Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What if Bush had done that?
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > The Water Cooler > The Boiler Room
Thorgrum
QUOTE
What if Bush had done that?

Josh Gerstein Josh Gerstein
Tue Oct 27, 6:02 am ET

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. ... There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Be!@#$%* Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Managing the press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known ... the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president ... doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Dealing with business, in secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

Toning down human rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Traveling and recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.


Ive bolded parts i found interesting, so do you think the sentiment of this article is correct? Is obama getting the kid glove treatment?

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091027/...ico/28764/print

Notation on source: it sublinks to other articles on specifics (new orleans, foreign travel)
The Observer
Bush got it pretty easy for the first few years as well.
bigwoody
...and Obama is getting far from the kid gloves, he has had about the most hostile media reception I've ever seen.
SoxNation
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 27 2009, 11:04 AM) *
...and Obama is getting far from the kid gloves, he has had about the most hostile media reception I've ever seen.



Are you kidding me? most hostile you've ever seen? Were you aware or alive during Bush and Clinton?
Thorgrum
QUOTE (The Observer @ Oct 27 2009, 02:52 PM) *
Bush got it pretty easy for the first few years as well.


do you agree with the points raised in the article? the specifics bolded and the kid gloves question? I cant dispute the articles points, it goes further then I would have with the "kid gloves" crap but the title of the article was great, specifically the fox news fiasco from the obama admin, thats been a real gem, I mean, what if bush did that ? lol1.gif

Thorgrum
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 27 2009, 03:13 PM) *
Are you kidding me? most hostile you've ever seen? Were you aware or alive during Bush and Clinton?


Clinton? you mean that whole kenneth star bit, nah that wasnt hostile lol1.gif
Lamuella
they have a point. I mean, if Bush had not immediately responded to a request from his generals in Afghanistan for more troops, and had (for example) let such a request sit on his desk for months, the press would have gone balistic.

Oh, wait. he did. In fact, he ignored it for so long that Obama had to fill the request when he came into office.
bigwoody
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 27 2009, 10:13 AM) *
Are you kidding me? most hostile you've ever seen? Were you aware or alive during Bush and Clinton?

I've studied the media parallels quite a bit. Clinton got it bad, Bush got it worse, and so far Obama is getting the worst. I am guessing the next President will somehow get it even worse. Political rhetoric in this country is shifting from disagreements to a war propaganda style, and it reflects in media coverage.
Lamuella
QUOTE (Thorgrum @ Oct 27 2009, 11:16 AM) *
do you agree with the points raised in the article? the specifics bolded and the kid gloves question? I cant dispute the articles points, it goes further then I would have with the "kid gloves" crap but the title of the article was great, specifically the fox news fiasco from the obama admin, thats been a real gem, I mean, what if bush did that ? lol1.gif


Bush kind of did. He had a fairly public war of words with NBC, including Ed Gillespie (mentioned in your article above) sending an open letter to NBC complaining about their coverage. As I recall, Fox were cheerleaders for the idea.
SoxNation
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 27 2009, 11:19 AM) *
I've studied the media parallels quite a bit. Clinton got it bad, Bush got it worse, and so far Obama is getting the worst. I am guessing the next President will somehow get it even worse. Political rhetoric in this country is shifting from disagreements to a war propaganda style, and it reflects in media coverage.


How far back have you studied it? I always think its funny how people think its gotten/getting so bad now, if they ever really looked back at the beginning of the country and the viciousness back then.

Secondly we have to break out what we are talking about here. MSM? Do you include right wing talk? Internet?

I bet if you are doing a broad based media approach and including the new media, then yes you will see it get worse and worse, but thats not a fair comparison, Clinton and Bush had less new media reporting about them, so its not quite equal.
Lamuella
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 27 2009, 11:21 AM) *
How far back have you studied it? I always think its funny how people think its gotten/getting so bad now, if they ever really looked back at the beginning of the country and the viciousness back then.

Secondly we have to break out what we are talking about here. MSM? Do you include right wing talk? Internet?

