View Full Version : Jan 20 State of the Union....
Just wanted to get some opinions on the State of the Union Address last eve. I felt Bush glossed over many domestic issues, while sputtering along on such issues as community college training programs. Focusing on Foreign policy, which is also important, will not appease voters on it's own. Just ask Bush senior. I felt he tried to cover too much, but still managed to skimp on issues such as health care which is currently rated twice as important in as foreign policy in polls (Techno-Metrica poll).
I have read some interesting quotes aimed at the GOP and Bush this morning. Many comments such as ""The Republican party is simply not interested in small government now, they are worse than the Democrats they replaced." are clearly derisive and some of these comments are coming from republicans. Did Bush make an error? Is he again marching in the footsteps of his father, focusing on security and foreign affairs so much that he will end up blindsided by another Democrat throwing Domestic left hooks? Before last night Bush's ratings in the polls were, quite frankly, excellent. Terror attacks have subsided slightly, the economy appears to be recovering, and the administration has clevely used these events as tools to improve the outlook for the 2004 elections.
This morning the rating is experiencing slippage. Fiscal conservatives are starting to mumble, and they don't want to hear about increased spending overseas. Of course they aren't going to jump over to the democrat ship anytime soon either. Dems are pushing the aforementioned health care, to be sure, but these plans are EXPENSIVE, and along with other democratic platform ideals which usually include the government spending more cash, won't be attracting fiscal conservatives any time soon. The thing is, there has been spending, big spending, and the conservative voters are getting restless. The speech last night did little to change this outlook.
During this election year the repubs MUST watch the races on a state level closely, as many conservative voters can and will be swayed to libertarian defection if things get choppy for the repubs in their eyes. If these conservs defect, or worse, stay home, victories will slip to the dems in some states. This is what happened in 1992 with the anti-tax repubs that Bush Sr. managed to piss off.
ok I am getting off course here and will bail now, as I have spewed enough half-assed politics for now. I expect some rebuttals, as my knowledge is swiss cheese like and may or may not be fallacious.
Yods?
Gol?
Anyone?
_S
On the elections and voters' feelings: I've no idea what the state of play is. But it seems from what you've said that he's avoided one "mistake" of his pop's as far as alienating some conservative groups goes -i.e- his tax-cuts.
But that could well impact on his other promises (if the IMF is right that tax-cuts won't sort out the federal deficit - and if the recovery proves "jobless"). Certainly, further skills training isn't going to help that much if the quantity of jobs available across the board doesn't rise (and personally, i suspect that an economy based around an increasingly "service"-based workforce, to the detriment of manufacturing, can't be that healthy in the long run).
I'm taking it that his health-care insurance improvements don't go nearly as far as Democrat proposals (a good sign for the non-Dean candidates with an apparently broader agenda - altho I imagine Dean's doctoring side means he must have some strong views on healthcare too. Ah well, more liberal divisiveness ;))
It all seems to hinge around the tax thing. If the Dems want to propose ambitious social plans, it seems likely they'll want to reverse the tax-cuts. A lot will depend on how the economy's recovery affects the federal deficit i guess. If the tax-cut system actually starts to look untenable socially, i imagine there could well be a movement towards the libertarians at least amongst some "cons" who care about social infrastructure (or at least, about keeping the have-nots happy-ish and not rioting ;)).
You guys ain't stupid - you know the economy's the big bee in everyone's bonnet really ;)
Unfortunately, outside of election-concerns, Bush looking to help out manufacturing etc by letting the dollar slide is making the cooperation-gap between the US and the rest wider and wider. He might achieve his aims of making things look pretty for a while, but if it stirs up an international hornet's nest, even more people are gonna want to punch that lizard's-smile of his (at home and abroad i'm thinking).
An international backlash could really throw a spanner in the works as far as the recovery is concerned I'm guessing. I don't think all the Bush-admin's rosey predictions (that are only half coming true) are taking something like that into account.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the iraq/terror stuff: my European-y reaction is that this statement isn't going to go down well outside the US:
"There is a difference ... between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few," he said. "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."
