Misoverestimating him: Media graded Bush's first 100 days on a curve
SUMMARY: Assessing President Bush's first 100 days, media figures and outlets repeatedly set a low bar -- which in some cases they explicitly acknowledged -- and then judged him as having cleared it.
Media assessments of the first 100 days of the presidency of George W. Bush were often characterized by (1) setting a low bar, which the media in some cases acknowledged and in many cases determined that he had cleared -- pronouncements based almost entirely on assessments of style and success in advancing his political agenda, rather than on the merits of his initiatives; and (2) favorable comparisons to President Clinton. In pronouncing Bush's presidency a refreshing change from the Clinton years, the media generally avoided comparisons of the substantive merits or abilities of the two men or of the effects of the policies they supported.
An April 29, 2001, New York Times editorial represented something of an exception to the media's Bush Day 100 coverage in that it undertook a substantive analysis of Bush's agenda. Still, the Times asserted in the editorial that "Mr. Bush has kept his promise to bring 'honor and dignity' back to the White House" -- an apparent dig at the prior administration -- and reflected the low bar in reporting what it claimed was the public's take on the Bush presidency, with no acknowledgment of the media's role in shaping Bush's image with the public:
In his unscripted public performances, Mr. Bush has seemed clumsy and amateurish by the standards of the four presidents mentioned above. But his sunny self-confidence, even his penchant for bankers' hours and long weekends, seems to sit well with many Americans. It is a relief, they seem to be saying, to have a president who is not so tiring and omnipresent as Mr. Clinton.
[...]
In January it was a cliché to say that expectations were low for Mr. Bush, who lost the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore. Today the general public appears to have moved past the ballot-counting disputes and grown comfortable with Mr. Bush's legitimacy as president. That represents a considerable political accomplishment in only three months.
[...]
At the level of manners, Mr. Bush has kept his promise to bring 'honor and dignity' back to the White House.
In an April 29, 2001, article headlined, "President Has Overcome Low Expectations; Goofs Aside, Bush Marks Are High," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette national bureau chief Ann McFeatters also made the Clinton comparison, writing that "Bush ... benefits in comparisons to former President Bill Clinton." But McFeatters cited no substantive policy issues on which Bush "benefit[ted] in comparison[]" to Clinton, instead writing:
The Bush White House runs on time; Clinton was usually late. The Bush White House rarely gets sidetracked from the agenda it earmarks for the day; Clinton wrestled with near-constant distractions.
Bush also delegates authority rather than weighing details of nearly every decision, as Clinton tended to do. The former president made a point of attending memorial services and rushing to disaster areas. Bush stays put.
Some presidential historians speculate that while Clinton was more intellectually curious, Bush may be shrewder in getting results.
Favorable media assessments of Bush's performance during his first 100 days include the following*:
- Morton Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor and columnist: "In 100 days, President Bush has, as promised, changed the tone in Washington. It's businesslike now, not boisterous. We're doing policy, not soap opera. And the public seems to like it. Instead of Bill Clinton's bifurcated poll ratings -- high job approval, low personal favorability -- Bush's are in sync. More than 60 percent of the public both approves of his performance and likes him personally. This is pretty remarkable, given that he lost the popular vote last November, he became president after a bitter recount fight and the economy is soft. ... Bush may be the beneficiary of low expectations." [Roll Call, "Bush Deserves Good Grades For 100 Days," April 26, 2001**]
- Joseph Curl, Washington Times reporter: "[T]he presidential candidate who pundits said lacked the skills and knowledge necessary to run the country has deftly handled an international crisis, increased his approval rating to 63 percent -- eight points higher than former President Bill Clinton enjoyed after his first 100 days -- and returned dignity to a White House stained by his predecessor." [The Washington Times, "Charming Bush lauded after 100 days; President focuses on taxes, education," April 30, 2001]
- Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times columnist, and Kate O'Beirne, National Review Washington editor: After host Mark Shields asked panelists on CNN's Capitol Gang to provide a "letter grade" for Bush's performance during his first 100 days in office, Novak responded, in part: "I would give him an A minus. And the only reason I give him the minus is the environment where I think he didn't sell the program and then he retreated on it. But everything else he's been much better than I thought he would be. I doesn't [sic] see any blunders. I think he has done a pretty good job in selling the tax program. Don't forget he came in as a disputed president, as a minority president, so I think he has done a very good job." Additionally, O'Beirne replied in part: "I think in the first 100 days George Bush should feel pretty darn good. I grade him higher than the gentlemen 'C' that some of his critics probably thought he was shooting for. I would give him a 'B' plus, and that's an average. High marks, I think, on policy. He benefits from contrasts with the previous administration. He is keeping promises. I think his low-key style is attractive. I would give him low marks on salesmanship." [CNN's Capitol Gang, April 28, 2001]
- William Safire, New York Times columnist: "A review of Bush's record in the first 16th of his term is better directed to what the gathering Bush administration is and is not. It is low-key, lower-voiced, deliberate, right of center but not confrontational. It is surely not Clintonesque, makes a big point of not being star-struck, and is no hotbed of hostility. The 'tone,' most agree, is changed. Then to what Bush has done and not done: He has resolutely pressed his tax cut, which would reduce the rate of growth of government, as he promised. He has restrained the last-days rush to set new environmental rules, at some cost to his reputation as ameliorator. He delayed new defense spending until his administration comes up with a coherent new national-security strategy. He made the partisanship less personal." [The New York Times, "Les Cents Jours," April 26, 2001] After Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press, asked, "Give me the report card. How did [Bush] do, hundred days?" Safire said, in part: "Bush succeeded in his 100 days in not being Clinton. Not being Clinton is a big step forward." [NBC's Meet the Press, April 29, 2001]
- Bill Sammon, Washington Times White House correspondent: "The president has received generally positive reviews for his first months in office, partly because expectations were low after the Florida debacle. Mr. Bush's legitimacy has not been widely challenged by the public, contrary to predictions by liberal Democrats when Vice President Al Gore conceded the election on Dec. 13 after 36 days of contentious recounts in Florida. Polls show most Americans have closed ranks behind the new president, a trend that has heartened Mr. Bush. ... Many observers believe Mr. Clinton's last-minute flurry of pardons to felons has made Mr. Bush appear more honorable by comparison. The new president seems eager to capitalize on that perception." [The Washington Times, "Bush calls his 100-day accomplishments 'only a start,' " April 29, 2001]
- Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief: "When George W. Bush entered the White House 100 days ago, he faced a daunting challenge. The 43rd president won his office with just 48% of the popular vote, his election secured only by a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Demonstrators jeered his inaugural parade; comedians lampooned him as a lightweight. ... The doubts about Bush's legitimacy are gone now; even his most zealous Democratic critics in Congress acknowledge that. ... There have been missteps along the way ('Part of the newness of governing,' aide Karen Hughes concedes) but no blunders big enough to derail Bush from his main priorities: the tax cut, restrained federal spending, education reform and conservative policy shifts on the environment and energy." [Los Angeles Times, "Bush: The First 100 Days; At 100 Days and Counting, Bush's Star on the Rise," April 29, 2001]
- Fred Barnes, co-host of Fox News' The Beltway Boys: "Bush's 100 days, what have we learned about him that is the best so far? His style. Now, I think he's a perfect man of the times. His laid-back style fits the mood of the country. People are just tired of a president spoiled child, Bill Clinton, you know, who like a spoiled child has to be a center of attention all the time. ... I've got one more analogy. You know that comic Tom Green whose shtick is to go and stick his face in other people's face? That's Bill Clinton. People do not want an in-your-face presidency. They want something like a Jimmy Stewart presidency, you know, where he's kind of low-keyed and reticent but dignified. That's what they have. And it has helped create a new tone in Washington. And thank Bush for that." Kondracke, also a co-host of the program, said: "Well, look, there is a new tone in Washington, and it's good, it's much better." [Fox News' The Beltway Boys, April 28, 2001]
