# Meet The Press with Bush. Stupefying. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137 "2004-02-08T16:50:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/41 "2004-02-09T07:06:58Z")
This was a supremely disapointing interview. TR did a reasonable job inititating key topics for discussion, but he simply didn’t press hard enough in his follow-up questions, and allowed GWB to give evasive, confusing, and (sometimes) irrelevante answers. GWB for his part looked uncomfortable, tired, and dejected. He did very little to make sure that his answers were straight-forward and easy to understand. The portion of the interview about Iraq was, I thought, the worst. GWB’s insistance that the war in Iraq is integral and necessary for the fight agains terrorism is a _non sequitur_. I never supported the war, but I can uderstand that there were some good reasons to have supported it. The interview relegated those reasons to minor footnotes. Grade: **D** The Nat’l Guard part was very disapointing. It’s unclear what records he’s talking about that were supposedly released. He did state emphatically that he showed up in Alabama during the time in question, so maybe we’ll get some follow-up in the press on it. He should have been explicit about exact dates, duties, and timelines of service. Grade: **D** Concerning the economy, I think GWB did better. He responded reasonably well about the need to keep the economy growing and not to raise taxes. But he just doesn’t seem to even express enough concern (let alone act out of concern) about the defecit. Grade: **C** He’s lucky this interview wasn’t a few weeks before the election, and that it probably wasn’t watched by that many people. I voted for Bush last time. I’ve said in other threads that I’m open to looking at Kerry closely to see if he should get my vote this time. This interview will have me looking a lot more closely. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/42 "2004-02-09T07:36:09Z")
Terrific thread! Bushites really don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate. They try admirably (in some cases) but alas, the man they’re supporting keeps opening his big fat mouth and inserting his entire leg. Just have to correct one thing in **SofaKing** ’s excellent post. > [@Sofa King](#): > > The war on Iraq began as a necessity. The President intended to prosecute that war [less than one week](http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/pdf/ff020.pdf) after the attacks of September 11. One week? Try [five hours](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml). > [@](#): > > With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted “best info fast. **Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. _Not only UBL_** ” – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. > [@](#): > > “Go massive,” the notes quote (Rumsfeld) as saying. “Sweep it all up. **Things related _and not_**.” So five hours after four planes smack into the U.S. and kill thousands, Bush’s administration is champing at the bit to use the tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq. And Bush still tries to claim that Iraq was “necessary” because Saddam was an imminent – uh, no, he didn’t say imminent, he meant grave and gathering threat, 'cause ya see, he knew for a fact that they had weapons of mass – er, no, they had _programs_ to build … gosh no that’s not right, that is to say, they had the possible _capability_ to create programs that might, some day, lead to WMDs. Oh wait, no, scratch all that, that’s not the reason anymore this week. It’s actually because Sadaam is a really bad evildoer and it’s only right to help those suffering under his dictatorial thumb, y’know, the helpless Cubans. I mean Rawandi. Uh, Chinese? Saudis? North Koreans? Wait, what’s that place with all the oil run by the guy who wanted to kill Bush’s daddy? Oh yeah, IRAQ. Those poor suffering Iraqis. We care 'bout 'em so much, we’ll invade their country and pull Sadaam out no matter how many civillians we have to blast to smithereens to do it. IMHO, the best part of the interview is Russert asking Bush if all the deaths from the war were worth it. Bush basically says, “yep, war’s hell, ain’t it?” Isn’t that comforting to the 500 grieving families of dead U.S. soldiers? And the 3,000 troops maimed in the fighting? And the families of the ~10,000 Iraqis killed in the war? Or maybe my favorite part is when Russert asks whether Bush is worried about losing, and Bush replies: “_I’m not gonna lose._” Did that send a chill down anyone else’s spine, or was it just me? Bush is probably quite secure in knowing he’s not gonna lose, what with the black box paperless voting systems and disenfranchised minorities and the CEO of the Diebold voting machine company who’s publicly admitted that he wants Bush to win … (Then again, my deepest fear is that Bush will ramp up the terror alert to RED and put us all under martial law. Worse, that