I bet if you are doing a broad based media approach and including the new media, then yes you will see it get worse and worse, but thats not a fair comparison, Clinton and Bush had less new media reporting about them, so its not quite equal.


there's an awful lot of ways that the comparison can shift, as well. Is it fair to compare media coverage of the last years of a two term president with the first year of a president in his first term? I certainly don't remember Bush getting the tone of coverage Obama did in his first year, in terms of how negative things are.
Thorgrum
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 27 2009, 03:20 PM) *
Bush kind of did. He had a fairly public war of words with NBC, including Ed Gillespie (mentioned in your article above) sending an open letter to NBC complaining about their coverage. As I recall, Fox were cheerleaders for the idea.


In comparisson to the fox thing with Obama he's raised the bar a touch higher then bush did. Im not advocating for Bush with this op submission, I think hes to worst president we've had in some time certainly my life time (I was born in 1970), I just found the article to have made fair points and worthy of a discussion. I knew it would be divisive I was just curious as to who would say what/concede points made in the article.

So far the responses havent dissapointed. cool.gif
Flatlander
All Presidents get easier treatment from the press at the start, when everyone is courting the White House press office for better access ... then things always go downhill.

It's probably even more the case with this administration, since what preceded it (I loved the gall of quoting Ari Fleisher, who might as well have been called the Minister of Disinformation during his term) had the media so frustrated trying to pry a single fact out of the blizzard of B.S.

As for the treatment of Fox News .... as a manager I wouldn't send any of my staff out to participate in their dog & pony propaganda show either, what purpose would it serve?
bigwoody
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 27 2009, 10:21 AM) *
How far back have you studied it? I always think its funny how people think its gotten/getting so bad now, if they ever really looked back at the beginning of the country and the viciousness back then.

Secondly we have to break out what we are talking about here. MSM? Do you include right wing talk? Internet?

I bet if you are doing a broad based media approach and including the new media, then yes you will see it get worse and worse, but thats not a fair comparison, Clinton and Bush had less new media reporting about them, so its not quite equal.

It is absolutely a fair comparison, because impressionable people follow these new media sources as well, and draw opinions from them.

MSM coverage harshness is mostly a hot potato game. MSNBC grilled Bush at every opportunity, Fox gave him kid gloves, roles are reversed with Obama. Such is expected with the media biases I discussed in my earlier wall'o'text. Still, Obama has (amazingly) gotten far more vitrol at this stage of his Presidency than Bush did. Of course, Bush didn't hit his stride for being a media target until year 2 or 3, so we have time to see how Obama's coverage patterns evolve over his Presidency.
Lamuella
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 27 2009, 11:36 AM) *
It is absolutely a fair comparison, because impressionable people follow these new media sources as well, and draw opinions from them.

MSM coverage harshness is mostly a hot potato game. MSNBC grilled Bush at every opportunity, Fox gave him kid gloves, roles are reversed with Obama. Such is expected with the media biases I discussed in my earlier wall'o'text. Still, Obama has (amazingly) gotten far more vitrol at this stage of his Presidency than Bush did. Of course, Bush didn't hit his stride for being a media target until year 2 or 3, so we have time to see how Obama's coverage patterns evolve over his Presidency.


it's also the case that any date after september 10th in Bush's first year is an unhelpful comparison because dissent towards the president became distinctly unfashionable for a while. I'll give the media the benefit of the doubt and say that if similar circumstances had happened to Obama, the media would have given him the same license.
SoxNation
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 27 2009, 11:25 AM) *
there's an awful lot of ways that the comparison can shift, as well. Is it fair to compare media coverage of the last years of a two term president with the first year of a president in his first term? I certainly don't remember Bush getting the tone of coverage Obama did in his first year, in terms of how negative things are.


i completely understand that, but if you discount Fox and new media i haven't really seen that much negative press. Secondly as you point out later, Sept. 11th definitely shielded Bush a lot, Finally what Obama is attempting as far as priorities are more far-reaching than Bush did, so you'd expect more heated response.