- David Westphal, Modesto Bee Washington bureau chief: "Given the rancor that accompanied his narrow victory over [Al] Gore -- and his lack of government experience -- Bush gets high marks from many quarters for getting off to a solid start. 'There's a general recognition among not only Republicans but also moderate Democrats that Bush has done quite well,' said David Schaefer, a political science professor at the College of the Holy Cross. 'Remember, it wasn't that long ago that we had movie actors promising to move abroad because Bush would ruin the country,' Schaefer quipped. ... Pollster John Zogby said Bush's performance has been better than expected, yielding a 'surprisingly long honeymoon.' " [Modesto Bee, "Bush Off to a Flying Start; Many Pleased with President's Work," April 29, 2001]
- George Stephanopoulos, ABC News correspondent: Stephanopoulos asserted in response to co-host Sam Donaldson's question about Bush's performance during his first 100 days, in part, "Listen, look what he's done politically. He's secured his conservative base. They are locked down in the first three months. And he's done it while maintaining an overall high approval rating. And at the same time, moving forward on his two biggest policy initiatives, the tax cut and the education bill, without making a big mistake. It's hard to fault him in his 100 days." [ABC's This Week, April 29, 2001]
- Steve Roberts, U.S. News and World Report contributing editor, and David Brooks, Weekly Standard senior editor: On CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer asked of Bush: "What about an overall leadership during these first 100 days?" Roberts replied in part, "Well, I'd give him a B. I think that he has his strong points. I think he has, to some extent, not as much as he would like us to believe, changed the tone in Washington. I think he is very comfortable in the job. He has radiated a sense of confidence. I do think he has reached out to Democrats in a good way." Additionally, Brooks responded in part: "I give him an A overall. You know, he's a normal president. After Florida that was not inevitable." [CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, April 29, 2001]
- New York Daily News editorial: "Today, Bush enjoys the approval of 62% of Americans. That is partly because his sense of propriety stands in stark contrast to Bill Clinton's behavior problems and disgraceful exit from the White House. As one man in the street explained, 'We've gone 100 days without a new scandal. That alone is an achievement.' ... Overall and on balance, the President has kept mistakes to a minimum. Which, in itself, means not such a bad start for a new administration." [Daily News, "Bush Strikes a Happy Medium," April 29, 2001]
- Robert George, New York Post associate editorial page editor: "I think he's done a very good job and in the sense of actually setting a tone. When you think that Bush campaigned on changing the tone in Washington and so forth, I think he's done -- I think he's done quite well. In a sense, we've gone -- we've gotten a to like a return to normalcy from the 'Perils of Pauline' presidency of Bill Clinton's. So I think in that sense, in that sense I think he's done very, very well." [CNN's Talkback Live, April 30, 2001]
- Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball: After playing a clip of Bush "reflecting on his first hundred days," Matthews asked guest Donald Trump: "When you look at a young guy in there, a young president, by relative terms, doing a pretty good job, passing some of the tests people have laid out for him, keeping things together, do you wish you were there?" [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 25, 2001]
- Brit Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor: Hume stated that Bush "has been helped immeasurably by the performance of Bill Clinton when leaving office and by the fact, I think, that he stuck to his guns on his signature issue of a tax cut, and it looks like he's going to get it." In response, Mara Liasson, National Public Radio national political correspondent, stated: "Yes, and I also think the other thing that has helped him is low expectations. That's been a theme of his entire career." [Fox News Sunday, April 29, 2001]
- Ventura County Star editorial: "Mr. Clinton did not risk the slightest tussle with popularity to do what was so obviously required. The Bush White House, on the other hand, has so far seemed dedicated to a methodical, principled, professional approach to governance. Ultimately, of course, Mr. Bush's success or failure as president will depend on whether his ideas prevail legislatively and whether they then work well as law. It is too early to know. Measuring a president by his first 100 days is a convention that has not had much meaning since FDR mounted his assault on the Depression, but this much can now be said about Mr. Bush and those around him: So far, so good." [Ventura County Star, "Bush's First 100 Days," April 28, 2001]
* The titles provided in the bulleted list for media figures were those held at the time the quoted statements were made in 2001.
