|
Title: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: BingeBag on October 27, 2009, 10:19:03 pm Quote What if Bush had done that? 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 Bebitch 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. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28764.html The page has links to a lot of stories buried in the content, like the golf etc. etc. Even from the most hardcore liberals in attendance.. one has to admit there is truth to this. We have a pretty large double standard going on here. I'd like to say that I am pretty neutral on a lot of the issues in this country. I don't fit into either parties agenda. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Dave Gray on October 28, 2009, 12:31:19 am Most of the criticism of Bush came later, after he'd been in office for a while, and it was piling on after several huge debacles. So, if he'd done some of that stuff, I'm sure liberals would have spun it poorly. But as is, I don't think the criticism is warranted.
Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 28, 2009, 12:33:30 am How long did it take Bush to get there? I do not think it is as big of a deal that Obama has not camped out in New Orleans more.
It is way to early to start comparing administrations as Obama is just over halfway into his first year. If you want to compare, then compare Bush's 8 years to Clinton's. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Buddhagirl on October 28, 2009, 09:02:52 am I love that we're now comparing being fed up with Bush after 8 years of continuous fuck ups and plenty of lives lost to Obama not visiting New Orleans or the Dalai Lama and pissing off FOX News. Yeah. Same level.
This just comes across as more pathetic whining by Republicans. Let me know when there is something worth being upset about. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: MaineDolFan on October 28, 2009, 09:47:25 am I love a couple things here -
It's "troublesome" that Obama plays basketball with a bunch of men. Has it ever occurred to anyone that there aren't any women that want to play? My company has a basketball court in the building, we play pick up a couple times a week at lunch. There are sign up sheets. Not one time has one woman signed up to play. And I work with three or four that played hoops in college. The New Orleans thing. What exactly is the guy supposed to do? Go to Mardi Gras and beg for beads? Roll up his sleeves and build a house? Move the White House to the 9th district and do business from that area of town? By all means...let's compare the governments response to Katrina in the same breath as Obama visiting the city four years later. That is close in nature. People slay me. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Sunstroke on October 28, 2009, 10:38:31 am Wow...that's some pretty ridiculously slanted Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 28, 2009, 12:16:36 pm Bush bashing started the instant he became President. Let's not kid ourselves. He was labeled an idiot immediately. I remember Jon Stewart making fun of him a few weeks after September 11th, and the audience did not laugh. He looked at them and said something like "so 9/11 happens and we can't call the President dumb anymore?". Bush had only been in office as of January 20, 2001, or nearly 8 months, and Stewart's comments indicated how commonplace it was to bash him, even that early in his presidency, for things like going away to his Texas ranch for weeks at a time.
The difference, I think, is that Bush was elected by the electoral college (yes, they all are, but I mean he lost the popular vote). It was a contentious election. Much of the country was in the mood to pick on him, so the Democratic machine, in its wisdom, piled on. Obama rode in pretty solidly. He was elected not only by Democrats turning out in record numbers, but also by conservatives that desired a change in approach. He is universally adored by the outside world. The country, and the world, are not in the mood to pile on. The Republican machine, in its wisdom, is choosing not to pile on because the time is wrong. They will be seen as petty if they draw too many comparisons. They know the country is in no mood for them to act like children and complain about minutiae. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Dave Gray on October 28, 2009, 02:54:09 pm The Republican machine, in its wisdom, is choosing not to pile on because the time is wrong. They will be seen as petty if they draw too many comparisons. They know the country is in no mood for them to act like children and complain about minutiae. I disagree with most of what you're saying, but especially this statement. I think that Republicans do (and will) pile on at any possible time. It's just that they're in such disarray right now that they don't have the means, and the political leaders are getting outshined by the talk-radio base. But even then, you're seeing all this "tea-party" stuff. It goes both ways. As for Bush getting hounded, people thinking he was dumb came from his lack of ability to speak, way back from his campaign. The gripe with him (yet) wasn't on issues of substance. The only thing I remember being upset with Bush about in the first year or two was his promise to rule from the middle and unite the parties. Bush got a free pass long past 9/11 from the general population. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 28, 2009, 03:33:50 pm ^^^By "most" what do you mean?
1-That Bush-bashing was commonplace before 9/11? 2-That he entered office on Jan 20, 2001? 3-That Jon Stewart made a joke that fell flat and said something similar to what I wrote? 4-That Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election? 5-That the Democrats attacked him because they knew they could without much outcry from the general public (which, by the way, is something both parties do. I wasn't implying any malfeasance on their part), as Bush was unpopular pretty much the instant he took office? 6-That Obama won the election rather convincingly? 7-That the world in genral adores Obama? 8-That the Republican party is smart enough to know that picking on Obama for stupid stuff when the country (and world) isn't in the mood to hear it is spitting into a headwind? Dave, all but points 5 and 8 are facts. Points 5 and 8 are logical assumptions dealing with how spin doctors work. They have to gauge how well a ploy will work before using it, much as advertisers gauge how well an ad campaign will work. The same science goes into both. And, of course they'll pile on the second they can! They're just not stupid. They're not going to come out and make wild accusations! They'll wait for perception to start to change, and then, they'll fan the flames until they can change/magnify that perception to something they can use to their advantage. I never said they wouldn't. I just said they're smart enough to know that NOW isn't the time. What exactly don't you agree with here? As for Bush being labeled stupid because of his public speaking deficiencies: well, yeah, but are you so far in the blue corner that you think the Democratic machine didn't take full advantage of that fledgling perception and tried to grow it? Nurture it? Make appearances reality? C'mon, Dave. That's how politics work. That's why McCain was successfully made into "George Jr." during the election even though he has a ridiculously strong record of bipartisanship. The machine did its job. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Dave Gray on October 28, 2009, 03:45:44 pm By most, I mean that I disagree with your conclusions. John Stewart is one person with a comedy show who made a joke. I don't think that the general landscape of the country was pissed at Bush prior to 9/11.
