President Bush may have spurned any attempt to manage or manipulate his own approval-rating polls, but the media clearly see Bush’s low approval numbers as their achievement. Discussing Bush’s last press conference January 12 on the PBS talk show Charlie Rose, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham declared the poll numbers showed Bush’s leadership was below mediocre:
If you are a president of the United States for eight years, through the kind of tumult we faced, and you come out with this kind of approval rating, you have failed at a very basic job, which is to convince the people, enough people that your course is the right one. And so as a clinical matter -- that’s not a smart-aleck media point, it’s not a liberal media point -- it's just simply true that George W. Bush has not led the democracy in ways that our greatest presidents and even mediocre ones have done.
This quote was used to summarize the interview segment at the top of the show. Meacham added that President Bush looks at his father’s legacy and argued that everything that defeated him for re-election was right, including the 1990 tax hikes:
His father, interestingly, was proven right later, and that is what the son is counting on. The three things that George H.W. Bush was beaten on -- raising taxes, the economy, not going to Baghdad -- all ultimately proved to be the right decisions. And I think, perhaps subconsciously, the son needs -- is counting to some extent on that.
But overall, Meacham took out his rhetorical stick and beat the President with it. It was Bush versus the facts, and Bush as Nixon:
JON MEACHAM: I think that, as John Adams said, facts are stubborn things, and so is George Bush. And I think part of the last eight years was these two forces coming together. And sometimes the facts won, and sometimes Bush won in the short-term.
I thought this was a great moment in presidential history, because that was 47 minutes that we will always have of sort of I was thinking of it this afternoon as I watched it again on YouTube -- it’s sort of Nixon lite. It`s not quite the East Room on the 9th of August 1974, but it was pretty revealing.
The real similarity is the amount of liberal hatred in the press corps. But it grew really interesting when Meacham – one of the media’s starkest examples of pomposity, especially when he sits on the Charlie Rose set – acted as the pot calling the kettle black in accusing Bush of being self-involved:
I must say he is not introspective, but boy is he self-involved. This is a man who is insistent that there is no short-term history, because as he says, there is long-term history. What is the first thing he went to when asked about Katrina? Should he have landed the plane. It wasn’t about the people in New Orleans. It was about what he should have done. For a man who doesn’t read the press, he sure liked to talked about the opiners and the windy opinion pieces were disguised as reported pieces.
"Windy opinion pieces disguised as reported pieces" could be Newsweek’s motto. Meacham and the other guests – New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and author/GQ writer Robert Draper – agreed that they found it disconcerting that Bush seemed light in tone at this press conference. As Meacham said:
He made a very good case for the human dimension of leadership. But I must say I kept watching and thinking, this is a wartime president. We have two wars, unfolding as we speak, and it’s not over for them. It’s not over for the soldiers who have -- who under his orders have gone out into the world to execute a mission that is controversial, to say the least. Saying not having weapons of mass destruction was a disappointment, was candid, I think, but there was a slight disconnect between the facts of the moment and his attitude. He was very loose at a very grave time, and I found that disconnect interesting.
First of all, Meacham should never bring up the troops and suggest he’s more connected with them than Bush is – let's not forget it was Newsweek that spurred deadly riots in the Muslim world by falsely and recklessly reporting that American interrogators were throwing Korans in the toilet.
But none of these writers seemed introspective enough to realize that sending Bush to meet the press is sending him into a room of the people who have worked very hard to tear him down and tell the public he is a disengaged boob. Even when he tried to pretend to like them, they denounced him for being "very loose at a grave time," and having a "disconnect." Their spin is relentless.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What does Meacham call Congress then?
January 19, 2009 - 07:22 ET by Red JeepThe approval rating of the Democrat controlled Congress is 3 times lower than President Bush's. what to you call Congress Jon?
Red Jeep yer scannin' me!
January 19, 2009 - 07:26 ET by sentforth5Took the words right offa my fingertips!
