Bush power

Fred Barnes said it last night on Fox News: Bush may be low in popularity but high in power in Wash.  In today’s WSJ Opinion Journal, he spells it out.

Mr. Bush knows how to win elections. And he knows how to drive his agenda, especially in Congress. Last winter, bills curbing class-action lawsuits and reforming bankruptcy law–both favorites of Mr. Bush–were enacted. Then, during a two-week span in July and August, he won congressional approval of the controversial Central America Free Trade Agreement, overdue energy legislation and a highway bill slimmed down to meet his specifications. The day Cafta passed, thanks to aggressive lobbying by Mr. Bush himself, his job rating was at 44% in the Gallup Poll, the lowest point of his presidency.

He has reason now to “feel burdened but still optimistic . . . politically bruised by his administration’s response to Katrina but hardly crippled.”  Supreme Court appointments that effect or restore a conservative, non-collectivist tilt; estate tax abolition that puts profits where they belong, at home and not in Washington; overall tax and immigration reform, etc.

Wash Post’s Dan Balz has a different “take,” as they say in Hipsville:

When terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans came together in grief and resolve, rallying behind President Bush in an extraordinary show of national unity. [Blah blah blah]  But when Hurricane Katrina hit last week, the opposite occurred, with Americans dividing along sharply partisan lines in their judgment of the president’s and the federal government’s response. [Blah blah blah]

His headline is “For Bush, a Deepening Divide — Katrina Crisis Brings No Repeat of 9/11 Bipartisanship.”  Is the wish father to the thought here?

Hey, it’s all about bipartisanship, smooth sailing, COOPERATION WITH THOSE WONDERFUL DEMOCRATS.  But can’t wonderful people be misguided too?  There’s “deepening polarization of the electorate” that has left him “with no reservoir of good will among his political opponents.”  RESERVOIR OF GOOD WILL?  WHOM IS THIS FELLOW KIDDING?

He takes 1,029 words for this analysis.  Barnes takes more but says more, going lighter on the grand fluffy statement.  Anyhow, take a look.  We (I) report, you decide. 

 

 

Bush power

Fred Barnes said it last night on Fox News: Bush may be low in popularity but high in power in Wash.  In today’s WSJ Opinion Journal, he spells it out.

Mr. Bush knows how to win elections. And he knows how to drive his agenda, especially in Congress. Last winter, bills curbing class-action lawsuits and reforming bankruptcy law–both favorites of Mr. Bush–were enacted. Then, during a two-week span in July and August, he won congressional approval of the controversial Central America Free Trade Agreement, overdue energy legislation and a highway bill slimmed down to meet his specifications. The day Cafta passed, thanks to aggressive lobbying by Mr. Bush himself, his job rating was at 44% in the Gallup Poll, the lowest point of his presidency.

He has reason now to “feel burdened but still optimistic . . . politically bruised by his administration’s response to Katrina but hardly crippled.”  Supreme Court appointments that effect or restore a conservative, non-collectivist tilt; estate tax abolition that puts profits where they belong, at home and not in Washington; overall tax and immigration reform, etc.

Wash Post’s Dan Balz has a different “take,” as they say in Hipsville:

When terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans came together in grief and resolve, rallying behind President Bush in an extraordinary show of national unity. [Blah blah blah]  But when Hurricane Katrina hit last week, the opposite occurred, with Americans dividing along sharply partisan lines in their judgment of the president’s and the federal government’s response. [Blah blah blah]

His headline is “For Bush, a Deepening Divide — Katrina Crisis Brings No Repeat of 9/11 Bipartisanship.”  Is the wish father to the thought here?

Hey, it’s all about bipartisanship, smooth sailing, COOPERATION WITH THOSE WONDERFUL DEMOCRATS.  But can’t wonderful people be misguided too?  There’s “deepening polarization of the electorate” that has left him “with no reservoir of good will among his political opponents.”  RESERVOIR OF GOOD WILL?  WHOM IS THIS FELLOW KIDDING?

He takes 1,029 words for this analysis.  Barnes takes more but says more, going lighter on the grand fluffy statement.  Anyhow, take a look.  We (I) report, you decide. 

 

 

Let my river go

“Mr. Bush, tear down that levee” is blogger Rishon Rishon’s plea, based on New O’s having outlived its usefulness — except maybe for the French Quarter.  Let the Mississippi “take its natural course,” he urges.  It’s a move that “should appeal to both small-government supporters and environmentalists.”

If this isn’t thinking outside the box, what is?

Bush muttered etc., NOT

An ABC-Wash Post poll — “Bush Not Taking Brunt of Katrina Criticism” — has pundit-stunning results about who’s blaming whom for the Katrina aftermath. 

