Is Dubya running his own show?
February 5, 2001 11:07 AM Subscribe
The news here is what, exactly?
posted by Dreama at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2001
Reagan was born to ad-lib and could work from a script, so his handlers usually didn't have to worry too much, but the spinmeisters are going to have a much more difficult row to hoe with Shrub.
posted by briank at 11:41 AM on February 5, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 12:05 PM on February 5, 2001
i do give bush credit for making the effort to take questions from the democrats, but if he can't give substantial answers to the questions asked of him them what is the point besides an empty photo op?
posted by saralovering at 12:17 PM on February 5, 2001
The choice -- after being run through the media filter which distorts everything -- was for either a competent but ethically challenged robot candidate [Gore], or an incompetent but ethical-sounding robot candidate [Bush]. After 8 years of the previous model (operating under the name of Bill Clinton), the public (or at least the electoral college) selected the latter.
posted by darren at 12:23 PM on February 5, 2001
Well, I would imagine that lots of people voted for Bush because they agree with the Republican Party's policies. Not me, I was a Gore voter... but I'm sure there are still *some* people out there who vote based on issues. (At least I hope so.)
posted by Tin Man at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2001
posted by owen at 1:39 PM on February 5, 2001
Of course, there were no reporters in the room, so this all comes from second-hand accounts anyway.
posted by mikewas at 1:44 PM on February 5, 2001
posted by mblandi at 1:55 PM on February 5, 2001
posted by Neb at 2:20 PM on February 5, 2001
posted by crunchland at 3:21 PM on February 5, 2001
Actually, since less than half the eligible population voted, and less than half of those people voted for Bush, the end result was that less than 25% of eligible American voters voted for Bush. Taken with the total population in mind (as opposed to just eligible voters), it was probably around 10%-15% of the people living within the USA's borders who voted for him. That means there is an idiot in the White House due to the actions of a fairly small fraction of the population. It would have taken just a little bit of effort on the part of the people who didn't vote to prevent that. Apathy is a Bad Thing(TM).
posted by Potsy at 3:34 PM on February 5, 2001
No, the other voters (or non) are just as responsible.
It would have taken just a little bit of effort on the part of the people who didn't vote to prevent that.
Right.
"When trains of thought collide..."
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:00 PM on February 5, 2001
posted by thirteen at 4:34 PM on February 5, 2001
No. That 50% wasn't a random sample. It was a self-selecting sample, just like those phone-in TV 'polls'. So, even though half of the population is a much bigger self-selecting sample than usual, you still can't draw any such inference. Even though it's likely that the general trend would have been roughly similar to that seen in the 50% who voted, there would probably have been a slight difference of a percentage point or two (or three, or four) one way or the other - and in an election this close that would have made all the difference.
posted by rory at 4:50 PM on February 5, 2001
Okay, so at least one of my points still stands, namely that it is untrue that 47% of Americans voted for Bush.
posted by Potsy at 4:56 PM on February 5, 2001
This isn't inspiring much confidence when I was trying to give him a chance.
posted by norm at 7:27 PM on February 5, 2001
posted by leo at 8:18 PM on February 5, 2001
No, jpoulos, the news here is that an obscure Rep from California has put a particular spin on an exchange that plays neatly into an oft-repeated theme but at it's base is nothing but interpretation. Independent of Pelosi's claim, there is no evidence that Bush was confused about anything. Give me video, give me corroboration from some other source (IOW, not another Dem rep) and then it gains merit. But otherwise, it's just a rumour being trolled out from an agenda'ed source that's being lapped up for no other reason than because it reinforces the liberal Dem belief structure.
posted by Dreama at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2001
Talk about paranoia.
posted by norm at 9:17 PM on February 5, 2001
Excuse me? Of course there is. If you vote for a certain candidate and I don't vote, does that necessarily mean that I would have voted for the same candidate as you? No; you can't deduce anything about how I would have voted from your vote. (FWIW, I'm not a US citizen; I'm speaking hypothetically.)
Okay, we're talking about big aggregations of voters here and so the broad trends would be roughly similar, but in an election that came down to a handful of votes, a minor difference in the way those other people would have voted (if they'd voted) could have delivered a completely different result.
That's why we have elections and not just random-sample polls to determine who gets to be President; all samples have a capacity for error in predicting the preferences of the total population, and for something as important as a presidential election that's considered unacceptable.
