Here we go: Our pals on The Wall Street Journal editorial board — the same crowd that’s trying to make Mark Sanford a veep contender, when he isn’t, just by using its bully pulpit to say its so, over and over — are now telling us that the media like Obama (or at least, one of them is).
So what — we knew that, right? Just as we know the press likes John McCain, too. The two have a lot in common. The press likes them both because we get overexposed to politicos, and these two stand out above the herd. And beside, they’re nicer to us than certain other people are.
But Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Journal’s editorial board is preparing for the fall campaign by casting the press as being in partisan thrall to Obama:
The uproar is the latest confirmation of the special place Mr. Obama
holds in the hearts of a good part of the media, a status ensured by
their shared political sympathies and his star power. That status has
in turn given rise to a tendency to provide generous explanations, and
put the best possible gloss on missteps and utterances seriously
embarrassing to Mr. Obama.
Just to set the record straight on some assumption Ms. Rabinowitz leaps to with regard to Obama’s fan club:
- I like McCain every bit as much as I like Obama.
- I, too, thought Stephanopoulos and company went overboard last week.
- I have said there are no excuses for the Rev. Wright’s outrages.
- I believe Obama meant what he said with the "bitter" comment.
- I am utterly convinced that the guy can’t bowl, which disturbs me.
You see, one can like a guy and still see him clearly, even though Ms. Rabinowitz doesn’t think so. I just thought somebody should point it out.
Related Posts
Of course the mainstream media loves him; they are just as clueless as those voters that have supported him–ignorant children (college kids who don’t know squat about the real world), idealist morons (journalists and elitist liberals), and uneducated minorities (no comment…)
He has NOTHING in common with John McCain; he is just some punk up-start that knows how to bring a crowd to its feet–remember Hitler?? He says nothing, but is a good orator–I’ll give him that.
I can disagree and get along with anyone, but I would be surprised if any Obama supporter could feed themself.
BP
Mr. Witt, you seemed to leave out the high number of military personnel who support Barack Obama alongside those you called the “ignorant children,” “idealist morons,” and “uneducated minorities.” Why do I have the feeling that you would not be so quick to call a Soldier clueless? Why do I also have the feeling that you probably tout your support of the troops, and salute their patriotism?
Don’t allow simplified, blanket statements to cloud your judgement sir. There is a reason why Soldiers support a man who presents change, and that is because they are being run into the ground with multiple deployments so that you can make your passionate displays of ignorance. If you ever served you know exactly what I am talking about. If you haven’t served, think twice before fitting yourself perfectly into the ultra-conservative stereotype and offending those who have give you a chance to be as angry as you so obviously enjoy being.
He has NOTHING in common with John McCain; he is just some punk up-start that knows how to bring a crowd to its feet–remember Hitler??
-BPW
This is so typical of the Rush Limbaugh lemings of the right. They worship the idol of Reagan while ignoring reality. The facts are quite different from the claims of these folks. Obama supporters understand the failures of the Bush years and correctly perceive that McCain represents more of the same. More failed military occupations. More entitlements for the rich. More high gas prices. More bailouts of diabolical corporations who prey on the desparate. More wage stagnation. More, More, More.
I would suggest Mr. Witt that it is you who are the ignorant fool here. You foolishly buy into the right-wing babble that has failed our country so badly. It is you, through your ignorance, who enables a rightist bid to enrich a few elitists at the expense of those who actually work for a living. Obama supporters understand the truth. It is the likes of Mr. 3-name Witt who fail to see reality.
So what — we knew that, right? Just as we know the press likes John McCain, too. The two have a lot in common.
-Brad
Just when it seemed Brad couldn’t write anything stupider we have this jewel. Your standards for what makes two people have a lot in common differs quit a bit from mine. I see John McCain as a tired old man who is simply trying to earn a bit of a legacy in his senior years by becoming POTUS. He offers nothing but stale rhetoric to defend 100 years of military occupation. He panders to the right while trying to appeal to the middle. He admits he’s clueless on economic matter, the most important issue of this election.
Obama, on the other hand, is a young, energetic agent for change. He understands the misguided nature of our occupation of Iraq. He understands the need for an improved health-care system in this country. He understands the pain the middle and work class is suffering through while the rich receive endless tax breaks from the government.
So Brad, what is it these two have in common? Age? Skin color? marital fidelity. One is old, the other young. One has remained faithfully married to one woman, the other is a philanderer who chose an adulterous affair with a much younger woman (who ended up as his trophy bride) over the injured mother of his children, apparently because she had lost her looks because of a bad accident. One grew up the hard way, the other had all the advantages of his family name (a father and grandfather were both admirals). One will continue to pursue the failed policies of his predecessor, the other plans to change the way America works. Really Brad, this post is an absurdity, even for you.