For me personally there's two glaring things there:
1) He seems to be claiming the invasion of iraq defended american security. I'd love to know in what way. (if anything, it seems fairer to say it's raised and could raise further, the possibility of terrorist strikes against the US and allies). It's noteable that all the al Qaeda-connection talk has been dropped, along with functioning-WMD claims. So on what grounds is he making that claim? It seems like wilfull excuse-making for further basically-unilateral/world-forum-ignoring military action.
2) If he's trying to paint opposition to Iraq and further invasions as being down to a few nations, i'd say that's a pretty big misrepresentation (probably following the aren't-France-Russia-and-China-immoral-and-avaricious-oil-grabbers/fanatic-funders line, which is fairly hypocritical )
Again, not the best way to help foster the desired UN intervention in Iraq.
This quote is also fairly hilarious:
"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America,"
Now of course he's referring to America following up on its threats and stuff like that. But considering the untrustworthy words about uranium in the last State of Union address, and how it and other dodgey prenouncements almost certainly affected the UN's response to Powell's presentation, it all comes across as highly ironic.
But you're right that he's played the world-wide lull in terrorism to his advantage (and Libya/Iran are good signs in theory. North Korea looks a bit more bleary - and we'll see how well the middle-east mess interacts from now to election day. If the Shia-dynamic starts panic, Iran's election reforms get their fire fanned, Saudi gets itchy about US presence still hovering near their land...or any of the other potential polarisations that the invasion could bring to life, Bush might feel a bit more strife from this part of the world)
I don't have much in the way of rebuttals, really, as you're pretty much just stating fact. It's true that many fiscal conservatives are becoming a tad irked by Bush. I don't think they particularly should be (at least, not much), but they are.
I think we can afford these programs, and I think some argument can be made in favor of them (I lean towards less government intervention, financially, but some level of social service is reasonable), but I think the real question is this: can Bush win without reigning in spending?
I think he can, and probably will, in part because his social programs are exactly the sorts of things his Democratic opponents generally advocate. He's really thrown them for a loop; how can they complain when he supports these sorts of federal programs? Such programs are one of the modern foundations of the Democratic party. Moreover, they're damn near out of economic complaints, and complaints about the war are losing their power very quickly. The result is a number of politicans vying for Bush's office and very transparently searching for things to criticize, and sometimes contradicting themselves as a result.
Recent history has shown us a few things about the Presidency. Two of them stand out, at least to me: that the American people respond to a strong economy, and a consistent message. Reagan and Clinton showed us, quite clearly, that modern America is willing to overlook the occasional scandal if the President is clear in his message, and the economy is growing. Right now, both apply, and so I think it will be very difficult for Bush's opponents to supplant him.
It's ironic, really, because Bush stated before his election that he was "a uniter, not a divider." At the time, I think this was a fair claim...he's fairly centrist on certain issues (you generally have to be to properly court the American electorate), but after 9/11, it was promptly dashed. Since then, Bush has been (forgive me for using the same word as everyone else) a very polarizing figure. I don't know that this is entirely bad, though...I think he's forcing a lot of people -- especially those in Washington -- to firmly decide which side of each issue they want to come down on.
His "you're either with us, or against us" ultimatum seems to apply to more than just terrorism, in the sense that the last couple years have helped to show us exactly who believes what. I think this is very, very significant. It seems to me that a fair amount of modern politics is about coming down on the best side, rather than the right side, if you get my meaning. Bush is forcing people to choose sides first, before they know just which way the tide is turning.
I believe that Bush's claim of being "misunderestimated" is the story of his life, to some degree. How many times have we heard that he is stupid, inept, incompetent, or politically impotent? And yet here he is, on the cusp of a second term and clearly responsible for a boom in the aughts that may well rival the one in the 90s. I think Bush thrives on doubt and lowered expectations. It causes his opponents to speak against his policies with unheard of ferocity. Thus, when he enjoys a success (such as he has with our current economic recovery), those brash, definitive criticisms look much worse than they would have if the opposition had restricted their attacks to the standard, quasi-polite criticism you generally expect from major candidates.
In my opinion he will go down as the President to help prove, once and for all, that supply-side economics is vastly superior to Keynesianism, and that America does not always need to choose between its own prosperity, and the well-being of those less fortunate, either domestically or abroad.
In my opinion he will go down as the President to help prove, once and for all, that supply-side economics is vastly superior to Keynesianism, and that America does not always need to choose between its own prosperity, and the well-being of those less fortunate, either domestically or abroad.