I'll just say: Yeah! What Red Jeep says!
That is the question the media should answer
January 19, 2009 - 10:06 ET by katiejaneThey beat the drum about Pres Bush's low approval numbers but NEVER even mention the even suckier numbers of Congress. Pres Bush and his lack of public adoration won't be around to affect the future but unfortuately we're still stuck with the fools in Congress. I guess they must be hoping for reflection glory from PEBO.
Interesting Approval Ratings
January 19, 2009 - 10:59 ET by BlondeWell, this was in my local paper today, here in the bastion of liberal Broward County (home of the hanging chad):
So.....my first suspicion is that, as usual, Newsweek is using skewed polling data.
Secondly...what on earth do they expect after hammering President Bush incessantly for eight years? Perception is reality for many people who are not politically savvy....they believe what they see on the tube and read in shamelessly biased rags like Newsweek.
As for the President's "touchiness" over Katrina, I think he has every right to be not only touchy, but down right agressive in his own defense. The whole Katrina "tragedy" was a tragedy of the media's making.....from Sheperd Smith crying on air, mayhem in the Dome, drowning people....and the media made it out to all be Bush's fault. Two words....que'lle crap.
Not just Congress but what about Newsweek he runs
January 19, 2009 - 12:44 ET by airedaletwoIf low approval ratings are the key then how about the approval ratings (subscriptions and profitablity) of the magazine he runs? It's in the tank to the point that they are seriously thinking of no longer being a weekly and totally shifting away from the "news" to telling us how to think about the news.
The same of course would apply to the entire profession of journalism which has approval ratings close to that of used car salesmen and the like.
Bush's approval ratings are
January 19, 2009 - 07:26 ET by BKeyserBush's approval ratings are all about the economy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. His numbers would be 45 or so if the economy was in the same condition as 2006, even with the wars still ongoing. Meacham is a partisan hack and will likely be author[izing] BDS articles in PropagandaWeek for some time to come. Especially to run interference for Obama's likely failures to turn the economy around.
The real shame is that republicans lacked the backbone to support Bush during the last four years and failed to trumpet the real reasons for the economic collapse. On their behalf, Mr. Bush, I apologize. It's no wonder republicans got hammered in the last two elections.
And to you, Mr. Bush, thank you for your tireless service, your leadership through tough times, and for keeping us safe these last seven years. Hopefully what you've instituted will remain enforced long enough to dispell the foreign threat. Peace to you and yours.
The real shame is that
January 19, 2009 - 09:33 ET by SeashellThe real shame is that republicans lacked the backbone to support Bush
during the last four years and failed to trumpet the real reasons for
the economic collapse.
You are so right! The republicans were spineless. They were so afraid of supporting Bush and the war, they let the democrats take the nation down the path of not supporting the mission there which was highly supported at first. That is one thing the dems have going for them. They stick to their guns on issues like this as long as a democrat conceives it. If Obama decides to stay in Iraq, the dems will circle the wagons and speak of Obama's brilliance in making the decision to stay.
I keep getting call asking
January 19, 2009 - 09:49 ET by Hunter12I keep getting call asking for donations to the NRCC and I've started to say no. They're just pissing my money away. Until the party grows a pair, quits trying to get a liberal press to love them, and starts laying the blame for the problems the country faces in the laps of the real culprits, they are going to have to do without my money. If I want to waste it, I earned it so I'm entitled.
Here's a talking point for the GOP:
Folks, We can't campaign against the Democrats' canned response "They don't want poor people to own a home!" unless you are smart enough to realize that giving loans to people who can't pay them back is what has caused this economic crash in the first place. The new Obama plan to further subsidize these bad loans with more bailout money is just throwing your tax money away at a very bad time.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
National RINO Congressional Committee
January 19, 2009 - 09:57 ET by CapeCodScottI'm A Conservative who votes Republican... Of course I live in Massachusetts, so I'm SOL anyway...
