Credibility Gap??

[shostakovich]

A couple of days ago I read that the president signed the energy bill, a very generous bill for industry. The author also quoted the president at the start of his second term as determined to hold down spending. I also recall that Bush was bragging about his environmental policies on earth day. He has not constrained energy producers to reduce greenhouse gases. We are the only major nation that refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

WHAT HE SAYS--------------------WHAT HE DOES
Pro environment-----------------Anti environment
Lean budget---------------------Big budget

IN ADDITION

Reform S.S.---------------------Destroy S.S.
"As a last resort"--------------High priority
Medicare bill for the people----Medicare bill for Big Pharma
No child left behind------------Don't do anything

There are other issues, but you get the point. His speech writers have him saying things I like to hear. I read that he does things I hate. Is he Jekyll-Hyde, or the ultimate political animal? My mind boggles that he has so many advocates that are intelligent.
Boggle :confused:

<small>[ 08-07-2005, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

This from the July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

" If you are worried about the federal deficit (and you should be), ask yourself which would do more to improve the country's finances—President Bush's latest budget or a pastrami sandwich. The administration made much of the fact that the budget Bush proposed in February was his tightest yet and was projected to reduce the deficit by half, to $207 billion, in 2010. What the administration did not make much of—you had to look deep in the fine print—is that the deficit would actually decline a bit more between now and 2010 if the Bush plan were not enacted and existing laws were just left alone.

In other words, go with the pastrami. It is fiscally sounder, plus it's good with mustard and a dill pickle."

And this is from a magazine with a moderately conservative slant, IMO.

[barfle]

I have to admit that I found his self-description as a "compassionate conservative" to be a bit confusing. It sounded to me like he wanted to say that he was against government programs because he understands that throwing other people's money at a problem is rarely a useful operation, but would do so if he felt sorry for someone.

Personally, I'm opposed to the Kyoto Protocol because it's based on pseudoscience. Which means that there is no indication that even if we went to the expense of compliance, that there would be any improvement in the issues it attempts to address. Doing something, even if it's wrong, is not an answer to an issue this big. Like invading Iraq to fight terrorism, implementing the Kyoto Protocol might well lull us into believing we are doing something about the environment, when we are not.

I'm deeply dismayed by the fiscal irresponsibility of this congress and this administration, and I'm deeply dismayed by the increasing bigbrotherism of a supposedly conservative government. I'm also deeply concerned about the invasion of Iraq on false premises.

He's a politician, though, and a pretty skilled one at that. He seems to get what he wants out of congress, and was re-elected with a majority of the vote.

[dai bread]

In the run-up to our election in September, the "NZ Herald" has taken to running what they are calling an "amnesia section". Things that politicians said, that they now deny ever saying, or "can't remember". It should be interesting.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by dai bread:
In the run-up to our election in September, the "NZ Herald" has taken to running what they are calling an "amnesia section". Things that politicians said, that they now deny ever saying, or "can't remember". It should be interesting.

What about: "I was quoted out of context", "It is unthinkable that...", and many more politicians' favourite "gems" of expression?

<small>[ 08-09-2005, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: DavidS ]</small>

[shostakovich]

The president said some nice things about Peter Jennings, as he should have. This is the same president whose minions are demonizing the main stream media, as they should not have.

Bush, and many other politicians, believe what they are saying while they are saying it. Afterward, it doesn't get in the way doing something counter to it. I think pathological lying is a great aid to someone in politics.

My favorite Republican is John McCain. I may not agree with his direction sometime, but he is well meaning and (horrors) honest. That he could get to the Senate as an honest man is a real tribute. Bush was willing to smear him going for the nomination in 2000 (I think), and yet he outwardly bears Bush no animosity. YIKES!!

I'm doing my best to make up for it, John.
Your Admirer

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
The president said some nice things about Peter Jennings, as he should have. This is the same president whose minions are demonizing the main stream media, as they should not have.

Explain why you feel msm shouldn't be demonized.