Unfortunately this is somewhat undone by coupling it with a system of voluntary voting, but at least one can reasonably argue that anyone who gave a damn had the opportunity to vote. All you can really infer from the results is that about 25% of Americans wanted Bush on polling day, about 25% wanted Gore on polling day, and about 50% were so indifferent or unconcerned that they couldn't be bothered to haul their asses down to a polling booth to vote one way or the other. There is a difference between those positions. You shouldn't assume that those 'unknowns' would have voted exactly the same way as those who were committed enough to go and vote. Particularly not down to that last handful of voters who made all the difference in Florida.
posted by rory at 11:43 PM on February 5, 2001
*snicker* Oh my, members of the House of Representatives! I hate to break it to you, Norm, but Congresspeons are the front-line hacks, for both parties. And this "story" was put out by them purely to Bush-bash. They could claim that Bush was in there performing Satanic chicken sacrifices if they wanted to. There's no proof, zero zip zilch. In other words, it was the perfect setting for them to use in order to make stuff up.
Okay, so at least one of my points still stands...
Yes, but it's irrelevant unless you want to argue that every president elected in the last umpteen decades has been illegitimate. Or that if every eligible American had been forced to vote, Bush would have automatically lost, which is completely unprovable. (In somewhat related news, the new Gallup poll came out today; Bush's approval rating is 57%.)
Voting is a right. It is not a legal responsibility. (Moral responsiblity arguably, but not a legal one.) The feelings of the people that do not vote are meaningless.
posted by aaron at 12:04 AM on February 6, 2001
I see the neocons and libertarians here making every effort to portray this as a "Bush is dumb" story. That may be what the media have picked up on, perhaps it is a meme, but it is not. It is a serious philosophical and political question, and I hope that the Democrats continue to hammer the GOP on it. The Executive Order on funding for overseas NGOs is all but certain to presage further attempts to encroach on federal funding for domestic NGOs that also, by supporting women seeking abortions, offering information, or partnered with a lobbying arm for abortion rights, have the same structural issue. Fund the other activities, the Republicans say, and you subsidize abortion.
No, this is not a minor issue, and nobody should be distracted by the arm-waving. I didn't read it as "Bush didn't know what his EO said", though that may be inferred. I read it as "Without his thinktank around, Bush had trouble articulating the ins and outs of Chinese walls in NGOs and religious organizations and why one is OK and the other isn't."
posted by dhartung at 12:39 AM on February 6, 2001
posted by aaron at 1:42 AM on February 6, 2001
posted by Dreama at 7:03 AM on February 6, 2001
If that's the case, why are you quoting his approval rating?
So obviously those of us on the right are going to focus in on the hate speech.
Calling Bush dumb is "hate speech"?
posted by rcade at 7:37 AM on February 6, 2001
posted by norm at 7:57 AM on February 6, 2001
posted by Skot at 8:06 AM on February 6, 2001
Whatever our political views may be, we don't need to discuss Bush's intelligence every time there is a thread about him.
posted by Avogadro at 8:26 AM on February 6, 2001
It's amazing how thin-skined conservatives can be (when it's their ox being gored). If calling someone -- particularly a public figure -- "dumb" is your definition of "hate speech", you've got a couple of problems which even Metafilter can't help you with. Oh, by the way, Bush is dumb.
posted by leo at 8:43 AM on February 6, 2001
It only hurts when it is your guy or gal. The tag will only hurt Bush if he lives up to it (as Clinton did).
posted by thirteen at 8:56 AM on February 6, 2001
Certainly, if Clinton's penis was a matter of vital interest for 8+ years, surely the fact that Bush is incompetent is more than a minor character flaw.
Clinton's penis was a topic not because it was a character flaw but because it may have made him a criminal. Perjury and sexual harrassment are a far cry from being a bit confused about what you signed.
Bush is dumb. And? This has become as much of a catchphrase and basis for jokes as the whole "whassup?" crap. Debating about politics involves arguing about actual political points, not name-calling and taunting like school children.
And I think it's kind of obvious that taunting is what aaron meant when he said "hate speech".
posted by crushed at 9:40 AM on February 6, 2001
posted by leo at 10:08 AM on February 6, 2001
It's not that he can't think -- it's that he won't think.
(Doesn't that sound like something a teacher would write on a report card?)
posted by Tin Man at 11:07 AM on February 6, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2001
I didn't say it was the equivalent, I said that's what aaron meant when he used the phrase "hate speech". Or at least that's what I took it to mean.
The point is that some of us, both Democrats and Republicans, would like to be able to have a political topic be handled in a more mature fashion than every post being a slightly varied version of the phrase "Bush is stupid."
norm asked a legit question and got the response "It's just that, well, he's an idiot." When you've got several threads a day full of posts like that it gets old very quickly.
If Bush isn't even clear on what he's signing (which may very well be the case) then his intelligence and beliefs may have very little to do with anything. If someone is simply giving Bush documents to sign, or not letting him read them fully, then it may be that person whom we need to worry about.
That probably sounds paranoid, and I'm pretty sure this case was just a misunderstanding, but it is possible.
posted by crushed at 2:44 PM on February 6, 2001
« Older Microsoft | free music? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It's just that, well, he's an idiot.
posted by Karl at 11:15 AM on February 5, 2001