**Media Matters for America retrieved all transcripts and articles for which a link is not provided from the Nexis database.
















another disingenuous whining piece from mmfa. Because of the enormous mess Bush left to Obama as opposed to the not nearly the mess Clinton left Bush; along with the high expectations we all have for Obama to bring the kind of massive change that he himself ran on and championed throughout his campaign; you can't directly compare the two as mmfa does here. it's ridiculous. And essentially meaningless considering Obama's high approval ratings. the left will always find something to whine about when it comes to Bush, incredible.
Talk about whining! You are the king!
And if MMFA is "whining" here, at least they took the time to decide exactly what they were going to whine about. JimmyB seems to be whining in circles trying to figure out what exactly he's flabbergasted by.
it's always about how mistreated liberals are by the media, when in fact they have most of the mainstream media firmly behind them, as always. I guess they will stop whining when they can silence the few who dare mistreat them so.
I don't see any whining about any mistreatment. Maybe you are reading something else?
let me help you. when you complain about how the "other side" is given some of sort of kid glove treatment, you don't have to be a genius to figure out you are whining about your own mistreatment, otherwise why bother with the whine in the first place?
Is it a whine if it's true?
I just explained why I believe it is not valid in my first post. Feel free to read it again.
You didn't explain anything. You made a false statement about Clinton leaving a mess and something about Bush's mess, neither of which have anything to do with this post.
I don't really think you understand what you arte saying, so to expect someone else to understand is really asking a lot.
what? I said Bush left a mess and Clinton did not. Your comprehension is your problem, now I understand.
jamesb said: "Because of the enormous mess Bush left to Obama as opposed to the not nearly the mess Clinton left Bush;"
jamesb said: "I said Bush left a mess and Clinton did not."
Please reconcile these two comments?
oh for pete's sake, you are the stupid one, to use your favorite phrase. "not nearly the mess" - meaning the mess Clinton left Bush was not nearly the one Bush left for Obama.
But it was a mess? But you said he left no mess! See jamesb, when you make contradictory statements, it's difficult to figure out what you are saying.
If you weren't stupid, you would understand that.
where did I say who left no mess? for someone who constantly uses that word stupid, you certainly are displaying your own unique brand of it. I am through babysitting your ingorance.
jamesb said: "I said Bush left a mess and Clinton did not."
Right there stupid.
JB says I am through babysitting your ingorance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But apparantly not through spewing your own.
Why is it so hard to own your miscommunication and move on? Don't blame skeptical because he won't just let you off the hook. Very childish.
No they dont. The right just WHINES about anything not slavish devotion to their agenda then SNIVELS that it is lilberal. I am a liberal. The media has NEVER pushed my agenda. You just keep saying it in the vain hope it will become true from repitition alone.
Claiming the media is "left" regardless of the facts is a strategy to discredit reality itself. How else can you refuse to believe what EVERYTHING is telling you and craw back to Fox or Rush and find out what to think..unless EVERYTHING outside...the great "other" itself is "left" and an enemy. What cultic devices...
True. Good point
So you admit bush needs a special ed curve to be graded on?
If Obama, or his supporters here, didn't want him to live up to such high expectations then they should have counseled him to ratchet down the unparalleled and monumental "change" rhetoric during the campaign. They made their bed. As for Bush, his highest grade of his presidency was probably 100 days in, or right after 9/11. It went south pretty fast.
We do and he will. That's not the point of this article though. Maybe you should try reading it again.
it's about comparison, Bush was treated with low expectations, Obama will be judged differently because of the unfair media. sorry you missed the whole point of this.
No, I believe you missed the whole point, as usual. I don't think you are really trying anymore jamesb. You make a stupid comment, you can't support it, but continue to try and then repeat it over and over again.
Like I said, try re-reading the post. Think about it a little. Then make an intelligent comment.
