Yeah, I've seen that clip. I think Quinn was so taken aback because she was talking to a frigging Vanity Fair spokeswoman turning wannabe politician. Instead of discussing dresses and food she got blindsided into a wardebate.
TC-LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
Yes, I've noticed that they think the shrew from VF somehow really rubbed FOX's nose into the ground by buffaloing Quinn, who thought the segment was going to be about the pageantry and parties and whatnot. If something like that--a churlish snippy second tier flunkie from a magazine that screams "Bush Sucks" in almost every issue--acting like an idiot is scoring points for their side, they really don't have a clue about how incredibly petty that tape probably looked to the vast majority of FOX viewers who watched it.
jr
· 4 years ago
Yah, what a bitch; as if a FAUX 'news' commentator could be expected to think on her overly coiffed feet, especially to respond to dissenting opinions on the Bush network. Here's a thought, why not just fucking kill anyone who won't say thank you when offered the opportunity to lick Bush's ass?
Rob
· 4 years ago
Find a contemporary source that says otherwise, or issue a retraction.
Uh, how about "No." Personally, I don't find a single, clipped quote compelling enough.
How about you find me an instance where any other American President toned down his inauguration festivities because of a war. Or any reason, for that matter. Then we'll discuss the merits of your example and see how they apply to the current situation.
ahem
· 4 years ago
Ah yes, pointing out that a lavish party claiming to honor the troops, that in fact honored corporate sponsors, is just regurgitating a talking point.
From an interview with Jeanne Phillips, chairwoman of the inaugural committee:
As an alternative way of honoring them, did you or the president ever discuss canceling the nine balls and using the $40 million inaugural budget to purchase better equipment for the troops?
I think we felt like we would have a traditional set of events and we would focus on honoring the people who are serving our country right now â€" not just the people in the armed forces, but also the community volunteers, the firemen, the policemen, the teachers, the people who serve at, you know, the â€" well, it’s called the StewPot in Dallas, people who work with the homeless.
How do any of them benefit from the inaugural balls?
I’m not sure that they do benefit from them.
Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?
Honoring service is what our theme is about.
It's all about 'the theme'. Style triumphant over substance. Feel the honor, troops, as you weld another bit of scrap iron to your HMMV.
Oh, and your historical knowledge of the FDR presidency is as shallow as a muddy puddle. Lots of speculation there, but very little fact.
The electors' dinner seemed to me almost a pre-war entertainment. I found it difficult to adjust myself, because at the last inauguration clouds hung heavily over our heads, even though we had not actually faced the realities of war; and now that these are always in the back of one's mind, I find it very hard to get away from them....
'Even during the purely social features, one carries a constant sense of the solemnity of an occasion such as this, occurring as it does while we are in the midst of war.' -- Eleanor Roosevelt
Yes, 1945 was exceptional, but there are other reasons for that: 1865 was a deliberate expression of the Union's strength; 1919 occurred after the Armistice; 1953 reflected Eisenhower's victory on his 'I will go to Korea' platform; 1973 was, well, Nixon being Nixon.
Admit it: you pulled all that stuff about how 'FDR was probably just sick of inaugurals and in failing health, so he used the war as an excuse to avoid a party' straight out of your ass. Find a contemporary source that says otherwise, or issue a retraction.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Touche.
My stance is that the inaugural was toned down because of Roosevelt's health. People knew he was...frail...back then, but they didn't know just how sick he really was. Obviously they didn't want the citizens to know the reason behind the toned-down inaugurals, so the war was a convenient and fitting excuse.
Now, all of that is just speculation on my part having considered the matter in its historical context. Obviously, I cannot "prove it."
But I do think the facts about his health should be considered by those making the case against Bush's inauguration by comparing it to FDR's.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I never said it wasn't scaled back because of WWII. I'm just offering more facts surrounding FDR in 1944 for the sake of comparison. The war probably did play a part, but I don't think you can discount the other factors either.
And, by itself, it still doesn't present a compelling case for why Bush should have toned down this inauguration in 2005.
Charles
· 4 years ago
Apparently precedence does matter as the FDR comparison has been the talking point most often used in the criticism of Bush’s inauguration.
Please note that I did not state this point.
I agree, and if you can show where Bush’s inauguration put any troops in danger or detracted from their overall safety please do so and I will join in you criticizing the President.
Sure, the funds used for the inauguration celebrations could have been instead sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to support the war effort. Yes, there is bureaucracy, details and politics which make this simple "transfer" difficult - but you get my point. Therefore, I would say that these celebrations certainly detracted from their safety.
Depends on the height of the bridge and the depth of the water, but maybe.
I concur.
Mark
· 4 years ago
"I never said it wasn’t scaled back because of WWII."
Err...
"the reason he scaled them back probably didn’t have anything to do with the war."
(I do accept your point about it not being a compelling case for Bush toning down this particular inauguration).
Charles
· 4 years ago
This isn't about precedence. Eisenhower doesn't matter, FDR doesn't matter, no other war time president matters. What matters is that President Bush spent a lot of money on some fun shin-digs because he could. He rarely expects the citizens of this country to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of this war effort, nor obviously does he believe he should do so himself.
The safety and welfare of our troops is much more important than glamour and vanity.
Would you jump off the bridge if the rest of the presidents did?
Rob
· 4 years ago
This isn’t about precedence. Eisenhower doesn’t matter, FDR doesn’t matter, no other war time president matters.
Apparently precedence does matter as the FDR comparison has been the talking point most often used in the criticism of Bush's inauguration.
The safety and welfare of our troops is much more important than glamour and vanity.
I agree, and if you can show where Bush's inauguration put any troops in danger or detracted from their overall safety please do so and I will join in you criticizing the President.
Would you jump off the bridge if the rest of the presidents did?
Depends on the height of the bridge and the depth of the water, but maybe.
Mark
· 4 years ago
Rob - The first two sentences of Roosevelt's address at the inauguration read -
'Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief.
We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage--of our resolve--of our wisdom--our essential democracy.'
That certainly implies that it was scaled back for reasons of war.