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
Scott, Hate to be one of
January 19, 2009 - 12:06 ET by Hunter12Scott, Hate to be one of those, "think you've got it bad, well..." kind of guys and you being from the home state of the swimmer and Lurch might think you have a lock on any contest, but here in Illinois we have "government-for-sale" Rod Blagojevich, "our troops are Nazis" Dick Durbin, and the Messiah II.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Let's hear it for my Illinois
January 19, 2009 - 12:37 ET by longway2gohome of the finest politicians money can buy.
Well said.
January 19, 2009 - 09:59 ET by SeashellWell said.
Patently obvious that......
January 19, 2009 - 07:38 ET by sbourgMeacham is an incredibly smart man.......who slipped off the track of objectivity a LONG time ago. He seems to have a PhD in BushDerangementSyndrome, and wears it proudly in his circles. It's impossible to take a man like this seriously (or his magazine "Newsweak"). A person like this is anathema to the success of our country. Example: he thinks Bush I was absolutely correct to raise tax rates, and he criticizes Bush II (naturally) for disagreeing with his father. The opposite is probably more correct. If budgetary issues were arising in 1991, then the Dem Congress should have reduced federal spending and let Reagan's tax rates stay low. But Dems never like to do this and Bush I caved in to them. This is the type of governmental decision-making that has put our govt finances and our Capitalism in so much trouble. Excess govt spending and excess taxation. Period. But someone like Meacham (and there are about 52% of voters who agree with him, unfortunately) will destroy our functioning vibrancy with his ideas. Obama's even worse!
Bush I
January 19, 2009 - 12:50 ET by ahusserWas cornered (maybe self-cornered) into raising taxes (with the attendant "read my lips" perma-quote). He had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress who threatened to shut the government down if they didn't get their way. I don't know if the Dems at that time could override a veto or not but Bush Sr. believed that a government shutdown was not a good thing. Since the press was and is on the Dems side the spin would have been against Bush Sr. on this matter unlike the stupid move the Republicans made to shut the Government down under Clinton which was a PR disaster for the party.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
And so as a clinical matter
January 19, 2009 - 07:44 ET by motherbeltAnd so as a clinical matter -- that’s not a smart-aleck media point,
it’s not a liberal media point -- it's just simply true that George W.
Bush has not led the democracy in ways that our greatest presidents and
even mediocre ones have done.
There's that liberal solipsim again...stating his own assessment as irrefutable fact. Libs love to do that; they end arguments with "that's a fact" or begin them with "the fact of the matter is...."
Approval Rating
January 19, 2009 - 07:45 ET by The Admiralhttp://lakemtkaliber...
It has already been mentioned by one of the commenters, but I'm going to re-emphasize it. Currently, the Democrap Congress approval rating is at 9%, well below Bush. This congress set a record a few months back with a 6% approval rating. Nobody seems to want to talk about that!
Polls do not reflect anything
January 19, 2009 - 07:48 ET by richb313Polls do not reflect anything but a snapshot of public sentiment. Leadership has nothing to do with popularity. Leadership is the ability to get people to do difficult things. The only polls that count are at the polling booth. Right now the Democrats are in charge and after a year or so what will the polls say, I don't care. What I care about is this country and its survival in the difficult days ahead. Will Obama have the fortitude to make unpopular decisions in order to protect this nation? Will he be able to stand up under the enormous pressure of the Presidency? The one thing we know about President Bush is that he was able to stay the course in spite of a huge effort to get him to moderate or change his position. That my freinds is the mark of a true leader. Make no mistake it is not easy to do what he has done when all around him try to destroy him.
