democrats= Tokyo rose

[smokinandjokin]

Just wondering. How many Presidential elections have you voted in? 2?

538275[/snapback]

 

Yes, 2.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

How am I supposed to believe him when he doesn't appear to genuinely believe himself?  And when he does have to do his own thinking, look out!!!

538251[/snapback]

 

If you believe in any politician, you should consider seeing a professional.

[smokinandjokin]

If you believe in any politician, you should consider seeing a professional.

538451[/snapback]

 

I used to believe in JoeSixPack, until the Babe of the Day feature mysteriously disappeared.

[EC-Bills]

If you believe in any politician, you should consider seeing a professional.

538451[/snapback]

 

Professional...therapist or hooker?

[EC-Bills]

I'm not so sure about that.

 

The press, by and large, LOVED Billy Clinton. They have no such love for GWB.

538140[/snapback]

 

The more I think back about it, you're right. Pressed loved Clinton. It was the right wing and Hillary that were constantly after him

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I used to believe in JoeSixPack, until the Babe of the Day feature mysteriously disappeared.   

538478[/snapback]

 

She'll be back after the season.

 

[smokinandjokin]

She'll be back after the season.

 

538846[/snapback]

 

Thank you for that wonderful news. However, this season, we needed her more than ever!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

The liberal media press hating Bush and causing his approval rating to decline is way overblown. The press gave Bush pretty much a free pass during his first election. The press supported the war for the most part at first and was all over the WMD issue in favor of Bush, rarely questioning it and in a lot of cases fostering it (Judith Miller of the nYT anyone?), Bush held very favorable approval ratings for a long, long time. It is only now that his approval ratings suck.

 

Furthermore, the press loved Clinton because Clinton's MO was to bring everyone in and talk and get involved. Behind the scenes, sure, he was as partisan as Bush, but he would listen to other viewpoints and he would respond. Bush's MO is my way or the highway. It started well before 9.11.2001, and he started pissing off the press and the world from day one, despite the transparent "compassionate conservative" ads. He rarely actually engaged, he rarely took anyone else's POV into account except his closest advisors, he rarely if ever engaged the public or press. He deserves the bad press because he has acted badly, and that has little to do with Iraq.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The liberal media press hating Bush and causing his approval rating to decline is way overblown. The press gave Bush pretty much a free pass during his first election. The press supported the war for the most part at first and was all over the WMD issue in favor of Bush, rarely questioning it and in a lot of cases fostering it (Judith Miller of the nYT anyone?), Bush held very favorable approval ratings for a long, long time. It is only now that his approval ratings suck.

540119[/snapback]

 

Actually, with regards to the Bush administration's relations with the press, that's not entirely true. The administration took the line early - and pretty much explicitly - that contrary to the press's belief, they do NOT represent the interests of the American public, and would not be treated as such. That is probably the major reason the administration has such a lousy relation with the media - because they chose to.

 

As to where the administration's low approval ratings come from...well, even if one was to assume they're doing everything right, if they choose to marginalize the media and foster an adverserial relationship with them, then of COURSE their approval rating's going to be low, and of COURSE they deserve it, since it's derived from a situation largely of their own making. That hadly makes it media-manufactured...it simply means the media's playing the game the administration's put them in, and doing so without the information the administration refuses to provide them. Even IF you assume the low approval ratings stem from the media's inaccurate reporting, responsibility for that still falls back on the administration.

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, with regards to the Bush administration's relations with the press, that's not entirely true.  The administration took the line early - and pretty much explicitly - that contrary to the press's belief, they do NOT represent the interests of the American public, and would not be treated as such.  That is probably the major reason the administration has such a lousy relation with the media - because they chose to. 

 

As to where the administration's low approval ratings come from...well, even if one was to assume they're doing everything right, if they choose to marginalize the media and foster an adverserial relationship with them, then of COURSE their approval rating's going to be low, and of COURSE they deserve it, since it's derived from a situation largely of their own making.  That hadly makes it media-manufactured...it simply means the media's playing the game the administration's put them in, and doing so without the information the administration refuses to provide them.  Even IF you assume the low approval ratings stem from the media's inaccurate reporting, responsibility for that still falls back on the administration.

540174[/snapback]

I simply don't believe either of those positions.

 

1. While I agree with what you said about the administrations stance early, that does not explain why Bush had an easy road early, got great press for the longest time after 9/11, and got great press for the lead up to the war, during the war, and shortly after the war. The premise I was responding to in my post was that the liberal media was responsible for Bush's low approval ratings. This same liberal media gave him great press at different times and for extended periods in his administration. The liberal press was in large part responsible for the nation's solid support of the war before, during, and shortly after it started. Because it followed Bush and didn't question his stances or motives like it does now. That is generalized but true nonetheless.