I guess my point was that the post that started this line said that Obama's is the worst most negative coverage. A statement like that can't really be made without the caveats we've pointed out.
Vaal Satori
The media only really turned on bush partway through his second term, when his popularity was already in decline. Before then they gave him very favorable treatment, culminating in almost unanimous and unquestionable support for the Iraq War in 2003, replete with a total lack of serious coverage given to those opposing it.

Also, I'm really loving how they immediately play the race card. "He gets a pass because he's black!" Yeah, that's not really helping their credibility there.
SoxNation
QUOTE (Vaal Satori @ Oct 27 2009, 12:01 PM) *
The media only really turned on bush partway through his second term, when his popularity was already in decline. Before then they gave him very favorable treatment, culminating in almost unanimous and unquestionable support for the Iraq War in 2003, replete with a total lack of serious coverage given to those opposing it.

Also, I'm really loving how they immediately play the race card. "He gets a pass because he's black!" Yeah, that's not really helping their credibility there.


Do you equally complain when the race card is used against his opponents?
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 27 2009, 12:05 PM) *
Do you equally complain when the race card is used against his opponents?


Yes. This piece for instance was equally uncalled for. As with this article, the accusations might be true and they might not be, but the point is that opinions shouldn't be presented as facts by news organizations.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Vaal Satori @ Oct 27 2009, 11:01 AM) *
The media only really turned on bush partway through his second term, when his popularity was already in decline. Before then they gave him very favorable treatment, culminating in almost unanimous and unquestionable support for the Iraq War in 2003, replete with a total lack of serious coverage given to those opposing it.

Also, I'm really loving how they immediately play the race card. "He gets a pass because he's black!" Yeah, that's not really helping their credibility there.

This sums up my feelings. Bush and the Republican party, in my mind and to the best of my recollection anyways, got a relatively free pass till they started interfering with that Terri Schiavo nonsense and then it just got worse and worse. But while you are still popular, you can get away with an awful lot.
Aeternos Astramora
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 27 2009, 10:40 AM) *
it's also the case that any date after september 10th in Bush's first year is an unhelpful comparison because dissent towards the president became distinctly unfashionable for a while. I'll give the media the benefit of the doubt and say that if similar circumstances had happened to Obama, the media would have given him the same license.

Who here thinks that FOX News would rally behind Obama? Who here thinks FOX News would blame Obama?
Thorgrum
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 27 2009, 05:03 PM) *
But while you are still popular, you can get away with an awful lot.


and that sums up my thoughts on it pretty well too, Obama is getting away with an awful lot. However I cant deny Bush got handled midly too in the begining....

Other then the claims he stole the election from Gore, that Baker and his brother twisted arms in florida to get the votes but my memory is a little off on it, maybe the proclomations of illigitimate election results isnt so bad the first month you are in office, eh? lol1.gif
Commander Cato
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 27 2009, 10:04 AM) *
...and Obama is getting far from the kid gloves, he has had about the most hostile media reception I've ever seen.

LOL please tell me you're kidding.
Ethan Smith
Would Obama gotten off with allowing an attack on American soil to occur. Not to say Bush did it on purpose, but if Obama were to 'let one through' it wouldn't be seen as something to rally around, it would be seen as the failure of Obama's foreign policy.

Would Obama gotten off with attacking a nation for no !@#$@#$ reason.

Would Obama gotten off with taking more breaks than any other president.
Arcturus Jefferson
QUOTE (Commander Cato @ Oct 27 2009, 01:12 PM) *
LOL please tell me you're kidding.

Fox News counts as media.
DogeWilliam
I find it hard to see any of this as relevant. Didn't we all agree as a society about a decade ago that the media/news is terminally ill and you would have to be loco to care what they say in the first place?

Obama will be re-elected that is all that matters. What will the republicans throw at him? Romney/Palin? lol1.gif lol1.gif lol1.gif lol1.gif lol1.gif lol1.gif
Lamuella
QUOTE (Aeternos Astramora @ Oct 27 2009, 01:07 PM) *
Who here thinks that FOX News would rally behind Obama? Who here thinks FOX News would blame Obama?