an oh-so-timely terror attack on the U.S. will be his excuse. Christ, and I used to avoid wearing tinfoil chapeaus. I used to have some faith in my government.) Well, fuck you, Mr. President. Fuck you and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rice and Powell and Wolfowitz and Fleischer and McClullen and every other member of this bastardly, craven bunch. And a rare bit of applause to Tim Russert, who despite all previous behavior worthy of a Bush Admin fanclub member, actually did NOT do to Bush what Monica did to Clinton. Not a bad job, Tim. Didn’t get all the follow-ups in there, but several of those questions were pretty sharp. Oh, y’know what? NOW I remember my favorite part of all. It was when Russert asked the question, “Why do you think people hold you in so much _contempt_?” Bush response: “Gosh, I dunno!” Really, Dubya? You really don’t? Well, just look in the fucking mirror, you lazy, cowardly, inarticulate, bullying, hubris-filled, hypocritical greedy chimp-faced asshat. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/43 "2004-02-09T08:31:10Z")
> [@choie](#): > > NOW I remember my favorite part of all. It was when Russert asked the question, “Why do you think people hold you in so much _contempt_?” > > Bush response: “Gosh, I dunno!” > > Really, Dubya? You really don’t? Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if he geuninely didn’t know why people hold him in so much contempt. This is, after all, a guy who’s _completely_ isolated from the real world – he doesn’t appear anywhere in public that hasn’t been prepped by Karl Rove, he readily admits he doesn’t follow the news, his press conferences are kept to a minimum with pre-screened questions, etc. etc. etc. In short, he’s the President in the Plastic Bubble, whose only interactions with folks beside his immediate family are with the usual clique of Dick, Rummy, Wolfie, Colin,and Condoleeza. Where _would_ he get an honest assessment of why people can’t stand him so? (Say what you want about the guy, but at least Clinton went jogging while in office, and didn’t hesitate to press the flesh and yak it up with the folks he encountered along the way…) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/44 "2004-02-09T08:48:18Z")
> [@](#): > > GWB for his part looked uncomfortable, tired, and dejected. He did very little to make sure that his answers were straight-forward and easy to understand. I’m not sure why he did even this interview. His strategy of avoiding the press has worked very well, and I imagine that future presidents will follow his lead in avoiding any real interaction with the press. It’s a sad direction, but a winning strategy. It’s well known that this administration holds the press in utter contempt. And not entirely without reason, but geez, NO president likes having to deal with the media, but in the past, they’ve put up with it. > [@](#): > > In short, he’s the President in the Plastic Bubble, whose only interactions with folks beside his immediate family are with the usual clique of Dick, Rummy, Wolfie, Colin,and Condoleeza. I can see that now as the Demcoratic hit squad side of things: he’s the Bubble Boy. He’s not a bad guy, he’s just isolated from the real world. He’s not the CEO president, he’s the child of crony capitalism. He doesn’t mean ill, he just doesn’t get it. But will that play? Or will it backfire? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/45 "2004-02-09T08:52:32Z")
And, of course, the Bush team could always counter such an attack with this: [http://www.theonion.com/4004/top\_story.html](http://www.theonion.com/4004/top_story.html) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/46 "2004-02-09T08:55:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **rexnervous** :rexnervous You know, what really bugs me more than anything (and seems to belie the whole “liberal media” bias) is this: if Dopers can pull up cites like Hentor’s, why the hell can’t the mainstream media? Russert threw little more than softballs at Bush - **it’s one thing to ask a question, it’s another to follow up with specific points.** (bold type added) Did you not notice the visual aids that Russerts used showing statistics on the deficit, unemployment, etc? No softballs there. Cold and ugly facts. > [@](#): > > **Sam Stone** : > (Quoting someone else): > > “We did NOT all think that they were there.” > > Clearly, Bush is talking about the intelligence community, other country’s intelligence community’s etc. I’m sure he’s quite aware that there were people around who claimed that Iraq didn’t have any WMD. Actually, **Sam** , I think that George Tenet said this week that _he_ never suggested that danger was imminent. I guess we have yet to see exactly what he meant by that. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/47 "2004-02-09T09:13:56Z")