Todd
· 4 years ago
You Fox flunkies are pathetic. You feel better that it was an editor at Vogue who made the anchor's political prejudices so apparent? A preschooler could expose the sham of a "fair and balanced" news organization that is Fox. As for Bush - how a man assuming his second term as President speaks for 40 mins without even mentioning the war he has thrown the country into is beyond me. When will the reality of his mistakes finally be recognized? I suppose he and Condi are leaving that to "history."
Rob
· 4 years ago
I would guess it would be a factor, but perhaps not as important as you suggest.
To each their own.
It also explains, however, why it is unfair to judge Bush against that standard. Say what you like about the war in Iraq, but it’s not even in the same league as what the world, and America, was going through in early 1945.
Excellent point, and one I should have focused on more in my post.
Mark
· 4 years ago
'But I do think the facts about his health should be considered by those making the case against Bush’s inauguration by comparing it to FDR’s.'
Absolutely. Of course, like you say, it is pure conjecture the extent to which his health played a part in his decision to scale back the inauguration. We simply don't know. I would guess it would be a factor, but perhaps not as important as you suggest.
I think what we should bear in mind is that the Second World War was, is, and hopefully will be the most tragic and costly event ever to affect humanity. For me that goes pretty much all the way to explaining why the 1945 inauguration was toned down.
It also explains, however, why it is unfair to judge Bush against that standard. Say what you like about the war in Iraq, but it's not even in the same league as what the world, and America, was going through in early 1945.
Charles
· 4 years ago
So instead of accepting donations for his inaugural celebration, the President should have asked his private contributors to donate their money for armor for the troops in Iraq? That’s a rather absurd standard to hold the President to, but if we’re going to play that game couldn’t I ask why Kerry didn’t send his left over campaign funds to the troops in Iraq? Since troop safety is such an important issue to him these days.
Did I say anything about John Kerry? No. I'm not your partisan monkey boy. I don't care for John Kerry and I don't care for George Bush. There's no need to deflect the issue to congress or Kerry. Yes, congress controls spending, but incase you haven't noticed we went to war because of G.B., not congress.
And I will state again that if George Bush had his priorities straight he would spend those funds that he spent on his big party on the troops instead of himself. Yes, I think that would be not absurd but honorable if he did a little fundraising from corporations for the troops in Iraq.
Bottom line is that the currently G.B. is president the buck stops at him. I don't see any need to speak about Kerry or FDR.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
jr says, "Yah, what a bitch; as if a FAUX ‘news’ commentator could be expected to think on her overly coiffed feet, especially to respond to dissenting opinions on the Bush network. Here’s a thought, why not just fucking kill anyone who won’t say thank you when offered the opportunity to lick Bush’s ass?"
and...
Todd says, "You Fox flunkies are pathetic. You feel better that it was an editor at Vogue who made the anchor’s political prejudices so apparent? A preschooler could expose the sham of a 'fair and balanced' news organization that is Fox. As for Bush - how a man assuming his second term as President speaks for 40 mins without even mentioning the war he has thrown the country into is beyond me. When will the reality of his mistakes finally be recognized? I suppose he and Condi are leaving that to 'history.'"
Well I can see that we're getting Oliver's thoughtful commentators coming over here. Anybody see the difference in the level of courteousness?
You link to trash Rob, expect some of it to blow back into your site. Is it worth the poison?
Rob
· 4 years ago
Yes, congress controls spending, but incase you haven’t noticed we went to war because of G.B., not congress.
Last time I checked Congress voted in favor of the war in Iraq.
Bottom line is that the currently G.B. is president the buck stops at him. I don’t see any need to speak about Kerry or FDR.
I agree. But I wasn't the one who brought up FDR, Bush's critics were. And I brought up Kerry to see how you would react to a similar situation.
Am I to assume that you're holding Kerry to the same standard you're holding Bush or do your standards change depending upon which party we're talking about?
Pat Curley
· 4 years ago
What amuses me is the constant reference to how the money spent on the inauguration could have been used for body armor for the troops. Never mind that John Kerry voted against the $87 billion that included funds for body armor....
Rob
· 4 years ago
Sure, the funds used for the inauguration celebrations could have been instead sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to support the war effort. Yes, there is bureaucracy, details and politics which make this simple ""transfer" difficult - but you get my point. Therefore, I would say that these celebrations certainly detracted from their safety.
So instead of accepting donations for his inaugural celebration, the President should have asked his private contributors to donate their money for armor for the troops in Iraq? That's a rather absurd standard to hold the President to, but if we're going to play that game couldn't I ask why Kerry didn't send his left over campaign funds to the troops in Iraq? Since troop safety is such an important issue to him these days.
And I'm not saying that's a reasonable request to make of Sen. Kerry. What I'm saying is that both requests are equally silly. If you want more money for the troops, call your congressman.
Charles
· 4 years ago
Last time I checked Congress voted in favor of the war in Iraq.
Goofballs, eh?
Am I to assume that you’re holding Kerry to the same standard you’re holding Bush or do your standards change depending upon which party we’re talking about?
I did state that I didn't like either of them. So yes, I hold them both to the standard. They should both be responsible for that which they have ownership over and be willing to sacrifice fun and games and greed for the lives of those people who are in life-threatening situations because of their policies.
I assign the most ownership over the inauguration, Iraq, and Afghanistan to G.B., and less ownership to congress and the senate. I don't think that's how it should be, but I believe that's how it is.
Marc
· 4 years ago
Charles:"Bush spent a lot of money on some fun shin-digs because he could. He rarely expects the citizens of this country to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of this war effort, nor obviously does he believe he should do so himself. "
So Charles why wait for Bush to ask, please list the things you have given up for the war effort.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
BTW Bush spent $2.8 million of the taxpayers money. You gotta complaint, go to the source of the remainder of the cash. Failing that you appear to be just anoght in a long line holding ABB cards.
Charles
· 4 years ago
Marc, No need to assume.
I commute by bicycle everyday. Saves oil and cuts down on congestion, eh?