Try it, just once, instead of your usual garbage.
you never do anything to refute anything I say except to call it stupid, which just shows your lack of a refutation. Worry about your own garbage.
I didn't make the stupid comment in the first place. Like I said previously, I don't see any whining. I see a factually based analysis of the media's perception of the first 100 days of the Bush Admin. I also see an analysis of the media's ability to set the expectations.
I don't see one whine or complaint.
If you see it as a comparison to the analysis of the Obama Admin.'s first 100 days and you see a disparity, without a mention of that disparity in this post, then you are making an analysis based on your observations.
Therefore, you are saying the current analysis is extremely critical in comparison to the weak analysis done to Bush and based on your own observation, yuo are saying this is whining.
It appears to me that you are whinng about it and then complaining that MMFA is whining about the same thing. It's very strange indeed!
I already explained to you that due to the incredibly different circumstances the media's perception toward Bush is vastly different than that for OBama. So this piece is flawed and biased and apples and oranges because it is here to contrast Obama's upcoming 100 days. Instead of a reasoned and thorough analysis of those differences in the last 8 years and why the perceptions are bound to be unique to each president, mmfa dumbs it down and blames it on a soft media for Bush. So it is nothing but partisan whining.
This piece is just pointing out that the Media sets the expectations and then "reports" it's perceptions of whether or not expectations are being met.
There is no direct comparison at all between Obama and Bush.
The comparison is how high or low expectations are set in comparison to reality.
So, the actual comparison being made in this article is between apples and apples, because the circumstances are taken into account.
You guys should know by now that TJ would pick a fight with his shadow.
TJ?
Tommy James. If it talks like Tommy, walks like Tommy, parses like Tommy, WITHs like Tommy, complains about MMFA like Tommy..........you get the drift ;-).
Thanks.
Now I see, and I think you are correct.
But James can't be Tommy, because James doesn't capitalize his words.
Anyone else remember that theory from month or so ago?
Well if he's not Tommy...where did Tommy go? Whoever was behind that name posted everyday...on almost every article at the top with the same kind of WITHs. There is no way he just stopped one day. He came back and lives today as jamesB.
I'm not arguing with that, my post was sarcastic. I won't get into this sort of discussion here, though, only through email at brabantio2@gmail.com.
I was alerted to this mysterious fantasy of yours again so I thought, what the hell, I would respond.
I was not banned, I have not been reincarnated, I am alive and well, I stopped posting here voluntarily.
I guess I should be flattered I am still remembered here, and even discussed; but if your life is so incredibly banal, and if your obsession with me has reached such proportions that you initiate email conversations about my whereabouts then I suggest you find a hobby that keeps your mind occupied with healthier activities, and one that you know something about.
Hope everyone is healthy and happy, take care.......
WOW! Referring to one's self 13 times in just 4 sentences has got to be a record.
I have very good reasons for believing you're not being honest, and I think you know what some of them are. I'm also not the one who brought up the similarity between you and James either, I was just commenting on it.
If you want to talk about it, you have my address. I don't think you have the spine, though, in all honesty.
HA! perhaps you can host a website chat on the disappearance of Natalee Holloway next. my god if you don't look like a complete and total fool. get some help, you need it.
If there's a more effective way to undermine the impression that Tommy's trying to make, I'm not sure what it would be.
That's true, he will be judged differently. That's why this is here, because the press has a double standard. But I do expect more out of Obama, and so far, he's lived up to his promises on all but a few items. Personally, I think the press should be more concerned about slipping into irrelevancy because of their continued lack of credibility.
you can't compare the press' treatment of Bush after his 100 days to Obamas. Everything is worlds apart in nearly every way from 8 years ago. As I said, we were doing well financially, we weren't embroiled in two wars and Bush did not campaign on catastrophic change the way Obama did. So the press should be scoring OBama on how he has delivered so far. Bush barely made it in, his expectations, the expectations for the office he held were not as crucial to our financial and national security well being as they are now. The stakes are so much higher now that 100 days into Bush.