I know I'm labeled "so far in the blue", but I'm really not. I'm liberal minded, but I don't like the Democratic machine. I recognize politics for politics, and of course the Dems take advantage wherever possible, but it doesn't always work. They painted Bush as a moron, but it didn't really matter to the general public. ...sort of like how Obama is being painted as a Socialist...but it not really mattering. Bush (and Obama) are getting ribbed by the opposition base, but Bush got bashed bigtime based on his performance, well after September 11. That's my point. Obama will get torn up by the public as well, if he does similar stuff down the line. But the things listed in the original post are pretty meaningless gripes, not major policy problems, like with Bush. If Afghanistan continues to be a problem, the healthcare thing falls through, the economy falls into further collapse, etc. -- you'll see Obama take a similar slaying. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 28, 2009, 05:02:16 pm OK, that's fine. I remember the landscape very differently in 2001, but then again it wasn't so much pissed as open mockery. I was just clarifying because my post was not condoning the griping, it was just attempting to explain that the climate was right for Bush bashing in 2000, and again starting in 2003, but not for Obama, not right now.
Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Dave Gray on October 28, 2009, 05:10:27 pm I think you brushed on a point earlier, too: Obama has it pretty tough right now. When things are bad, people are less likely to sweat the small stuff. By and large, prior to 9/11, things were pretty quiet. Economy was good, we weren't at war -- people were able to focus on the "stem cell research" issues of the time.
Obama's first year involves two wars, an economic collapse, and a potential game-changing healthcare policy. ...so, maybe that's it. When someone brings up snubbing the Dalai Lama -- who gives a shit? Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 28, 2009, 05:21:55 pm So your evidence of open mockery by the media is as comedian on a show with limited viewership on a alternate channel?
Please tell me you have more than that. Bush was rightly mocked because he did sound like an absolute moron when he spoke on our behalf both here and abroad, and that reflected on us as a society for putting someone into office twice who could lose a spelling bee to Mushmouth from Fat Ablert. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: BingeBag on October 28, 2009, 06:06:15 pm I think you brushed on a point earlier, too: Obama has it pretty tough right now. When things are bad, people are less likely to sweat the small stuff. By and large, prior to 9/11, things were pretty quiet. Economy was good, we weren't at war -- people were able to focus on the "stem cell research" issues of the time. Obama's first year involves two wars, an economic collapse, and a potential game-changing healthcare policy. ...so, maybe that's it. When someone brings up snubbing the Dalai Lama -- who gives a shit? I'm not sure that I really see trying to kick out of one of the major news networks when they don't fit into the liberal ideology (ala MSNBC) as a soft issue. You have repeatedly skipped over the strong points in the article and attacked filler. I know I sure as hell could care less considering anything to do with the Dalai Lama. But had say George Bush tried to kick out MSNBC from covering a pool event at any part during his term (including the day after 9/11) the entire media would be talking about it for months. What about the golf point? Are we kidding ourselves for a second to think that Bush didn't get completely hounded by countless personalities for going out and playing golf? Tell me you don't remember the part in Micheal Moore's movie where he lampoons him with how he cuts the footage. He is universally adored by the outside world. That's absolutely not true at all. I'm not sure where you get this opinion. Their are plenty of countries that didn't like America before Bush was in office, and their are plenty that still do not like us. By the way, I posted this because I figured it would be a good topic to debate from both sides. I really like to hear Dave's and Buddah's take on alot of this stuff even though I don't agree politically. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Dave Gray on October 28, 2009, 06:54:24 pm I stand by my statement that none of the things in the original post are important policy issues. I used the Dalai Lama exampe, because it's the most glaring....but they're all the same.
I don't consider FOX to be a serious news organization. I think they're an editorial show, a spin organization. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Buddhagirl on October 28, 2009, 07:16:42 pm I still don't think any of those items are policy issues. When they are, I'll be upset about it. I read every day and I try to read with a critical eye. I am not one of these blind pro-dems that you see. I'm critical of ALL politicians. Furthermore, I had nothing to say about Bush for the first couple of years. Did I think he was stupid? Yeah. Was I uber critical. Not yet?