Damn i wish i knew anything about those approaches other than their names ;) - so i could argue with you some o'course :)
But, from my tiny mixed-bag of economic-popourri, i'm gonna scatter this argumentative matter (though i dare say it might not be a Keynesianism or a supply-side thing): Isn't devaluing the dollar something that helps out the US economy while negatively impacting on others internationally? - and as such that doesn't tally well with your appraisal of Bush as internationally benevolent/balanced etc.
So, some questions to you and your big bag of graphs (;)):
(a) Do you agree that the Bush-admin seems to be deliberately letting the dollar slide?
(b) Why do you think he's doing this?
(c) Do you think that this aids the recovery?
(d) Do you agree that the recovery isn't going quite as well as was hoped from early signs? (i.e. there's a lack of job growth etc)
But that could well impact on his other promises (if the IMF is right that tax-cuts won't sort out the federal deficit - and if the recovery proves "jobless"). Certainly, further skills training isn't going to help that much if the quantity of jobs available across the board doesn't rise (and personally, i suspect that an economy based around an increasingly "service"-based workforce, to the detriment of manufacturing, can't be that healthy in the long run).Why? A good economy is a fluid one. We don't need to have TYPES of jobs. Just growth, and the jobs that inevitably follow.
More and more of our work is going to be automated, and as such more and more of our workforce will be asked to handle the human/service side of things. Criticisms about types of jobs never seem to blossom, I find, and are generally the result of someone trying to find a dark lining in a silver cloud, to borrow a turn of phrase from someone I can't remember. :)
It all seems to hinge around the tax thing. If the Dems want to propose ambitious social plans, it seems likely they'll want to reverse the tax-cuts. A lot will depend on how the economy's recovery affects the federal deficit i guess. If the tax-cut system actually starts to look untenable socially, i imagine there could well be a movement towards the libertarians at least amongst some "cons" who care about social infrastructure (or at least, about keeping the have-nots happy-ish and not rioting ;)).
You guys ain't stupid - you know the economy's the big bee in everyone's bonnet really ;)Absolutely correct. The election will turn, primarily, on the economy, like it pretty much always does.
In regards to the deficit: the effects are already noticable, in my opinion. Tax receipts have gone up over the last three months when compared to their counterparts in the last fiscal year, despite May's tax cuts. As I like to put it, somewhere, Laffer is laughing.
Throw in the fact that the CBO budget forecasting model predicts a slight increase in the deficit next year, followed by drops every year after (resulting in surpluses again, unless we roll over the benefits towards more stimulation, of course), and the fuss over the deficit is much ado about nothing, given the extremely positive effects we've bought with it. Effects which should pay for themselves without breaking so much as a sweat.
Unfortunately, outside of election-concerns, Bush looking to help out manufacturing etc by letting the dollar slide is making the cooperation-gap between the US and the rest wider and wider. He might achieve his aims of making things look pretty for a while, but if it stirs up an international hornet's nest, even more people are gonna want to punch that lizard's-smile of his (at home and abroad i'm thinking).
An international backlash could really throw a spanner in the works as far as the recovery is concerned I'm guessing. I don't think all the Bush-admin's rosey predictions (that are only half coming true) are taking something like that into account.As you know, I agree that Bush needs to apply his free-market philosophy abroad, and not just domestically. His repeal of the steel tariffs is encouraging on this front, I think. Hopefully it is indicative of something larger.
1) He seems to be claiming the invasion of iraq defended american security. I'd love to know in what way.Well, for one, we know that Saddam had tried to develop nuclear weapons, and would've almost certainly had another go at it. Being a wealthy, powerful madman with a history of violence and recklessness isn't such a bad reason to dispose of him. And let's not forget that he directly supported terrorist actions by offering lump sum rewards to the families of various suicide bombers. And, of course, there's always the idea that such men have an unmeasurable, but still adverse, effect on the world in more subtle ways, though that alone probably wouldn't justify invasion.
So, while Saddam was not a direct, imminent threat, I think a case can be made that he was a threat nonetheless, albeit in less explicit ways.