Well Said Rich
January 19, 2009 - 08:53 ET by BourbeauAnd I second every sentiment expressed. This country relies too much on these snap shots of people's sentiment, but they make good headlines, and since our society is headline driven, for many it's their daily take on the news of the day. Having said that, let's also not forget that President Bush was up against hundreds, if not thousands of news rooms, writers, bloggers, etc., not to mention some pretty pitiful Congressman, many spouting off nonsense they had no knowledger of, as if it were fact. Here's a simple fact: We were attacked; and President Bush made it his mission to take the fight to the enemy. When he did, the Congress and the people were behind him. When the going got rough, he stood firm, and everyone else ran for cover. Here's my approval rating A+ - for guts, courage, and commitment to his values and his country.
Well said. Bush was a great
January 19, 2009 - 10:11 ET by dduckw0rthWell said. Bush was a great leader, and himself repeatedly stated that he does not bow to the polls. I will miss him.
Now that we will have more of a "curious newbie" in the whitehouse, I hope to God there are enough smart (read: less liberal) people around Obama to talk some sense into that head of his...
///The people have spoken!/// INDEED. Slightly over half don't have a CLUE what they spoke for. Enjoy the process as these people slowly get CLUES over a 4yr period.
Between the Rock of Socialism
January 19, 2009 - 13:11 ET by ahusserand the hardplace (hardship) of Failure. If Obama's even mildly successful we will be on the path to the "Socialist Utopia" and he will be Pres for the full Eight. It will take utter failure on his part to discredit his presidency and party but the toll of his failure could be catastophic.
As an aside I , for the life of me, have seen no terribleness in Bush's Presidency. I have said this before other than prosecuting a war that became unpopular. Nothing of any consequence happened during his administration. Other than the last 6 months or so of Economic havoc (which I lay at the feet of a Democratic congress and more conspiratorial theories) times have been relatively good no mass starvation, death or destruction no major dislocations. Our standard of living was, if nothing, better. To me the failure/terribleness of his Presidency was a matter of total fabrication by the media leading to a delusional mass hysteria of epic proportions and the medial are still fanning the flames.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
We all know who's mediocre
January 19, 2009 - 07:48 ET by ChrisMillsMeacham, you're liberal bias proves you're a below mediocre journalist.
To bad we can't return PBS for a refund like broken merchandise from a store. Let's shut down PBS, fire all their people, and auction off the network piece by piece to raise money for the taxpayers.
Newsweek is failing in the
January 19, 2009 - 09:56 ET by Hunter12Newsweek is failing in the poll that matters most to it, the subscriber's content approval poll, conducted by the circulation department on an annual basis. Meacham can thank his and other contributors' unreasoned diatribes for those falling and failing poll numbers. I used to subscribe to both Time and Newsweek. Now I don't.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
2,689 Days....A+ Rating
January 19, 2009 - 07:49 ET by CapeCodScottI score on the curve, You get a hell of a lot of "Extra Credit" for keeping our country safe from foreign attacks from Terrorists for 2,689 days!
Graphic to pass Along
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
priorities
January 19, 2009 - 09:35 ET by mom_roxThe Founding Fathers made the decision to list defending our country before promoting the general welfare in our preamble to the Constitution.
Thank you, President Bush.
And Lower Still...
January 19, 2009 - 07:51 ET by flyingmonkeyAnd even lower than the approval ratings of congress is the public's opinion of the Media.
Those who are informed quit watching and reading the MSM's drivel long ago leaving only the gullible boobs for an audience. The problem for the media is that you can't count on morons to buy a newspaper or watch the news.
You did a great job "W"
Buying a newspaper is the equivalent of paying somebody to lie to you.
Soooo...since the media has
January 19, 2009 - 09:10 ET by BDSoooo...since the media has lower poll ratings, we can justifiably say they are"Less than Mediocre?" I can go for that.
What Meacham forgets is that over time, President Bush's approval rating will rise - particualrly in comparison to Obamas. But guess what? THe press's approval ratings will only rise if they drop this liberal bent they have. If they do not 20 years from now Bush will Have approval ratings in the 60% range, but the press of this era will be looked at with scorn.
