Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Talk About Spin

Re: Talk About Spin

Lethologica — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:07:21 -0000

Oops, error of proofreading: "I'd want to see something solid before assuming that the actions I know about...mean Bush knew what was going on." Double negatives ftl, lol.

Re: Talk About Spin

Lethologica — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:05:29 -0000

He was informed enough beforehand to request that Blanco and Nagin evacuate before the hurricane hit. Then the Coast Guard (which is formally under Bush's control) went above and beyond the call of duty during the first 72 hours of chaos. I believe Del_Dolemonte mentioned this to you. He was prepared enough for the disaster before it occurred, despite that the federal government isn't required to get involved for 3 days after the incident.

You quoted Blumenthal - I'll go ahead and run with the fact of Bush's staff assembling some network news reports for him to watch on Air Force One, sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Where does Blumenthal show that this is because his staff considered him ill-informed on the situation? How am I supposed to know if that isn't Blumenthal projecting his wishful thinking onto the facts to warp them to his preordained conclusions? I'd want to know what the networks were saying regardless of how well-informed I was on the situation to begin with.

As for overriding the local government, that could mean anything from "Bush didn't know s*** about the situation so we couldn't get involved" to "we didn't anticipate just how incompetent Blanco and Nagin were going to be." I'd want to see something solid before assuming that the actions I know about (warning Blanco and Nagin beforehand, and the heroics of the CG) don't mean Bush didn't know what was going on.

Meanwhile, over in Rochester NH, something was going on that didn't involve Hillary at all, except that it was a building she used sometimes. So her involvement is as much or more an indication of how involved she thinks a Presidential candidate should get in day-to-day affairs of individual citizens as it is of her "leadership skills." I'd have to see something more substantial, given that she hasn't shown much leadership anywhere else, before I credit Hillary with substantial leadership.

Re: Talk About Spin

Ray_in_MPLS — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:12:24 -0000

I don't remember that as a hostage situation, do you?

Re: Talk About Spin

Ray_in_MPLS — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:11:23 -0000

So, someone in her campain organization decided that the privacy of the families was not a consideration and decided to release personal information to Hillary about paid staff and/or volunteers without their permission? I don't think that the hostages gave someone the ok to giver Hillary their phone numbers. They were probably a little to busy for that. That means that private, personal information of volunteers and staff are not as private as people believe when it comes to Hillary and her campaign offices. That's not a good image to be portraying during a campaign.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:37:24 -0000

A valid criticism in terms of my early reliance on polling- frankly just an intellectual shortcut that could've been avoided by documenting support in another manner.

Re: Talk About Spin

herddog505 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:32:43 -0000

kreiz,

May I suggest that you learn to express yourself more clearly? Seriously. You start out criticizing Bush's Katrina performance, presumably to try to make Hillary! look good in comparison. When other commenters argued that Bush didn't do so badly in his Katrina response, you countered by claiming that you thought he did badly because X% of people surveyed said that he did. As I noted before, it's kind of sad that you apparently structure your conception of reality on what OTHER people think.

I will say, however, that your more recent posts do a lot more to support your initial position, though I'm still not sure why Katrina is relevant in this situation.

In summary, trying to defend your position by claiming that some poll shows that lots of other people agree with you is not very effective. Indeed, it makes you look like a sheep who is incapable of thinking for himself.

I would also urge you to read NahnCee's response very carefully. There are things that the president is supposed to do... and things that he ISN'T supposed to do. Perhaps you want the president to be a micromanager who will also shove local and state authorities aside because he doesn't think they're doing their job, but I think you'll have to rewrite the Constitution a little for that.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:57:17 -0000

Besides, it has nothing to do with blaming the President. I thought he was ill-informed and disconnected. Whatever her faults (and there are major ones), Senator Clinton will never been ill-informed, ill-prepared or disconnected- in ordinary times or in times of crisis. (Neither will John McCain- and if the GOP had any sense, he would be the nominee). :)

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:35:44 -0000

You might want to carefully consider this Administration official's statement before responding:

"The only mistake we made in Katrina was not overriding the local government." Karl Rove

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:21:41 -0000

Can't name a single incident- because state authorities always invite the federal gov't to intercede. Gov. Blanco was an anamoly, withholding or obfuscating a federal intervention invitation. But your analysis incorrectly assumes that the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause did not provide the ability of the federal government to trump Blanco's intransigence. That power existed constitutionaly.