Uh-oh. Today’s Wall Street Journal offers this Rovian analysis:
Evil Karl closes with this: Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.
I think it’s a fair analysis, but many who matter will regard it as a head-fake intended to throw Obama’s team off. Too bad.
…thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing.
-Rove
I think it’s a fair analysis.
-Mike
Obama’s senate career is certainly fair game and, even if overstated, Rove may have a point. But to suggest this is a fair analysis given Rove’s unsupportable personal attack at the end is a bit of a reach don’t you think Mike?
Bud,
I don’t know what you’re missing. Aside from their views on the war, healthcare, education, taxes, and abortion, McCain and Obama are essentially the same person. Put aside those trivialities and we’re left with a “can’t lose” situation.
I think it’s fair given the statements and promises Obama’s made in comparison to what he’s actually done. Is not his approach to campaign finance cynical, first challenging opponents to do what he would do, rely solely on public financing, then abandoning the pledge?
Obama insists that his campaign is banning contributions from lobbyists, but the that’s not the full story:
There’s more to it all, like his words and actions on bundlers.
It takes a lot of money to run a campaign; it’s just that Obama’s so cynical about it. There’s a purposeful gap between what he says and what he does. I think that’s what Rove was referring to.
Can we all just agree that our choice this fall will be based on which of the candidates we believe is the LEAST unethical and hypocritical?
I think a lot of folks tend to vote for the candidate that can best achieve their objectives, whatever they may be.
For some, winning power is the only thing, so they may overlook personal and professional shortcomings.
It’s subjective, as is any assessment of ethics and hypocrisy.
No, Doug, I can’t agree on that. If it’s between McCain and Obama, it’s between two good guys for once.
The last time we were offered such a choice was in 1976. Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were both decent guys.
Oh, and Doug — and bud, and anyone else who, after three years of me doing this blog, is still confused about what McCain and Obama have in common — I refer you back to this column from February.
And to take the comparison between 1976 and today a little further: Carter and Ford also had to overcome hyperpartisans and ideologues. Carter had Ted Kennedy, who drew the angry partisans of that day. Ford had Reagan.
But there the comparison ends. In those days, things were still run by the WWII generation, who understood that in the end we were all still Americans. Partisanship then doesn’t have the edge it does now. You didn’t have people who saw battles between left and right as being the most important struggles in which one can engage. For Hillary Clinton, fighting Republicans is an existential imperative. Not so for Obama — or McCain. Or Lindsey Graham, or Joe Lieberman.
I’d like to declare a truce on all the character issues regarding the candidates. I’ll acknowledge that John McCain is a fine man with an outstanding military career. He has served his country well in the senate and has accomplished much in his life.
Now that I’ve said that let’s move on to what I am quickly coming to believe is the marquee issue of our time: energy. I strongly urge everyone to read theoildrum.com in order to become familiar with this issue. You GOP types may find it a bit left-leaning (although I find it refreshingly non-partisan) but it does throw in the case from the other side that oil supplies are plentiful with regularity. Here is an excerpt from Reuters that was picked up by the oildrum that shows just how important this issue is. With $3.50/gallon gasoline it shouldn’t be too hard to get everyone’s attention.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A group of U.S. senators on Thursday will call on the Bush administration to use its leverage with OPEC to increase oil supplies or risk Congress holding up multimillion dollar arms deals with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other members of the oil producing group.
-excerpt from theoildrum.com
Now that Hillary leads in popular vote, if you count Florida and Michigan, and the delegate count would be closer, too, if those states actually counted, why aren’t the Obama mongers who call themselves journalists lined up to protest the taxation without representation those states are suffering?
Because journalists as a breed think taxes are wonderful?
Because journalists by the genes are a bunch of ne’er-do-well rumor merchants who think a socialist liberal is the next best thing to a benevolent, all-knowing dictator or the pope, whichever comes first?
Because journalists are naive enough to believe Obama’s vapor?
Because journalists don’t put two and two together when they’re sold on what they think is the higher calling of deciding who’s more important: Janet Jackson, Brittany Spears, Pee Wee Herman or Jake Knotts?
With a name like dub, i hate to agree with bud, but this time I must, though the reasoning behind my agreement differs. McCain and Obama have virtually nothing in common outside being male, human and running for president.
Obama has no track record by comparison to McCain, but what record he does have reeks of Marxist utopianism and left-wing thuggery. Like the Clintons, he has made himself rich selling welfare to the destitute.
So the journalists like him just so, because he represents the new world order — change for the sake of change and words in the place of action.
Journalists also like him because his race is fashionable, and because race sells newspapers.
Yes, the press ikes Obama, too, so why won’t the local media put him the same place they put Mark Sanford?
