Semi-Daily Journal

I broke it to Mathews the other day. He ran with it.

Is it news? No. Should it be repeated again and again? Yes.

Let's keep in mind that this hasn't hit home for roughly 50% of Americans... or at least so I casually infer from approval ratings. In this I mean I assume that when ~50% of Americans say they approve of the President's job, they're not saying "yes, I agree Cheney is doing an excellent job, and I like the fact that the official frontman is a very comical puppet."

Go Chris. Say it again.

Is it news? No. Should it be repeated again and again? Yes.

Let's keep in mind that this hasn't hit home for roughly 50% of Americans... or at least so I casually infer from approval ratings. In this I mean I assume that when ~50% of Americans say they approve of the President's job, they're not saying "yes, I agree Cheney is doing an excellent job, and I like the fact that the official frontman is a very comical puppet."

Go Chris. Say it again.

How do you score economic forecasters? I would make them give a probability distribution for their forecasts. We do this with weather forecasting.

How do you score economic forecasters? I would make them give a probability distribution for their forecasts. We do this with weather forecasting.

And he knows this how? His evidence is? W's occasional public cluelessness is insufficient.

I'm not inclined to give Bush a pass for stupidity. I think he knows quite well what he's doing on economic matters; on Iraq I'm not so sure, but he's POTUS. There's no way to turn him into the Manchurian President.

In other words, he's evil, not stupid. Krugman is right again.

And he knows this how? His evidence is? W's occasional public cluelessness is insufficient.

I'm not inclined to give Bush a pass for stupidity. I think he knows quite well what he's doing on economic matters; on Iraq I'm not so sure, but he's POTUS. There's no way to turn him into the Manchurian President.

In other words, he's evil, not stupid. Krugman is right again.

Believe it or not gang, there are a huge number of individuals out there that think GWB is a GREAT president -- willing to do what's necessary even if it is not "popular."

You tell them he lied to get the Iraq war started they say "THAT'S MY MAN" -- meaning he did what it took and rammed it through by sheer force of will. You tell them that Cheney is pulling the puppet strings and that's all right with them, as long as they get those tax cuts through and stand up to the horrible liberals that want to ruin the country.

It's enough to make you puke.

It's news that a man who is paid so well to devote so much on-air time to swooning over Bush's macho manliness and his status as "anointed" leader would so blatantly give away the fact that this was merely a pose calculated to bilk the suckers.

I have a friend who will absolutely hear nothing bad about her 'Bushy'. He's her protector, by gum.

Alan's got a point.

D

I heard Johnathon Alter [sp?] on WNYC the other night telling tales out of school about all the things the administration has done wrong since the war, and the inside battles that they're having - none of which was material I've seen in Newsweek.

I find it a little creepy when people with actual influence over the public discourse make a point of letting us know that they're really far too savvy and sophisticated to believe what they're telling us.

What, indeed, is news in the U.S. these days? Look at the following link to an article from the NewYork Daily News - headlined "Gen.Tommy Franks: I gave Bush Iraq invasion plan after 9/11": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5111.htm
I noticed that the article was placed under a banner that reads "NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN". Well - won´t I? What about Fox news? What´s the probability that the news sources Joe Sixpack typically consumes will filter out such a piece of news? Just asking.

I love your blog but here you're wrong. It is news. As long as Zell Miller is running around, we need more not less of Chris at Brown. Besides, he's from Philly.

It is not news, it is just an opinion.I do not believe all he says and I did not believe all statements of previous presidents for that matter.The biggest mistake is to discredit your oponent by saying he is a fool or never read a book (except the Bible) in his life.The majority of americans have no intellectual inclinations and might identify with the attacked against the attackers.
Another point, the Neo-Cons base their thinking in works of philosophers such as Gasset.Habbermas gives the movement "intellectual importance" so cares about Krugman?

I'm reminded of the cabal that nominates Sideshow Bob as the Republican candidate for Mayor of Springfield.