 

Furthermore, I wasn't talking only about Bush's relations with the press but his relations with everyone, which then gets in the press. He pissed off the foreign press, foreign leaders and many other groups with this "I am doing this my way and we don't need you" public and private persona. He does it in virtually everything he does. A small portion of the world thinks this is a strength of resolve. The large majority sees it at arrogant bullying. That is why, to me, he is getting very bad press now, even on things unrelated to the war. It is only the short-lived (to me transparent) efforts he makes when he admits any kind of trouble that he is given a break.

 

2. I think your second paragraph is true in theory but not in practice. If it were true he never would have gotten the extended great press after 9.11, or with the lead-up to war, or with the WMD issues. They would have been adversarial to him quickly after the nationalism that appeared after 9.11 and they would have been all over him rather than riding his wave in the WMD and Saddam is evil and the war is the right thing to do issue. The press was very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt despite his administrations attitude toward them and Bush's ever-present I-don't- need-you personality and actions.

[X. Benedict]

Actually, with regards to the Bush administration's relations with the press, that's not entirely true.  The administration took the line early - and pretty much explicitly - that contrary to the press's belief, they do NOT represent the interests of the American public, and would not be treated as such.  That is probably the major reason the administration has such a lousy relation with the media - because they chose to. 

 

540174[/snapback]

Good post. I actually think what the Bush administration tried to create was not so much an adversarial relationship with the press, but a market where access was used as capital. Print things favorable to the administration and you are rewarded with greater access, print things negative about the administration and access disappears. Case in point: Helen Thomas.

 

A market was created where reporters had to weigh their stories against not the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would compromise future access, praise the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would gain future access.

 

I think this actually worked by design for much of the first term. But now they have so many outsiders in the press corps that the Administration has very few believable outlets to convey their message.

 

I think Bush got a lot of mileage out of this reward system. But Clinton was simply

so cocky that he thought he could convince anyone in the press pool of anything, that access to him or his ideas was far less prized. In his second term, as much as Clinton spoke, the press began to believe he was irrelevant because power shifted in congress, and finding out the story from Clinton was a non-scoop.

[Kelly the Dog]

Good post. I actually think what the Bush administration tried to create was not so much an adversarial relationship with the press, but a market where access was used as capital. Print things favorable to the administration and you are rewarded with greater access, print things negative about the administration and access disappears. Case in point: Helen Thomas.

 

A market was created where reporters had to weigh their stories against not the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would compromise future access, praise the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would gain future access.

 

I think this actually worked by design for much of the first term. But now they have so many outsiders in the press corps that the Administration  has very few believable outlets to convey their message.

 

I think Bush got a lot of mileage out of this reward system. But Clinton was simply

so cocky that he thought he could convince anyone in the press pool of anything, that access to him or his ideas was far less prized. In his second term, as much as Clinton spoke, the press began to believe he was irrelevant because power shifted in congress, and finding out the story from Clinton was a non-scoop.

540202[/snapback]

The concept is also heinous and almost the equivalent of a politician accepting campaign donations and then passing bills that favor donors simply because of money and not worthiness.

[Adam]

1) Bzzzz! Wrong - The only ones who believe he's telling the truth are Republicans

are you sure? I'm not a republican.

 

2) Bzzzz! Wrong - Winning the war on terror is Republican propoganda

Only a coward would think we can't win- BECAUSE WE WILL. No matter the cost.

 

3) Bzzzz! Wrong - Because oil interests stand to profit, the war is not to their benefit?

Ah, the old attribution theory...one that was disproved decades ago.

 

Three strikes - You're out!!!

I agre- three strikes- go back to the dug out.....oops, game over, go get some soda at the local mom and pop store

[smokinandjokin]

The concept is also heinous and almost the equivalent of a politician accepting campaign donations and then passing bills that favor donors simply because of money and not worthiness.

540209[/snapback]

 

Did you forget the sarcasm switch, or the ??? I sure hope so.

[Kelly the Dog]

Did you forget the sarcasm switch, or the  ???  I sure hope so.

540284[/snapback]

I was totally serious. Explain to me the difference, besides one already has rules against it and one should already have rules against it.

[Berg]

I was totally serious. Explain to me the difference, besides one already has rules against it and one should already have rules against it.

540312[/snapback]

 

Because one involves making laws the other involves making stories. The difference is extremely huge IMO.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Because one involves making laws the other involves making stories.  The difference is extremely huge IMO.

540314[/snapback]

 

Ya, laws can get repealed... Once a untrue story goes out, one's perception seldom changes. Which is worse?

 

[Berg]

Ya, laws can get repealed... Once a untrue story goes out, one's perception seldom changes.  Which is worse?

 

 

540334[/snapback]

 

Laws unquestionably much much worse.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Laws unquestionably much much worse.

540342[/snapback]

 

I agree to disagree... Stories are. Laws can be repealed. Stories live on forever.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because one involves making laws the other involves making stories.  The difference is extremely huge IMO.

540314[/snapback]

Obviously I am not talking about laws like DWI or harming or not harming people. I am talking about appropriations bills and pork and government funding for unnecessary issues from bills.