Ironic Comment Coming from Meacham (Mediocre Numbers)
January 19, 2009 - 08:00 ET by CapeCodScottFrom Folio 12/09/08
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
Scott
January 19, 2009 - 12:07 ET by NorthCoasterIt certainly looks like the public has voted on the mediocre media at the news stand doesn't it? Not only for Newsweek but for news outlets in all print markets. The loss of readership has little to do with the economy and more to do with refusing to purchase propaganda for the Left.
Thumbing through my pocket copy of the Constitution...
January 19, 2009 - 08:28 ET by Mike Bratton...I must be missing the part where opinion polls amount to a hill of beans.
But if we want to talk numbers, didn't ol' Jon and the Newsweek folks feel the need to lay off a lot of people recently? And didn't they have to cut their circulation guarantee by well over half, from 2.6 million to 1 million copies?
Wouldn't that mean that Newsweek has failed at a very basic job?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Less than 1%...
January 19, 2009 - 08:43 ET by Red Jeep... of the country buys Newsweek. And we should listen to Jon Meacham because...
Kick as* take names later!
January 19, 2009 - 08:49 ET by Crash"Opinions are the cheapest commodities on earth." And opinion polls are even less germane; especially considering that more than half of "The Likely Voters" can name the Vice President.
No Jon the superfluous the reasons why President Bush polled so low is as follows: 1) The media set out to besmirch his credibility at every turn with classics like, "He's too dumb" to "He's an evil genius." 2) He stopped being a "cowboy", abandoned his strong conservative values - the left is wrong period - and try to be more like the lackluster John McCain (good role model for idealism, bad formula for getting elected too!).
Lincolns Poll Numbers
January 19, 2009 - 08:51 ET by allanfThey did not conduct "polls" back in 1864, but I'd bet Lincoln had very low "poll" numbers. The Southern part of the nation so feared and dispised Lincoln that they suceeded from the Union. His own general, McClellan, ran against him in 1864 for President saying that the war was poorly run by Lincoln at a cost of a million white people.
The point is simple: the right thing and high poll numbers don't often don't coincide, particularly when there is a biased media.
PhD in BDS
January 19, 2009 - 08:53 ET by Roussesbourg: a PhD in Bush Derangement Syndrome! That's perfect. I may have to "borrow" that from time to time.
GWB has protected this
January 19, 2009 - 08:53 ET by ScarletGWB has protected this nation's jugular for the last 8 years. Why does that count for absolutely nothing with the mainstream media?
"....you have failed at a
January 19, 2009 - 09:01 ET by SickofLibs"....you have failed at a very basic job, which is to convince ...enough people that your course is the right one."
Uh, no, genius, that's student council president you're thinking of. They're quite different.
Bush lost points with the Right
January 19, 2009 - 09:12 ET by ekslibIt's ironic that Leftist commentators crow about Bush's low numbers. He
got those low numbers because he did things the folks on the Left ordinarily like.
If Bush hadn't pushed for things which the Left liked, like "amnesty," and if he had controlled Congress's liberal spending habits, his numbers would be higher with folks on the Right.
Since he was unabashedly pro-life, he had next to no chance of getting many positive reviews from the Left.
Sooooo that must mean
January 19, 2009 - 11:36 ET by reelman46The 9% congress is worst than mediocre...did I mention dems control it?
Can't wait for the June 2009 congressional approval poll...if they ask working voters, that is...2009, the Year of the CYA...mark it.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Dear Jon
January 19, 2009 - 09:14 ET by RD KingIn actuality he ran the Republic with dignity, honor and leadership as a true commander in chief, and kept your sorry a** and yours safe just like the rest of us. By providing this leadership he kept it so that you could keep opening that huge blowhole of a sewer you use to spew American hatred around the globe without fear of reprisal. Leadership by the way a quality that you will soon realize your new leader has none of, that is if you can get your lips off of his a** long enough to see anything. You had better beware your new messiah if for some reason down the road you decide to speak out against him instead of keeping your lips planted to his round crusty brown, you will be in an obamalug faster that you can say Jimmy Carter.