Because their prejudice blinds them?
Because they’re closet capitalists who hope they can make a living walking back and forth between their keyboard and the coffee machine?
Yes, the press likes Obama, too, and whether I’ve hit on a single reason behind the media fascination for the man who strikes me as the riskiest candidate for president of my lifetime, there’s a significant “so”.
Here’s hoping it’s not that the press is so stupid they look at Obama and McCain and see the same thing.
I’ll bet the Democrats would like to suspend the character issue, because lack of character is the prime reason people don’t like Obama and Hillary. The more they learn about Obama’s socialism and sympathy for terrorists, and Hillary’s conniving, the more people want to vote against them.
Wow… Ford or Carter. That’s not very inspiring.
There is a definite similarity in that analogy. That was the last time energy prices and inflation nearly wrecked the economy. And neither guy was up to the task of dealing with either issue. You can try all you want to find common ground between McCain and Obama but you’re wrong.
The direction the country goes over the next four years will be drastically different depending on who is elected.
In fact, I imagine both candidates will do everything possible to convince the public that they are 180 degrees different. So they’d both either be correct in their beliefs or liars. Which is it?
And let’s see… right before Ford, we had Watergate. I seem to remember that period of time as being slightly partisan.
And before that, it was all lollipops and rainbows with LBJ… Nixon – Kennedy was also a period of deep intellectual analysis as well.
The only difference between then and now is the media. Cable tv and the internet only make the partisanship more accessible. It feeds into what the public already understands – “Us versus Them”
I see that dub and Lee would rather talk about the character issue. Oh well, at least I tried.
Uh-oh. Don’t get me started. The good news is that the dour scold Carter was honest, but ineffective as a leader. He really doesn’t know how the world works.
It should be clear to everybody that extreme competition has started worldwide over food and energy. The US needs to do two things right now:
Russia’s Putin has figured out that he can control Europe though energy, China is using its foreign currency reserves to explore and extract in the Gulf of Mexico and upgrade the diet of its population while taking over the US construction industry, and the Middle East oil sheiks are arming our enemies and buying up whatever they want while we in the US are burning our crops and putting domestic auto manufacturers out of business by pursuing a clean-fuel asceticism and burning corn.
What do the candidates have in store for us? Obama’s world is a bit worse than McCain’s. Plus I think he share’s Carter’s innocence of how the world really works.
Mr. Warthen,
If you think crossing the aisle with universal welfare is having something in common with crossing the aisle with a capital-gains tax cut, you need to sit down with yourself and think about it for a while.
If you think crossing the aisle with a plan to end the war in a way that makes the U.S. yield to Muslim interests has something in common with crossing the aisle with a plan to fight the good fight, keep sitting, and push your brain’s accelerator to the floor.
Obama and McCain have NOTHING in common.
The US needs to do two things right now:
– stop burning foodstuffs for energy. As Venkat Lakshmi pointed out in Wednesday’s issue of The State, it takes 0.7 -1.3 gallons of petroleum to produce one gallon of ethanol.
– permit greater domestic petroleum and natural gas production (exploration and extraction off the continental shelf, easier expansion of refineries, etc.)
-Mike
This is a start. I agree with your first point and partially agree with your second. Liberals and conservatives alike seem to agree that the ethanol push has been a failure with very damaging side-effects.
As for the drilling recommendation. Well, it won’t hurt. Sadly, it won’t help much either. Recent analysis of the oil fields in Montana and North Dakota seem to suggest that we can ramp up production somewhat to perhaps 200-300k barrels per day. That would roughly triple what’s occuring now. Given our insatiable 21m barrel appetite for the stuff, combined with declining production from the Gulf (both U.S. and Mexico), Texas and the North Slope of Alaska this really is just a drop in the bucket. The Anwar and the Atlantic shelf both hold promise but these sources won’t even compensate for the declines we are experiencing elsewhere. Plus, given the shortage of skilled petroleum engineers and the extremes these two areas present it’s not likely we’ll see a drop from either region in less than 6-7 years.
So let’s drill away. As long as we do it responsibly we should be able to limit environmental concerns. But it really won’t even be a bump in the road toward the $10/gallon gasoline prices we’re likely to see in a couple of years.
So what’s the answer? It’s pretty darn simple. We must conserve. Trade that Hummer for a Prius. Walk to lunch. Move from Chapin to one of those new condos by the Congaree River. Get a bike and use it. Plant some tomatoes in your backyard and eat those instead of steak.
Drilling might make up for perhaps 2% of the oil shortage we’ll face by 2020. The rest can only come from conservation and alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. Electric cars can help but only if we have sufficient capacity to generate electricity. Nuclear has a place in all this but that’s a source limited by supply as well. Times are going to get tough, no doubt about it, but in the end we’ll be better off without gasoline powered cars.