I'm in a year of service volunteering for the USA with Americorps helping children learn to read.
So yes, sir, I would say I'm sacrificing for this country.
Anoght is not a word according to my dictionary and I'm not familiar with ABB cards.
President Eisenhower had the unique experience not only to march in an inaugural parade (Wilson's in 1913), but also to review his own parade as President in 1953. In keeping with the idea of saluting a former Army General, six hundred and forty-two planes of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force flew over the parade route. The "Aerial Crusade" included 45 Army helicopters and liaison aircraft; 150 Navy carrier planes and two blimps; 99 Marine Corps fighters, and 348 Air Force jet fighters, bombers and cargo aircraft. Although it was the President's request that the parade be short and simple, the Republicans wanted to celebrate. Eisenhower vetoed fireworks for the evening, still it was almost seven o'clock before the last elephant passed by the President's stand and the ceremonies ended.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Oh, that’s just precious. Historical context? Laughable. Just admit you pulled it out of your ass.
Exactly which part are you saying I "pulled out of my ass?" The part about FDR dying four months after the inauguration in question? That's true. The part about it being his fourth inauguration? That's true too. The part about his previous three inaugurations during the Great Depression not being scaled back at all? Well, that's true as well.
Last time I checked, the joint resolution said something different. You might like to try reading it. (I know that’s not your strong suit.)
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Seems to me this is exactly what we've done, even when the UN itself did not want to enforce its own resolutions.
It’s unprecedented to cut taxes when such a large number of troops are in the line of fire. Bush has stuck the Iraq war on the nation’s credit card, and maxed it out.
1. Do you believe Iraq is a war comparable to WWII?
2. If no, how in the world can you compare FDR's situation to Bush's?
3. If you insist on criticizing Bush for not donating his inaugural funds to the troops will you criticize John Kerry for not donating his campaign surplus to the same cause?
ahem
· 4 years ago
Now, all of that is just speculation on my part having considered the matter in its historical context. Obviously, I cannot ""prove it."
Oh, that's just precious. Historical context? Laughable. Just admit you pulled it out of your ass.
As I said, the 1953 inauguration was different in character for one big reason: Eisenhower's 'I will go to Korea' election victory. That's to say, Korea wasn't Ike's war, unlike Bush and Iraq. The military presence also reflected Ike's role in WW2.
If there's to be a comparison for 2005, it's 1973, where Nixon's inauguration gave the middle finger to those protesting Vietnam. Jeanne Phillips's words speak for themselves:
How do any of them [i.e. the military] benefit from the inaugural balls?
I’m not sure that they do benefit from them.
More fallacies here:
Last time I checked Congress voted in favor of the war in Iraq.
Last time I checked, the joint resolution said something different. You might like to try reading it. (I know that's not your strong suit.)
Another canard:
What amuses me is the constant reference to how the money spent on the inauguration could have been used for body armor for the troops. Never mind that John Kerry voted against the $87 billion that included funds for body armor….
Kerry supported an amended bill that would have rolled back the high-end tax cuts to pay for that funding. Bush threatened to veto any bill other than his preferred deficit-busting one.
One final point: the biggest problem I have with Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is that, for such a huge military operation, domestic sacrifice is limited primarily to those on active duty and their families. It's unprecedented to cut taxes when such a large number of troops are in the line of fire. Bush has stuck the Iraq war on the nation's credit card, and maxed it out. Where's the sense of sacrifice? Where's the austerity? And no, yellow ribbon magnets don't count as either.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Why is it wrong to be critical of Bush for spending huge dollars on parties rather than pushing that money directly to troups.
Its wrong to be critical of him because none of the people doing the criticizing have held any other public figure to the same standard. Kerry was the Democrat candidate for President. He also had millions left over after his campaign for President, yet no one asked him to personally donate that money to the troops.
I'm not trying to deflect this on to anyone else, but if these people are going to jump all over the President for this and not other public figures I have to say their criticism has more to do with partisan sniping than any actual concern for the troops.
That said, a NEWS REPORTER is supposed be unbiased and neutral â€" this video regardless of it’s content clearly shows that this reporter failed the public in one key way, she let her personally opinions influence her broadcast.
I don't see that at all. The interview was supposed to be about fashion at the inauguration when the reporter was jumped by a partisan diatribe. She tried to ask some challenging questions, but clearly she was on her heels throughout.
I don't see one thing that indicates any bias in the video.
Kevin
· 4 years ago
G'day -- first time to the site but thought this is a dandy post to get in on. Let me address this question directly to Rob:
- Why is it wrong to be critical of Bush for spending huge dollars on parties rather than pushing that money directly to troups. If I understand it correctly the money for these parties were not collected by Congress they were private donations given to the Bush campain directly, there is no reason why Bush couldn't turn around and have a modest party and take the majority of this money and help out in Iraq in whatever way he decided on (hospitals for injured civilians, extra armour, extra training, help rebuilding damaged homes etc.)
Please don't deflect the issue onto any other person, if they aren't donating as well then shame on them -- but WHY shouldn't people be allowed to be critical of their LEADER if they feel he isn't doing enough personally to help out that situation.
Many of you are using terms like "Left Wing Whinners" and other degrotatory remarks. End of the day is that anyone is entitled to their opinion. I find it kind of sad and disgusting that either political side (left or right) can be so disrespectful and basically spits on the other for offering an opinion. That said, a NEWS REPORTER is supposed be unbiased and neutral -- this video regardless of it's content clearly shows that this reporter failed the public in one key way, she let her personally opinions influence her broadcast.
Kevin
· 4 years ago
Maybe people don't expect as much from Kerry or other people. Maybe they are looking to the man that is their LEADER to set the example, to set the tone, to walk the walk.
When you sit down in the big seat at the top it comes with knowing that people are going to hold you to a higher standard and you are going to be looked at very critically.
Rob
· 4 years ago
When you sit down in the big seat at the top it comes with knowing that people are going to hold you to a higher standard and you are going to be looked at very critically.
Baloney.