Attack ideas and positions
January 19, 2009 - 09:35 ET by richb313This is just a personal note. Please refrain from personal attacks deserved or not. It is OK to attack ideas and positions but please refrain from personal attacks. This is the tactic of the left and I find it to diminish the conversation. I believe to respond to personal attacks is to lower the discourse. Many have blamed GWB for his restriant against the relentless assault. I admire him for it. If he had responded in kind it would have only given the left new ammuntion to use against him. I am sure you are a decent enough person but do not be tempted to decesnd into the muck and the mire. Thanks, I'll get off the soapbox now.
"Saying not having weapons
January 19, 2009 - 09:58 ET by rimsky"Saying not having weapons of mass destruction was a disappointment, was candid, I think, but there was a slight disconnect between the facts of the moment and his attitude. He was very loose at a very grave time, and I found that disconnect interesting."
He won't utter the words he's really thinking... Bush lied, people died, which is, of course, a grand load!
He knows that there isn't a shred of corroborative evidence that Bush lied about anything. They are just so infected with BDS that they can't help themselves. Bush has more moral courage than Barry will ever have. Bush made decisions to take the war to the terrorists, knowing full well that he'd take a direct hit in the media (and from liberal democrats, who BTW, know very well how to use their in-the-tank media friends to their benefit). His effectiveness as President has suffered because of the constant drum beat against him in the media.
I hate admitting that I hope BHO fails, because it means bad things for our country as a whole, so... I'll pray for our country.. to survive this newly anointed leader, but with a boatload of honest trepidation.
your quandry
January 19, 2009 - 11:18 ET by mom_roxsuggestion: Instead of stating your hope that Obama fails, wish that America succeeds regardless if it is due to or in spite of Obama.
Bad press for the President ...
January 19, 2009 - 10:04 ET by Jayke... "Accused of changing the rationale for 'his' war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Derided as an uninspiring public speaker. Belittled as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship and manipulation of the press. Mockingly compared with lower primates. Pressured for a key Cabinet Advisor's resignation. Of course, we're referring to Lincoln."
http://mistersnitch....
One hundred and fifty years later we look back on the press during Lincoln's tenure as STUPID IDIOTS. If the United States survives for another 150 years today's press will be thought of as STUPID IDIOTS.
I just want to ask. Who is more like Lincoln?
150 Years...How about NOW
January 19, 2009 - 10:11 ET by CapeCodScottIt took 150 years from Lincoln because they didn't have NEWSBUSTER.org
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
Jayke
January 19, 2009 - 12:09 ET by NorthCoasterYou're right on target..
Democrats Started Faulty Intelligence
January 19, 2009 - 10:12 ET by Retired Geek"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
http://hisfacts.blog...
→ Hey Geek
January 19, 2009 - 10:31 ET by Cool ArrowYou forgot one. The most damning one. Dated same as Nancy Pelosi's quote:
Retired
January 19, 2009 - 12:11 ET by NorthCoasterI think that the Sandy Berger disapeering documents caper was to destroy records of this fact.
Sloppy, Just Sloppy Sandy
January 19, 2009 - 16:19 ET by CapeCodScottRemember, it wasn't a criminal act, he was just Sloppy Sandy...
Occasionally I am sloppy. When I am eating pasta or some soup, sometimes I spill a little on my tie. If I am stuffing documents from a secure location that I had to show ID and sign in to get access to them, in my socks, pants and other places, walk out with them, hide them in a dumpster and come back for them I'm not sloppy, I'm GUILTY!
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
We haven't heard the last
January 19, 2009 - 10:16 ET by msh1973We haven't heard the last of the BDS, for the next four years everything that goes wrong or not according to plan will still be Bush's fault.
I truly do not know how the Bush family has endured the vile things said about their son, husband, father and brother. It is very sad indeed.
Bridge Sale!
