An Aboriginal community in Minnesota is devastated by a multi-death shooting/suicide: presidential response time = days
One white woman dies in a Flordia healthcare facility: presidential response time = hours
You decide
Comments For This Post Topic Was Disable By Author
I agree with IrC on this one. What sort of “response” had you in mind? If Bush didn’t even acknowledge the incident by sending condolences, then shame on him. He should have. But other than that, I can’t imagine anything useful that he could have done, other than perhaps some financial aid.
I am talking about statements from Bush after the respective deaths I noted in my post.
It took days for any acknowledgement of what happened in Red Lake, within hours (possibly within the hour) of Terri Schiavo passing away Bush publicly sent his condolences to the family.
I’m open to arguments on the matter but it sure seems to me that one of the issues is considered to be worth political points and one of them is not - the length of time it took Bush to send his condolences tells me which is which.
Oh yeah. He’s catching major political points on this one, isn’t he? He’s just got tons of support on Schiavo.
All the polls say so.
Please.
It’s old already.
Your opinion obviously differs, as far as I can see it’s politically motivated…. even if the points he’s looking to gain are in damage control attempts.
Okay, let me rephrase.
Who is he gaining political points with?
His base hates the idea according to every poll conducted.
Most americans hated the idea according to every poll conducted.
This was a largely unpopular act, and yet he didn’t back down on it. What did it gain him?
labby Said in March 31st, 2005 @7:40 pm
Of course its politically motivated!!! He the President for pete’s sake!!!!!!
Bush misjudged this whole deal from the get-go (ain’t we all surprised at that now), if he hadn’t the Whitehouse never would have gotten involved. I’m willing to bet there’s been a whole lot of (ever so quiet) “I told ya so” going on in that building ever since he decided to hop on his ‘I’m the life president now’ white charger and save the day….. this phase is simply him trotting out the ‘I’m the compassionate president’ hat to see if he has any better luck and possibly salvage something - it’s a transparent enough ploy that it isn’t going to do him much good either.
This isn’t Bush doing something unpopular because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, this is Bush who probably ignored a lot of good advice doing something he thought would score him political points and getting his ass kicked by the law.
You people never learn.
I think the only people who misjudged anything are the ones who think it’s political at all costs.
Yet, when confronted with the fact that he basically pissed everyone off, your only retort is that he probably meant it to score points and it backfired.
You can contort and contort forever. You’re no different than the scumbags that thought I wrapped myself in Terri’s case to score some points with some vague group of people who we biblebanging Jesusfreaks score points with.
You have your opinion, I have mine. You want to trust that Bush has some sort of high and altruistic motives for his actions fine, wonderful, great - that’s your trust and your opinion, I don’t share it.
Just wondering, is being “no different than the scumbags….” the same as, or different from, being a scumbag?
You share the same opinion as they do, and you still haven’t answered my question.
Who was he playing to?
The conservatives who widely disagreed with what he did?
The evangelicals who widely disagreed with what he did?
The american public who widely disagreed with what he did?
The liberals who widely disagreed with what he did?
Who was Bush playing up to? It’s a very simple question. If you want to accuse someone of making a political move, fine. In order to accuse someone of making such a move, you have to also have an idea of what that move would do and how it would benefit them.
Unless of course it’s just a baseless attack, which you’re more than welcome to make.
rhazes Said in April 1st, 2005 @12:10 pm
Maybe he was playing up to people like you?
Read back a bit, I had thought my opinion was pretty clear.
- He thought he could score political points getting involved in this
- He was wrong and angered a lot of people he thought would support him
- His immediate and very public condolonces are very transparent damage control in the hopes of salvaging something
Now, about that scumbag thing…..
rhazes Said in April 1st, 2005 @1:32 pm
That title goes to the guy who hurls the insults first, I would think.
Mike Said in April 2nd, 2005 @4:36 pm
StageLeft:
Why was Bush seeking to score ” political points?” What’s in it for him? Re-election?
-
Posts from
1 year ago: 05/17/2007
2 years ago: 05/17/2006
There are 3 visitors currently online.
The OpenPolitics libel case goes to trial October, 2008. Please support the defendants in this important lawsuit which threatens to make authors and publishers responsible for collaborative content and the political comments of others. You can read about it over at OpenPolitics.ca. Yes, it is one of the Crookes cases.
Cambridge Green Party Association
104 Adam St.
Cambridge ON N3C 2K6
Make the Cheque out to the association, but mark the cheque as being for the Legal Defence Fund as related to the Crookes vs Holloway et al. case, this is the case Mark is in. Money sent here will get you a tax receipt but does not indicate support of the party or its' platform, or help fund the OpenPolitics case.
- Gone For The Week-End
- Questions From The House
- Belay That Promise, We’re In Power Now
- Ya Had To Be Quick
- Land Claims For Dummies 3: What They Got, and What They Gave Up
- Ooops (Again)
- This We Already Know
- Dear Americans
- Sometimes There Are No Other Options
- Just When YouThought It Couldn’t Get Any Stranger
Recent Feedbacks
- Mike: If Pierre can show that those two Liberals then tried to get Elections Canada refunds based on that money, he...
- Shmohawk: As I understand, Elections Canada says it’s a problem when the federal CPoC spends to its limit on...
- wideye: Ok I am like a lot of other people who don’t get it either at this point but…I thought I read in...
- stageleft: The biggest flaw in what they call “our democracy” is the way the party has been allowed to...
- Sean Pelette: Heh. I like the goalie reference. Such a Canadien thing.
- throbbin: It’s pretty sad that the Liberals are doing the same thing. The only reason I can think that they are...
- Treehugger: “I don’t get it.” I don’t get it either.
- doug newton: “It is clear that these Liberal MPs are more interested in scheming to regain power than...
- throbbin: Edwards just endorsed Obama.
- Rosemary's Thoughts: BASRA, Iraq (May 7, 2008) - Citizens of Basra, the third-largest city in Iraq, celebrated the...
Top Commentors This Month
-
- balbulican (27)
- throbbin (22)
- stageleft (21)
- Democrat=Socialist (10)
- James Bow (9)
- KEvron (9)
- Mike (8)
- doug newton (7)
- nastyboy (6)
- The Pink Flamingo (6)
Popular posts
-
- Open Trackback & Comments Tuesday (The New Year "Gregarius" Edition)
- Open Trackbacks & Comments (The "Hang Him High" Edition)
- Open Trackback & Comments Sunday (The Naked Rider Edition)
- Open Trackback & Comments Sunday (The "Gambling For Presidents" Edition)
- The Shanghai Acrobat
- Worth Posting Again, & Again, & Again
- So What Do YOU Think Makes a Good Political Blog?
- From Dusk To Dawn: Stageleft's Halloween Horrorama
- Obama: Not The Anti-Christ
- Your Opinion on Tasers: Open Thread
Powered by FireStats
Decide what? You are comparing a case in which there was opportunity to intervene in the act, to one in which there was no reasonable opportunity. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you consider to be “response”.