What I have never understood is this: Assuming Bush really did believe that Iraq had WMD, wouldn’t going to war without knowing where they were be a terrible strategy? Wouldn’t that greatly _increase_ the chances of the WMD falling into terrorist hands? I mean, we obviously made no attempt to secure the WMD, because we didn’t know where they were. So if the WMD were there, we would have been handing them to the terrorists. I don’t get how “we are sure he has WMD” and “let’s start a chaotic war without securing the WMD” go together. ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/48 "2004-02-09T09:26:17Z")
A lot of good points have been made here about the lameness of GWB’s excuses regarding interpretation of the “threat” posed by Saddam, but nobody has yet mentioned Bush’s statements that part of the compelling reason for going to war was Saddam’s connection to terrorists. > [@](#): > > \*\*GWB:\*\*\*We knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he \*(Sadam) _was funding terrorist groups._ In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war. > [@](#): > > \*\*GWB:\*\*He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. _He had funded suicide bombers into Israel. He had terrorist connections_. In other words, all of those ingredients said to me: Threat. (Italic emphasis mine: DG) Help me out here, because my geezer brain may have either missed or forgotten any _evidence_ to back up these assertions of the President. The only “evidence” I can remember is the repeated statements of Bush administration talking heads that such connections existed and that such funding occurred. Anybody have a cite that proves any of it? The Prez hasn’t any as far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/49 "2004-02-09T11:42:09Z")
> [@Sofa King](#): > > **Stratocaster** , this line of thought really pisses me off. I’m going to try my best to explain why, but I suspect you’re going to take some of this personally. For that I am sorry, but it is necessary. No offense taken. When I asked, “Why?,” I wanted a response. I’ll give yours a better read after work tonight. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/50 "2004-02-09T12:31:08Z")
I’m fairly sure that funding suicide bombers… I think it was either 10k or 15k to the family after the bombing, is a well established fact that I’ve never even heard questioned before. Ah, here we go. You’ll forgive the biased source, Elie Wiesel Foundation. > [@](#): > > Another reason Palestinian parents allow and even encourage their children to suicide and murder is the financial incentive offered to families of “martyrs.” The Palestinian Authority pays children a sum amounting to $1 to throw firebombs, which has resulted in over 40 children losing their arms. Other incentives include $2,000 per child killed and $300 per child wounded. Saudi Arabia has pledged $250 million as its first contribution to a billion dollar fund for the purpose of supporting the families of Palestinian “martyrs”. In addition, the Arab Liberation Front, a Palestinian group loyal to Iraqi President Sadaam Hussein, pays the families of the injured or dead according to a set scale: $500 for a wound; $1,000 for disability; $10,000 to the family of each martyr; and $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber. [Original Document Here](http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/EthicsPrize/Winners/Winning%20Essays/2003_Winning_Essays/FromNurturingTerrortoRaisingHope_files/From%20Nurturing%20Terror%20to%20Raising%20Hope.html) That comes from [here](http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-8.htm) . Further support comes from Rumsfield’s [mouth,](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml) but the article also quotes the group’s leader, Mahmoud Safi, directly, as saying, > [@Mahmoud Safi](#): > > Safi and two others from the Arab Liberation Front visit families in the northern West Bank and make the payments. “We go to every family and give them a check,” he said. “We tell them that this is a gift from President Saddam and Iraq.” ---
**Author:** ![Quint\_Essence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/54ee81/32.png) [@Quint\_Essence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint_Essence)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/51 "2004-02-09T13:28:15Z")
Saddam was hardly the only country supporting the palestinians. The Saudis in particular and I believe Jordan, and even the Kuwaitis have sent similar payments and support for families of suicide bombers and other resistance fighters. You might also consider the tactics of the Israelis when you consider how “wrong” such support should be. I fail to see much difference between a helicopter gunship hosing down a palestinian street and a suicide bomber. The only difference is in the cost of the equipment. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/52 "2004-02-09T14:31:25Z")
