because of actions of the last 64 days. There will be plenty of time to judge Obama. Now we can only posture if we agree with his actions or not. He is clearly taking the country in a different direction and think that is what a majority of Americans were looking for in electing him. I would hope that he would be given the same opportunities to do his job. It is amazing that I can not remember one day after the inauguration where there has not been critisism of Obama by the "Liberal Media".
Remember trying to blame the stock market on Obama. Where are those claims now?
I think the media is going to be extra tough on Obama and it might be due to the fact they, the media, doesn't want to be accused of being favorable to him because of his race or political affiliation. The far right will continue attempts to profit from those items. The only problem I have with the direction he is taking the country is "too much, too fast". I think Obama probably feels that if he doesn't accomplish a multitude of things he wants to, in his first term, then the prospect will vanish and he will jeapordize or relinquish a second term. I think he needs to slow down a little.
Just awful.
That poll doesn't even have the standard "Other" option. I generally laugh at those who cry conspiracy, but the people who put these polls together are professionals - they should know better.
This reminds me of Steven Colbert's segment called "Better Know a District". He would inevitably ask a Democratic representative this question: "George W. Bush: great president or greatest president" and always get a very flustered response.
I would like to add that remembering the Bush administration's role helps frame the debate, create historical contaxt and allows the American people to correctly judge the merits of policy created to correct the problems. Bush administration amnesia does more harm than good.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The best response is "No." I'm surprised no one has thought of it.
Bush missing from USA Today/Gallup poll response options to question about AIG bonuses
In other words, George W. Bush was AWOL - just like he was from the Alabama National Guard once they started random drug testing....
What an absurd poll. Not even a "None of the Above" / "other" option. This is practically a push-poll. USAT/Gallup should be utterly ashamed of this shoddy and transparently partisan piece of hackery.
I am not sure of what USA Today is trying to pull here.
NOW TELL ME AGAIN HOW THE MEDIA LOVES DEMS AND OBAMA? HEY LOOK AT THE HAPPY FACES TODAY ON CABLE. THE MARKET IS DOWN AND TIMMY BOY IS GETTING GRILLED.
Hey Right-Winger, "Change" from FoxNoise and you'll see more political news. I channel surf "alot" so I'm "not" stuck in daily Republican Talking Points. Just a thought or two. Enjoy your day.
I agree with "alot" of the comments posted here at MMFA with the reasons for former President Bush "not" being included in the USA Today/Gallup Poll. "Great" minds do think alike - Wink, wink.
Another way too of looking at why President Obama was included (I believe) could be because they wanted to see how well the 'Republican Talking Points' worked on the American People i.e. "blame" AIG's Bonuses on signing of the Stimulus Bill by President Obama and the Democrats, "not" Republicans. Uh oh, RTP didn't work again. Hmmm, I guess it's back to the drawing board (Drudge & Rush) for the new RTP's. Hee, hee.
There was no mistake; Gallup has long been a REPUBLICAN organization. In case nobody has noticed there is a conscious campaign being waged by the GOP to make everybody forget about who caused this mess by trying to focus all the blame on those currently holding power. This poll is a part of that campaign and is the first of many similar things we can look forward to seeing.
the question is why do democrats give a crap about the AIG bonuses and who is to blame. The 160 million is a fraction compared to the pork earmarks that they told us was only 2% of the total stimulus bill . Thebonuses are 1/40 of the earmarks so why the uproar? As Chuck Shumer and many on the left have said "all spending is good spending". If the left is concerned about wasteful spending than they easily could have shaved 160mil with no problems, the point is that it is not about saving the money it is about saving face at this point. Let me state I don't believe the pigs from AIG should get 1 cent in bonuses, however the hypocrisy on theleft to tax it, and "get it back" is comical while they have close to 5 billion in earmatks on the next stimulus package.
"The 160 million is a fraction compared to the pork earmarks that they told us was only 2% of the total stimulus bill"
My God, not this idiotic talking point again. Where do you guys hear this crap, and what makes you think it makes any sense?
The fact that it's a fraction has nothing to do with anything. It's about what the money is being used for. There's obviously a huge difference between earmarks in an omnibus spending bill (not the stimulus bill) and giving employees at a bailed-out company huge bonuses.
It's as if you had to buy a new car, and then your wife goes out and blows a thousand bucks at the slot machines. You wouldn't be a hypocrite for criticizing that use of money just because it's a fraction of what you spent on the car. "Oh, you could have shaved a thousand bucks off that car if you wanted". It's not really the point, whether true or not.
Brabs, maybe your not good with math. The point I am making is 2 weeks ago all the dems were saying is why is America outraged by only 2% of an enormous bill. The bonuses are only 1/10 of 1 % of all the money that AIG recieved.
But to use your analogy if a new car cost 20,000, then the amount wasted on these bonuses would be $20, I wouldn't give a crap if she lost 20 bucks at the slots. I'd be asking why not buy a 15,000 car instead.
Maybe this little math lesson puts a better perspective on this, and as I've stated that pigs at AIG shouldn't get a penny, but this is being made into a political issue that really has no importance.
"The point I am making is 2 weeks ago all the dems were saying is why is America outraged by only 2% of an enormous bill. The bonuses are only 1/10 of 1 % of all the money that AIG recieved."