There are lots of places we can open up to drilling; oil companies are having to make risky deals overseas for exploration and extraction thanks to domestic restrictions. They’ve got to reinvest their profits to sustain their operations and they’d be pleased as punch to do it here if the politics permit.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with generating capacity. To get to hydrogen you’ve got to have the capacity to generate it because it does not occur naturally. At one time the thought was to use natural gas to produce the hydrogen, but increased demand and environmental / political restrictions have raised its price. In the final analysis, using nukes to produce hydrogen is sustainable, efficient, and cheap.
Speaking of Russian oil production, there’s a nice article in theoildrum about their future production possibilities. Here’s an excerpt:
When Will Russia Decline?
Since 2005, the Russian oil industry has been in constant turmoil. Production growth has also slowed down significantly maybe as a result. The Exxon Sakhalin-I project has now reached its peak and production is experiencing a steep decline since. On the upside, many projects are expected to come online and the IEA forecasts that oil production in Russia will increase by 90,000 bbl/d in 2008 and 300,000 bbl/d in 2009, following growth of 200,000 bbl/d in 2007.
The dramatic drop down in production growth observed by Stuart is still going on and is now close to 0 (i.e. flat production). Several trend lines can be drawn, in particular the trend for 2007 in purple would imply an immediate decline in 2008. However, several decline acceleration periods have occurred in the past (similar lines could have been drawn in 2001 and 2004) so it is unlikely that the rapid decline observed in 2007 will continue in 2008.
-The Oil Drum
Like everything else in the oil business there’s a wide range of possibilities. But it’s looking increasingly unlikely that Russian production will increase anything like what it did in decade – 1995-2005.
Speaking of Russian oil production, there’s a nice article in theoildrum about their future production possibilities. Here’s an excerpt:
When Will Russia Decline?
Since 2005, the Russian oil industry has been in constant turmoil. Production growth has also slowed down significantly maybe as a result. The Exxon Sakhalin-I project has now reached its peak and production is experiencing a steep decline since. On the upside, many projects are expected to come online and the IEA forecasts that oil production in Russia will increase by 90,000 bbl/d in 2008 and 300,000 bbl/d in 2009, following growth of 200,000 bbl/d in 2007.
The dramatic drop down in production growth observed by Stuart is still going on and is now close to 0 (i.e. flat production). Several trend lines can be drawn, in particular the trend for 2007 in purple would imply an immediate decline in 2008. However, several decline acceleration periods have occurred in the past (similar lines could have been drawn in 2001 and 2004) so it is unlikely that the rapid decline observed in 2007 will continue in 2008.
-The Oil Drum
Like everything else in the oil business there’s a wide range of possibilities. But it’s looking increasingly unlikely that Russian production will increase anything like what it did in decade – 1995-2005.
One final thought. I predict that by 2020 the gasoline powered automobile will be a museum piece. People will look at these smelly, polluting monsters in much the same way that we look at steam locomotives, with nostalgia.
I have to agree with Bud on the 2020 thing. I think common sense and freedom will be in the same museum. Just two questions how will we fire generators during natural disasters and how do we make plastic’s out of corn?
It doesn’t bother liberals that their hysterical ban of DDT and other insecticides killed millions of people by malaria. It make them feel good.
Subsidizing ethanol with tax money makes them feel good. It doesn’t matter to the liberals that corn prices moved beyond the reach of 100,000,000 people living at a subsitance level. Corn displaced soybeans… no problem. Rice prices up 300%…. no problem. Let the Christians donate more to feed those being starved by liberalism.
C’mon Brad, you know as well as I that if McCain had said that David Duke was his “spiritual advisor” and his “mentor” and he attended all the Klan meetings for TWENTY YEARS but didn’t know anything radical was being said the press would be blasting him EVERY HOUR ON THE HOUR! So, why the distress over asking Obama about “reverend” Wright. Also, what about Obama’s “average white person” comment when speaking of his grandmother’s fear of black men and Obama’s “clinging to guns and religion” comments in San Francisco when speaking about the blue collar white people in Michigan, his wife’s statement about this being the “first time she was proud of America”comment and last but CERTAINLY not least his association with Weather Underground memebers like Bill Ayers a Stalanist,domestic terrorist, bomber.
White people and black people are simply ignorant and stupid to vote for this man after the above mentioned FACTS were presented. One can only wonder what the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries would have looked like if the Wright and Ayers stories had hit the press preceeing them. Also, I dare say that Obama’s black and white supporters alike could not name you ONE accomplishment Obama has to his name other than being elected senator or what “change” he wants to bring about or how he is going to pay for the “change” he proposes.