Originally posted by shostakovich:
My favorite Republican is John McCain. I may not agree with his direction sometime, but he is well meaning and (horrors) honest. That he could get to the Senate as an honest man is a real tribute. Bush was willing to smear him going for the nomination in 2000 (I think), and yet he outwardly bears Bush no animosity. YIKES!!

I'm doing my best to make up for it, John.
Your Admirer

I like John a lot too. I don't agree with everything he does either, like his bills on campaign reform, but I respect him for one main reason . . . he still believes that one man can change the world, as do I.

[shostakovich]

Hi BigJon. I think the main stream media should present the news. It seems traditional that bad news is better news than good news. In CT former governor Rowland got lots of bad press in his last term. He deserved it. His Lieutenant Governor replaced him. She is getting a bit of flack, too. She doesn't deserve it. The media are generally more critical than laudatory. I think that's proper. When a situation needs correcting they call it to our attention, regardless of who is in power. Sometimes we don't agree with them, but they are doing what they have been doing for as long as I can remember. They are not demons. They do us a service (or disservice, depending on your point of view). I have never seen the MSM put down so much as in this new century. I can guess why. Can you?
Shos

[OperaTenor]

I like John McCain, too. The only thing that mystifies me about him is how he can remain civil with the GWB crowd even after they tried to smear his military record. How anyone could see McCain as anything but a war hero is beyond me. By enduring 5the North Vietnamese imprisonment, IMO he paid even more dearly than if he'd been killed in combat.

I like the belief in the possibility of one man making a difference, too.

As for the MSM, it seems to me, in this day and age, they have lost some of their guts and have caved significantly to commercialism - more interested in ratings than providing information. That is one are where guys like peter Jennings will be sorely missed. He had the clout with the suits to be able to force his own agenda of presenting some more sophisticated, globally-oriented stories amid the commercial fluff dictated by the suits and bean counters. Now that Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings are gone, who will pick up where they left off?

[BigJon@Work]

The reason I think US national and local msm should be demonized is the focus on celebri-tainment to the detriment of true news coverage. I’m fully aware of the “if it bleeds, it leads” focus of the news, that’s a separate problem I’d like to see addressed. But the complete lack of focus on the truly newsworthy and stories of global or regional impact makes TV news a waste of a half hour. It isn’t bad journalism, it isn’t even journalism at all.

[OperaTenor]

I feel one of the biggest contributors to the sensationalist, commercialist, lazy approach the MSM has taken toward "news" is all of the deregulation that took place under Ronaldus Maximus. A lot of those regulations dictated what comprised a news program.

[Marye]

LOL!! You kill me OT.....

[OperaTenor]

Hi Mary,

I love your new signature!

[shostakovich]

From BigJon: "The reason I think US national and local msm should be demonized is the focus on celebri-tainment to the detriment of true news coverage. I’m fully aware of the “if it bleeds, it leads” focus of the news, that’s a separate problem I’d like to see addressed. But the complete lack of focus on the truly newsworthy and stories of global or regional impact makes TV news a waste of a half hour. It isn’t bad journalism, it isn’t even journalism at all."

-----------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with you that much slop is called news. Trials and crimes consume too much space by a facor of about 10,000% of their worth. Give me Bigfoot sightings any day. I don't think that is why MSM are being demonized, though. It strikes me as political. Hope I'm wrong and you're right.
Shos

[shostakovich]

From BigJon: "The reason I think US national and local msm should be demonized is the focus on celebri-tainment to the detriment of true news coverage. I’m fully aware of the “if it bleeds, it leads” focus of the news, that’s a separate problem I’d like to see addressed. But the complete lack of focus on the truly newsworthy and stories of global or regional impact makes TV news a waste of a half hour. It isn’t bad journalism, it isn’t even journalism at all."

-----------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with you that much slop is called news. Trials and crimes consume too much space by a facor of about 10,000% of their worth. Give me Bigfoot sightings any day. I don't think that is why MSM are being demonized, though. It strikes me as political. Hope I'm wrong and you're right.
Shos

[shostakovich]

OOPS!

[Marye]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Hi Mary,

I love your new signature!

Thank you.. thank you very much.