Oh, is that the point you were making?
"the question is why do democrats give a crap about the AIG bonuses and who is to blame. The 160 million is a fraction compared to the pork earmarks that they told us was only 2% of the total stimulus bill . Thebonuses are 1/40 of the earmarks so why the uproar? As Chuck Shumer and many on the left have said "all spending is good spending". If the left is concerned about wasteful spending than they easily could have shaved 160mil with no problems, the point is that it is not about saving the money it is about saving face at this point. Let me state I don't believe the pigs from AIG should get 1 cent in bonuses, however the hypocrisy on theleft to tax it, and "get it back" is comical while they have close to 5 billion in earmatks on the next stimulus package."
There's three times you talked about earmarks, while not once comparing it to the total of the money that AIG received. Maybe you should read your own posts instead of questioning my mathematical abilities (which are actually pretty good).
By your logic nobody should care about extravagant parties or new jets either, as long as they don't cross the 2% mark. Unless you can make a case that all earmarks are inherently wasteful, then the difference remains. It's a matter of principle that a company in this situation should not be giving out huge bonuses, and the fact that we're seeing this is indicative of a larger problem for businesses and their senses of responsibility, propriety and shame.
Is it just the democaratic earmarks that you disagree with or all of the earmarks. Please name the specific earkmarks that you object to. Just because they are earmarks does not inherrently make them pork. Earmarks are way for congress to bring money home to the states for importnant projects. Yes there are some wasteful ones like the bridge to nowhere.
Yes. Some sow's earmarks can be made into silk purses.
Steve and Brabs my comments are not in regards to the actual earmarks!!!!! It is in regards to how the dems viewed their own wasteful spending of 5 bill dollars in earmarks(60% of the total), as trivial because it was only 2% of the total money spent in that bill. Using the same logic why is 1/10 of 1% on AIG bonuses critical to the well being of the nation(sarcasm). My point is only that this a political issue, and they could give a crap about 160 million dollars. If they did they could easily save that money somewhere else. And finally to brabs I agree there should be outrage at ALL wasted spending, this is just an item in the news to distract the sheeple from the bigger picture and the billions that are being wasted elsewhere.
If that's not what your comments were about, then don't compare the AIG bonuses to the amount of the earmarks. You don't say anything about 1/10 of 1%, but I'm supposed to know that's the comparison you were actually making instead of the comparison you directly stated. And why are earmarks inherently wasteful? That's something that never gets explained.
I was outraged at the spending even though it isn't much compared to either the earmarks or the total given to AIG. Of course it's small compared to that, because it's money to a group of people. As a matter of principle the bonuses are unacceptable, and as I suggested earlier, they indicate a problem with the corporate mindset that needs to be fixed. If there was no way of understanding that principle or that problem, then you could say it was merely a distraction.
Last night,CNN reporter Ed Henry's question tried to set up a gotcha moment by asking the President why he waited so long to respond to the AIG bonus fiasco. And then he stated an opinion as a question that NY AG Cuomo had been more effective at getting back AIG bonuses than President Obama.
I believe the public gets to decide whether the President repsponded in a timely manner, and whether Cuomo has been more effective, not some arrogant little popinjay on CNN. In any case, Obama's answer cut the popinjay off at the knees, and rightly so. And Mr. Liddy, of AIG, now AIU is the one who got 15 out of 20 excecutives to give back bonuses voluntarily, not the preening Cuomo.
This morning, CNN dragged out Bill Bennett, a McCain apologist who praised Popinjay Henry's question and criticized the President. And then CNN had the gall to run a banner underneath that President Obama gave a "testy" answer to Popinjay Henry's question. If you watched the president's response, it was humorous not testy.
The east room camera showed Ed the Popinjay Henry sitting there in his oversized suit with a flustered, angry expression like a petulant child after the President's response. What happened to objectivity at CNN?
Dana Bash, CNN congressional reporter failed to mention in her big expose of Sen. Dodd on the bonus provision in the stimulus bill, that no law could roll back the AIG bonuses contracted for early last year, and that Bush and company never raised a peep about the bonuses.
Anderson Cooper , CNN darling, again never mentioned Bush's role in the bonus fiasco, in a recent program, but instead focused on Geitner and whether he should resign.
I get the feeling that CNN's ranks are filled with Bush apologists, and wishful McCain supporters. After all, this is the network that had the most reporters covering the war in Iraq from day one and relished the attention from the guy its reporters could "have a beer with."
I used the Summary as a skeleton to write a letter to USA Today. We Shall see.
BooHooHoo. Mommy they are not playing fair again. Its all Bush's fault - cause when he couldn't think of an intelligent answer (because it wasn't on that giant teleprompter screen) BHO blames Bush just like all the left. Easy answer - but not necessarily the correct answer. Soon, you can only hope that (1) BHO can speak intelligently without any kind of teleprompter (but his answers to questions would suggest NOT) and (2) he will act more leader like in shutting down the "noise" around issues and get to the core fo the issue and be committed to his direction - not wishy washy.
BTW - even "socialist" Europe does not support his actions. See any of the major European online papers today.
Bush? Exactly the correct answer. Cheese with your whine, sir?