Stephanopolis asked a LEGITIMATE question that Obama did not see coming because he thought himself safe because it was not Fox News asking the questions. The public has every right to know every public aspect of Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. That could mean where they attended school, what their grades were, whether their philosophy is conservative, liberal,moderate,libertarian,socialist, communist, what they wrote their thesis on etc. ALL would be legitimate questions. We are not electing a county council member, we are electing a president of the most powerful nation on earth and one who would have the potential to plunge us into a global depression and nuclear war.
The ONE thing that concerns me with Obama is that he may be WRIGHT!
Bob,
Refresh my memory. What were George Bush’s major accomplishments prior to being elected President?
That is actually a pretty good question. I was already having a difficult time coming up with POST-election accomplishments for President Bush. Certainly holding the line on runaway government spending hasn’t been one of them. About the only things I can think of either pre or post election are his tax cuts and his stand on abortion. Other than those, Bush has been nearly indistinguishable from Ted Kennedy. And even his tax cuts have nearly cratered the country, given his profligate spending tendencies. David
er…a sober Ted Kennedy
Doug –
Bush did run a big state, so he had a record of executive performance that voters could examine. The problem with US senators is that they can run their mouths but generally don’t have a record of running much else. That applies to all three of the candidates still standing.
The candidates that promote biofuels are idiots and have caused part of the economic crisis in this country. The politics of those that would promote turning food into gas fuel additives is one indication that this country is out of touch with all that is right and wrong with trying to bring down the cost of gasoline. Obama’s prime speech to win the presidency is about his support for biofuels (ethanol).
The Senate and House passed a appropriations bill that subsidised the farmers by billions of dollars to get them to plant more corn, soybeans etc to turn it into ethanol. They also awarded grants to individuals to the tune of billions of dollars to open ethanol plants to process the food products to turn them into ethanol. These grants were our taxpayer money and would not have to be paid back to the people even if the ethanol plants made money.
Not many people talk about how much water it takes to turn corn etc into ethanol. The most precious commodity we have is water. We can live without a lot of things but we cannot live without water. We are sacrificing our future water availability to make a product that will run in our cars. It takes 4 times the amount of water to one part corn to make ethanol (which does not include the energy at the plant to produce the ethanol).
The stupidity of our elected officials goes beyond comprehension.
“If McCain had Tim McVeigh…blah, blah”
If a frog had wings.
But Obama DOES
have a racist as his spiritual advisor,
a former KGB agent as his father figure (Frank Russell),
a socialist for a father,
a communist fellow traveler for a mother,
several terrorist bombers for close friends,
and campaign staffers who have met with terrorists in Libya and Syria.
I WISH bud were right about the 2020 thing. We’re going to have to get off our duffs and DEVELOP the new technologies before we can put our carburetors in a museum.
The course we’re on now, we’ll still be stubbornly trying to run the old ones even when we can’t find the gas. We’ll be like the Japanese just before Dec. 7, 1941 — running cars on charcoal…
Brad –
There will be plenty of gearheads still alive in 2020 to push bud’s dream back more than a few years. Besides, with simple modifications (a tank for compressed hydrogen, recalibration of carburetor jets / fuel injection systems), almost any gasoline-powered vehicle can run on hydrogen. The only trick is to make a tank big enough to give it a decent range, but if you’re talking the quarter-mile, it’s easy.
My point has been that there’s a twenty-year glide path that will get us to clean stuff, and not just hydrogen. T.J. Rodgers wants to bring the silicon revolution to solar, and if anybody can do it, the founder of Cypress can. He takes “no” as a challenge.
My other point is that we are a proud country, we can take care of ourselves and others too, so let’s do it. Remove the ethanol subsidies, let the farmers supply markets with wheat, corn, soybeans, cattle, and pork based on market prices, and let loose the dogs of energy! We can do it cleanly, cheaply, and pretty durn well. So let’s stop the bickering and let Americans and their industries have at it!
We’re going to have to get off our duffs and DEVELOP the new technologies before we can put our carburetors in a museum.
-Brad
Uh, I hate to break this to you Brad but all new cars are fuel injected and don’t have carburetors.
As for Lee, what can I say. I offer an olive branch and he turns around and spits in my face. Thanks for engaging in a bit of ‘civil discussion’ about issues Mr. Muller. Your narrow-minded, bigoted fear of anything and anyone that doesn’t agree or look like you is simply disgusting. You know nothing but claim to know everything. It’s very easy to dredge up dirt about McCain, he’s no angel by any means. But I’m choosing to take the high road.