Three out of four think state and local govts. were NOT adequately prepared for the hurricane.  Two out of three say the feds were not adequately prepared.  Forty-four per cent blame Bush, 55% do NOT. 

Another case of NOT believing what you read in (most) newspapers.  It puts vent-rant by Sun-Times woman Sweet et al. in perspective, does it not?  Those people are talking to themselves and their friends, which is good to keep in mind.

 

Bush muttered etc., NOT

An ABC-Wash Post poll — “Bush Not Taking Brunt of Katrina Criticism” — has pundit-stunning results about who’s blaming whom for the Katrina aftermath. 

Three out of four think state and local govts. were NOT adequately prepared for the hurricane.  Two out of three say the feds were not adequately prepared.  Forty-four per cent blame Bush, 55% do NOT. 

Another case of NOT believing what you read in (most) newspapers.  It puts vent-rant by Sun-Times woman Sweet et al. in perspective, does it not?  Those people are talking to themselves and their friends, which is good to keep in mind.

 

Bush mutters, relief sputters

CHI NEWSPAPERS: . . . Lynn Sweet has a scoop Sunday 9/4/05 in a column that her eds. gave top billing in Sun-T’s fairly new and rather good Controversy section.  Eds. called it “For this one, BUSH deserves the heat.” The scoop was the no-holds-barred self-revelation. It came by way of an atrocious pseudo-journalistic self-therapeutic outpouring which she began, “I want to vent.” This comes under her pic in which she’s looking at the camera with a very hard look.

Now newspaper professionals are supposed to tell about the world, not about themselves, which is why this is pseudo-journalistic, and from a Washington bureau chief no less. And from one only days removed from holding N. Shore Dem Rep. Schakowsky’s hand in public, helping her to get over her husband’s guilty plea for stealing money for the sake of his own emolument and continued operation of his “public interest” organization, non-profit of course (nothing so sleezy or infra dig as for profit). Her Schakowsky column was just what the spin doctors ordered. Schakowsky could not have been more pleased. In fact, Sweet often produces p.r. releases under guise of columns, as Chicago Newspapers pointed out in her glowing account with publicity shot Aug. 11 of one Christine Cegelis, a Democrat going for Henry Hyde’s congressional seat in DuPage County. She hadn’t chosen the picture, she responded in an email, nor did on Sunday she place her column about Bush, nor give it such BIG PLAY. She writes the columns, however. I call it pseudo-journalism. 

It’s also exhibit #1,379 (applied locally) of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas’ claim or admission that mainstream media are worth 15 points to a Dem presidential candidate, later knocking it down to five, while still saying they “absolutely” wanted Kerry to win.

This time around, Sweet tears into Bush’s “flim-flam” (is that venting or not? she said that she would do it, and indeed she did). He went for photo-ops clumsily, she says. He indulged in “overwhelming understatement” of the problem — didn’t bite his lip, as the old actor Bubba could do so well.  She even gets “weapons of mass destruction” into the picture. Remember them? (Venting here: they are still on her mind.) But cable TV is bigger than ever, and he can’t get away with it any more.

Along the way of her vent, Sweet offers doomsday analysis of the State of Bush, including the dire effects of the Cindy Sheehan performance, she being “the face of the anti-war movement,” home life shot to hell and all.

But would not we more likely be convinced of Sweet’s analysis if it were not part of self-therapeutics? No wonder she resonates with Sheehan, and maybe with the hysterical, cussing and weeping on radio Mayor Nagin, whom she does not mention, much less suggest as part of the problem, having presided over a city that was already chaotic in some neighborhoods, thanks to a culture of lawlessness unhampered by police or courts, a city that had created its own witness protection program.

Nope. She may have presented her column as about her, but it’s all about Bush, who again lied while people died? Something like that.  The woman is overwrought.

“The Bushes were managing images . . . This MBA president needs to manage people,” she writes. Well he is the chief executive, isn’t he? So what? Sweet drops all pretense of objectivity. She’s venting to the girls and boys in the coed dorm. But never fear: on Monday she’s back on the beat, calling them as she see’s ’em. At least the objectivity format will be more or less back in place.  (She came back with another Democrat-oriented column, about Sen. Barack Obama on his way to Houston to be with Bush I and Clinton for a photo-op session — oops, not that, rather, to help out, you know.  She reverentially, even worshipfully, lobs qq at Obama, who obliges, as if it’s news that he does not blame the Feds more than local New O. pols, for instance.  What a guy and what a gal.)