No other President in history and no other public figure today has been held to this standard. These criticisms are little more than a left-wing ploy aimed at casting a pall over what should be a victorious moment for him.
Kevin
· 4 years ago
So your saying your president shouldn't be held to the "high standard" of toning back a $40 million dollar series of parties and putting some funds into either helping troups that he's sent to war or helping the country that he ordered bombed be rebuilt?
I'd also point out that the reason he is experincing a lot of criticism is because he is one of the most disliked presidents (not just in the USA but around the world) and has won both elections by some of the most narrow margins in american history. Basically that means he has a lot of work to do if he wants to win back the favor and trust of a lot of people - throwing such lavish victory parties is not likely to do that while showing himself to be of the higher standard and maybe show himself "sacraficing" a bit to help the cause would get some people won over.
But then again I guess it doesn't matter what the public thinks of him now right?
Rob
· 4 years ago
So your saying your president
If you live in America, he's your president as well.
shouldn’t be held to the ""high standard" of toning back a $40 million dollar series of parties and putting some funds into either helping troups that he’s sent to war or helping the country that he ordered bombed be rebuilt?
If we need more money in Iraq, Congress should give it to them. And since we've never held anyone else to this standard, no I don't think we should hold Bush to this standard. Nobody expected Clinton to donate the 37 million he spent on his second inauguration to the troops or the people of Somalia. But whatever.
If you want to criticize the President for not donating his inauguration money to the troops, then fine. Go ahead. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how petty you're choosing to be.
I’d also point out that the reason he is experincing a lot of criticism is because he is one of the most disliked presidents
61 million+ voters don't agree.
not just in the USA but around the world
I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of our President. I base my vote on what's best for America. The rest of the world is going to have to deal with that.
and has won both elections by some of the most narrow margins in american history
First election, yes. Second election we saw a historic voter turn out and Bush won by a substantial margin. He got more votes than every other candidate on the ballot combined. Not a landslide, of course, but not exactly close either.
Basically that means he has a lot of work to do if he wants to win back the favor and trust of a lot of people
The first election proved he had the support of a lot of America. In the second election we saw that he has the support of even more, the majority, of Americans. Obviously, he's doing something right as far as most voters are concerned.
I think he should keep it up.
Kevin
· 4 years ago
1. I'm not American so he's not my president.
2. Thank you for finally admiting I'm allowed my opinion, however you lose points for implying that i'm petty for having it. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion doesn't make them petty or a whinner or anything else - again both sides of the political world in the US have to stop slinging crap at each other.
3. 61 million votes (51% of pop.) may have voted for him, however 48% did not. I didn't say everyone disliked him I said he was one of the most disliked presidents (check his approval ratings). I'd say winning by only 3% of the population is a pretty narrow margin so yes both elections were close.
4. You can take the "I don't care about the rest of the world stance" if you like however it just breeds the typical american stereotype. The world would be a much better place if the US realized that it was part of the world and not it's ruler. The narrow vision most people have of the world is very sad, you know most people in the US can't find Iraq on the globe?
5. Actually many people voted for Bush not because they support his actions but because they didn't like the alternative (Kerry). Not to say he hasn't done anything positive or "right" however I'd say there are many people (those who voted for and against him) that dislike his policies and actions.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Thank you for finally admiting I’m allowed my opinion, however you lose points for implying that i’m petty for having it. Just because someone doesn’t have the same opinion doesn’t make them petty or a whinner or anything else - again both sides of the political world in the US have to stop slinging crap at each other.
I don't think you're petty for having an opinion, I think your opinion itself is petty. That's two different things.
61 million votes (51% of pop.) may have voted for him, however 48% did not. I didn’t say everyone disliked him I said he was one of the most disliked presidents (check his approval ratings). I’d say winning by only 3% of the population is a pretty narrow margin so yes both elections were close.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was elected by a majority of Americans. Under our laws, that maks him the boss. The rest is just splitting hairs.
You can take the ""I don’t care about the rest of the world stance" if you like however it just breeds the typical american stereotype. The world would be a much better place if the US realized that it was part of the world and not it’s ruler. The narrow vision most people have of the world is very sad, you know most people in the US can’t find Iraq on the globe?
I'm all for having good diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, but I draw a line when it comes to what is best for America and America's security. The best candidate for America, in my and the majority of American's opinion, was George W. Bush. And I'd certainly like to see where you got that bit about most Americans not being able to find Iraq on a globe. And really, what does it have to do with our foreign policy concerning that country? That's about as petty the topic of this post.
5. Actually many people voted for Bush not because they support his actions but because they didn’t like the alternative (Kerry). Not to say he hasn’t done anything positive or ""right" however I’d say there are many people (those who voted for and against him) that dislike his policies and actions.
You could say the exact same thing about every politician ever elected in this country.
Kevin
· 4 years ago
Actually quick google search gave me the link in the first crack:
Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:
87 percent cannot find Iraq 83 percent cannot find Afghanistan 76 percent cannot find Saudi Arabia 70 percent cannot find New Jersey 49 percent cannot find New York 11 percent cannot find the United States
Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was elected by a majority of Americans. Under our laws, that maks him the boss. The rest is just splitting hairs.
I didn't make that statement to say that he shouldn't be boss - he won the election I made no dispute to that. The reason it was mentioned was because you used his vote count as some sort of measuring stick to disprove my "one of the most disliked presidents" statement.
You could say the exact same thing about every politician ever elected in this country
I agree you could and can. That's why using his (or anyones elses) vote coount as some sort of proof that people like him is useless. His public opinion rating averages and the closeness of the elections show clearly that he is one of the most disliked presidents of all time.
... regardless of how petty you’re choosing to be. and then I don’t think you’re petty for having an opinion, I think your opinion itself is petty. That’s two different things.
Those seem to conflict. This is what I'm getting at by saying the two sides need to stop slinging at each other, it's becoming so common you didn't even realize you did it.
