Observations on the world today.

Friday, October 07, 2005


Poll: Groups Unhappy With Bush Performance
Evangelicals, Republican women, Southerners and other critical groups in President Bush's political coalition are worried about the direction the nation is headed and disappointed with his performance, an AP-Ipsos poll found.


Among those most likely to have lost confidence about the nation's direction over the past year are white evangelicals, down 30 percentage points since November, Republican women, down 28 points, Southerners, down 26 points, and suburban men, down 20 points.

Bush's supporters are uneasy about issues such as federal deficits, immigration and his latest nomination for the Supreme Court. Social conservatives are concerned about his choice of Miers, a relatively unknown lawyer who has most recently served as White House counsel.
Not to mention, they aren't sure where she stands on abortion.

I've been telling people for years not to vote for candidates based on the one-issue theme of pro-life. The poor saps who drive around with "I Vote Pro-life" bumper-stickers should really have in fine print underneath, "Because I Am a Gullible Fool."

Of course, there is always the other reason people voted for Bush, because he did such an excellent job in keeping America safe after he allowed 9/11 and got us into an unnecesary war that actually increased the terror threat. Something else the quoted story notes his base is beginning to realize. But let's not quibble.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

This IS Going To Be Fun! 

A few days ago, I mentioned a post I had dropped off at Blogs for Bush. I mentioned that I had been insulted for the comment by right-wingers. Well today, an anonymous coward left the following remark in comments:
You were wrong so you should expect to get hammered.
Okay, let's examine my comment. First a little context. This was the post at B4B:
The latest death tolls in Louisiana are at about 280. Now, it wasn't that long ago that Mayor Nagin was talking about a death toll around 10,000 or more... 25,000 body bags were ordered... Now I'm hearing some in the news suggest that maybe the evacuations were extremely successful. Perhaps looking back we'll learn that the loss of life wasn't nearly as high as predicted or initially estimated.

Of course, should that happen, watch the local government take the credit, and the Democrats and MSM continue to fault the Bush administration for something.
As I noted yesterday, the death toll is lower than 10,000, but that was never more than an estimation, and it was worded as an estimation with the implicit caveat that it was a highball guess. Now, what was my comment again? Here is what I said at B4B:
Huh? So the right casts blame on the local gov for not doing enough to protect people, and now that it looks like they did even a better job than they themselves had thought, you're trying to say the local evacuations are evidence that BUSH did a good enough job in his AFTER-the-fact response?
Did the right-wing blame the local NO government for not doing enough to help the people of New Orleans? Absolutely, without question they did. Did the death toll turn out lower than the local government had forecast? Yes, absolutely without question it did. WERE the fine Koolaid drinkers at B4B trying to say that the lower casualty numbers are evidence that Bush did a better job than the left was giving him credit for? Again, let's look at the B4B post in question:
Now I'm hearing some in the news suggest that maybe the evacuations were extremely successful. Perhaps looking back we'll learn that the loss of life wasn't nearly as high as predicted or initially estimated.

Of course, should that happen, watch the local government take the credit,
So the local government shouldn't take credit? Who then should? The Feds? OBVIOULSY That is the point being made here. But when did the Feds show up? Was it not after-the-fact as I said? Absolutely, it was.

So we find that my comment was 100% factual. BUT the anonymous coward from my comments says that I was wrong and that when wrong, one should expect to be hammerd. But it was he/she who was wrong, so what should he/she expect?


Listen, you Bush-loving moron, making an observation should be an invitation to the blogger to re-examine his position and shoud be accompanied by facts. That's what I did at B4B where I was polite and accurate. You are more than welcome to leave similar comments on this page. However, brown-nosing the single worst president in American history when he has so clearly fucked-up the situation in question is neither helpful nor patriotic. It is dangerous and ultimately subversive to the true cause of liberty, you fascistic neanderthal. Now take your nose out of Bush's ass. There's not room for both yours AND Miers's this week.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

A Little Dishonesty, A Little Hypocricy 

From Powerline Blog:
Louisiana Death Toll Complete

More or less complete, anyway. Authorities have completed the search for bodies in New Orleans, with the total known dead in all of Louisiana at 964. This compares, of course, to the claim that there were 10,000 killed in New Orleans alone, which was made by the city's mayor and repeated endlessly in the media.

I still don't see any sign of a meaningful self-examination by the media of its failed reporting of Hurricane Katrina.
Two points. First, it is dishonest to say that there was a claim that 10,000 were killed in NO. Nagin said that it would not be unreasonable to find that 10,000 had been killed. There is a difference.

Second, it is hypocritical to be a right-winger and be disgusted by the media for not examining their failures in examining an actual catastrophe during the catastrophie without having ever noted their failures to examine media failures in their coverage of Bush's misleading statements in the build-up to invasion. This is not to say that there should not be self-examination on the part of the media regarding their coverage of Katrina, but one is worse than the other; and Katrina is not the worse given the situation on the ground and the urgency of reporting the news during the storm as opposed to the relative wealth of time they could have taken in examining the "facts" the administration was diseminating in 2002.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?