Obama is a fine and brilliant man who will lead this country in a direction away from the failures of the GOP. This much is crystal clear, your guy has been in charge for 7+ plus years and what has it gotten us:
3,000 dead on 9-11
The perpetrator of 9-11 continues to run free
2 recessions
$3.50 gasoline and $4 diesel fuel
5,000 soldiers and civilians killed abroad
A $3 trillion bill for our wars of occupation
1,000,000 lives snuffed out in Iraq
A collapsing housing market
Stagnant, if not declining wages
Thousands of housing forclosures
A stagnant stock market
A growing gap in life expectancy compared to the rest of industrial world
Declining home values
Runaway global warming
A failed FEMA that can’t even bring water to thousands of American citizens in New Orleans
And the list goes on and on. Yet all the Lee’s and Bobs of the world can talk about is a bombastic preacher and a casual acquantance of Obama’s who happened to be a peace radical in the 60s. The country is suffering because of this narrow-minded bigotry. The country is led by fools who sell the Lees of the world on the same failed brand of snake oil that serves only to enrich a few corporate elitists. Yes, the Lees of the world have had their man for 8 looooooooong years and it’s time to put an end to this dangerous regime. It’s time to elect Barack Obama to lead this nation to greatness.
So Lee and you too Bob, step aside and let a real man, a compassionate man, a brilliant and honorable man lead this country back to the greatness that it was before the dry-drunk regime of the hapless Bush came along. And let’s let John McCain retire to Arizona. He deserves nothing less.
Brad, I hate to break this to you but carburators are already in a museum. All cars sold today are fuel injected and don’t use a carburator.
My posts keep disappearing. Now that’s spooky.
Maybe it’s because you don’t know how to spell “carburetor”.
bud –
I should post my “Hurricane Katrina” spreadsheet with all the references so that folks can look things up for themselves. In the meantime I will note simply the following.
We all need to understand that FEMA and other federal authorities can only act with the explicit permission of the state and local governments. New Orleans and Louisiana had approved plans in place but did not follow them. For example, there was plenty of water in trailers in the city, but city authorities ordered it held back. The city’s plan stated that
I don’t want to defend FEMA, but do note that FEMA can succeed only when the state and local governments have in place and follow the emergency plans they are required to develop to facilitate FEMA response. To the frustration of federal officials, then-governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin were unable to do so, primarily because their advisors were numnutzes.
But I have to agree that Bush started off with the Clinton recession and we are likely in one now, so that makes two.
The US actually has a better record of curtailing greenhouse gases than some of the folks who’ve signed up for Kyoto, but that’s not mentioned much.
And on and on. My concern is that your favorite has no record as an executive. Can he make decisions rather than posturing after the fact? McCain at least has been in the forefront, often on the wrong side, in my opinion, but at least he’s got a record of being on record.
bud and dub –
While I don’t suffer from dyslexia, I do react quite strongly, and favorably, to palindromes. One of my favorite songs is Weird Al’s Bob, but you have to read the lyrics before you can fully appreciate the video. As far as I know, it’s the only song that consists of palindromes. That it’s in the style of Robert Zimmerman and entitled “Bob” is another indication of Yankovic’s genius, and perhaps nerdiness.
There is certainly enough blame to go around for the failures following Katrina. But by far the biggest culprit was the president. And where was he when Katrina hit? Celebrating John McCain’s birthday in Arizona, that’s where. Katrina was a true catastrophe that only the Federal Government had the resources to deal with. Perhaps with a hands-on president all the folks involved would have done a better job. The Katrina aftermath, like so many failures that have occurred during the Bush years we’ll always be left to wonder: If only Al Gore had been in charge would events have turned out differently? Would we now be celebrating 16 straight years of peace and prosperity? Would 9-11 just be another date on the calendar. Would Sadam Hussein be just another loud-mouthed, impotent despot? Would we be paying $2/gallon for gasoline? The world can only wonder.
bud-
Where was Nagin? Where was Blanco? What was the status of their evacuatio plans?
bud – Let’s try to stay reality-based.
The first Bush recession started in the third quarter of 2000, before he was elected. There was this thing called the dot.com bubble that blowed up real good. So Gore or whoever would have inherited that.
Also al Qaeda had been planning its attack long before and regardless of who the US president was, so Gore would have had that on his plate too.
How Gore would have responded to 9/11/2001 and what he might have done regarding Saddam is speculative, so have at it. I happen to think that he would have wanted to respond like Bush did in Afghanistan, but would not have had the civilian advisors in place to counter the military’s, specifically the Army’s (Shinseki’s), 500,000-troops formula.
Follow all of the links here and review the source documents here.
Mike,
re: Bush as Governor of Texas…
” The constitutional definition of the governor’s office [of Texas] is undeniably weaker than in almost all other states.”
This from a University of Texas political website.
As in most every venture George Bush pursued in life, he chose the path of least resistance and traded on his name to gain what he could not achieve through his own efforts.