It's possible I'm being exceptionally generous, but that's why I call it the benefit of the doubt.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (DogeWilliam @ Oct 27 2009, 01:07 PM) *
I find it hard to see any of this as relevant. Didn't we all agree as a society about a decade ago that the media/news is terminally ill and you would have to be loco to care what they say in the first place?

So where do you get your information from? God?
Lamuella
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 27 2009, 02:10 PM) *
So where do you get your information from? God?


don't you remember the big meeting that we as a society had in the late nineties?

There were T-shirts, and buttons.
DogeWilliam
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 27 2009, 01:10 PM) *
So where do you get your information from? God?


He's a good source. TV news, not so much.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 27 2009, 01:12 PM) *
don't you remember the big meeting that we as a society had in the late nineties?

There were T-shirts, and buttons.

I think I was reading the Left Behind series and wondering if I was going to burn in hell.
Goddammit, I knew I should've put that book down sad.gif

QUOTE (DogeWilliam @ Oct 27 2009, 01:13 PM) *
He's a good source. TV news, not so much.

TV news ain't so great, but there a good number of people who still watch it. Americans believe some cuh-razy things.
Lamuella
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 27 2009, 02:16 PM) *
I think I was reading the Left Behind series and wondering if I was going to burn in hell.
Goddammit, I knew I should've put that book down sad.gif


I have a very hard time picturing you as a Left Behind fan. You're much too smart for that.
Arcturus Jefferson
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 27 2009, 02:17 PM) *
I have a very hard time picturing you as a Left Behind fan. You're much too smart for that.

I read them all way back when. Only in retrospect are they really bad.

:embarrassed:
SoxNation
I'm reading them now, pretty well written IMO.
Lamuella
the quality of writing is fair to middling (Jerry Jenkins is a moderately talented writer, although Tim LaHaye kind of stinks), but the theology is horrible on so many separate levels.
Arcturus Jefferson
Slacktivist has a pretty brutal (but entertaining) deconstruction of the series (going roughly chapter by chapter). And looking back, they were pretty bad. But then again, my politics have shifted since I first read the books.
Infinite Narwhal
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 27 2009, 09:19 AM) *
I've studied the media parallels quite a bit. Clinton got it bad, Bush got it worse, and so far Obama is getting the worst. I am guessing the next President will somehow get it even worse. Political rhetoric in this country is shifting from disagreements to a war propaganda style, and it reflects in media coverage.


If the trend were to continue indefinitely I wonder what it would be like at it's very worst.
anenu
QUOTE (Infinite Narwhal @ Oct 27 2009, 02:18 PM) *
If the trend were to continue indefinitely I wonder what it would be like at it's very worst.


Assassinations of presidents based on nothing more then media slander is what it would lead up to. That or a complete actual divide between the two parties.

Not saying that is likely in fact it is very very unlikely but if the republican and democratic media keep growing bolder and angrier at the other party with each president that is what it would lead up to.
Aeternos Astramora
QUOTE (Thorgrum @ Oct 27 2009, 09:41 AM) *
As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

I don't see how the two paragraphs are properly transitioned by "but".

QUOTE
When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known ... the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

MSNBC in the beginning of Bush's term doesn't even approach how bad FOX is to Obama.

About China, he probably shouldn't have skipped meeting the Dalai Lama, but it's not a big deal.
Tolkien
Genuine question:
Did Bush or Clinton ever get a media !@#&storm if/when they sent the PM of Great Britain some CDs?
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 27 2009, 01:17 PM) *
I have a very hard time picturing you as a Left Behind fan. You're much too smart for that.

I suppose my literary sense was rather undeveloped at the time. But the storyline was rather engaging, from what I remembered. Nuking cities and all that awesome.gif
Ethan Smith
I loved Tom Clancy and Clash of Cultures when I was a kid.