2) If he's trying to paint opposition to Iraq and further invasions as being down to a few nations, i'd say that's a pretty big misrepresentation (probably following the aren't-France-Russia-and-China-immoral-and-avaricious-oil-grabbers/fanatic-funders line, which is fairly hypocritical )I don't know that it is hypocritical if said in response to people who are attacking Bush's motivations for the war. I think it's a fine retort which illustrates that most major nations are doing nothing more than following their interests, and that they derive no moral authority from their opposition if it stems from self-interest.
Anyway, yes, more than a few nations were opposed. But more than a few nations supported us, too. We didn't have the kind of approval you'd like to have for such an action, but the repeated claim that we were alone -- or nearly alone -- strikes me as a counter-exaggeration.
Now of course he's referring to America following up on its threats and stuff like that. But considering the untrustworthy words about uranium in the last State of Union address, and how it and other dodgey prenouncements almost certainly affected the UN's response to Powell's presentation, it all comes across as highly ironic.The line about uranium feels an awful lot like political opportunism. The case for war was not built on that one line, and if you read the line itself, it's not an out-and-out lie. It states, if memory serves, that the British and government reported such-and-such, which they did (again, if memory serves). It can be called fairly misleading or inaccurate, but the whole thing was blown way, way out of proportion, especially considering that the administration's policy did not stem from that single claim.
Basically, I see it as an excuse for those who wish to be suspicious of Bush to do so. A blanket reason to raise an eyebrow at everything he says or does.
But you're right that he's played the world-wide lull in terrorism to his advantage (and Libya/Iran are good signs in theory. North Korea looks a bit more bleary - and we'll see how well the middle-east mess interacts from now to election day. If the Shia-dynamic starts panic, Iran's election reforms get their fire fanned, Saudi gets itchy about US presence still hovering near their land...or any of the other potential polarisations that the invasion could bring to life, Bush might feel a bit more strife from this part of the world)Theory and bleary...ha! One of your best yet, I dare say. :)
This paragraph is quite fair, and I think it illustrates something we all need to internalize: there's way, way too much going on, internationally, to make declarations yet. Iraq could, in a year's time, have a fairly functioning democracy. It could start spreading through the area. If it does, perhaps this action will be looked upon a century from now as the beginning of an enhanced standard of living for millions of people in that part of the world. Attacks are down since the capture of Saddam, which bodes well for this optimism.
Of course, attacks could continue. And the Iraqis could end up in a situation only slightly improved from their former predicament, in turn discouraging established democracies from supporting fledgling ones in the future.
Who knows? Not me. I'll wait and see, personally (how was that? :D)
Damn i wish i knew anything about those approaches other than their names ;) - so i could argue with you some o'course :)These definitions are overly simplistic, but I'll do my best: supply-side economics says that supply, not demand, is the more difficult of the two, and as such government should be, as a general rule, as lenient on business and innovation as it can be, whilst still remaining fair. Give incentive and motivation towards those who create wealth, in other words.
Keynesianism is pretty much the opposite. It states that demand is what matters. That economic growth is all about convincing people to spend money, more or less. It states that business responds to demand, but does not create it.
That's about as good as I can do. Please don't take either as Gospel. :)
But, from my tiny mixed-bag of economic-popourri, i'm gonna scatter this argumentative matter (though i dare say it might not be a Keynesianism or a supply-side thing): Isn't devaluing the dollar something that helps out the US economy while negatively impacting on others internationally? - and as such that doesn't tally well with your appraisal of Bush as internationally benevolent/balanced etc.Well, I was referring more to things like the liberation of Iraq, and aid for AIDS (that'd be funny, if the issue weren't so serious) in Africa.
That said, I think devaluing the dollar could be something which hurts us, as well, but it is admittedly a very, very complicated issue that I don't believe I yet have my head completely around.
So, some questions to you and your big bag of graphs (;)):
(a) Do you agree that the Bush-admin seems to be deliberately letting the dollar slide?I honestly do not know. If I had to guess, I'd say that they're probably on top of things enough to know what they're doing, yes.
(b) Why do you think he's doing this?For whatever reason, he's got a few protectionist leanings. I'm really not sure why.
(c) Do you think that this aids the recovery?I don't think so, though I don't think it'll hurt it much, either, so long as it doesn't continue for too long.
