Gee. When Clinton said he'd read something, he'd read it. When Carter said he'd read something, he'd read it. When Nixon said he'd read something, he'd read it...
Posted by DeLong at June 11, 2002 09:11 PMGuardian Unlimited | World Latest | Fleischer: Bush Didn't Read Report
Fleischer: Bush Didn't Read Report. Tuesday June 11, 2002 2:20 AM. WASHINGTON (AP) - White House press secretary Ari Fleischer fessed up: President Bush didn't actually read that 268-page Environmental Protection Agency report on climate change, even if he said he did. The president's spokesman then joked that his frankness might cost him his job. ``I've enjoyed working here, thank you,'' Fleischer said. Fleischer was asked Monday at his daily White House briefing about Bush's comments that he'd read the report. ``Whenever presidents say they read it, you can read that to be he was briefed,'' Fleischer said, producing laughter.
The EPA report, submitted to the United Nations, was the first by the Bush administration to mostly blame human activity for global warming - even while acknowledging some lingering scientific uncertainties. The White House favors a response to global warming that relies on increased spending on science and technology and on voluntary, not mandatory, measures to slow the rate of growth in gas emissions. When Bush was asked about it last week, he dismissively remarked: ``I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.''
Cool. So we believe everything Nixon told us about what he did? And everything Clinton told us about what he did? But presumably, not everything about what he did not do. Great news, which should be a big time-saver in the critical evaluation function.
But can we still be skeptical of Johnson?
Regards,
Posted by: Tom Maguire on June 12, 2002 09:23 PMNo. We don't believe everything Nixon told us. But Nixon did like to read...
:-)
Posted by: Brad DeLong on June 13, 2002 07:57 PMBut we should believe Clinton? I can believe Gore read every report that landed on his desk--he's an egghead (nothing wrong with that), but Clinton might have been too busy with "extra-curricular" activities.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth on June 13, 2002 09:58 PMI was just having fun before, this "reading" idea has nothing to do with trusting a President.
No, the Professor has identified a simple, powerful predictive test of a President's success. Let's see:
Nixon - resigned in disgrace
Carter - laughed out of town after one term
Clinton - used the health care issue to give Congress to the Republicans so that they could impeach him.
Evidently, high reading is correlated with failure. The probable connection - inability to assemble and lead a quality team, inability to delegate and rely on staff work. Because the White House is not a one man job, a President who approaches it as such is likely to fail.
How does the test work on other Presidents?
Ford - hard to say, short term with a hideous Nixon legacy.
Reagan - employment up, inflation down, Cold War won, market model of economy promoted worldwide - probably an absolute disaster as an administration. Test fails.
Bush - probably should have re-read his acceptance speech from the '88 convention. Doesn't read, doesn't get re-elected - test fails.
Fascinating post suggesting an idea which, regrettably, seems to lack predictive power. However, it strongly suggests Bush II will be sucessful.
Regards,
who read a lot, had a hard time asse
Posted by: Tom Maguire on June 15, 2002 03:45 AM