The first Bush recession began in March 2001. This was recession was triggered, in part, by the dot.com bubble. It was greatly exacerbated by 2 irresponsible acts of G.W. Bush. First, during the fall campaign Bush started bad-mouthing the economy. After the election he continued with the irresponsible jaw-boning which, in effect, spoofed the markets even further. All this irresponsible talk from the president elect is what finally pushed the economy over the edge.
But when all is said and done the recession may have been relatively mild had it not been for the president (and congress) hapless response. They passed an atrocious tax cut for the wealthy which did next to nothing to spur spending but did have a disasterous effect on the solvency of the government. Hence what was likely to be a mild recession with a proper response turned into a very deep recession which we continue to pay for today.
As for 9-11, there is little reasonable doubt any more that Al Gore would have responded to the various briefings and information available to him and would have likely headed off the 9-11 plot. The incompetence of Bush was in full bloom with his handling of his duties as commander in chief. And if that’s not enough, when notified of the SECOND plane hitting the WTC he continued to read to second grade school children for 7 looooooon minutes. The video of that event is scary stuff and shows just how inept our 44th president is.
So again, I have to ask: Would we better off as a nation had Al Gore been rightfully sworn in as POTUS? The answer is a resounding YES!
With respect to “Bob”, Mike, I like these:
Pa’s a sap
Ma is as selfless as I am
O Geronimo, no minor ego
“Naomi,” I moan
Oh no! Don Ho!
Oozy rat in a sanitary zoo
God! A red nugget! A fat egg under a dog!
Go hang a salami, I’m a lasagna hog
And now, a list of things bud, if he has time, would blame on our current president:
1) the Holocaust
2) the disquieting effect of gravity when a fall from a mountaintop is involved
3) World War I
4) World War II
5) cow poop
6) slavery
7) James Fenimore Cooper
8) the Kennedy assassinations
9) Chappaquiddick
10) the Chicago fire
Since the Treasury Dept, OMB, and various private economists have consensus data pointing to the economy beginning a trend down in late summer of 2000, and having no growth by November, it took it until the end of March to actually hit a contraction (negative growth rate), before Bush ever proposed a budget.
So, officially, it’s the Clinton Recession of 2000-2001.
Since Gore still runs around repeating the long-disproven lie that Saddam was innocent of helping Al Qaeda (we killed top Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and capture 2 hijacker training camps intact), and that “there were no WMD” (we captured 650,000 tons of WMD that the UN missed), it is safe to surmise that Gore would have done nothing to pursue the terrorists, just like he and Clinton did nothing for the 8 prior years.
And finally, bud, a comment on what would have happened in America had Al Gore been elected president:
We would be speaking Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Luri, Azerbaijani, Baluchi, Pashto, Dari, Uzbek, Turkish and, lest we forget, Spanish.
Those of us left alive would face Mecca whenever the imam said it was time.
And nobody would be allowed to blame anything on the president.
Sad to say, bud, that’s about how ridiculous your blather about Bush sounds.
When it dawns on you that even if he is the worst president of all time, he probably didn’t cause AIDS or the common cold, turn around three times, click your heels and say President Obama, because after January, you’ll never hear those two words in concert again.
Does Brad have “WSJ envy”? I think he reads that more than he does The State. Maybe it’s because they discuss Gov. Sanford more than The State does. Hopefully he’s preparing his resume to be sent to the WSJ, I hear there’s an opening for the jr. asst. to the asst. vice president of circulation.
The Gore Presidency
Chapter 1
January 20, 2001
After the rough and tumble election campaign of 2000 Al Gore took his rightful place as the 44th president of the United States having won the closest election in history. After exhausting all his appeals George W. Bush finally conceded defeat just a few days earlier. Gore had won Florida’s electorial votes by a slim margin of just 22 votes.
February 1, 2001
The first order of business was the economy. After the unsettling disruption to the nation’s financial markets resulting from the Republican failure to provide adequate regulatory oversight to the so-called dot.com industry President Gore settled down to address the situation. But before addressing these problems it would be necessary to shore up the economy at large. He quickly put together a package of middle and working class tax cuts, combined with some good old fashioned Keynsian spending initiatives. After some brief deliberations in Congress enough moderate Republicans were perusuaded to vote in favor of the president’s proposals. By the end of March the crises had reached it’s peak and many economists declared the onset of a recession. But as the timely spending and tax cut measures quickly took effect the slowdown was brief. Later analysis confirmed that the U.S. economy never officially dropped into recession.
The economic growth formula first crafted by Bill Clinton was still working. By the end of Gore’s second term the country had enjoyed an unprecidented 16 straight years of economic growth.