I dont' care if presidents play golf, go on vacations, etc. I don't expect them to work without a break, so I would never criticize either of them for that. Note: I haven't seen ANY Michael Moore movies. Calling out FAUX news? Meh. MSNBC isn't really news either. It's all commentary. However, a lot of people don't know the difference between news and ccommentary which is sad. I love Rachel Maddow, but I do get that she is doing left leaning commentary. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 28, 2009, 11:32:51 pm So your evidence of open mockery by the media is as comedian on a show with limited viewership on a alternate channel? Please tell me you have more than that. Oh, I'm sorry! My crack research staff could only uncover this one piece of evidence of Bush being mocked in the entertainment media pre-9/11! Let me see what else I can find in the way-back machine... Will Ferrell ended his SNL tenure in 2002 and is famously remembered for playing George Bush as an idiot. Given that TV seasons end in May, and he left in 2002, it's safe to assume his last show was in May of 2002. Do you think he got more mileage from his skit A-before 9/11 or B-after? Hmmm......Is cultural icon Saturday Night Live on national network NBC enough for you? No? Let's see what else I can dig up... This MAD magazine cover: The 20 Dumbest things of the year 2000. Who's that to the right of a naked Richard Hatch? Bush. 2001 archive, Issue # 401 http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html (http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html) This could go on forever. You don't rememebr? Not my problem. I'm not litigating the issue; I was just providing an example that I remembered easily. I wasn't aware I needed footnotes. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 28, 2009, 11:37:27 pm I think you brushed on a point earlier, too: Obama has it pretty tough right now. When things are bad, people are less likely to sweat the small stuff. By and large, prior to 9/11, things were pretty quiet. Economy was good, we weren't at war -- people were able to focus on the "stem cell research" issues of the time. Obama's first year involves two wars, an economic collapse, and a potential game-changing healthcare policy. ...so, maybe that's it. When someone brings up snubbing the Dalai Lama -- who gives a shit? They have a name for that. It's called "Rally around the flag" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_Round_the_Flag_Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_Round_the_Flag_Syndrome) Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 28, 2009, 11:41:15 pm Quote That's absolutely not true at all. I'm not sure where you get this opinion. Their are plenty of countries that didn't like America before Bush was in office, and their are plenty that still do not like us. Hey, I've lived in 6 countries. Believe me I know that. What I mean is that Obama is loved the world over (yes, there are exceptions). I was only trying to explain that the reason Obama is not getting this treatment right now is because (and Dave hit it square) the country and WESTERN world (happy now?) are going through tough times and are not in the mood to hear about trivial things like golf outings and the Dalai Lama. The media's not going to feed people news they don't want (that's why our news are so god-damned stupid and full of kids in balloons, and the going-ons of movie starlets, and bloody car crashes, etc...) and conservatives won't openly attack him (spitting in the wind). Do you all just love taking every word I write literally, or does this happen to everyone? Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Spider-Dan on October 29, 2009, 01:45:41 am But had say George Bush tried to kick out MSNBC from covering a pool event at any part during his term (including the day after 9/11) the entire media would be talking about it for months. Bush's press secretary admitted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05lVO_izCY) that they froze out MSNBC, so I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you, there.Quote What about the golf point? Are we kidding ourselves for a second to think that Bush didn't get completely hounded by countless personalities for going out and playing golf? Tell me you don't remember the part in Micheal Moore's movie where he lampoons him with how he cuts the footage. Are we seriously going to compare who had taken more vacation time in their first 10 months in office? (For the record: GWB took the entire month of August 2001 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/) off.) Or are you just complaining that Obama spent a greater portion of his smaller vacations playing golf?Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Spider-Dan on October 29, 2009, 02:10:29 am Oh, I'm sorry! My crack research staff could only uncover this one piece of evidence of Bush being mocked in the entertainment media pre-9/11! Let me see what else I can find in the way-back machine... Um, every president has someone playing them on SNL:Will Ferrell ended his SNL tenure in 2002 and is famously remembered for playing George Bush as an idiot. Given that TV seasons end in May, and he left in 2002, it's safe to assume his last show was in May of 2002. Do you think he got more mileage from his skit A-before 9/11 or B-after? (http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/dana-carvey-bush2.jpg)(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/103357/thumbs/s-SNL-PRESIDENTS-large.jpg)(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/39/2008/09/340x_ClintonSNL2_Jez.flv.jpg)(http://www.accesshollywood.com/content/images/78/230x306/78365_fred-armisen-as-barack-obama-on-saturday-night-live.jpg) And all the bases were covered last year, too: (http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/11/01/amd_mccain_snl_hammond.jpg)(http://specialreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/snl_palin_skit.jpg) The more relevant observation is that Will Ferrell is a more talented comedian than Darrell Hammond or Fred Armisen. To be fair, though, GWB's legendary lack of English skills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgq7LAyIl3U) basically writes the jokes by itself. I don't think it's partisan at all to say that Reagan and GHWB (or any other presidents since the invention of recordable media) look like English professors next to GWB. Quote This MAD magazine cover: The 20 Dumbest things of the year 2000. Who's that to the right of a naked Richard Hatch? Bush. 2001 archive, Issue # 401 http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html (http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html) Indeed, it could.This could go on forever. (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/60207/original.jpg) Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 29, 2009, 04:42:34 am Oh, I'm sorry! My crack research staff could only uncover this one piece of evidence of Bush being mocked in the entertainment media pre-9/11! Let me see what else I can find in the way-back machine... Will Ferrell ended his SNL tenure in 2002 and is famously remembered for playing George Bush as an idiot. Given that TV seasons end in May, and he left in 2002, it's safe to assume his last show was in May of 2002. Do you think he got more mileage from his skit A-before 9/11 or B-after? Hmmm......Is cultural icon Saturday Night Live on national network NBC enough for you? No? Let's see what else I can dig up... This MAD magazine cover: The 20 Dumbest things of the year 2000. Who's that to the right of a naked Richard Hatch? Bush. 2001 archive, Issue # 401 http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html (http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html) This could go on forever. You don't rememebr? Not my problem. I'm not litigating the issue; I was just providing an example that I remembered easily. I wasn't aware I needed footnotes. Ok so you are showing comidians and other comedy/satirical publications. You have yet to show how Bush took an unfair amount of open mockery by the mainstream media( i.e. ews) as opposed to outlets whose whole exsistence is to make fun of people, especially public figures. Do not get mad because I question the evidence you provided to support your claim. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Phishfan on October 29, 2009, 10:09:19 am This MAD magazine cover: The 20 Dumbest things of the year 2000. Who's that to the right of a naked Richard Hatch? Bush. 2001 archive, Issue # 401 http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html (http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://collectmad.com/madcoversite/covers.html) Horrible example because Bush is to the left of Richard Hatch. If you looked to the right you would see Al Gore and if you looked at the list of what they are lampooning, it is the entire election rated #1. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 29, 2009, 10:59:33 am 1 - to bsmooth: WHO in the F&*K said it was "UNFAIR"? Not me. You think people base their opinions on public figures solely by what Tom Brokaw says? You don't think satirists help paint the portrait? Are you NEW here? I'm not pissed that you asked me for "evidence", I'm pissed that you can't remember 9 years ago and act like the world kissed Bush's ass when he became president. Those times were heavily charged, because the election had taken forever to be decided, and many Democrats felt like the election had been stolen from them. This was fertile ground for people in the media to make fun of the incoming President. He got no real honeymoon like most presidents get - See: Obama, Barack. I'm pissed that I'm trying to make a very neutral argument as to why one guy gets cut some slack and the other got none and you guys, as customary, are picking on minutiae.
