Proof that right wingers are honest

[Superman]

Okay, I've got to say it. This is a speech that could not possibly have been written by George W. Bush. Any linguist, or anybody else for that matter can easily see that. It looks like something that might have been written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And I'll bet Dubya held his head high and acted very much as though these are his beliefs. It is so completely distant from the beliefs we know that "man" holds, that it must have been a marvellous acting job for him to persuade anyone that he was serious. It is an excellent speech. It is a thing of beauty to me, and I am a big fan of important and momentous speeches. But it is sheer and utter dishonesty for Dubya to have read it. But it is also one more thing. It is political genius. Do you suppose Karl Rove was consulted during its construction?

Still, as shrewd as it is, this president is "going down." He is circling the drain, finally. In spite of this herculean effort to restore the perception that he is capable or compassionate, it will not achieve that goal. The underbelly of this administration is fully exposed, and if the dems have a brain among them, this president is going to be crucified in the coming months. As I've said for a couple of years now, this is the perfect "president" to remind the American people why they don't choose Republicans to run the government. It would not surprise me to see both the White House and Congress restored to the democrats rather quickly. After all, if you glance for an instant at the financial health of this nation during the administrations over the last twenty or so years, you will notice that we become nearly bankrupt as a nation, just in time to be salvaged by a liberal administration, followed by another conservative administration and more financial ruin, followed by another liberal administration to balance the budget and restore government mechanisms to working order.

But anyway, I just had to express my impression of the vast chasm between Dubya's actual agenda and beliefs, versus this speech he has delivered. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two. It was a completely dishonest speech.

[skipdup]

Supe- Not a bad argument at all. I will take under advisement.

(edit- the one above your last one. )

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Superman
It was a completely dishonest speech.

From a guy who voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I find that a very interesting assessment...Bush is one of the most honest, heart felt and truly Christian politicians I have seen for a long long time. He doesn't exaggerate his accomplishments, he doesn't fabricate beliefs and he actually tackles difficult tasks despite the political fallout he endures.

[WOODPIE]

Here's the link, mul

Mul,

The article only mentions the Rove thing in a paragraph towards the end; it is not the main topic being reported.

Yes, I have traveled the ether distances to deliver this link, all the way from the "Biggest Problem" thread. The two threads have some things in common, I think, and I didn't want to bump the other just to supply said link.

I'd like to ask how you people feel about the Gulf Coast Wage Reduction, especially in light of the fact that this was one of the first things Bush did after Katrina. And please, don't ask me to post a link. I don't have good computer skills, and I have doubts about the function of the link I put here. Just do a search.

Also, does the klusterfock that was the retarded relief effort by the federal government point to the need for more federal authority and a larger role for federal troops in the future? Or do you think that maybe the "authority" measure was probably OK, but someone needed to get their thumb out of their sphincter?

Finally, I'd like to say I think it's a fine thing for you, Tim, to voice your objections to what the pres has in mind. I've seen more and more of that as time goes by, and it is curiously refreshing!

Ed

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by WOODPIE
Here's the link, mul

Mul,

The article only mentions the Rove thing in a paragraph towards the end; it is not the main topic being reported.

Yes, I have traveled the ether distances to deliver this link, all the way from the "Biggest Problem" thread. The two threads have some things in common, I think, and I didn't want to bump the other just to supply said link.

You originally said this..."And so, what with the prez fixing to drop mega-billions into rebuilding the Gulf Coast region, who gets the job? Yeah, Karl Rove."

You phrased the statement like there was something nefarious and profit driven about the rebuild?...Nothing like what the article said. The article simply states that Rove is in charge...So what?...Isn't that who has been in charge the whole time? Rove seems to be running circles around the Democrats without the least hint (other than contrived by the left) of questionable behavior (Joe Wilson's treasonous attempts at getting Kerry elected aside).

It seems Karl Rove is on top of the situation...A situation that could have been prevented if Blanco, previous Louisiana administrations and the Mayor of New Orleans weren't absolutely incompetent...An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...Now, because of the incompetence of the Governor of Lousiana and Mayor of New Orleans the American taxpayer is stuck with a massive bill...And you are upset at Bush?

I'd like to ask how you people feel about the Gulf Coast Wage Reduction, especially in light of the fact that this was one of the first things Bush did after Katrina.

Wage controls have proven themselves to destroy jobs by making unprofitable businesses...Unions, the people who are putting forth this gripe, are simply manufacturing this issue to drive up wages and bilk the taxpayers...If you are worth a salary you will be paid for it...One does not have a right to being paid beyond skill level, regardless of what the socialists say...It is not good business, it is unfair to business owners and it is unfair to the taxpayer...competition is good for the economy, the employee and the consumer.