(d) Do you agree that the recovery isn't going quite as well as was hoped from early signs? (i.e. there's a lack of job growth etc)Honestly, no. I think it's gone better in many areas. The lack of job growth is much publicized, of course, though not always accurately so. The unemployment rate has dropped from 6.4% to 5.7% in just half a year. Jobless claims support the notion that the job market is improving very rapidly, as well. Throw in the fact that unemployment is an infamously lagging indicator, and I think the phrase "jobless recovery" is exaggerative to the point of nearly being outright false.
True or not, though, it's certainly done a decent job of "sticking," and as such will be a major issue come campaign time. Anyone looking to criticize the economy can ignore the current trends and focus on "then and now" comparisons to try to sway voters.
I don't have much in the way of rebuttals, really, as you're pretty much just stating fact. It's true that many fiscal conservatives are becoming a tad irked by Bush. I don't think they particularly should be (at least, not much), but they are.
I think we can afford these programs, and I think some argument can be made in favor of them (I lean towards less government intervention, financially, but some level of social service is reasonable), but I think the real question is this: can Bush win without reigning in spending?
I think he can, and probably will, in part because his social programs are exactly the sorts of things his Democratic opponents generally advocate. He's really thrown them for a loop; how can they complain when he supports these sorts of federal programs? Such programs are one of the modern foundations of the Democratic party. Moreover, they're damn near out of economic complaints, and complaints about the war are losing their power very quickly. The result is a number of politicans vying for Bush's office and very transparently searching for things to criticize, and sometimes contradicting themselves as a result.
Recent history has shown us a few things about the Presidency. Two of them stand out, at least to me: that the American people respond to a strong economy, and a consistent message. Reagan and Clinton showed us, quite clearly, that modern America is willing to overlook the occasional scandal if the President is clear in his message, and the economy is growing. Right now, both apply, and so I think it will be very difficult for Bush's opponents to supplant him.
It's ironic, really, because Bush stated before his election that he was "a uniter, not a divider." At the time, I think this was a fair claim...he's fairly centrist on certain issues (you generally have to be to properly court the American electorate), but after 9/11, it was promptly dashed. Since then, Bush has been (forgive me for using the same word as everyone else) a very polarizing figure. I don't know that this is entirely bad, though...I think he's forcing a lot of people -- especially those in Washington -- to firmly decide which side of each issue they want to come down on.
His "you're either with us, or against us" ultimatum seems to apply to more than just terrorism, in the sense that the last couple years have helped to show us exactly who believes what. I think this is very, very significant. It seems to me that a fair amount of modern politics is about coming down on the best side, rather than the right side, if you get my meaning. Bush is forcing people to choose sides first, before they know just which way the tide is turning.
I believe that Bush's claim of being "misunderestimated" is the story of his life, to some degree. How many times have we heard that he is stupid, inept, incompetent, or politically impotent? And yet here he is, on the cusp of a second term and clearly responsible for a boom in the aughts that may well rival the one in the 90s. I think Bush thrives on doubt and lowered expectations. It causes his opponents to speak against his policies with unheard of ferocity. Thus, when he enjoys a success (such as he has with our current economic recovery), those brash, definitive criticisms look much worse than they would have if the opposition had restricted their attacks to the standard, quasi-polite criticism you generally expect from major candidates.
In my opinion he will go down as the President to help prove, once and for all, that supply-side economics is vastly superior to Keynesianism, and that America does not always need to choose between its own prosperity, and the well-being of those less fortunate, either domestically or abroad.
Well said.
I think the main concerns being raised today are whether or not he will piss off some of his friends/supporters with his quite unique platform that has developed. This is the buzz I am seeing in some of the newspapers, that a sort-of fence riding approch wil alienate hard-liners that were up until recently firmly in his camp. They are basically annoyed at his lack of vision for the true republican calling of small government, and wil then put his platform under more scrutiny by his supporters, people he might make uneasy with the social issues that tend to be more costly.
As for supply side eco, I have read troubling facts about dismal quality/safety/working conditions in the service industry. especially the multi-national industries such as Conagra and Tri-val foods. How are these issues affected by these concepts. I know next to nothing about these concepts you mentioned and really am just digging for info as I have no referent from which to argue any points here. Would the overall monitoring of safety, quality, and worker treatment go up or down under these policies? Would OSHA be brought back to it's full capacity and restaffed with trained inspectors with actual leverage instead of remaining the useless ineffectual orginization that it become in the last 10 years?