So, because Obama has many more serious problems to deal with, problems he inherited, we should judge him more harshly?
huh? i mean HUH? The perception of each man is different based on what they are facing and what they ran on during their campaigns, if you can't understand that forget it.
I'm just looking for clarification. First you say you can't compare the two because of the circumstances. Then you justify the anaylsis of Obama with the seriousness of the problems. Now you say perceptions are diffferent.
See, you don't know what you are saying. You complained about this article, but you haven't yet given a valid reason, so you keep changing the reason.
Come on jamesb, at least try to be coherent.
I can compare, because the point is not really about treatment, it's about truth in reporting. Even if America was a giant disneyland theme park prior to 9-11 that doesn't matter. The press has a responsibility to uphold, if you are suggesting they can get lackadaisacle because times were good then I'd have to believe you aren't a good manager. I'd never work for someone who accepted mediocre work.
And by double standard you of course mean that the media can never say anything critical of Obama, and can never say anything positive about the right. Anything positive about the right or negative about the left must be miss info.
POV, another idiot heard from. Has the media ever said anything critical of Obama?
Nope, you've never found a single example of me suggesting that. But we have plenty examples of you demanding the opposite.
He's lived up to his promises, are you drunk? His cabinet picks were a disaster, one tax cheat after another. His promise to keep out lobbyists was broken. His promise to be out of Iraq in 16 mos will not be kept. Perhaps if he takes control of the government from president Pelosi he can accomplish something. He did pick a nice dog though.
You have lost all touch with reality havent you. Wait I mean that the garbage you picked up when Rush TOLD you what to think has no connection with reality. Those old cliched idiocies have been gone over a hundred times no need to revisit them. You dont care if they are true anyway. Just SKWWWAAAAAKKK tax cheats SKKWWAAAAAAKKK 16 months skwwwwwwaaakkk. You guys are so brainwashed it is just sad. If you ever had an original thought in your life you would stroke out.
If Obama, or his supporters here, didn't want him to live up to such high expectations then they should have counseled him to ratchet down the unparalleled and monumental "change" rhetoric during the campaign. - JamesB
That's interesting, because there was another candidate who set high expectations for his administration: GWB. He said he'd bring dignity back to the WH then instituted policies of torture, politicized the justice department and outed a CIA field operative. He said he wouldn't nation build then invaded a sovereign nation to rebuild it in America's image. He said he'd restore civility to the political process then proceeded to ignore and marginalize the Democrats for 8 years. And so on.
There is no question that the media went immediately soft on Bush, long before 9/11, despite the rigorous claims of reform Bush promised during the campaign. So it is VERY germane to reexamine the free pass mentality during his first 100 days, and see if the media of 2009 is so forgive an instrument.
Randy
Snoopy, I'd say so:
That was supposed to be a response to Snoopy's question as to whether Bush needed to be graded on a cuve. Ha!
What a great pic! Shrub trying to escape in China, but can't leave...bet they were all snickering behind the shrubbery's back...
You may have noticed that this site exists to criticize conservative media. It has two choices: criticize conservative media or go dark.
You may have also noticed that the media criticized in this post is large and national. I'd say it's large enough to make your "most of the mainstream media firmly behind them" comment stupid. When you have half of MSNBC, a fourth of the NYT, and a tenth of CNN, you don't have most of the media.
What a whiny little b!tch you're being! Consider Obama's high approval rating, and the petty BS that your loyt keepsd WHINIGN about, HOW DARE you accuse anyone else!
Eddie, thats not so nice. Where is all the tolerance you on the left preach about? I guess after you tear down Miss Calif for not supporting gay marriage, make sure terrorists are comfortable and have an extra pillow, and support a woman for the Obama admin who supports partial birth abortion, there is just not much tolerance left to give.
POV,
Do you ever say anything intelligent?
pointofview, the left's tolerance is nothing but a myth. They preach it constantly but display it far less frequently. Actually, it doesn't bother me at all, being called stupid on these boards by a closed minded liberal is a feather in the cap.
jamesb,
Stupid is as Stupid does!