2 - to Phishfan - Bush is on the right side of Richard Hatch as you view the cover (to MY RIGHT) but is to Richard Hatch's left (TO HIS LEFT) as he faces you. This is what you choose to quibble about? The election was lampooned in the magazine, yes, but I can almost guarantee Bush was mocked for his intelligence in the issue. Shall I Fed-Ex it to you? I probably still have it somewhere. 3 - to Spider-Dan - Yes, every president gets mocked for something. Bush was mocked for being stupid, and I provided examples of such mocking. Another example, how about the Comedy Central show "That's My Bush"? When's the last time a sitting President had a show devoted to him, and the premise was "what an idiot"? Never! You think satirists look for obscure ways of mocking public figures, or go for the most recognizable weakness? Because they ALL chose stupidity, is it not a fair assessment to say that Bush was openly mocked in the ENTERTAINMENT media for being stupid? Also, notice Obama's not being made fun of in your MAD cover; his predicament is being made light of. There's a difference there, and it goes back to rally around the flag. Even Fred Armison doesn't really make fun of Obama, the butt of jokes in his skits is usually the adulation Obama receives from everyone. I'm not saying any of this is fair or unfair! I'm explaining that the public is not in the mood to have Obama made fun of right now, and the media and his adversaries are largely paying attention to the masses and not going after him. That's ALL, folks! Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Phishfan on October 29, 2009, 11:13:30 am 2 - to Phishfan - Bush is on the right side of Richard Hatch as you view the cover (to MY RIGHT) but is to Richard Hatch's left (TO HIS LEFT) as he faces you. This is what you choose to quibble about? The election was lampooned in the magazine, yes, but I can almost guarantee Bush was mocked for his intelligence in the issue. Shall I Fed-Ex it to you? I probably still have it somewhere. I really wasn't quibbling about you not knowing right from left as much as wanting to point out that Al Gore is on the right and the lampoon doesn't appear to be centered on George Bush himself as you were trying to lead us to believe. I don't know what is inside the magazine so I will take your word, but the entire election appears to be the target. GWB being a part of that would be a given since he was in the election. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Spider-Dan on October 29, 2009, 11:47:22 am 1 - He got no real honeymoon like most presidents get - See: Obama, Barack. I'm pissed that I'm trying to make a very neutral argument as to why one guy gets cut some slack and the other got none and you guys, as customary, are picking on minutiae. To pretend that GWB was unfairly singled out for political reasons is dishonest; he was perceived as a dim bulb even during the 2000 campaign, but "won" because of his everyman guy-you-would-like-to-have-a-beer-with appeal.GWB went above-and-beyond in his murdering of language, which is why there were many, many more plays on his stupidity than, say, his father. This isn't a political thing; it's an intelligence thing. Quote 2 - to Phishfan - Bush is on the right side of Richard Hatch as you view the cover (to MY RIGHT) but is to Richard Hatch's left (TO HIS LEFT) as he faces you. This is what you choose to quibble about? No, he chose to "quibble" over the fact that Gore being in the picture completely negates any point you claimed to be making by bringing up the cover.Quote 3 - to Spider-Dan - Yes, every president gets mocked for something. Bush was mocked for being stupid, and I provided examples of such mocking. Another example, how about the Comedy Central show "That's My Bush"? When's the last time a sitting President had a show devoted to him, and the premise was "what an idiot"? Never! You think satirists look for obscure ways of mocking public figures, or go for the most recognizable weakness? Because they ALL chose stupidity, is it not a fair assessment to say that Bush was openly mocked in the ENTERTAINMENT media for being stupid? Yes. Is it not a fair assessment to say that Clinton was openly mocked in the ENTERTAINMENT media for being a womanizer? Did GWB suffer anywhere near the same level of jokes about cigars and stained dresses?And before you say, "But that stuff actually happened!": GWB actually said all the idiotic things (e.g. "you're working hard to put food on your family," "childrens do learn", etc.) that made people think that he's an idiot. Quote Even Fred Armison doesn't really make fun of Obama, the butt of jokes in his skits is usually the adulation Obama receives from everyone. So making fun of somebody by saying that they don't actually deserve the credit they are receiving "doesn't count"?Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsfins on October 29, 2009, 12:24:19 pm I'm surprised Spider didn't bring up Chevy Chase playing Ford....Sorry for the hijack...
Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 29, 2009, 01:02:46 pm To pretend that GWB was unfairly singled out for political reasons is dishonest; he was perceived as a dim bulb even during the 2000 campaign, but "won" because of his everyman guy-you-would-like-to-have-a-beer-with appeal. NEVER SAID UNFAIR NEVER SAID UNFAIR NEVER SAID UNFAIR NEVER SAID UNFAIR NEVER SAID UNFAIR NEVER SAID UNFAIR. Quote GWB went above-and-beyond in his murdering of language, which is why there were many, many more plays on his stupidity than, say, his father. This isn't a political thing; it's an intelligence thing. No, it's a political thing for those who used it to their political benefit. It's an entertainment thing to those who used it for laughs. And it's an intelligence thing to people who actually believe that public speaking skills are indicative of intelligence. And before YOU say it, Thomas Jefferson was noted to be a poor public speaker. So was Theodore Roosevelt. How'd they turn out as President? Quote No, he chose to "quibble" over the fact that Gore being in the picture completely negates any point you claimed to be making by bringing up the cover. No, it doesn't negate anything, as I already mentioned that inside this issue Bush's intelligence was the butt of jokes. Why do I know? Because my wife has subscribed since she was, like, 15. Besides, I still brought up 4 other examples of Bush being lampooned for his "lack of intelligence" pre-9-11, which was the initial challenge to my statements. If you want to pretend that you and yours were nothing but civil and cordial to Bush pre-9/11 so you can feign shock and dismay when Obama gets his turnabout, fine, man! I'm not even arguing for or against that. I was simply. trying. to. explain. that. the. climate. was. right. for. it. then. and. not. now. Quote Yes. Is it not a fair assessment to say that Clinton was openly mocked in the ENTERTAINMENT media for being a womanizer? Did GWB suffer anywhere near the same level of jokes about cigars and stained dresses? Of course it's fair to say that! No, Bush suffered no such jokes, because that wasn't his thing. See, Ford got made fun of for being clumsy. And Reagan for being old. And Bush Sr. for his speech patterns and his barfing incident in Japan, and Clinton for womanizing and fast food binging, and...etc....That's neither here nor there. But Clinton also got a lengthy honeymoon period, as , again, most Presidents enjoy. Quote So making fun of somebody by saying that they don't actually deserve the credit they are receiving "doesn't count"? Never said that, either. You wrote that, not me. I said the MAD magazine cover was making fun of his predicament. I said the SNL skits generally had to do with how people reacted to him, not with any fatal flaw that some Republican can use against him in a later election. I never attacked your beloved party or its leader, Spider-Dan! I was simply. trying. to. explain. that. the. climate. was. right. for. it. then. and. not. now. And now, rather than discussing why Bush got no free pass then and, according to the article, Obama does now, Spider-Dan, here we are arguing tangentially again. I say Obama's not being picked on because of "Rally Around the Flag" syndrome. Do you agree, disagree, or choose to keep arguing over bullshit? Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Spider-Dan on October 29, 2009, 02:15:18 pm And it's an intelligence thing to people who actually believe that public speaking skills are indicative of intelligence. And before YOU say it, Thomas Jefferson was noted to be a poor public speaker. So was Theodore Roosevelt. How'd they turn out as President? Thomas Jefferson was an accomplished writer and founded the University of Virginia. I don't think anyone questions his command of English (or his intelligence) because of his fear of public speaking or his poor speaking voice.Saying that Theodore Roosevelt was "noted to be a poor public speaker" is like saying that Franklin Roosevelt was noted for his incredibly fast running or that Gerald Ford was famed for his marvelous golden locks of hair. Teddy Roosevelt is considered to be one of the greatest orators of the 20th century (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=theodore+roosevelt+greatest+orator&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). And yes, being able to master elementary-school-level English does reflect on your intelligence. I find it puzzling that people seem to have this belief that a poor vocabulary or the inability to form a grammatically correct simple sentence somehow does not reflect one's intelligence at all, as if one's intelligence should be measured strictly by one's character or one's ability to recite state capitals. Quote No, it doesn't negate anything, as I already mentioned that inside this issue Bush's intelligence was the butt of jokes. Your original point mentioned only the cover and nothing of the content or articles. Gore is also on the cover. The point is null.I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that this same issue has absolutely nothing negative to say about Al Gore inside the issue. Otherwise, your second point would also be completely invalidated. Quote And now, rather than discussing why Bush got no free pass then and, according to the article, Obama does now, Spider-Dan, here we are arguing tangentially again. I say Obama's not being picked on because of "Rally Around the Flag" syndrome. Do you agree, disagree, or choose to keep arguing over bullshit? I disagree completely:- every president is picked on by comedy entertainment outlets; that is their job - Obama has already been picked on by said comedy outlets - Obama has suffered far, far, far worse political attacks than GWB did from Jan-Oct 2001 (and anything from Sep. 2001 to mid-2002 is idiotic to compare, since GWB enjoyed historically high approval ratings at that time) I just fundamentally disagree with the entire premise at a foundational level. The idea that Obama is coasting through on easy mode without criticism is just absurd. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 29, 2009, 04:05:44 pm 1 - to bsmooth: WHO in the F&*K said it was "UNFAIR"? Not me. You think people base their opinions on public figures solely by what Tom Brokaw says? You don't think satirists help paint the portrait? Are you NEW here? I'm not pissed that you asked me for "evidence", I'm pissed that you can't remember 9 years ago and act like the world kissed Bush's ass when he became president. Those times were heavily charged, because the election had taken forever to be decided, and many Democrats felt like the election had been stolen from them. This was fertile ground for people in the media to make fun of the incoming President. He got no real honeymoon like most presidents get - See: Obama, Barack. I'm pissed that I'm trying to make a very neutral argument as to why one guy gets cut some slack and the other got none and you guys, as customary, are picking on minutiae Hmmm we seem to remember 2001 differently. I remember a president who ran as a good ol boy, and his lack of public speaking ability kind of endeared him to many people, but by the time that quickly went away and he sounded more and more idiotic with every press conference, and the goodwill had fully worn off from 9/11, it was more than 8 months into his first term. I do not think Obama is getting a pass from any media form as his policies and personel choices are getting attacked by pundits, and comidians. He is even made fun of on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. For someone who claims not to favor either party, you seem to be very sensitive to the amount of mockery that you percieved that Bush recievded in his first 8 months as compared to Obama. What would make your theory stronger would be if you could show how all presidents have been treated in their first 8 months since tv's became commonplace in homes. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 29, 2009, 05:17:48 pm ^^^and again you ask me to compile research for you. I'm stating my opinion, not issuing a dissertation.