I consider myself incapable of expressing much of an opinion on a performance such as Bush’s, as I seem to be pretty out of touch with how many of my fellow citizens view them. I am unable to avoid the parallel of Reagan. An overwhelming majority of Americans were stirred by his speeches – which I found laughable. Similarly, at no time over the past 3 years have I been “reassured” by Bush’s steady, forceful leadership. But, again, I have consistently been in the minority. So a few people on this board (and elsewhere) criticize Bush for simply repeating set “talking points.” Why on earth would he do that? Maybe because it works. If people in authority repeat the same thing often enough, they will convince a good portion of the electorate. Same principle as advertising and public relations. I hope Kerry is disciplined enough to remain similarly on point with his criticisms. I love the directness of his responses recently. That “an honorable discharge” alone does not answer all questions, and that choosing the guard over active service is a valid choice, but that one must live with any repercussions of that choice. If he remains steadfast in that vein, the hollowness of Bush’s version of his “service” will be revealed as evermore hollow. From my view, similar criticisms of Bush are available on so many more issues, from economics, to social policy, as well as international relations. Finally, **Bricker’s** comment concerning taxes does not surprise me at all. I am no longer surprised that a sizeable portion of the electorate votes their pocketbook. Especially those whose pocketbook is already full. Heck! That may be the most rational voting determinant. History has shown that leaders of every political stripe have blatantly lied. And even when their social/international/etc. agendas align with yours, there is no guarantee that they will be able to enact effective policy they (and you, the voter) support. So in many ways the rational choice is the self-interested one. Give **Bricker** props for at least being honest about it. Many folk undoubtedly consider me a fool that I don’t really consider taxes in choosing between candidates – especially on the national level. I’m very comfortable in the middle. Whether taxes go up or down through any historical range, I don’t see my lifestyle changing tremendously. Give me more money, and I’m sure I’ll spend it. But take some more, and I’ll still enjoy a very nice lifestyle. From my position, I consider myself privileged enough that I can support policy that does not appear to shift burdens to future generations. And I can support policy that provides a safety net for the needy – even tho some of those participating in such programs are goldbricks and criminals. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/53 "2004-02-09T14:55:43Z")
Shooting holes in Bush’s arguments is about as challenging as Cheney’s pheasant hunting trip was. I saw a lot of deer-in-the-headlights look in Bush’s eyes. The man clearly is incapable of engaging in impromptu conversation. The bit about his National Guard service was clearly a pack of lies. There have been many attempts in the past to find somebody, anybody, who could verify that he showed up in Alabama. He never showed up and the most likely scenario is he just slipped through the cracks. He totally blew off the fact that he added $1.3 Trillion to the national debt. He also claims that he will cut the deficit in half in five years. What a guy! Clinton hands him record surpluses, which Bush turns into record deficits, then promises to reduce what his utter incompetence has created by 50% in five years! As for Iraq, yet another yarn for the American people. Now the war is justified because Iraq _could_ have produced those weapons. So any nation that has technology is a likely target for US invasion? And Mr. Chief Diplomat goes out and says that the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Burma are madmen and that he _could_ take them down? Why would any civilized nation want to deal with this guy? Finally, this gem: > [@](#): > > Is “social responsibility” code for “I am unable or unwilling to work to feed, clothe, and medicate my own family, so you should pay for my inability by supporting my family as well as your own?” Typical neocon-speak. Attack the poorest segment of our society to justify stealing from our grandchildren to provide you with those whopping tax cuts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/54 "2004-02-09T14:59:43Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Did you just watch the program or did you actually read the transcript? In the cold light of day, without the trappings of the oval office and without his good ol’ boy crap, the thing reads like an indictment. > > Ya know, the old “tax and spend” argument just doesn’t hold water. I don’t spend money I don’t earn. I don’t borrow from my retirement account to go buy a car. I don’t imperil the well-being of others in order to fund my political war agenda. > > Republicans and Democrats spend in like quantities (or at least they did until this guy). The difference is that the left spends from a tax base; the right just keeps running up the debt for someone else to have to handle later. I watched the program. > [@Revtim](#): > > Do you really believe that wishing for a balanced budget is comparable to wanting a welfare society? > > Just checking. Absolutely not. But financing a war is one of the classic times in which deficit spending is appropriate. My question went much more to the cutting of entitlement programs which the left is more enamored of than the right. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > No. It’s more about not claiming to care about men and women in the military and their families and then cutting their pay, funding for their housing, funding for their medical care, their child credits, and so forth. Bush has cut military pay? I did not know that. Cite? > [@](#): > > It’s about not claiming to leave no child left behind, and then budgeting $4.6 billion less for Title I than congress authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act, freezing funding for the homeless education program, and training 92 thousand fewer teachers than promised in the act. Yes. The homeless education program. This would seem to fall precisely into the category of “Make Me Pay For Your Family As Well As My Own.” I agree with those cuts. Frankly, I suspect a large portion of the electorate also agrees with those cuts. > [@](#): > > It’s about not stonewalling the present investigation into 9/11 and urging it to be ended before the committee feels it is done, and then claiming that your new commission on pre-war intelligence will be concluded after the next election because “Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn’t want it to be hurried.” What has this to do with “social responsibility” and fiscal policy? Have we moved into a general indictment of the administration? > [@](#): > > It’s about not claiming to be strong on terrorism and then reducing anti-terrorism funding. Specifics? > [@](#): > > It’s about not changing the Clean Water Act to allow more mining waste to be dumped into waterways. Says you. _I_ am perfectly happy with this change. I believe the Clean Water Act was far too broad, and the current changes strike a more acceptable balance between the needs of industry and the need to protect natural resources. > [@](#): > > It’s about not claiming that you are going to change the tone while simultaneously running push polls that suggest to South Carolina voters that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. I agree with this analysis - I just don’t agree that Bush was ever behind such a thing. Cite? > [@](#): > > It’s about not claiming that you said you would only have deficits in the case of a war, a recession or an emergency, when you never said any such thing. You lost me admidst the triple negative. What is this about? > [@](#): > > Social responsibility is about recognizing that America is a great society because we take care of Americans and cherish the principles upon which our society is founded. Ah, back we go to “taking care of Americans.” Funny how it’s coming out of my paycheck. Get your grubby hands out of my paycheck, you thief. I say the principles upon which America is founded include self-reliance, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, making yourself a success - not depending on the dole. There was a time when the pauper’s oath was a condition of public charity, and I don’t think that was altogether terrible. We are a great society because we built ourselves up on those foundations, not on the shaky ground of public assistance. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/55 "2004-02-09T15:31:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I say the principles upon which America is founded include self-reliance, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, making yourself a success - not depending on the dole. I think most of those guys who met in Philadelphia 220 years ago already had on some pretty nice boots. There’s nothing wrong with voting out of personal economic self interest. As I said, it may be just about the most reliable factor. For example, it sucked voting for a candidate that I believed would do something about our horrendous insurance/health care system, and then fail miserably. Or hoping that a national conversation on Social Security reform would be anything other than hot air. Meanwhile, I could have a couple extra bucks in an account somewhere. It is refreshing to hear someone acknowledge as much, instead of claiming the policy that results in the biggest bulge in their hip pocket is also the one conveying the greatest social good. Hell. I assume they are all lying. From moment one I knew Clinton “had sex with that woman.” I just didn’t care. Sure Bush was “in the loop.” The list goes on and on, on both sides of the aisle. Altho I probably believe Reagan “didn’t remember…” ---