Not true, James. Most of us subscribe to the belief that intolerance and devisiveness should be treated in kind. Take you and me. Would you say most of our dialogs are disagreements, or just base name calling?
Just like the rights cognitive abilities are nothing but a myth. You guys dont have a dozen working braincells among the lot of you
"... being called stupid on these boards by a closed minded liberal is a feather in the cap."
Well that explains why you keep coming here saying stupid stuff!
Tolerance should never be extended to intolerant demagogues, dull witted ideologues and addlepated dialogues.
Randy
B#llsh!t. You want us to tolerate INTOLERANCE. That's nonsense. There is no inherent hypocrisy in being intolerant of intolerance! Otherwise tolerance has no meaning! It's not suprising however that this subtly is lost on you.
Ahh, here we go again. Poor little miss california got a raw deal because she couldn't formulate a coherent answer. The winner was just a better contestant, so what? It's not like your for affirmative action...
The woman is a total idiot and it has nothing to do with her personal views. She's almost as bad as the girl who said American kids can't locate the U.S. on a map because there is a map shortage.
It's hard to tolerate a group of people who preach hate, that being right-wingers.
Tolerance only helps those who do nothing wrong, or who are not beyond help.
For you, tolerance would serve no purpose. So on the shelf it goes.
You dont even AIM for reality with your posts do you. You just regurgiate what Rush programmed you with no matter how plain stupid it is. Miss California gave a false and barely coherent answer to a question that would EMBARASS me if I were a conservative but to YOU it means she should have won because it WAS kinda conservative all the way down to the really bad grammer and factual inaccuracy. Then you minimize torture apparantly because you are soulless and havent any decency whatsoever. Then talk about OUR lack of tolerance. Tell me what part of tolerance obligates us to TAKE abuse without returning it or are you just using words you dont understand AGAIN because Rush programmed you with them. Does he give you new words while he is doing your thinking for you?
1) I was not a judge in the Miss CA pagaent. That being said, her answer was both inaccurate, and incoherent. If you don't want politics entering beauty pageants (which is fine by me, BTW) then blame the judge or panel who asked the question. Is it irrelevant to know Miss CA's position on Gay Marriage? You bet. Was her answer a bunch of garbled nonsense all the same? Yes it was.
2) Giving pillows to terrorists? That's a new one. LOL. Actually, I just want a U.S. Government who's power is limited by the 4th through 8th ammendments (well, ALL of them actually, including the 2nd) to the U.S. Constitution. I thought your lot was all about limiting the power Gov't. (I guess that only applies when you're not in power.)
3) I don't support partial birth abortion at all, actually. That being said, I don't suffer from the right's sickness that (a) my opinion needs to be made into law and forced down everybody's throats; and (b) that there is any one single issue that is of so much importance that it singlehandedly disqualifies a person from serving in public office.
As more my INTOLERANCE, there are basically only two things that am intolerant of: I have very little patience for stupidity and zero-tolerance for hypocrisy. Aside for that, I'm pretty open to a wide array of opinions. I also have very little (if any) tolerance of religious influence in government. But being a religious nut-case is not a single issue, but rather a flaw which spills over into just about EVERY ISSUE, not to mention that person's judgement.
Any questions?
Nothing more classic than someone whining about others he thinks are whining. Well played, James. A little pathetic, but still almost impressive.
Well that just shows how much they hated him. Haven't you heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations? (j/k)
"Today the general public appears to have moved past the ballot-counting disputes and grown comfortable with Mr. Bush's legitimacy as president."
This is an interesting sentence that came from the NYT's... being a liberal leftwing paper and all....
I remember early 2001 as well.... I worked on a military base as a civilian contractor and I don't recall more than a very small handful of the many hundreds of soldiers I dealt with that were in any way comfortable with Bush being president! In fact, I remember several sounding perilously close to being un-soldier like as it pertained to Bush being their new C-IN-C. But they knew that they would have to follow orders and would accept it for that reason only.