I am all about solidifying and strengthening the economy, but only if these other, quite serious and troubling issues are approached as well.
_S
Why? A good economy is a fluid one. We don't need to have TYPES of jobs. Just growth, and the jobs that inevitably follow.
More and more of our work is going to be automated, and as such more and more of our workforce will be asked to handle the human/service side of things
Fair enough on one level. But what if the lack of manufacturing job growth also pertains to poor product export? No point having an automated factory producing flexible faucets now is there? ;)
If products are not competing well internationally due to prevelant "managerial" approaches in the US (as i've just suggested on this thread: http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=135996#post135996 ) then the manufacturing industry shouldn't expect a huge boost in sales/growth from increased automation. And if it pans out that way, there'll be no great explosion in the service industry - except perhaps to market products domestically in a micro-Keynesian manner ;) (cheers for the summary btw :))
It all depends on whether you think there's a problem with US manufacturing or not (from planes to GM strains)
In regards to the deficit: the effects are already noticable, in my opinion. Tax receipts have gone up over the last three months when compared to their counterparts in the last fiscal year, despite May's tax cuts. As I like to put it, somewhere, Laffer is laughing.
Yes, and Keynes is quaking i dare say ;) - Still, the IMF disagrees with the predictions it seems. And some of the predictions bandied about have been shown to be off by significant margins. Still, i accept that if tax receipts continue to grow then the tax thing is working out ( i don't understand the full proceedure, so i'll try and do some investigating - but gah - should be working :rolleyes: )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, for one, we know that Saddam had tried to develop nuclear weapons, and would've almost certainly had another go at it.
...
And let's not forget that he directly supported terrorist actions by offering lump sum rewards to the families of various suicide bombers.
Claiming the Iraq invasion stopped attacks on the US is BS:
Come on - the UN was on top of almost all aspects of his attempts to "reconstitute" himself back to 91 levels (including nuclear programs) and even before the most recent discoveries (of lack of progress) it was pretty much certain that he wouldn't have facilities or deployment capability in place for many years to come. With the current info we have (i.e. no facilities or materials, and rockets only existing on scribbled bits of paper - with innovative designs that probably wouldn't work, because the facilities and local knowledge were so old, poor or non-existant) we can happily say he was 5 years away from that goal minimum. And we can also imagine that something would have been discovered by the UN during that time to set him back again. The point is that UN intervention, coupled with harsh application of sanctions (pushed to their fiercest extent by the US/UK it seems) meant he was in no way a threat to the US. No....way.
And yet Bush portrays it constantly as imminent in how he talks about it. It's outrageous. He doesn't rule out nuke-strikes on non-nuke countries, is funding the construction of mini-nukes that defy or slip-under non-proliferation pacts, and has the gall to say a nutter who might have had nukes that could've reached Israel in 5 years time is a threat to the US.
As for the Palestine terrorist funding - you've got to look at it in the context of keeping-in-with-the-locals/suppressing a local threat as well. As much as it's despicable - and could be polarised into arab-vs-non-arab international terrorism, it can't be used as a proof of a threat to the US. Which is what we're talking about.
I don't know that it is hypocritical if said in response to people who are attacking Bush's motivations for the war. I think it's a fine retort which illustrates that most major nations are doing nothing more than following their interests, and that they derive no moral authority from their opposition if it stems from self-interest.
Ok, mainly for the other thread - but briefly:
The hypocricy is that the US can be considered guilty of the same things:
i.e. via: Ensuring Iraqi oil-trade takes place in dollars. (and having influence over oil-channeling regimes - partially through fear of military intervention)
Anyway, yes, more than a few nations were opposed. But more than a few nations supported us, too. We didn't have the kind of approval you'd like to have for such an action, but the repeated claim that we were alone -- or nearly alone -- strikes me as a counter-exaggeration.
I've never claimed you were alone. I said basically-unilateral coz those who supported you were minor players on the world scene. Which just comes down to basically-alone ;)
The line about uranium strikes me as political opportunism personified. The case for war was not built on that one line, and if you read the line itself, it's not an out-and-out lie. It states, if memory serves, that the British and government reported such-and-such, which they did (again, if memory serves). It can be called fairly misleading or inaccurate, but the whole thing was blown way, way out of proportion, especially considering that the administration's policy did not stem from that single claim.