Interesting how Halliburton gets tagged as a Bush/Cheney conspiratorial evil, yet you libs are now fighting for higher costs to the taxpayers...Where were ya'll regarding fighting for the workers of Halliburton?...What, it doesn't fit the agenda?...Now you are fighting for increased costs in the rebuild of the Gulf Coast...Why?...So when the costs become out of control you can blame Karl Rove and Dick Cheney?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Also, does the klusterfock that was the retarded relief effort by the federal government point to the need for more federal authority and a larger role for federal troops in the future? Or do you think that maybe the "authority" measure was probably OK, but someone needed to get their thumb out of their sphincter?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...The Louisiana liberals failed the people of New Orleans, something they have been doing for years...Their failure shouldn't be my, your or any American's responsibility...The Louisiana politicians will be held responsible for this...The truth will come out and, much to the dismay of those liberals who were so quick to blame Bush, it will not bode well for the Democrat party.

[island911]

Tim, I had the same reaction to Bush's "spend whatever it takes" words.

Today, it was modified to (paraphrasing) ""spend whatever it takes .. . out of pork programs."

Anyway, it sure seems that a whole lot of people want to STAY out of that punchbowl called NewOrleans. Sure, there will still be rebuilding, but it's no hot RE market.

[Mysterytrain]

Now I know why Jersey is the second most corrupt state in the union, right behind Louisiana...Love that Toricelli!

Mul...I don't see the connection between your statement and anything I might have said in my post. Maybe, you could explain.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
...Bush is one of the most honest, heart felt and truly Christian politicians I have seen for a long long time. He doesn't exaggerate his accomplishments, he doesn't fabricate beliefs and he actually tackles difficult tasks despite the political fallout he endures.

ROTFLMAO!

[Superman]

Originally posted by techweenie
ROTFLMAO!

No kidding!

[Superman]

Originally posted by WOODPIE
Here's the link, mul


I'd like to ask how you people feel about the Gulf Coast Wage Reduction, especially in light of the fact that this was one of the first things Bush did after Katrina. And please, don't ask me to post a link. I don't have good computer skills, and I have doubts about the function of the link I put here. Just do a search.


Ed

Mul has mentioned that wage controls destroy jobs and make businesses unprofitable. So, he apparently has not reviewed the research. I have worked with prevailing wage issues for fifteen years, and I can answer your question.

Dubya did this because he hates labor unions like Mul does, and this tactic simply allows contractors to drive down wages, and places non-union companies at a competitive advantage. It's part of the war on workers, and the cronie-ism you see from Dubya constantly. It's not about people, it's about profits. If the president were more about people and less about profits, you wouldn't have seen an executive order of this kind.

What we find in all the legitimate research is that large companies with the experience and equipment and bondability to address large projects, all have a few things in common. First, they pay higher wages whether they are union or non-union. We have a couple of excellent, large non-union companies in Washington State (at least one, anyway). This company and a fistful of others (that are union) are prepared to handle large projects, and believe me, they are WAY WAY cheaper than the bargain-basement mom-and-pop businesses, unless you're just erecting a lawnmower shed.

Dr. Phillips has done the most comprehensive research in this regard. His studies show that low-wage states actually pay more to build and to maintain a mile of roadway than do high-wage states. That jives with my experience with many many construction contractors on large projects. If you are the taxpayer, the last thing you want to do is award a large contract to a small contractor than plans on paying $5 per hour to the workers. I can predict the course of a contract as I see the paperwork go across my desk, and so can the engineers. Ask any civil engineer who has overseen these kinds of contracts. Dubya is simply setting the stage for cronies to set up construction companies that will bilk FEMA by underbidding the contractors that already know how to efficiently address the challenge. Labor unions are probably Dubya's most potent political enemies, and the more he can keep money away from them, the less he has to worry about them in the political process. They represent people. Dubya represents corporations.

The thing that separates the men from the boys in large scale projects is contract administration and management. Direct wages only account for about 20% of the cost of a project. Never ever more than 30%. Paying good wages gets you good, efficient workers, and also has community benefits. Construction workers earning so little that they are also on public assistance is just a way to get the taxpayer to pay part of what the contractor should be paying. The wage we are talking about in NO is $9 per hour. Apparently, Dubya thinks that is extravagant. Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802037.html

And if you really want to learn the truth about the many reasons that Davis-Bacon wage policy is good for the nation and the taxpayer, here is a link. By the way, Davis and Bacon were Southern legislators.

http://www.lecet.org/Legislative/prevailing_wage/law_studies.htm

[fintstone]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Superman
[B]....