What Bush ran as and what he was perceived as are two different things. Again, he was widely noted to be a poor speaker, and that led to talk of his intelligence. I'm sorry I don't have a database compiled to prove this, but really, I don't care enough to compile one. And I'm not saying that Obama doesn't ever get made fun of. I'm saying it's not as widespread as it was for Bush, and it's not nearly as mean-spirited. And that's fine. I think you confuse my anger over your line of questioning with some kind of protection of our past President. I am growing ever more annoyed because you and Spider-Dan keep quibbling over side issues rather than contemplating why Bush got crap for silly stuff and Obama largely doesn't (as the article charges). I proposed that A- Obama is just better liked than Bush was, B-back then the political environment was far more charged due to the close and contentious election, C-Obama is enjoying a honeymoon period, which in my experience most Presidents get, and D- there's a "Rally Around the Flag" phenomenon going on because of all the difficulties the President is encountering. Can we discuss this rather than whehter the cover of Mad Magazine truly symbolized the American people's sentiments in January of 2001? Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 29, 2009, 05:51:26 pm Thomas Jefferson was an accomplished writer and founded the University of Virginia. I don't think anyone questions his command of English (or his intelligence) because of his fear of public speaking or his poor speaking voice. Saying that Theodore Roosevelt was "noted to be a poor public speaker" is like saying that Franklin Roosevelt was noted for his incredibly fast running or that Gerald Ford was famed for his marvelous golden locks of hair. Teddy Roosevelt is considered to be one of the greatest orators of the 20th century (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=theodore+roosevelt+greatest+orator&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). So if Bush cranks out some good prose and founds the "University of Bubba", you're going to change your mind on his level of intellect? Public speaking skills are not an indicator of intelligence. People flub their lines due to nerves all the time. It may be the man was never comfortable speaking to an audience, and not a lack of "basic english skills", as you claim. As for TR, you have your source, I have mine. I've read two biographies on TR (as he is my favorite President), and both mentioned his struggles as an orator. He wasn't an accomplished public speaker. Animated, yes. Enthusiastic, definitely. Good? Apparently up for debate. Quote And yes, being able to master elementary-school-level English does reflect on your intelligence. I find it puzzling that people seem to have this belief that a poor vocabulary or the inability to form a grammatically correct simple sentence somehow does not reflect one's intelligence at all, as if one's intelligence should be measured strictly by one's character or one's ability to recite state capitals. Your original point mentioned only the cover and nothing of the content or articles. Gore is also on the cover. The point is null. As null as your point about Obama on his cover of MAD? My original point also included other examples of Bush being mocked as an idiot, and none of THOSE have been "discredited". AGAIN, if Will Ferrell is famously known for playing the role of George Bush as an idiot on SNL, and he left in 2002, during Bush's war-honeymoon period, then when, pray tell, did he cement his character's legacy? Gotta be before 9/11. Quote I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that this same issue has absolutely nothing negative to say about Al Gore inside the issue. Otherwise, your second point would also be completely invalidated. And the king of inferences strikes again! Gore was panned for being boring, which was the national perception then, too. I didn't mention him because the discussion wasn't about Gore. The title of the thread reads "What if George W. Bush had done that?" and I was trying to stay on topic. I know you find this difficult to do, but I try. I kept the comparisons between the two men. Gore was irrelevant to this particular discussion, as he wasn't named in the thread title and he was never, you know, President. Quote I disagree completely: - every president is picked on by comedy entertainment outlets; that is their job) Yeah, I think I said that already. Go on...you're doing well... Quote - Obama has already been picked on by said comedy outlets Well, it IS their job, right? Quote Obama has suffered far, far, far worse political attacks than GWB did from Jan-Oct 2001 (and anything from Sep. 2001 to mid-2002 is idiotic to compare, since GWB enjoyed historically high approval ratings at that time) For a man so keen on attacking other people's examples, you sure don't provide Quote I just fundamentally disagree with the entire premise at a foundational level. The idea that Obama is coasting through on easy mode without criticism is just absurd. NOW you're arguing something! Huzzah for everyone, he's on topic! Guess what? I agree! I never said he's getting away with anything or not getting his just due! I said he's not getting attacked with the same vigor as Bush was, and tried to explain my reasons for this belief. He's criticized, all right, for policy decisions, which is the way it should be, not some defect in his personality! Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 29, 2009, 07:42:37 pm Actually Obabma is currently getting flax for his wanting to play ball with the guys, and not allow women in. I think it is stupid, but that is how it goes.