**Author:** ![Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/46a35a/32.png) [@Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Live_Better_Electrically)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/56 "2004-02-09T16:04:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I say the principles upon which America is founded include self-reliance, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, making yourself a success You should be thankful to be so sheltered from the realities of poverty that you can adopt this view. Some people don’t have bootstaps by which to lift themselves up. If you are born into a poor family lacking connections, resources, or any example of upward mobility, and live one paycheck away from disaster…and then disaster strikes…it is the least we can do–“we” meaning those of us from more privileged backgrounds–to provide a safety net so people don’t starve or wind up on the street. Where is your compassion? I hail from a modest background but can see the advantages that helped me along at critical junctures. An advantage can be something as “minor” as a stable family unit or a supportive parent. I consider myself successful, but I am not–nor is anyone–entirely self-made. If the poor are not “entitled” to a safety net, then why are you entitled to keep every penny of your winnings when the game was played with a stacked deck? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/57 "2004-02-09T16:10:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Get your grubby hands out of my paycheck, you thief. How about you get _your_ grubby hands out of our grandchildrens’ paychecks? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/58 "2004-02-09T16:15:50Z")
> [@Live Better Electrically!](#): > > You should be thankful to be so sheltered from the realities of poverty that you can adopt this view. Some people don’t have bootstaps by which to lift themselves up. If you are born into a poor family lacking connections, resources, or any example of upward mobility, and live one paycheck away from disaster…and then disaster strikes…it is the least we can do–“we” meaning those of us from more privileged backgrounds–to provide a safety net so people don’t starve or wind up on the street. My father came here from El Salvador with nothing. Nothing but the clothes on his back, and I assure you those clothes were not sufficient collateral to capitalize a life of investment banking or day trading. I am quite well acquanited with the realities of poverty, thank you very much. I admit that, as the eldest child, I had a certain advantage: the clothes I wore were often used, but at least new to me. My brother, on the other hand, wore the clothes I had worn when he grew into them. So I have lived out poverty, and don’t suffer any illusions about it. I don’t have a “more privileged” background, at least not economically. What I have, I earned, with no direct economic help from anyone. > [@](#): > > Where is your compassion? I hail from a modest background but can see the advantages that helped me along at critical junctures. An advantage can be something as “minor” as a stable family unit or a supportive parent. I consider myself successful, but I am not–nor is anyone–entirely self-made. > > If the poor are not “entitled” to a safety net, then why are you entitled to keep every penny of your winnings when the game was played with a stacked deck? What “stacked deck” was my game played with again? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/59 "2004-02-09T16:15:49Z")
**Live better,** you are a fool. Can’t you see that if the government would only let **Bricker** and his pals keep more of their hard-earned (not to mention hard-inherited) money, through the generosity of their private giving they would care for all of the social ills more effectively, efficiently, and compassionately than any government program. Sheesh! _(Disclaimer - this comes from someone who is such a dumb schmuck that he doesn’t really mind paying a great deal in taxes across the board. To the contrary, I am quite happy I earn enough and live in a manner reflected by my present tax burden. Meanwhile, the larder remains stocked, and the kids are getting an education… I wonder how many “overly taxed” folk seriously wish they reported little enough income that they could qualify for an earned income tax credit give-away?)_ ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137/60 "2004-02-09T16:17:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can certainly tell you that I am much more inclined to vote for someone who won’t raise my taxes. I am sure that this feeling is also shared by much of the voting public. It’s this kind of sophisticated political reasoning that has earned American voters the worldwide esteem they so richly deserve. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-press-with-bush-stupefying/228137.md?page=4)