He never had legitimacy from day one... and still did not even after the 04' elections...
As for me, I accepted it simply because that is what we should do in America for the sake of our Constitution... but at no time was I ever happy or content and certainly was never comfortable with him being president!
I had always suspected that he was a weak fool being lead by his nose by the bubble he was surrounded with... now with him gone... I still hold to that theory!
We know that the commentators quoted here, in addition to the other members of the wingnut universe, will criticize Obama ruthlessly in evaluating his first 100 days in office. But why are only the wingnuts quoted here? Did liberal pundits trash Bush in the first 100 days? That would be a good comparison to what is likely to come during the next week. My guess is that they were generally critical but fair.
There not here because this site does not care about left wing miss info and outright lies. They are only interested in anything that makes the right look good or left look bad. That simply cant be aloud to stand.
Huh?
Oh boy.
Dear pointofview:
There is spell and grammar software now available so that at least you do not have to advertise your form of idiocy. Or perhaps you want your idiocy to be aloud. I would suggest it be communicated softly instead.
Please maintain a minimum level of coherence in your posting.
Poor Point of View. He probably feels so fired up after a few hours of Excrement in Broadcasting brain feed, then he has to come here and try to spin bullsh*t into English, to a bunch of people who don't speak bullsh*t..
A loyal member of the hiveminds gotta do what the hivequeen has instructed him to do. That is life when you are of the Limborg
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Learn it, live it.
Randy
Well, at least that was somewhat entertaining to read.
Another thread gone awry by the King of trivial, James B. Are you sure you're not Tommy because he use to do the same thing?
Loonz,
As you and Julia have pointed out here, I think you are correct in your assesment of Jamesb/Tommy.
He used to drag me into these things just like jamesb does, with a stupid comment here or a false statement there.
I need to learn to ignore the stupidity and not muddy up the threads.
Sometimes, I just can't help it though!
Ignoring the jamesB lost thread ... Reading these reviews by the DC Villagers in 2001 and reading through the reactions of the DC bubble these 100 days, one thing has crystalized for me:
The MSM LOVE the message discipline & conservative qualities of the Bush admin and the way that the Bush admin was very inclusive of the press.
The MSM HATE the messy inconsistent messaging of the Obama admin and the fact that Obama likes to go directly to the American people and does not enforce strict on-message rules to his administration FRUSTRATES the villagers.
Thankfully, polls prove that once again, the American people are way ahead of the press who is stuck with their head up their DC as--s.
Copy that! Well said!
Wow, the people accepted his legitimacy after 3 months...they didn't revolt and force a military response...what a win for Bush!
Let's not forget here that the Clinton 'mess' was really just the incessant right-wing harrangue. The change in tone was only because that stopped when the republicans, who controlled both houses, got thier man in and stopped trying to make everything into a criminal case while the general public disagreed. Travelgate? Talk about who cares. Remember how long they went on about whitewater only to find nothing? They even tried to politicize the suicide of Vince Foster.
So Bush getting credit for having his own party stopping its bitching about the guy that's gone seems more like the media trying to ingattiate themselves with the guys that walled them off in the white house than true reflective analysis.
Every single political talk show on my radio dial is a conservative talk show. Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Savage, Limbaugh, Miller, Hewitt. All of the local talk show hosts are conservatives too. All of them telling me that the media is liberally biased and conservative media is being shut down.
Conservatives are so good at logic.
Here's what conservatives really mean when they talk about liberal bias:
When there is a panel of 5 and one is a liberal making all the others look stupid.
when the bar is set at 6", it takes very little to clear it. in essence, the media stated that a simpleton had been elected president, so we shouldn't expect too much from him. this was apparent during the 2000 campaign, when bush, by virtue of completing whole sentences, regardless of how little actual sense they made, was considered to have far exceeded expectations.
al gore, who used big words, and discussed important issues, with knowledge, was sooooooooooooooooooooo boring to the villagers. thanks primarily to the MSM, we got "doofy", the 8th dwarf, as president.