I remember Ford getting hounded without remorse for his clumsiness, and Carter is still mocked to this day as a goofy southern peanut farmer. Do you not remember Dana Carvey having a field day with Bush Sr and his "read my lips", and "not gonna do it". God's that was everywhere and everyone was doing it. I will say it again. Stop comparing the mockery of Bush against just Obama, you have to weigh it against all the other presidents who had to face it also. Your insistance to just compare these two presidents when others have faced it too, flies in the face of your assertion you do not have a horse in the race. Was/is Bush mocked for his complete and utter lack or oratory skills and vocabulary? Yes. Did he deserve it? Hell yes, by running for that level office you put yourself into the crosshairs. What do you think is going to happen to Palin should she actually win? It will be a massacre, or comical gold, depending on your outlook. Obama also has not given much for the comedians to really work with, where as his VP has, and I have seen John Stewart and others absolutely tee off on him for his "gaffs". Show me where there has been obvious incidences that comedians have passed. John Stewart had a great one with the picture that looked like Obama was staring at the ass of the young girl. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Spider-Dan on October 29, 2009, 08:16:58 pm So if Bush cranks out some good prose and founds the "University of Bubba", you're going to change your mind on his level of intellect? If Bush is the primary author of a document that is used as a formal declaration of independence for a nation, works to draft a national constitution that goes on to be one of the most influential and important documents in the history of the world, and then does the architectural planning for a University that he founds, along with being an accomplished inventor (http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/classes/tcc313/200Rprojs/jefferson_invent/invent.html), then sure. I will take back everything I've said about his intellect.I mean, seriously? You're comparing George W. Bush to Thomas f*cking Jefferson? Really? Quote Public speaking skills are not an indicator of intelligence. People flub their lines due to nerves all the time. It may be the man was never comfortable speaking to an audience, and not a lack of "basic english skills", as you claim. Do you have a source for this claim? Or are you literally just making it up on the fly?Not once have I ever heard that GWB has a fear of public-speaking. You are making excuses, and poor ones at that. Quote As for TR, you have your source, I have mine. I've read two biographies on TR (as he is my favorite President), and both mentioned his struggles as an orator. He wasn't an accomplished public speaker. Animated, yes. Enthusiastic, definitely. Good? Apparently up for debate. And of course, when you say "up for debate," you mean that you will provide no sources for your claims. Kind of like if I claimed that Woodrow Wilson was an outstanding basketball player. I mean, it's possible, right?For every source you can find that claims that TR was a "poor public speaker," I can find five that say that he was one of the greatest. Now obviously, you can find crackpots that believe that FDR was in cahoots with the Nazis or that Reagan engineered 9/11. That's fine. But the overwhelming historical record regards TR as an exceptional orator. Putting him in the same league as GWB is obscene. Quote My original point also included other examples of Bush being mocked as an idiot, and none of THOSE have been "discredited". AGAIN, if Will Ferrell is famously known for playing the role of George Bush as an idiot on SNL, and he left in 2002, during Bush's war-honeymoon period, then when, pray tell, did he cement his character's legacy? Gotta be before 9/11. I let this one slide before, but since you brought it up again: you do realize that Ferrell has returned to SNL to play GWB many times since 2002, right? You seem to be adverse to research, but I'd suggest searching YouTube and looking at the dates that the various Ferrell GWB videos are posted. Or, hell, just try Googling "will ferrell george bush 2002" (replacing the year with 2003, 2004, etc.) and look at the results that you get.Quote And the king of inferences strikes again! Gore was panned for being boring, which was the national perception then, too. I didn't mention him because the discussion wasn't about Gore. The title of the thread reads "What if George W. Bush had done that?" and I was trying to stay on topic. "The entertainment media jumped on Bush from the very start! Look at this magazine cover from 2001!""Um, Gore is also on that cover." "The cover doesn't matter! Inside the magazine, they probably said that Bush is dumb!" "They probably also said that Gore is boring." "We're talking about GEORGE BUSH! Stay on topic!" Give me a break. If your response to counterpoints is to claim that we're not staying on the topic of Bush, what the hell do you expect anyone to bring up as a counterpoint? Quote For a man so keen on attacking other people's examples, you sure don't provide Show me a CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox anchor that devoted several segments of his mainstream, primetime show to indulging crackpot leftwing theories in 2001. Because Lou Dobbs has been encouraging birthers for months.Show me a "news network" that actively promoted anti-federal-government rallies in 2001. You know, like Fox did with the "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Are you kidding me? Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 30, 2009, 12:09:55 am On Jefferson: Don't be a fool. You know damned well there's no comparison. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your inference that public speaking is an indicator of intelligence was. If this is true, and Jefferson was a poor public speaker, then Thomas Jefferson was an idiot. Your logic, not mine. You came up with caveats, and I challenged them. Done and done.
On Ferrell: If his Bush character had not struck such a chord with the American public before he left the show, he would not have constantly been brought back on to repeat it. [urlhttp://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2001/09/22/05[/url] Transcript of a Will Ferrell interview, Sept 22, 2001 Notice Ferrell is described as "famous for his savagely funny impersonation", and also notice the commentary on whether a caller would find his impression funny after the attacks. Is THAT good enough for you, king of research? As for the MAD cover andthe ensuing discusion (which included your crack research onto a mag "making fun" of Obama, I SAID THEY SAID GORE WAS BORING - YOU didn't - because I read the issue and may still have the effing issue in a box somewhere! You couldn't even research this own thread, and you crack on my research? Nice one, dude! I mean, I am the guy in bold, right? If you choose to remember Bush's pre-9/11 time as one of dignity and respect, despite all the evidence I gave to the contrary, and despite what I am sure is engraved in your memory, then so be it. I'm not your research center. I don't need to triple-reference each of my arguments. God KNOWS you sure as hell don't. You don't even bother to read posts for key words and phrases in order to determine tone, instead jumping into attack before realizing that, hey, this dude's not attacking my party or President, he's trying to make sense of a question asked in the title. Dan, I provide the board with links to almost everything I write to support an opinion. I cite sources. Not having the page number to TR: The last Romantic's chapter that discusses his troubles with public speaking is something I'm just not going to apologize for. You should know by now that