January 19, 2009 - 10:22 ET by Hunter12Clinton used leaks and then opinion polls on the leaked information to steer the ship of state for eight years. During that time period, we had quite a number of attacks on our interests at home and around the world. 9/11 can be laid directly in Willy's lap, regardless of what Gorelick and Ben-Veniste helped shovel out of that commission. President Bush didn't float a course of action out in front of the American people and wait to see what their response would be. He acted to keep us safe. By not revealing what was being done to catch terrorists before they could strike here, his administration has been able to re-use the same rat-traps to catch multiple rat bastard terrorists. Are we supposed to believe that the terrorists have had more of a rage at England, Spain, and Italy than they had at the USA, and that's why they struck successfully in those countries? That is what the press would have us believe. It hasn't been the Bush administration keeping us safe, it's been a lack of desire on the part of Muslim extremists that has been the reason no attacks have been successful here in the last seven years. To anyone who reads this and agrees with the press, I have two words for you:
Bridge Sale!
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ PBS approval?
January 19, 2009 - 10:23 ET by Cool ArrowWhat is PBS approval rating?
Charlie Rose's approval rating?
Doesn't matter. As long
January 19, 2009 - 11:14 ET by fitzfongDoesn't matter. As long as we're forced to subsidize the abject failure that is PBS (and as long as they can con corporations into shipping them grant money), pledge drive gimmicks like Three Tenor and Andre Rieu concerts will keep the Titanic afloat.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
just in case you haven't seen a copy of newsweek lately
January 19, 2009 - 10:33 ET by tonemeisteri'm in the position of being married to a liberal. she's a good partner and knew of my views before she married me. she still subscribes to slime, newsweak, the washington fish wrapper etc. especially slime and newsweak are about as thick as the free mini-mags in the checkout line in the supermarket. oh, how the mighty have fallen
I cancelled Obamaweek
January 19, 2009 - 11:15 ET by StarAZI finally could not take it anymore--the halos, the Jonathan Alter, this Meacham guy, the pretentious religion stuff...they give you your money back.
The reason they keep
January 19, 2009 - 13:07 ET by Hunter12The reason they keep getting thinner and thinner is that the number of advertisers gets fewer and fewer. With declining readership, those with product to sell are taking their ads to places where they will be seen, and seen by people who buy stuff.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Jon Meacham
January 19, 2009 - 10:35 ET by NKurucPlease tell me what qualifies Meacham to be an expert on anything. He's a pretentious twit, who's editor of a failing news magazine that fewer and fewer people are reading partly because of it's liberal bent. When has this guy ever said anything positive about our current administration? If you ask him to be on your show, you know what you're getting. It's really going to be interesting to see how this deplorable media treats Obama after the bloom comes off the rose. Is it possible that they'll go into a "defensive" mode?
When I saw the pic I
January 19, 2009 - 11:20 ET by RR GOPWhen I saw the pic I thought it was Jon Stewart.
May as well have been.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Ratings....
January 19, 2009 - 12:34 ET by sembyI love when Meachem and Matthews talk about Bushs' ratings, it's as if, they are working in success.
MSNBC has poor ratings, Matthews is lower than most on the network, Meacham's Newsweek has low ratings too; probably one the lowest.
They should worry about their own ratings and stop playing around w/ poll ratings in regards to the President.
Don't worry the time will come soon, when many, many Americans will realize the great worth of President Bush and the horrible mistake of Obama, it's coming soon!
NEWSWEAK....that's more like it
January 19, 2009 - 17:29 ET by CapeCodScottwww.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
HMMMMMMMM
January 19, 2009 - 13:01 ET by rick007What does Jon think about Congerses poll #"s????
Rest assured that someday, the treasonous swine in the MSM...
January 19, 2009 - 18:40 ET by R D Helm...who endeavored to embolden our enemies while working to harm our CIC in a time of war, are going to get theirs.
Either in this life, or the next.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.