We were all pretty stupid as teens.

WOULD WE ALLOW OBAMA TO BE STUPID
Lamuella
QUOTE (Tolkien @ Oct 27 2009, 05:33 PM) *
Genuine question:
Did Bush or Clinton ever get a media !@#&storm if/when they sent the PM of Great Britain some CDs?


Bush didn't even get a media poopstorm when he inappropriately touched Angela Merkel

(note to the humor impaired, he gave her a neck massage that she clearly didn't want. The photos are very funny)
Eagare the Alenthin
QUOTE (Ethan Smith @ Oct 27 2009, 10:17 PM) *
I loved Tom Clancy and Clash of Cultures when I was a kid.

We were all pretty stupid as teens.

WOULD WE ALLOW OBAMA TO BE STUPID

Hey, teenager in the room here.
Delta1212
QUOTE (Arcturus Jefferson @ Oct 27 2009, 02:48 PM) *
Slacktivist has a pretty brutal (but entertaining) deconstruction of the series (going roughly chapter by chapter). And looking back, they were pretty bad. But then again, my politics have shifted since I first read the books.

I think you just made my night. Thank you.
Asriel Belacqua
QUOTE (Eagare the Alenthin @ Oct 27 2009, 05:02 PM) *
Hey, teenager in the room here.


I'm a teenager also, and I do think that while people don't give us enough credit, the majority of us are rather dumb.

QUOTE (Thorgrum @ Oct 27 2009, 11:09 AM) *
and that sums up my thoughts on it pretty well too, Obama is getting away with an awful lot. However I cant deny Bush got handled midly too in the begining....

Other then the claims he stole the election from Gore, that Baker and his brother twisted arms in florida to get the votes but my memory is a little off on it, maybe the proclomations of illigitimate election results isnt so bad the first month you are in office, eh? lol1.gif


So, Texas Governor "threatening" to leave the nation, Palin's husband saying "We don't need the lower 48" (basically also talking about leaving), the issues of the legitimacy of his birth certificate (which I STILL hear from people), let's see... anything else you'd like to hear about from the extreme beginning of Obama's to outweigh those? I've heard a ton. Though, my personal favorite are the first two.

I am not going to say Bush didn't get his own share of negativity at the beginning of his admin. However, I do believe that it was not nearly as bad as it is for Obama, and that by Sept. 11 opposition had pretty much died down for a time until his second term.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (Infinite Narwhal @ Oct 27 2009, 03:18 PM) *
If the trend were to continue indefinitely I wonder what it would be like at it's very worst.


Probably a return to the 60s, when every public figure and their brother were being shot at (literally).
Lysander
QUOTE (Thorgrum @ Oct 27 2009, 07:41 AM) *
Ive bolded parts i found interesting, so do you think the sentiment of this article is correct? Is obama getting the kid glove treatment?

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091027/...ico/28764/print

Notation on source: it sublinks to other articles on specifics (new orleans, foreign travel)

That would be a YES. I don't find any media assaulting him like they did Bush. FoxNews is the only one still trying to be a watchdog, and not a sugar coated All hail obama 'news' network
NewPoseidon
QUOTE
A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Obama's spent more time in NO than Bush did.
QUOTE
Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Liar. He delayed the meeting, but has been more critical of China's human rights policies than Bush (or Clinton, truth be told).

QUOTE
Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

What? I'm not aware of any secret deal.

QUOTE
Freezing out a TV network.

Liar. Fox still has a seat in the White House press briefing room, and also accompanies Obama on board Air Force One when he travels. High ranking members of the executive branch such as Hilary Clinton and David Axelrod continue to speak to Faux reporters. Apparently "refusing to give exclusive interviews" is a "freeze" in the writers childish mind.

QUOTE
Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

So Obama's done more fundraisers in the last year than Bush did in eight? Liar.


The writer's accusations are paranoid and unsourced. I don't believe any of them. If anything, this hit-job of a news piece could be used as evidence the media is unfair to Obama.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.