A bit more seriously, I've found Brad's analogy to the Ottoman Empire to be quite fitting, though I'm concerned that in some forms the whole Cheney as shadow president theory feeds the let-the-President-off-the-hook-he-doesn't-know bias in the media.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing"president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act. They know Bush "acted" so that means he must not "know too much" and they know he doesn't read or think too much, so they know he will continue to act. The only novel and potentially significant thing In Matthews speech (aside from the fact that it reveals him to be the shameless bought trifle that he is) is the push to include Bush's handlers in the discussion. That bush is "a man's man" and "above the fray" and "in control" is all part of the total Bush package. If people (and I mean "da people" who are not paying attention) start to hear too many other names attached to Bush's, too many failures attached to Bush's name, too many little disturbances of the wholesome know-nothing powerful brand image that may be more troubling to the true believers than the facts have yet been. Bush, to me, is like tinkerbell. If he can't get people to believe in the image, the presidency will crumble.

Kate

Doesn't the fact that there was no plan, no roadmap to Iraqi democracy in place when "major hostilities" ended give the lie to the administration claim that this is what the "real" reason for invading was? Bush had a need dictated by domestic politics for an Act II in the war on terror, and this coincided with Cheney's desire to provide feeding opportunities to the Beltway/Houston parasites that contribute so generously to the Republicans.

Even more telling are Chris Matthews' rock bottom ratings.

Alan:

You're quite right. I have a business partner like that.

Yesterday I told them I was looking at 9-11 events and was curious about how NORAD could have totally collapsed.

He accused me of being a Bush-hater!!

And, I'll add to that.

My business partner believes that the Kay Report proves BEYOND ANY DOUBT that we had no recourse but to invade Iraq.

I truly don't know how that's possible.

Although it was originally applied to Ahhhnold, I think this pretty well describes Bush too:

"An Empty Electable Vessel"

Although it was originally applied to Ahhhnold, I think this pretty well describes Bush too:

"An Empty Electable Vessel"

Although it was originally applied to Ahhhnold, I think this pretty well describes Bush too:

"An Empty Electable Vessel"

>My business partner believes that the Kay Report
>proves BEYOND ANY DOUBT that we had no recourse
>but to invade Iraq.

>I truly don't know how that's possible.

I do.

You can't refute a theology.

Credo, quia absurdum est. "I believe it, precisely because it is absurd".

The greater the absurdity, the greater the faith, the greater the faith, the greater the merit for the faithful.

Present-day Republicanism is a religion.

We're all gonna party like it's 1199!

Everyone is assuming that Matthews is breaking some big taboo in saying this. But the important point he is saying is NOT "Bush is stupid". It is the "Veep is behind it all" line.
The Repubs are setting up a scenario whereby everything wrong that has ever happened during Bush's term is Cheney's fault. Cheney will be tossed overboard three months or so before November next year --- right now I imagine people are planning whether it should happen "against Bush's wants, but he respects Cheney's heart condition blah blah" (ie loyal to a fault Bush) or "Bush has lost patience with someone who is clearly a loose cannon" (ie decisive bold Bush).

The important thing, of course, is that the plan is for the puppet to remain in the White House and a new puppet master to take over. That's what to look for over the next nine months --- who is postitioning themselves to be replacement VP.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

The fact is that large swatches of the population are comfortable with a "know nothing" president because they believe that "knowing too much" makes people unable to act.

Well that, and a lot of the population is generally suspicious of people who know too much. Why, I don't know, but there have got to be other reasons besides potential inactivity.

>>Posted by Michael Johnston at October 31, 2003 07:14 PM
"Is it news? No. Should it be repeated again and again? Yes.

Let's keep in mind that this hasn't hit home for roughly 50% of Americans... or at least so I casually infer from approval ratings. In this I mean I assume that when ~50% of Americans say they approve of the President's job, they're not saying "yes, I agree Cheney is doing an excellent job, and I like the fact that the official frontman is a very comical puppet."

Go Chris. Say it again."<<

Yes Michael, those of us that support Bush are just dumb, ill informed sheep. Your mentality will go far in unseating Bush.

"Yes Michael, those of us that support Bush are just dumb, ill informed sheep. Your mentality will go far in unseating Bush."

Perhaps not, but it certainly can't be any less successful than attempting to use logic, reason, and facts with the average Bush supporter. =)