I’m all for having good diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, but I draw a line when it comes to what is best for America and America’s security. The best candidate for America, in my and the majority of American’s opinion, was George W. Bush. And I’d certainly like to see where you got that bit about most Americans not being able to find Iraq on a globe. And really, what does it have to do with our foreign policy concerning that country? That’s about as petty the topic of this post.
I apologize for bringing this into the mix -- it takes the entire discussion off on a different tangent. I'll find the supporting links for you about the finding on the globe thing and post them later but maybe I'll save my thoughts on the US and how it fits into the world for another time.
Marc
· 4 years ago
There is one point that has been missed here. When FDR "scaled back" his celebration it was at a time when all Americans "scaled back." Gas was rationed, families had victory gardens etc, etc.
Kevin:"Actually quick google search gave me the link in the first crack:
Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps" etc.
And this proves what exactly? Given the fact only 21 million in the 18-24 age bracket voted out of a total of over 120 million they are a minority of something less than 20%.
Or are you assuming the remaining 80% are stupid as well?
Andrew
· 4 years ago
That survey on young Americans being unable to identify areas on a map is complete crap. Only 3,000 people were surveyed. It depends a lot on the location of the people taking the poll.
I hate how the rest of the world continually tries to advance the false stereotype of Americans being stupid. If this is the case, then why has America been the leader of the economic and military world for the last 100 years? Why have such great inventions such as the airplane, computer, assembly line, and even video games (sorry I think they're great) all been invented by Americans? Maybe it may be true that the average American isn't as knowledgable of other countries, but why should we? You can call us arrogant if you like, but why should we know the politics of such insignificant countries such as France?
Kevin
· 4 years ago
Both Andrew & Marc:
As I said the subject totally goes off on a different tangent than the previous posts. This discussion should be continued under a different post.
why should we know the politics of such insignificant countries such as France?
Further feeding the stereotype.
Kevin
· 4 years ago
Also can I ask why there is such an angry tone being directed towards me. I have been very polite and reasonable in all of my posts. I've backed up my reasons for saying what I have and haven't insulted anyone. Yet simply because I have a different opinion than a few people here they respond in a very angry way.
Either that or I am simply reading the tone of these posts wrong.
Rob
· 4 years ago
The reason it was mentioned was because you used his vote count as some sort of measuring stick to disprove my ""one of the most disliked presidents" statement.
It seems to me that vote totals are a perfectly reasonable method for determining a President's popularity.
Those seem to conflict. This is what I’m getting at by saying the two sides need to stop slinging at each other, it’s becoming so common you didn’t even realize you did it.
In this matter I find your opinion to be petty. You could also say that I feel you're being petty because you hold this opinion. Nowhere have I said that its bad for you to hold an opinion.
Also can I ask why there is such an angry tone being directed towards me.
There is no anger here, at least from me, and since both Marc and Andrew are comenters I'm familiar with I woudln't say they're angry either. This is the way we debate. We don't agree with you and we're stating the reasons why. I, for one, tend to be matter-of-fact in my responses but I'm certainly not angry and haven't resorted to calling you any names. I have called you petty, but I think you are being petty in this situation.
I think you need to grow a thicker skin.
?????
· 4 years ago
Why compare what the presidents did in the past? The fact is that it was not the ethical thing to do now. Yes, perhaps the Humvee issue was resolved, but there are simply too many other issues out there. I don't think that just because one hole was plugged in the dam, we should ignore the big fault running through the middle. Ask next month the relaives of a wounded soldier, or a deceased soldier, if they would rather have the bitchingest parties in the world(to which they could not attend, by the way)or their relatives back to the way they used to be.
Andrew
· 4 years ago
Further feeding the stereotype.
Maybe it feeds the stereotype of Americans being arrogant, but certainly not stupid.
Also can I ask why there is such an angry tone being directed towards me.
I'm sorry if you feel that way. I never try to project an angry tone at anyone on this blog, unless they project that tone at others or myself. If there was any anger in my post, it was directed at the rest of the world stereotyping Americans as dumb. They can call us what they like, but at the end of the day we still have one of the highest standards of living and are the economic and military leader of the world. If we're stupid, then wouldn't that make the rest of the world retarded?
All Comments
I think Quinn was so taken aback because she was talking to a frigging Vanity Fair spokeswoman turning wannabe politician.
Instead of discussing dresses and food she got blindsided into a wardebate.
Uh, how about "No." Personally, I don't find a single, clipped quote compelling enough.
How about you find me an instance where any other American President toned down his inauguration festivities because of a war. Or any reason, for that matter. Then we'll discuss the merits of your example and see how they apply to the current situation.
From an interview with Jeanne Phillips, chairwoman of the inaugural committee:
It's all about 'the theme'. Style triumphant over substance. Feel the honor, troops, as you weld another bit of scrap iron to your HMMV.
Oh, and your historical knowledge of the FDR presidency is as shallow as a muddy puddle. Lots of speculation there, but very little fact.
Yes, 1945 was exceptional, but there are other reasons for that: 1865 was a deliberate expression of the Union's strength; 1919 occurred after the Armistice; 1953 reflected Eisenhower's victory on his 'I will go to Korea' platform; 1973 was, well, Nixon being Nixon.
Admit it: you pulled all that stuff about how 'FDR was probably just sick of inaugurals and in failing health, so he used the war as an excuse to avoid a party' straight out of your ass. Find a contemporary source that says otherwise, or issue a retraction.
My stance is that the inaugural was toned down because of Roosevelt's health. People knew he was...frail...back then, but they didn't know just how sick he really was. Obviously they didn't want the citizens to know the reason behind the toned-down inaugurals, so the war was a convenient and fitting excuse.
Now, all of that is just speculation on my part having considered the matter in its historical context. Obviously, I cannot "prove it."
But I do think the facts about his health should be considered by those making the case against Bush's inauguration by comparing it to FDR's.
And, by itself, it still doesn't present a compelling case for why Bush should have toned down this inauguration in 2005.
Please note that I did not state this point.
I agree, and if you can show where Bush’s inauguration put any troops in danger or detracted from their overall safety please do so and I will join in you criticizing the President.