I don't "make things up on the fly". To accuse me of this is just stupid. As you contribute nothing to the discussion, instead spending your time arguing about trivialities, I'm done. You're the guy who responds to an argument with "well, your momma dresses you funny." You have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of adequately reading a post for meaning. I'm not going to continue to go in circles with you because, frankly, it's beneath me. I attempt to engage in intelligent discussion and share ideas without entering into bitter argument, but you insist on going there because, well, I don't know why. Last, now you're calling Fox new a real news agency? I thought all they did was hire crackpots, which is why I don't watch them or pay them any attention. It's comical that those who hate the network so much are so engrossed by its activities. And now protests against excessive taxation are "anti-government"? No cites to indicate where the "anti-government" part came from. Tsk, Tsk! No cite or actual mention of the "far, far worse" political treatment Obama has received. Even your last example, if even on point, would refer to an attack by the media, not a political party. Tsk, Tsk! Who's making what up on the fly again? Again - done. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 30, 2009, 12:15:07 am I remember Ford getting hounded without remorse for his clumsiness, and Carter is still mocked to this day as a goofy southern peanut farmer. Do you not remember Dana Carvey having a field day with Bush Sr and his "read my lips", and "not gonna do it". God's that was everywhere and everyone was doing it. I will say it again. Stop comparing the mockery of Bush against just Obama, you have to weigh it against all the other presidents who had to face it also. But I MENTIONED several ofthe other Presidents and what comedians portrayed them as, MAN! Are you guys fucking kidding me? I haven't compared all the Presidents for hurtfulness or level of mockery because the freaking topic of the discussion thread relates, specifically, to Obama and Bush. I'm not interested in comparing everyone else. You go on to your heart's content, but I won't, 'kay? I'm rooting for ya, buddy! Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 30, 2009, 01:02:53 am But I MENTIONED several ofthe other Presidents and what comedians portrayed them as, MAN! Are you guys fucking kidding me? I haven't compared all the Presidents for hurtfulness or level of mockery because the freaking topic of the discussion thread relates, specifically, to Obama and Bush. I'm not interested in comparing everyone else. You go on to your heart's content, but I won't, 'kay? I'm rooting for ya, buddy! Wow, you sure have a big bone to pick because one president in your opinion is much more harshly mocked than another one in a specific timeframe. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: JVides on October 30, 2009, 01:16:08 am ^^^Smooth, you refuse to read that I don't care and you ignore it. I said it in my very first post and at least twice after. You choose not to read? Not my problem. Don't infer when there's no need to. I've explained, over and over, that I don't think the comparative treatment is fair or unfair; it is what it is.
Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: Spider-Dan on October 30, 2009, 01:34:14 am I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your "public speaking is an indicator of intelligence" comment was. If this is true, and Jefferson was a poor public speaker, then Thomas Jefferson was an idiot. Your logic, not mine. You came up with caveats, and I challenged them. Done and done. That would be an outstanding point, had that been anything remotely near what I actually said.I said that GWB had an appalling, embarrassingly bad grasp of the English language. YOU were the one that translated that into "poor public speaking," as if there's any reason to believe that GWB has any better command of the language when not speaking in public (when there's plenty of reasons to believe that of Jefferson). Quote On Roosevelt: for shits and giggles, let's see what happens when you google Theodore Roosevelt, "poor orator". High comedy. In the first ten links of that search, the phrase "poor orator" refers to:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=theodore+roosevelt+%22poor+orator%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= 1) William Jennings Bryan (this was a wrong answer on a multiple choice question) 2) hypothetical person (the very next sentence talks about how inspiring Teddy's speeches were, in contrast) 3) not in document 4) Bobby Jindal 5) James Madison 6) hypothetical Congressman 7) Dwight Eisenhower 8) George H.W. Bush 9) Thomas Jefferson 10) unnamed MP of British Parliament If this is what you call research, I suggest you give up this whole Google stuff. You just conclusively disproved your own point. Quote On Ferrell: If his Bush character had not struck such a chord with the American public before he left the show, he would not have constantly been brought back on to repeat it. But that's not the point you made. Your point was that Will Ferrell somehow crammed all of his Bush portrayals in before 2002, when the truth is that he was playing Bush on SNL repeatedly after he left the show, even up to the 2008 election.Quote As for the MAD cover, I SAID THEY SAID GORE WAS BORING - YOU didn't - because I read the issue and may still have the effing issue in a box somewhere! You couldn't even research this own thread, and you crack on my research? Nice one, dude! I mean, I am the guy in bold, right? You do realize that those weren't actual quotes, right?And as for your crack research, your amazing revelation that Gore is boring (gasp!) just happened to come directly after I mentioned that the magazine likely had something negative to say about Gore as well. So, Mr. I-Have-The-Issue-In-Question, if you knew that Gore was also on the cover and you knew that the article bashing GWB for being stupid also bashed Gore for being boring... why even bring it up in the first place? What POSSIBLE point were you trying to prove... that GWB was just-as-frequently-attacked as his counterpart? What an incredible discovery! Quote If you choose to remember Bush's pre-9/11 time as one of dignity and respect, despite all the evidence I gave to the contrary, and despite what I am sure is engraved in your memory, then so be it. I actually "choose" to remember it as many, many times more cordial and courteous than what Obama has went through since January. I mean, we have hosts on major news networks saying that Obama is a racist and has a deep-seated hatred of white people. Do you recall something similar happening to Bush in 2001? I doubt it.The rest of your post is comprised entirely of whining and name-calling, which is quite ironic when considering that that's what you're accusing me of. Title: Re: What if George W. Bush had done that? Post by: bsmooth on October 30, 2009, 02:01:45 am ^^^Smooth, you refuse to read that I don't care and you ignore it. I said it in my very first post and at least twice after. You choose not to read? Not my problem. Don't infer when there's no need to. I've explained, over and over, that I don't think the comparative treatment is fair or unfair; it is what it is. I am curious if a treatment is not fair or unfair, what is it?The tone and language of your postings could make one think that you do indeed think that the treatment of one person is less balanced than of another person in the same position, and to most people that would probably meet the definition of unfair. Your preception of the amount of ridicule that comedians put Bush through vs. Obama is obviously markedly different from what both I am Spider think based on our own personal pbservations. |