[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Bush doesn’t say he’s getting his news from other media sources, though. He says he ignores it completely.
[/QUOTE]
Not so. In that interview with Brit Hume where he mentions not reading papers, he talks about reading a daily threat assessment and being briefed on current affairs by staff members. It’s not the way I’d choose to get news, but it’s not ignoring it either.
Mr. Moto, I think DtC’s point was that Bush doesn’t get his news from any source outside his staff. That’s all.
[QUOTE=Oy!]
Mr. Moto, I think DtC’s point was that Bush doesn’t get his news from any source outside his staff. That’s all.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not the same as saying that “he ignores it completely.”
[QUOTE=JThunder]
That’s not the same as saying that “he ignores it completely.”
[/QUOTE]
He says he doesn’t read papers or watch news on television or from the internets. He gets briefed by his staff, but that’s not the same thing as really getting the news. It’s a very condensed and selective kind of briefing. My dad used to help write them for a while when he was in the State Department. It’s not really comparable to reading or viewing a variety of sources (although it does include stuff the media never finds out about. My dad once told me he kind of misses working intelligence because it was kind of a rush to be inside the real loop all the time).
Quite true. I’m sure that President Bush is aware of all current events of which his staff informs him.
For what it’s worth, I am dubious that Bush really doesn’t watch television news or read papers. I think his saying that is just a way for him to avoid a lot of questions about whatever media noise is current.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It’s a very condensed and selective kind of briefing. …It’s not really comparable to reading or viewing a variety of sources (although it does include stuff the media never finds out about.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. But so many people have harped on his single statement without looking at his schedule or his other reading material or even his radio or TV viewing habits. Frankly, none of us have the faintest clue how he gets all of his news.
In any case, it is a side argument, and totally unrelated to the awareness of the polls mentioned in the OP.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Sure. But so many people have harped on his single statement without looking at his schedule or his other reading material or even his radio or TV viewing habits. Frankly, none of us have the faintest clue how he gets all of his news.
In any case, it is a side argument, and totally unrelated to the awareness of the polls mentioned in the OP.
[/QUOTE]
Well, see my last post. I think he just says that as a way to sidestep a lot of bullshit questions about whatever’s going on in the latest news cycle. “I have not read that/seen that/had a chance to review that” is a tried and true tactic used by politicos to avoid answering qestions. I think Bush is just more preemptive and sweeping about it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Not so. In that interview with Brit Hume where he mentions not reading papers, he talks about reading a daily threat assessment and being briefed on current affairs by staff members.
[/QUOTE]
Whether he’s paying attention is another matter…
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He says he doesn’t read papers or watch news on television or from the internets. He gets briefed by his staff, but that’s not the same thing as really getting the news.
[/QUOTE]
Even if we grant that viewpoint, it’s not the same as saying that he “ignores it completely,” which was the point under discussion.
(turns to look poetically at setting sun)
GWB: Like Jesus, I know that it doesn’t matter if people are ready for my ideas. When you’re right, you’re right.
-Joe
From John’s link, a vast majority of people (82%) think Congress hasn’t accomplished much if anything, but 51% of those who think that blame Bush and the Republicans, while only 25% blame the Democrats… So, if I were a Republican I wouldn’t feel all that good about Congress’s low ratings translating into votes in November.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
It’s just as meaningless. Literally - it has no meaning, unless you believe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in danger of not being reelected.
If it does have meaning, please tell me what it is. Will Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate?
[/QUOTE]
It’s just as meaningful as the numbers for Bush. Unless you think he’s in danger of not being re-elected. Re-election prospects are not the deciding factor of what a poll means. It simply says that people aren’t happy with what the Democratic Leaders in Congress have done-- ie, basically nothing. Doesn’t mean they like the Republicans any better. In fact, the numbers appear to be telling us they don’t.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It’s just as meaningful as the numbers for Bush. Unless you think he’s in danger of not being re-elected. Re-election prospects are not the deciding factor of what a poll means. It simply says that people aren’t happy with what the Democratic Leaders in Congress have done-- ie, basically nothing. Doesn’t mean they like the Republicans any better. In fact, the numbers appear to be telling us they don’t.
[/QUOTE]
Looks like they like them less. 51% Pubbies to blame, 25% Dems, 20% both. Given that 29% still think Shrub is doing a good job, we might guess that almost all the people who don’t think Republicans are at least partially to blame for the inaction of Congress.
Great link, by the way.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
That’s a meaningless statistic and I wish people would stop throwing it out. You can’t compare a group of over 500 people to one person. Besides, while people hate Congress in general, they love their local reps and Senators. They reelect incumbents well over 90% of the time.
[/QUOTE]
You can pretend it’s a meaningless statistic but low ratings show up at the polls. Tom Dashle was the Senate Minority Leader and that should have been a lock.
Sorry, wrong thread!!! :smack:
I recall that Bush has also said he doesn’t watch TV news either. I also recall how he completely missed missed how bad off New Orleans after Katrina until his staff prepared a special DVD just for him.
I think he knows how low his popularity is, if and only if his staff has bothered to tell him. He’s the Bubble President.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My dad once told me he kind of misses working intelligence because it was kind of a rush to be inside the real loop all the time).
[/QUOTE]
(remembering such intelligence coups as the Bay of Pigs and the Iranian Revolution and choosing to not remark on the distance at times beween the real loop and reality 
)
[QUOTE=Magiver]
You can pretend it’s a meaningless statistic but low ratings show up at the polls. Tom Dashle was the Senate Minority Leader and that should have been a lock.
[/QUOTE]
Tom Dashle was the only imcumbent among 34 who lost, which is about the avarage for incumbents. He was targeted by the White House and his opponent got massive support from the RNC. He still only lost by a point or two.
If you believe it is meaningful, complete this sentence - “The favorability of the Democratic leadership is at 39%, therefore ____________.”
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
True but Bush takes this to a level I’ve never seen. I am guilty of what you describe at times but then when everyone I know around me (besides people who have to suck up to me because I sign their paycheck) says I suck I start to wonder if maybe there is something to it.
[/QUOTE]
Nixon was as aware of his shrinking approval numbers as any human alive and it never slowed him down, either. Like Bush, he took to consoling himself with history’s judgement.
It wasn’t until some of Nixon’s supporters in Congress met with him personally and told him the game was over that he yielded.