Sure, the funds used for the inauguration celebrations could have been instead sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to support the war effort. Yes, there is bureaucracy, details and politics which make this simple "transfer" difficult - but you get my point. Therefore, I would say that these celebrations certainly detracted from their safety.
Depends on the height of the bridge and the depth of the water, but maybe.
I concur.
Err...
"the reason he scaled them back probably didn’t have anything to do with the war."
(I do accept your point about it not being a compelling case for Bush toning down this particular inauguration).
The safety and welfare of our troops is much more important than glamour and vanity.
Would you jump off the bridge if the rest of the presidents did?
Apparently precedence does matter as the FDR comparison has been the talking point most often used in the criticism of Bush's inauguration.
The safety and welfare of our troops is much more important than glamour and vanity.
I agree, and if you can show where Bush's inauguration put any troops in danger or detracted from their overall safety please do so and I will join in you criticizing the President.
Would you jump off the bridge if the rest of the presidents did?
Depends on the height of the bridge and the depth of the water, but maybe.
The first two sentences of Roosevelt's address at the inauguration read -
'Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief.
We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage--of our resolve--of our wisdom--our essential democracy.'
That certainly implies that it was scaled back for reasons of war.
To each their own.
It also explains, however, why it is unfair to judge Bush against that standard. Say what you like about the war in Iraq, but it’s not even in the same league as what the world, and America, was going through in early 1945.
Excellent point, and one I should have focused on more in my post.
Absolutely. Of course, like you say, it is pure conjecture the extent to which his health played a part in his decision to scale back the inauguration. We simply don't know. I would guess it would be a factor, but perhaps not as important as you suggest.
I think what we should bear in mind is that the Second World War was, is, and hopefully will be the most tragic and costly event ever to affect humanity. For me that goes pretty much all the way to explaining why the 1945 inauguration was toned down.
It also explains, however, why it is unfair to judge Bush against that standard. Say what you like about the war in Iraq, but it's not even in the same league as what the world, and America, was going through in early 1945.
Did I say anything about John Kerry? No. I'm not your partisan monkey boy. I don't care for John Kerry and I don't care for George Bush. There's no need to deflect the issue to congress or Kerry. Yes, congress controls spending, but incase you haven't noticed we went to war because of G.B., not congress.
And I will state again that if George Bush had his priorities straight he would spend those funds that he spent on his big party on the troops instead of himself. Yes, I think that would be not absurd but honorable if he did a little fundraising from corporations for the troops in Iraq.
Bottom line is that the currently G.B. is president the buck stops at him. I don't see any need to speak about Kerry or FDR.
and...
Todd says, "You Fox flunkies are pathetic. You feel better that it was an editor at Vogue who made the anchor’s political prejudices so apparent? A preschooler could expose the sham of a 'fair and balanced' news organization that is Fox. As for Bush - how a man assuming his second term as President speaks for 40 mins without even mentioning the war he has thrown the country into is beyond me. When will the reality of his mistakes finally be recognized? I suppose he and Condi are leaving that to 'history.'"
Well I can see that we're getting Oliver's thoughtful commentators coming over here. Anybody see the difference in the level of courteousness?
You link to trash Rob, expect some of it to blow back into your site. Is it worth the poison?
Last time I checked Congress voted in favor of the war in Iraq.
Bottom line is that the currently G.B. is president the buck stops at him. I don’t see any need to speak about Kerry or FDR.
I agree. But I wasn't the one who brought up FDR, Bush's critics were. And I brought up Kerry to see how you would react to a similar situation.
Am I to assume that you're holding Kerry to the same standard you're holding Bush or do your standards change depending upon which party we're talking about?
So instead of accepting donations for his inaugural celebration, the President should have asked his private contributors to donate their money for armor for the troops in Iraq? That's a rather absurd standard to hold the President to, but if we're going to play that game couldn't I ask why Kerry didn't send his left over campaign funds to the troops in Iraq? Since troop safety is such an important issue to him these days.
And I'm not saying that's a reasonable request to make of Sen. Kerry. What I'm saying is that both requests are equally silly. If you want more money for the troops, call your congressman.
Goofballs, eh?
Am I to assume that you’re holding Kerry to the same standard you’re holding Bush or do your standards change depending upon which party we’re talking about?
I did state that I didn't like either of them. So yes, I hold them both to the standard. They should both be responsible for that which they have ownership over and be willing to sacrifice fun and games and greed for the lives of those people who are in life-threatening situations because of their policies.
I assign the most ownership over the inauguration, Iraq, and Afghanistan to G.B., and less ownership to congress and the senate. I don't think that's how it should be, but I believe that's how it is.
"
So Charles why wait for Bush to ask, please list the things you have given up for the war effort.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
BTW Bush spent $2.8 million of the taxpayers money. You gotta complaint, go to the source of the remainder of the cash. Failing that you appear to be just anoght in a long line holding ABB cards.
I commute by bicycle everyday. Saves oil and cuts down on congestion, eh?
I'm in a year of service volunteering for the USA with Americorps helping children learn to read.
So yes, sir, I would say I'm sacrificing for this country.
Anoght is not a word according to my dictionary and I'm not familiar with ABB cards.
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/avwebsite/selectlistofphotographs/campaign/1953inaugural/1953presidentialinauguration.html
President Eisenhower had the unique experience not only to march in an inaugural parade (Wilson's in 1913), but also to review his own parade as President in 1953. In keeping with the idea of saluting a former Army General, six hundred and forty-two planes of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force flew over the parade route. The "Aerial Crusade" included 45 Army helicopters and liaison aircraft; 150 Navy carrier planes and two blimps; 99 Marine Corps fighters, and 348 Air Force jet fighters, bombers and cargo aircraft. Although it was the President's request that the parade be short and simple, the Republicans wanted to celebrate. Eisenhower vetoed fireworks for the evening, still it was almost seven o'clock before the last elephant passed by the President's stand and the ceremonies ended.
Exactly which part are you saying I "pulled out of my ass?" The part about FDR dying four months after the inauguration in question? That's true. The part about it being his fourth inauguration? That's true too. The part about his previous three inaugurations during the Great Depression not being scaled back at all? Well, that's true as well.