In the end, for her Sunday column she calls on another detached professional, “Barbie Zelizer” (does Barbie sign her journal articles that way?), a professor at Penn, “a scholar [let’s hope, if she’s a Penn prof] whose specialty is the impact of images” — “Gender and Atrocity: Women in Holocaust Photographs” is one of her studies — and guess what she says? The pictures of the hurricane aftermath send “a different message than what is being touted [hey, the professor talks like a headline!] the official line of the administration.” Presented, she means; she’s a clear thinker?  Big on images.

Let us not carp, however. Sweet got her quote. End of story, end (we hope) of vent, which by the way is called a rant in the blogosphere, but never in mainstream media hard copy, which abides by more rigorous standards, does it not?

 

Bush mutters, relief sputters

CHI NEWSPAPERS: . . . Lynn Sweet has a scoop Sunday 9/4/05 in a column that her eds. gave top billing in Sun-T’s fairly new and rather good Controversy section.  Eds. called it “For this one, BUSH deserves the heat.” The scoop was the no-holds-barred self-revelation. It came by way of an atrocious pseudo-journalistic self-therapeutic outpouring which she began, “I want to vent.” This comes under her pic in which she’s looking at the camera with a very hard look.

Now newspaper professionals are supposed to tell about the world, not about themselves, which is why this is pseudo-journalistic, and from a Washington bureau chief no less. And from one only days removed from holding N. Shore Dem Rep. Schakowsky’s hand in public, helping her to get over her husband’s guilty plea for stealing money for the sake of his own emolument and continued operation of his “public interest” organization, non-profit of course (nothing so sleezy or infra dig as for profit). Her Schakowsky column was just what the spin doctors ordered. Schakowsky could not have been more pleased. In fact, Sweet often produces p.r. releases under guise of columns, as Chicago Newspapers pointed out in her glowing account with publicity shot Aug. 11 of one Christine Cegelis, a Democrat going for Henry Hyde’s congressional seat in DuPage County. She hadn’t chosen the picture, she responded in an email, nor did on Sunday she place her column about Bush, nor give it such BIG PLAY. She writes the columns, however. I call it pseudo-journalism. 

It’s also exhibit #1,379 (applied locally) of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas’ claim or admission that mainstream media are worth 15 points to a Dem presidential candidate, later knocking it down to five, while still saying they “absolutely” wanted Kerry to win.

This time around, Sweet tears into Bush’s “flim-flam” (is that venting or not? she said that she would do it, and indeed she did). He went for photo-ops clumsily, she says. He indulged in “overwhelming understatement” of the problem — didn’t bite his lip, as the old actor Bubba could do so well.  She even gets “weapons of mass destruction” into the picture. Remember them? (Venting here: they are still on her mind.) But cable TV is bigger than ever, and he can’t get away with it any more.

Along the way of her vent, Sweet offers doomsday analysis of the State of Bush, including the dire effects of the Cindy Sheehan performance, she being “the face of the anti-war movement,” home life shot to hell and all.

But would not we more likely be convinced of Sweet’s analysis if it were not part of self-therapeutics? No wonder she resonates with Sheehan, and maybe with the hysterical, cussing and weeping on radio Mayor Nagin, whom she does not mention, much less suggest as part of the problem, having presided over a city that was already chaotic in some neighborhoods, thanks to a culture of lawlessness unhampered by police or courts, a city that had created its own witness protection program.

Nope. She may have presented her column as about her, but it’s all about Bush, who again lied while people died? Something like that.  The woman is overwrought.

“The Bushes were managing images . . . This MBA president needs to manage people,” she writes. Well he is the chief executive, isn’t he? So what? Sweet drops all pretense of objectivity. She’s venting to the girls and boys in the coed dorm. But never fear: on Monday she’s back on the beat, calling them as she see’s ’em. At least the objectivity format will be more or less back in place.  (She came back with another Democrat-oriented column, about Sen. Barack Obama on his way to Houston to be with Bush I and Clinton for a photo-op session — oops, not that, rather, to help out, you know.  She reverentially, even worshipfully, lobs qq at Obama, who obliges, as if it’s news that he does not blame the Feds more than local New O. pols, for instance.  What a guy and what a gal.)

In the end, for her Sunday column she calls on another detached professional, “Barbie Zelizer” (does Barbie sign her journal articles that way?), a professor at Penn, “a scholar [let’s hope, if she’s a Penn prof] whose specialty is the impact of images” — “Gender and Atrocity: Women in Holocaust Photographs” is one of her studies — and guess what she says? The pictures of the hurricane aftermath send “a different message than what is being touted [hey, the professor talks like a headline!] the official line of the administration.” Presented, she means; she’s a clear thinker?  Big on images.

Let us not carp, however. Sweet got her quote. End of story, end (we hope) of vent, which by the way is called a rant in the blogosphere, but never in mainstream media hard copy, which abides by more rigorous standards, does it not?