What we find in all the legitimate research is that large companies with the experience and equipment and bondability to address large projects, all have a few things in common. First, they pay higher wages whether they are union or non-union. We have a couple of excellent, large non-union companies in Washington State (at least one, anyway). This company and a fistful of others (that are union) are prepared to handle large projects, and believe me, they are WAY WAY cheaper than the bargain-basement mom-and-pop businesses, unless you're just erecting a lawnmower shed.

......

Never thought I would see that day that Supe would make the case for Halliburton.

[bryanthompson]

If you let a liberal talk long enough, they're bound to trip themselves up

[speeder]

Originally posted by Mysterytrain
Mul...I don't see the connection between your statement and anything I might have said in my post. Maybe, you could explain.

He believes that one of the 2 major U.S. political parties, (the GOP), is populated exclusively by honest, competent and hard working people w/ all of the best plans for the country while ALL Democrats are corrupt, inept criminals who wish to loot the treasury so that the communist revolution can proceed.

He's a really nice guy, but about as lost as one of those cowbell-swingin' Krishnas selling flowers at the airport.

[Mysterytrain]

oooh, Thanks for clearing that up..I couldn't understand what he was saying with the silver spoon in his mouth. Just bustin' kids.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
[BBush is one of the most honest, heart felt and truly Christian politicians I have seen for a long long time. He doesn't exaggerate his accomplishments, he doesn't fabricate beliefs and he actually tackles difficult tasks despite the political fallout he endures. [/B]

Keepers of Bush image lift stagecraft to new heights

By Elisabeth Bumiller
New York Times

WASHINGTON --George W. Bush's "Top Gun" landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history. But it was only the latest example of how the Bush administration, going far beyond the foundations in stagecraft set by the Reagan White House, is using the powers of television and technology to promote a presidency like never before.

Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design: the White House has stocked its communications operation with people from network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the importance of backdrops.

On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut.

"They understand the visual as well as anybody ever has," said Michael K. Deaver, Ronald Reagan's chief image maker. "They watched what we did, they watched the mistakes of Bush I, they watched how Clinton kind of stumbled into it, and they've taken it to an art form."

The White House efforts have been ambitious — and costly. For the prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America's symbol of freedom. It was the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island.

For a speech that Mr. Bush delivered last summer at Mount Rushmore, the White House positioned the best platform for television crews off to one side, not head on as other White Houses have done, so that the cameras caught Mr. Bush in profile, his face perfectly aligned with the four presidents carved in stone.

And on Monday, for remarks the president made promoting his tax cut plan near Albuquerque, the White House unfurled a backdrop that proclaimed its message of the day, "Helping Small Business," over and over. The type was too small to be read by most in the audience, but just the right size for television viewers at home.

"I don't know who does it," Mr. Deaver said, "but somebody's got a good eye over there."

That somebody, White House officials and television executives say, is in fact three or four people. First among equals is Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer who was hired by the Bush campaign in Austin, Tex., and who now works for Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. Mr. Sforza created the White House "message of the day" backdrops and helped design the $250,000 set at the United States Central Command forward headquarters in Doha, Qatar, during the Iraq war.

Mr. Sforza works closely with Bob DeServi, a former NBC cameraman whom the Bush White House hired after seeing his work in the 2000 campaign. Mr. DeServi, whose title is associate director of communications for production, is considered a master at lighting. "You want it, I'll heat it up and make a picture," he said early this week. Mr. DeServi helped produce one of Mr. Bush's largest events, a speech to a crowd in Revolution Square in Bucharest last November.

To stage the event, Mr. DeServi went so far as to rent Musco lights in Britain, which were then shipped across the English Channel and driven across Europe to Romania, where they lighted Mr. Bush and the giant stage across from the country's former Communist headquarters.

A third crucial player is Greg Jenkins, a former Fox News television producer in Washington who is now the director of presidential advance. Mr. Jenkins manages the small army of staff members and volunteers who move days ahead of Mr. Bush and his entourage to set up the staging of all White House events.

"We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see," Mr. Bartlett said. "Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously."

The president's image makers, Mr. Bartlett said, work within a budget for White House travel and events allotted by Congress, which for fiscal 2003 was $3.7 million. He said he did not know the specific cost of staging Mr. Bush's Sept. 11 anniversary speech, or what the White House was charged for the lights. A spokeswoman at the headquarters of Musco Lighting in Oskaloosa, Iowa, said the company did not disclose the prices it charged clients.

White House communications operatives in previous administrations said many costs of presidential trips were paid for by whoever was deemed the official host of a trip — typically a federal agency, a city or a company. Trips deemed political are paid for by the parties.

"The total cost of a trip is ultimately shared across a wide spectrum of agencies and hosts," said Joshua King, who was director of production of presidential events in the Clinton administration. "To get to who really pays for presidential events would keep a team of accountants very busy."

The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked great."