But this isn't particularly germane to the issue- which is- was the President ill-informed during the Katrina crisis? Apparently the President's staff thought so.

Re: Talk About Spin

NahnCee — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:45:04 -0000

I've never understood why Katrina was suppose to be the President of the United States' problem to begin with. Isn't the hierarchy local, county, state and then federal? Why on earth would a hurricane become the province of the President to solve in this one instance when it never, ever, had been previously?

The President doesn't involve himself in local affairs UNTIL he is asked to involve the resources of the Federal government by the locals; in the case of Katrina by Blanco and Nagin.

Just because the residents of New Orleans choose - repeatedly - to elect idiots does NOT make it Mr. Bush's fault when those idiots were then too stupid to do ANYthing right, including asking the Federal government for help.

In putting blame for the response to Katrina on Mr. Bush, I think you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons to dislike him. If you can show me one single other instance of a President involving himself in an earthquake, a volcano, a flood, a wild fire, or a tornado before the local politicians requested it, I'd be very appreciative.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:32:30 -0000

My real complaint is this- Corker's not a liberal or a BDSer. Neither am I. Reasonable minds can differ about whether Bush is hands on, whether HIllary's press conference was presidential, etc. In the context of our debate, "lib" and "BDS" labels are unconstructive and dull.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:03:07 -0000

Or another favorite, Sen. Corker (R. Tn) "underwhelmed" by the President's knowledge on Iraq:

“I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House,” Corker said.

I'll stand by the decidedly unradical view that the President's Katrina performance was detached at best.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:54:59 -0000

Sid Blumenthal, a thorough Clinton partisan, to be sure, provides this lovely quote: "Four days afterward, Bush's staff considered him so ill-informed on the basic facts [of Katrina] that they prepared a video of network news reports for him to watch as Air Force One carried him back to Washington." Let's assume this is true. Is it evidence of a hands-on president? Or do the facts matter?

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:07:44 -0000

Doc, I do understand that facts never much bother partisans, so it's futile to try to convince you that the President wasn't hands-on during Katrina. As for polling, suffice to say that at some point, those polled become voters- and that IS political reality. In the run-up to the 2006 elections, national polling reflected severe dissatisfaction with the GOP. That reality was reflected in the election results. That's what EVERYBODY ELSE decided- irrespective of what you chose to believe. It's the essence of elective politics, and it's why pols (Dems and Reps) take polls.

As for substance, let's just say that It's difficult for me to believe that a President who brags about not reading newspapers or watching tv news was/is a hands-on leader. (See E. Thomas' Newsweek article entitled: "Katrina- How Bush Blew It"). Thomas had WH sources to document his position, but I suspect that won't sway you either. He's a liberal, Newsweek's liberal... on and on.

Re: Talk About Spin

herddog505 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:51:43 -0000

Teresa: Please tell me how Mitt or Rudy or any GOP candidate would have acted any differently than Hillary did.

You keep waving your hands with this hypothetical "all the other candidates would do it, too!" to excuse what the Hilldabeast DID do. Well, since hypotheticals carry the same weight as reality, let me give you some:

--- Fred, relying on his acting skills, would have personally taken over the negotiations and not only gotten the hostages released in five minutes, he also would have gotten the madman to confess on national TV.

--- Rudy would have galvanized the local police into action and personally led them in an assault that would have rescused the hostages and killed / captured the madman in the first five minutes.

--- Mitt would have gotten the bomber to give up the hostages, surrender AND read the free literature just to get Mitt off his porch.

etc, etc, etc

Now, if you think that Hillary! did such a great job, why not just say so? Why try to convince us to agree with you by trying to get us to believe in events that never happened?

