More good news for Halliburton stockholders

[Mickey]

I have a feeling this was thought of as Cheney emerged as the VP candidate, and considered acceptable collatoral damage. Anything at all that the government does, that affects the people (I guess by definition, everything does) deserves scrutiny. But, that scrutiny should be held without rancor or agenda, and whatever findings there are presented in as neutral a manner as possible.

 

I don't think that happens. And, once again veering to a tangent, the manner in which things are scrutinized and reported often affect policy. Not the facts themselves.

 

CTM (and I, for that matter) have complained about the WH's inability to market. All true, but at the same time it has become just about impossible for any administration to market. The facts about what is really good thing are usually represented in a way to make it look bad, if not horrible. Makes for better news. I think that's why so may WH press releases sound so idiotic and simple minded. Anything of substance will be attacked, so why invite the controversey to start with? To a large degree, it's the WH's fault they got themselves there, but the bigger offender is the press.

607916[/snapback]

The administration seems to be getting what they want despite whatever marketing woes they might have. They have the WH, the Senate, the House and just installed two hand picked conservatives on to the SCOTUS. Other than a scolding from a moderate republican senator here and there who is gravely concrened about this or has serious doubts about that, they have pretty much sailed everything right on through. About the only thing they don't have complete control of, yet, is Patrick Fitzgerald, the Iraqi insurgency, Iran and maybe 30% of the press (just spitballing here). You think these guys have it rough? A lot of Presidents have had it a lot worse.

 

I think bad results that can't always be explained away, blamed on the democrats or stuck on the backburner are more their problem than marketing.