Last time I checked, the joint resolution said something different. You might like to try reading it. (I know that’s not your strong suit.)
From the joint resolution:
Seems to me this is exactly what we've done, even when the UN itself did not want to enforce its own resolutions.
It’s unprecedented to cut taxes when such a large number of troops are in the line of fire. Bush has stuck the Iraq war on the nation’s credit card, and maxed it out.
You realize that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in increased federal tax receipts, right?
I'd like to ask you a couple of questions ahem:
1. Do you believe Iraq is a war comparable to WWII?
2. If no, how in the world can you compare FDR's situation to Bush's?
3. If you insist on criticizing Bush for not donating his inaugural funds to the troops will you criticize John Kerry for not donating his campaign surplus to the same cause?
Oh, that's just precious. Historical context? Laughable. Just admit you pulled it out of your ass.
As I said, the 1953 inauguration was different in character for one big reason: Eisenhower's 'I will go to Korea' election victory. That's to say, Korea wasn't Ike's war, unlike Bush and Iraq. The military presence also reflected Ike's role in WW2.
If there's to be a comparison for 2005, it's 1973, where Nixon's inauguration gave the middle finger to those protesting Vietnam. Jeanne Phillips's words speak for themselves:
More fallacies here:
Last time I checked Congress voted in favor of the war in Iraq.
Last time I checked, the joint resolution said something different. You might like to try reading it. (I know that's not your strong suit.)
Another canard:
Kerry supported an amended bill that would have rolled back the high-end tax cuts to pay for that funding. Bush threatened to veto any bill other than his preferred deficit-busting one.
One final point: the biggest problem I have with Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is that, for such a huge military operation, domestic sacrifice is limited primarily to those on active duty and their families. It's unprecedented to cut taxes when such a large number of troops are in the line of fire. Bush has stuck the Iraq war on the nation's credit card, and maxed it out. Where's the sense of sacrifice? Where's the austerity? And no, yellow ribbon magnets don't count as either.
Its wrong to be critical of him because none of the people doing the criticizing have held any other public figure to the same standard. Kerry was the Democrat candidate for President. He also had millions left over after his campaign for President, yet no one asked him to personally donate that money to the troops.
I'm not trying to deflect this on to anyone else, but if these people are going to jump all over the President for this and not other public figures I have to say their criticism has more to do with partisan sniping than any actual concern for the troops.
That said, a NEWS REPORTER is supposed be unbiased and neutral â€" this video regardless of it’s content clearly shows that this reporter failed the public in one key way, she let her personally opinions influence her broadcast.
I don't see that at all. The interview was supposed to be about fashion at the inauguration when the reporter was jumped by a partisan diatribe. She tried to ask some challenging questions, but clearly she was on her heels throughout.
I don't see one thing that indicates any bias in the video.
- Why is it wrong to be critical of Bush for spending huge dollars on parties rather than pushing that money directly to troups. If I understand it correctly the money for these parties were not collected by Congress they were private donations given to the Bush campain directly, there is no reason why Bush couldn't turn around and have a modest party and take the majority of this money and help out in Iraq in whatever way he decided on (hospitals for injured civilians, extra armour, extra training, help rebuilding damaged homes etc.)
Please don't deflect the issue onto any other person, if they aren't donating as well then shame on them -- but WHY shouldn't people be allowed to be critical of their LEADER if they feel he isn't doing enough personally to help out that situation.
Many of you are using terms like "Left Wing Whinners" and other degrotatory remarks. End of the day is that anyone is entitled to their opinion. I find it kind of sad and disgusting that either political side (left or right) can be so disrespectful and basically spits on the other for offering an opinion. That said, a NEWS REPORTER is supposed be unbiased and neutral -- this video regardless of it's content clearly shows that this reporter failed the public in one key way, she let her personally opinions influence her broadcast.
When you sit down in the big seat at the top it comes with knowing that people are going to hold you to a higher standard and you are going to be looked at very critically.
Baloney.
No other President in history and no other public figure today has been held to this standard. These criticisms are little more than a left-wing ploy aimed at casting a pall over what should be a victorious moment for him.
I'd also point out that the reason he is experincing a lot of criticism is because he is one of the most disliked presidents (not just in the USA but around the world) and has won both elections by some of the most narrow margins in american history. Basically that means he has a lot of work to do if he wants to win back the favor and trust of a lot of people - throwing such lavish victory parties is not likely to do that while showing himself to be of the higher standard and maybe show himself "sacraficing" a bit to help the cause would get some people won over.
But then again I guess it doesn't matter what the public thinks of him now right?
If you live in America, he's your president as well.
shouldn’t be held to the ""high standard" of toning back a $40 million dollar series of parties and putting some funds into either helping troups that he’s sent to war or helping the country that he ordered bombed be rebuilt?
If we need more money in Iraq, Congress should give it to them. And since we've never held anyone else to this standard, no I don't think we should hold Bush to this standard. Nobody expected Clinton to donate the 37 million he spent on his second inauguration to the troops or the people of Somalia. But whatever.
If you want to criticize the President for not donating his inauguration money to the troops, then fine. Go ahead. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how petty you're choosing to be.
I’d also point out that the reason he is experincing a lot of criticism is because he is one of the most disliked presidents
61 million+ voters don't agree.
not just in the USA but around the world
I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of our President. I base my vote on what's best for America. The rest of the world is going to have to deal with that.
and has won both elections by some of the most narrow margins in american history
First election, yes. Second election we saw a historic voter turn out and Bush won by a substantial margin. He got more votes than every other candidate on the ballot combined. Not a landslide, of course, but not exactly close either.
Basically that means he has a lot of work to do if he wants to win back the favor and trust of a lot of people
The first election proved he had the support of a lot of America. In the second election we saw that he has the support of even more, the majority, of Americans. Obviously, he's doing something right as far as most voters are concerned.
I think he should keep it up.