The trip was attacked by Democrats as an expensive political stunt, but White House officials said that Democrats needed a better issue for taking on the president. A New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll conducted May 9-12 found that the White House may have been right: 59 percent of those polled said it was appropriate, and not an effort to make political gain, for Mr. Bush to dress in a flight suit and announce the end of combat operations on the aircraft carrier.

But even this White House makes mistakes. One of the more notable ones occurred in January, when Mr. Bush delivered a speech about his economic plan at a St. Louis trucking company. Volunteers for the White House covered "Made in China" stamps with white stickers on boxes arrayed on either side of the president. Behind Mr. Bush was a printed backdrop of faux boxes that read "Made in U.S.A.," the message the administration wanted to convey to the television audience.

The White House takes great pride in the backdrops, which are created by Mr. Sforza, and has gone so far as to help design them for universities where Mr. Bush travels to make commencement addresses. Last year, the White House helped design a large banner for Ohio State as part of the background for Mr. Bush; last week, the White House collaborated with the University of South Carolina to make Sforzian backdrops for a presidential commencement speech in the school's new Carolina Center.

"They really are good," said Russ McKinney, the school's director of public affairs, as he listened to the president.

Television camera crews, meanwhile, say they have rarely had such consistently attractive pictures to send back to editing rooms.

"They seem to approach an event site like it's a TV set," said Chris Carlson, an ABC cameraman who covers the White House. "They dress it up really nicely. It looks like a million bucks."

Even for standard-issue White House events, Mr. Bush's image makers watch every angle. Last week, when the president had a joint news conference with Prime Minister José Mariá Aznar of Spain, it was staged in the Grand Foyer of the White House, under grand marble columns, with the Blue Room and a huge cream-colored bouquet of flowers illuminated in the background. (Mr. Sforza and Mr. DeServi could be seen there conferring before the cameras began rolling.) The scene was lush and rich, filled with the beauty of the White House in real time.

"They understand they have to build a set, whether it's an aircraft carrier or the Rose Garden or the South Lawn," Mr. Deaver said. "They understand that putting depth into the picture makes the candidate or president look better."

Or as Mr. Deaver said he learned long ago with Mr. Reagan: "They understand that what's around the head is just as important as the head."

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Keepers of Bush image lift stagecraft to new heights

By Elisabeth Bumiller
New York Times

WASHINGTON --George W. Bush's "Top Gun" landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history. But it was only the latest example of how the Bush administration, going far beyond the foundations in stagecraft set by the Reagan White House, is using the powers of television and technology to promote a presidency like never before.

Rodeo, I will read the rest of the article...but she starts her screed with an attempt at manipulating truth...The "mission accomplished", obviously, was in reference to the vessel and crews return from the Gulf...Their mission was accomplished and he, obviously, was not suggesting the battle was over...But, hell, "a lie told frequently enough becomes the truth" right?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Keepers of Bush image lift stagecraft to new heights

By Elisabeth Bumiller
New York Times

Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design: the White House has stocked its communications operation with people from network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the importance of backdrops.

Funny how the leftist media sees in Bush was doesn't exist, or is normal in the course of running a country, but when Clinton does it...wellllllll....that is another story.



I don't know how the media missed this one...after all, they are the ones Bill saw when he decided to turn his laugh into a frown.




BTW...What is our exit strategy out of Kosovo?...And why were we there when Osama should have been Clinton's focus?...And where is the media regarding these two issues?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
"They understand they have to build a set, whether it's an aircraft carrier or the Rose Garden or the South Lawn," Mr. Deaver said. "They understand that putting depth into the picture makes the candidate or president look better."

The nerve...the hypocrisy is nauseating...

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 11) -- Hollywood producer Harry Thomason, a longtime friend of President Bill Clinton, testified Tuesday before the Monica Lewinsky grand jury and stood by the president afterward.

"I've always believed the president was telling the truth," Thomason told reporters as he left the federal courthouse.

Clinton had the full power and might of Hollywood and network news filling his sails...And Bush's team is slick?...Pleaaaaase.

Shove that down your memory hole.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
The "mission accomplished", obviously, was in reference to the vessel and crews return from the Gulf...Their mission was accomplished and he, obviously, was not suggesting the battle was over...But, hell, "a lie told frequently enough becomes the truth" right?

"My fellow Americans," Bush intoned May 1, 2003. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

[fintstone]

Amazing the lengths the left will go to to take quotes out of context...combine them with earlier or later quotes referring to other matters....and then add them together to create something different and dishonest. And they wonder why no one trusts or votes for them. Once again...a lie told often enough...is still a lie.

Tis is just parsing words. The "mission" of the ship and crew were "accomplished." The "combat operations" against Saddam's army had ended. The war on terror is ongoing....and the new Iraq is our partner in it.