June 30, 2001
Regulations were adopted to prevent other industries, including housing, from going down the same speculative path that had plauged the dot.coms. Early attempts by the home mortgage industry to push so-called “sub-prime” mortgages on unsuspecting borrowers were thwarted by the highly effective Gore team at the Department of Interior. Although criticized by aggressive lending proponents in the GOP the measures pushed through by Gore have been credited with maintaining stable and secure growth in the housing industry. Many lower income Americans benefited by remaining in homes that were more affordable. The country as a whole benefited from a solvent housing industry.
The Al Gore Presidency
Chapter 2
President Gore had an uncanny grasp of the security threats facing America. One of his first orders of business was to cancel the various gold-plated defence hardware initiatives that George W. Bush had promised to continue. With the enormous savings resulting from these cancelations President Gore was able to craft a masterful collection of intelligence networks to evaluate the threats from terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. Gore was well aware of the threats these radical groups posed and he was equally aware that they could be marganilized by diplomatic efforts. Occassionally of course a plot would materialize and these were headed off.
An example was the planned attack of Al-Qaeda operatives on the World Trade Center. Not wishing to make the same mistakes that George H.W. Bush made which allowed the WTC attack in February 1993 to proceed Gore dedicated himself to taking all these threats seriously. When presented with a presidential daily breifing titled “Bin Laden determined to attack America” Gore immediately cancelled his planned vaction to Tennessee and called in all the intelligence leaders at the CIA, FBI and his national security advisor. After many late-night sessions the Gore team was able to identify the leaders of the plot and in short order 20 dangerous terrorists were arrested. These arrests eventually led to the discovery of additional plots to attack trains in London and Madrid. Instead of being just another routine day in the life of America the chilling details of the plan suggest that September 11, 2001 could have rivaled December 7, 1941 as the most infamous day in American history. Thanks to the Gore team thousands of American are able to enjoy long and prosperous lives who other might have perished on this second day of infamy.
Gore did a great job of hunting down Bin Laden and stopping the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.
It ranks right down there with his giving Silicon Graphics supercomputers to Red China so they could develop a hydrogen bomb with the data they stole from Los Alamos.
Wow! A technocratic marvel, just like France!
bud, I don’t know what you’re smokin’, but will you sell me some?
The Gore Presidency
Chapter 3
After receiving his noble prize for his work on global warming that helped to successfully reduce CO2 emissions and hence turn back the threat of global warming President Gore turned his attention to the problems of the middle east. After reading the report from UN inspectors in early 2003 that disproved the widely-held opinion that Sadam Huesein was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons Gore turned his attention to the other issues. Gore perceived that since Heussein was not a military threat there was no need to continue the persecution of the tin-horned dictator. Instead he advocated lifting sanctions against Iraq. The result was a substantial increase in the living standard of the Iraqi people. Heusein become little more than a figure head and was eventually replaced in power by religious cleric Mosad Al-Sadr. Al-Sadr sensed an opportunity to reject his somewhat radical past and instead welcomed leaders into his government. Much of this new-found moderation within Iraq is credited to President Gore’s diplomacy efforts on behalf of the Iraqi people.
With Iraq now a moderate, friendly and increasingly prosperous presence in the Middle-East radicals across the region found few friends and fewer opportunities. The order of the day became moderation. Palestinians in particular viewed the Iraq model as a harbinger of things to come in their relations with Isreal. Indeed the Gore peace iniatives were welcomed by the newly empowered moderates in the region. The peace process that began during the Clinton years was moved forward under President Gore. The great beneficiaries in the region were the various peoples of the middle-east. The greatful people of this region started a cooperative effort with the U.S. to help ease the American transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources. In return American companies invested heaviliy in the development of the region. Ultimately peace and prosperity reigned throughout the region. In 2012 Al Gore was awarded his second Nobel Peace Prize for his work in translating the Middle East. Gore could say with confidence at the end of presidency that “Freedom was on the march”.
Hey Bud, it is spelled “N-O-B-E-L” not “N-O-B-L-E.” I guess you can’t except much else from a South Carolina public school education….oh wait, I have a South Carolina public school education. What’s your excuse? I apologize for any offense taken.
When you figure out that Al Gore is all about Al Gore, bud, consider yourself a graduate.
And, bud, by the way, there has been no Gore presidency, and there won’t be.
I’ve got some pretty bad news, bud: Al Gore’s gone into hiding. Looks like the “right to food” transnationalists are ready to form a posse to go after folks who promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies.
Al’s fingerprints are all over the ethanol tax exemption. Did you know that as Vice President he once cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it ? Now he’s been found our as a co-conspirator to fuel our SUVs on the backs of the world’s poor.
And to think Al Gore’s family money came from tobacco allotments and his pappy working as a lobbyist for Occidental Petroleum.