The point about it was that it was shared info that had been disproved by US officals prior to the announcement i believe.
Iraq could, in a year's time, have a fairly function democracy. It could start spreading through the area.....
Of course, attacks could continue. And the Iraqis could end up in a situation only slightly improved from their former predicament, in turn discouraging established democracies from supporting fledgling ones in the future.
Who knows? Not me. I'll wait and see, personally (how was that? :D)
You neglected the: Iraq could end up in a worse situation than before too. Their infrastructure has been so pulverised by sanctions, and held together by Saddam's ruthlessness, for so long that the possiblity of large-scale collapse (which could negatively affect the whole region) is quite large.
But aside from that, very nice ;)
Ran across this article today, which touches on some other issues in Bush's speech that I hadn't really thought about much. Some interesting tid-bits here and I like this guy who writes the article...
Bush on Steroids (http://www.reason.com/sullum/012304.shtml)
_S
So the steroid thing really threw me at first. Myself and many people were asking "just why is he talking about this issue in the way he is talking about it?". It seemed obscure and came out left field. He had also touched on the space program in the same brief way in the address. Watching the opening of the Superbowl, everything becomes clear. First I need to go off on a little tangent for some background....
Check out this petition posted by MoveOn.org
Petition (http://www.moveon.org/cbs/)
First off I have to say this petition irritates me as it decries Freedom of Speech when there is no violation. Yet another example of an anti-bush orginization thinking free speech means they can do whatever they want, anywhere they want, which we know is not the case. But, back to the issue at hand, this MoveOn.org project is happening because CBS refused to air certain messages that MoveOn had requested they air (The reason for this is not stated, meaning it could have been financial instead of political, but who knows). So, what we know is political ads were getting a ton of scrutiny from the network and according to MoveOn, the white house ads went in, while their ad didn't, and MoveOn claims political bias.
Here is where it gets interesting. The Bush administration had forseen the possibility of problems with political ads with CBS and, in a pretty slick move in my eyes, built their message directly into the Superbowl. I was chatting with a collegue of mine yesterday about the NASA dedication and how it played out and he brought up a couple of interesting points.
WHY was the NASA dedication held at a football event? We know it was the one-year anniversary of Columbia's terrible tragic flight last January, so at first glance this appears to be the reason. When one takes the whole presentation into consideration, things start to change. The dedication starts, an absolutely terrible singer launches into one of the worst songs I have ever heard, and we are presented with some images. A float with the NASA logo opens up and a moon appears, An astronaut then begins climbing to the apex of the moon, American flag in hand. He reaches the top rears the flag up, immediately bringing to mind Armstrong on the moon, thrusting the flag in and claiming the territory, but this time there is no thrust. There is no claim to the territory.
My collegue works for a major marketing firm in the city of Boston, and he started to explain how marketers are starting to use implied marketing concepts now. They figure people have been beat over the head with every type of flood marketing known to man, and when marketing delicate issues, folks are finding subtle is the way to go (Just ask Ditka ;)). Sean (my collegue) believes the whole NASA presentation was the flagship for Bush's new space program, andthinking about the subtle segue into this thing with the SOTU address, it starts to make sense. Why show America claiming space like we did in the 60's, it's been done! Let's IMPLY we will claim space and lets the people's minds complete the idea. Pure genius.
You folks know I am a skeptic, and I spent a lot of time trying to shoot holes in this theory but I can't figure out WHY he said the things he did in the SOTU, unless this was the plan. The previous comments make no sense at all unless this framework is used. I can't get around this fact. I also want to shake the hand of whomever designed this presentation, because he seems to be a marketing madman, or god of some sort. What a brilliant stroke. As a person who would like to see a new president this term, I am shaking in my shoes at the fact the Bush has marketing tools this potent and powerful at his disposal , IF this presentation turns out to indeed be the opening scene in the next act of "America Will Claim Space".
The Superbowl is one of the most watched programs on the planet and getting a 30 second slot costs a RIDICULOUS amount of money. What is a palty 30 seconds of White House material when you an get your message through in a presentation that:
1: Lasts a hell of a lot longer than 30 seconds and
2: Is not set up in a commercial format, therefore ensuring a much higher percentage of the viewership actually sees it (I for one went to the restroom during the commercials, not during the game).