2. Thank you for finally admiting I'm allowed my opinion, however you lose points for implying that i'm petty for having it. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion doesn't make them petty or a whinner or anything else - again both sides of the political world in the US have to stop slinging crap at each other.
3. 61 million votes (51% of pop.) may have voted for him, however 48% did not. I didn't say everyone disliked him I said he was one of the most disliked presidents (check his approval ratings). I'd say winning by only 3% of the population is a pretty narrow margin so yes both elections were close.
4. You can take the "I don't care about the rest of the world stance" if you like however it just breeds the typical american stereotype. The world would be a much better place if the US realized that it was part of the world and not it's ruler. The narrow vision most people have of the world is very sad, you know most people in the US can't find Iraq on the globe?
5. Actually many people voted for Bush not because they support his actions but because they didn't like the alternative (Kerry). Not to say he hasn't done anything positive or "right" however I'd say there are many people (those who voted for and against him) that dislike his policies and actions.
I don't think you're petty for having an opinion, I think your opinion itself is petty. That's two different things.
61 million votes (51% of pop.) may have voted for him, however 48% did not. I didn’t say everyone disliked him I said he was one of the most disliked presidents (check his approval ratings). I’d say winning by only 3% of the population is a pretty narrow margin so yes both elections were close.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was elected by a majority of Americans. Under our laws, that maks him the boss. The rest is just splitting hairs.
You can take the ""I don’t care about the rest of the world stance" if you like however it just breeds the typical american stereotype. The world would be a much better place if the US realized that it was part of the world and not it’s ruler. The narrow vision most people have of the world is very sad, you know most people in the US can’t find Iraq on the globe?
I'm all for having good diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, but I draw a line when it comes to what is best for America and America's security. The best candidate for America, in my and the majority of American's opinion, was George W. Bush. And I'd certainly like to see where you got that bit about most Americans not being able to find Iraq on a globe. And really, what does it have to do with our foreign policy concerning that country? That's about as petty the topic of this post.
5. Actually many people voted for Bush not because they support his actions but because they didn’t like the alternative (Kerry). Not to say he hasn’t done anything positive or ""right" however I’d say there are many people (those who voted for and against him) that dislike his policies and actions.
You could say the exact same thing about every politician ever elected in this country.
Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:
87 percent cannot find Iraq
83 percent cannot find Afghanistan
76 percent cannot find Saudi Arabia
70 percent cannot find New Jersey
49 percent cannot find New York
11 percent cannot find the United States
Source Site:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/highlights.html
News Reports On:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-20-geography-quiz_x.htm
I didn't make that statement to say that he shouldn't be boss - he won the election I made no dispute to that. The reason it was mentioned was because you used his vote count as some sort of measuring stick to disprove my "one of the most disliked presidents" statement.
You could say the exact same thing about every politician ever elected in this country
I agree you could and can. That's why using his (or anyones elses) vote coount as some sort of proof that people like him is useless. His public opinion rating averages and the closeness of the elections show clearly that he is one of the most disliked presidents of all time.
... regardless of how petty you’re choosing to be. and then I don’t think you’re petty for having an opinion, I think your opinion itself is petty. That’s two different things.
Those seem to conflict. This is what I'm getting at by saying the two sides need to stop slinging at each other, it's becoming so common you didn't even realize you did it.
I’m all for having good diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, but I draw a line when it comes to what is best for America and America’s security. The best candidate for America, in my and the majority of American’s opinion, was George W. Bush. And I’d certainly like to see where you got that bit about most Americans not being able to find Iraq on a globe. And really, what does it have to do with our foreign policy concerning that country? That’s about as petty the topic of this post.
I apologize for bringing this into the mix -- it takes the entire discussion off on a different tangent. I'll find the supporting links for you about the finding on the globe thing and post them later but maybe I'll save my thoughts on the US and how it fits into the world for another time.
Kevin: "Actually quick google search gave me the link in the first crack:
Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps" etc.
And this proves what exactly? Given the fact only 21 million in the 18-24 age bracket voted out of a total of over 120 million they are a minority of something less than 20%.
Or are you assuming the remaining 80% are stupid as well?
I hate how the rest of the world continually tries to advance the false stereotype of Americans being stupid. If this is the case, then why has America been the leader of the economic and military world for the last 100 years? Why have such great inventions such as the airplane, computer, assembly line, and even video games (sorry I think they're great) all been invented by Americans? Maybe it may be true that the average American isn't as knowledgable of other countries, but why should we? You can call us arrogant if you like, but why should we know the politics of such insignificant countries such as France?
As I said the subject totally goes off on a different tangent than the previous posts. This discussion should be continued under a different post.
why should we know the politics of such insignificant countries such as France?
Further feeding the stereotype.
Either that or I am simply reading the tone of these posts wrong.
It seems to me that vote totals are a perfectly reasonable method for determining a President's popularity.
Those seem to conflict. This is what I’m getting at by saying the two sides need to stop slinging at each other, it’s becoming so common you didn’t even realize you did it.
In this matter I find your opinion to be petty. You could also say that I feel you're being petty because you hold this opinion. Nowhere have I said that its bad for you to hold an opinion.
Also can I ask why there is such an angry tone being directed towards me.
There is no anger here, at least from me, and since both Marc and Andrew are comenters I'm familiar with I woudln't say they're angry either. This is the way we debate. We don't agree with you and we're stating the reasons why. I, for one, tend to be matter-of-fact in my responses but I'm certainly not angry and haven't resorted to calling you any names. I have called you petty, but I think you are being petty in this situation.
I think you need to grow a thicker skin.
Maybe it feeds the stereotype of Americans being arrogant, but certainly not stupid.
Also can I ask why there is such an angry tone being directed towards me.
I'm sorry if you feel that way. I never try to project an angry tone at anyone on this blog, unless they project that tone at others or myself. If there was any anger in my post, it was directed at the rest of the world stereotyping Americans as dumb. They can call us what they like, but at the end of the day we still have one of the highest standards of living and are the economic and military leader of the world. If we're stupid, then wouldn't that make the rest of the world retarded?