Re: Talk About Spin

herddog505 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:38:01 -0000

kreiz,

So... Reality is totally maleable for you when it concerns "politics"? If you can be persuaded that enough people believe in a thing, this is enough evidence for you to believe it, too?

Why not simply say that, "I think that Bush is an incompetent idiot AND that X% of Americans surveyed agree with me"? That's a very weak way to support your position (though very common for libs, who seem to have a sheep-like need to cite polls to "prove" that they are right because EVERYBODY else agrees with them), but it makes you sound LESS like a mind-numbed robot than saying, "I think that Bush is an incompetent idiot BECAUSE X% of Americans surveyed say that he is."

"You are a slow learner, Winston", said O'Brien gently.

"How can I help it ?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes ? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

George Orwell
1984

Re: Talk About Spin

Lethologica — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:17:48 -0000

Yeah, but you know, that doesn't mean you should ignore the truth and believe only the polls OR the pols. And we're talking about your personal beliefs here. Here's what you wrote:

"To be sure, the episode wasn't 9/11 or Katrina. But my eyes were opened after Katrina, where I witnessed several supposedly professional pols (Bush, Blanco, and Nagin) become overwhelmed by the crisis. The President's performance went a step beyond that- he was out of touch, aloof, factless. By the new standards of established in Katrina, Clinton's performance was solid and capable." (emphasis mine)

Re: Talk About Spin

KarenT — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:49:48 -0000

The Captain says, "... Clinton campaign decided this makes Hillary look presidential, at least to Larry Sabato and the AP."

To me, Captain Ed's comment means that some in the media made so much of Clinton's response that they seemed like part of the Clinton campaign. Even you called them "puff pieces". It will be interesting to see if these reporters continue to "puff up" Hillary as the campaign progresses.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:02:11 -0000

This is politics, doc- where perception and image are everything. If 66% of people think that the President's Katrina performance was poor (that's the last stat on I could find online), then that's political reality- regardless of what you choose to believe or what, in fact, is true. I don't know if Mike Dukakis was a lightweight in real life- but that was certainly my perception in 1988.

Re: Talk About Spin

herddog505 — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:43:01 -0000

kreiz: As for the President's sterling Katrina performance, the polls speak for themselves.

So... You're basing your assessment of Bush's Katrina performance on polls? I can't speak for anybody else here, but I don't normally go through my life asking other people to tell me what to think.

Re: Talk About Spin

poodlemom — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:50:21 -0000

Del,

I'm with you. If the folks in LA thought Bush was at fault for the mess after Katrina I'm sure they wouldn't have elected Bobby Jindal.

Re: Talk About Spin

kreiz — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:25:41 -0000

You omitted that I praised Rudy's 9/11 performance, which was nothing short of marvelous- something a BDSer would unlikely do. I also criticized Blanco's dismal performance- shock, a Democrat. I'm not buying into the revisionism that the President was hands-on in Katrina. He wasn't. And I would further venture that any number of past Republican presidents- including Reagan, Nixon and Bush41, would've made political hay out of a relatively easy national crisis by intervening much earlier.

And I really like John McCain.... so maybe am a radical leftist. :)

Re: Talk About Spin

Del_Dolemonte — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:45:28 -0000

Really? I would have never guessed, based on you comments over at the Gazette:

"She stepped up and delivered in a crisis situation. She was calm, deliberate and strong."

"She gave a timely press conference, responding cooly and informatively in a moment of crisis."

"her performance becomes dazzling by Katrina standards. "

As I said in my post above, you've been had by the media. The only people saying Bush performed poorly after Katrina are the Democrats in Louisiana whose own incompetence and corruption caused most of the problems, aided by a willing national media.

Re: Talk About Spin

Del_Dolemonte — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:37:51 -0000

LOL, sorry, but Bush's Katrina poll numbers are rubbish. It's common knowledge that after the Dems screwed the pooch in responding to the hurricane, they enlisted the national media to cover their shortcomings by shifting the blame to Bush.

The fact that despite your military service and voting for Bush you fell for their Katrina deception shows just how well they accomplished their mission.

Re: Talk About Spin

Otter — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:45:10 -0000

I'm a Pole and I think Bush did just fine.