Genius I say!
_Sedai
Also, I am not saying an actual altruistic and caring message about the astronauts wasn't intended, as it was, but although I am still skeptical, the marketing thing also makes a ton of sense.
I saw the intro to the superbowl in a replay last night (grid-iron stuff goes out in the wee hours over here). I was blown away by the outrageous idea-mongering contained in that astronaut set up. I'm afraid, to most outsiders, it just comes across as overblown "americana" (it's always surreal for us cynical little nations to see the star-spangled-banner placards waved en-masse, and the broad emotional sweeps with which national-identity can be displayed and re-inforced in the US)
But i found it worrying that the aspirational astronaut scene was placed smack-bang in the middle of the most watched and near-venerated social event in the calender. I found the whole thing quite surreal (and the song rendition humourously under-whelming as it goes ;)).
Most people seem to have seen through the man-on-mars tittle-tattle. But by placing this piece of iconography in the middle of a non-political (but patriotic and supercharged) occasion, there's the chance that people will absorb its connotations subliminally more than critically (as you're suggesting). It's another worryingly dream-like aspect trying to link itself to the american psyche.
Ah well. I'm sure plenty of people found it comical too ;).
Check out this petition posted by MoveOn.org
Petition (http://www.moveon.org/cbs/)
First off I have to say this petition irritates me as it decries Freedom of Speech when there is no violation. Yet another example of an anti-bush orginization thinking free speech means they can do whatever they want, anywhere they want, which we know is not the case. But, back to the issue at hand, this MoveOn.org project is happening because CBS refused to air certain messages that MoveOn had requested they air (The reason for this is not stated, meaning it could have been financial instead of political, but who knows). So, what we know is political ads were getting a ton of scrutiny from the network and according to MoveOn, the white house ads went in, while their ad didn't, and MoveOn claims political bias.
It was definitely political bias, not a financial issue.
Psychic Isaac
02-03-04, 01:39 PM
Everyone, don't be afraid. Don't scream.
It was definitely political bias, not a financial issue.
I saw the ghost of Django in this thread. There's the evidence. I know most of you guys can't see him, but I have the power. I'm going to try to exorcise Django's spirit out of here....... DJANGO! GO TO THE LIGHT! GO TO THE LIGHT!
Everyone, don't be afraid. Don't scream.
I saw the ghost of Django in this thread. There's the evidence. I know most of you guys can't see him, but I have the power. I'm going to try to exorcise Django's spirit out of here....... DJANGO! GO TO THE LIGHT! GO TO THE LIGHT!
Lol! I am in the light! I'm afraid that most of you are in the dark, though... that's probably why you can't see me! lol!
At least I'm not wearing blinkers! :rolleyes:
Argh, Isaac, exercise your exorcising muscles some more. He's still warping everything with his dark-energy ;). (Do you have any amulets that can purge the delusions of self-styled prophets? ;) Or at least protect us from them. Some sort of "prophelaxitive" or something ;))
Argh, Isaac, exercise your exorcising muscles some more. He's still warping everything with his dark-energy ;). (Do you have any amulets that can purge the delusions of self-styled prophets? ;) Or at least protect us from them. Some sort of "prophelaxitive" or something ;))
I have too many muscles to be a "self-styled prophet".
Caitlyn
02-03-04, 10:58 PM
Some sort of "prophelaxitive" or something ;))
:rotfl:
Some sort of "prophelaxitive" or something
Only Golgot could think of promoting a laxative for prophets! :rolleyes:
(But that aside, I have to admit, it was very witty!)
Damn my threads keep getting killed. I guess we beat this one into the ground anyway :(
_S
Damn my threads keep getting killed. I guess we beat this one into the ground anyway :(
_S
Ahh, the effects of the address will keep rumbling. I'm sure there'll be some related muck for us to roll around in soon enough ;)
I'm kind of amused by the varying reactions to the re-training and healthcare initiatives. Some republicans seem to be criticising budget inbalances/costs caused by these social-welfare sallies (including the revised estimation of cost). While Dems seem to be picking up on the liability that money will be withdrawn from such areas due to the amount of discretionary spending that will go towards military projects etc.
The fun and games continue :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.