The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Texas Hog wrote:"Let's hope that the media does a better job of holding him accountable in this term, though I doubt it."

Hilarious!

Do you have something substantive to say? Do you have examples of where the media has held Bush accountable in the past 4 years?

Bush

cville do you have a clue about Bush at all?? You need to sit down and read the election results. Bush won in places he'd never won before. He took WV, which typically in the past has been a democratic state. How is that playing to his base?

And Chris Bush did speak at some functions for the NAACP in his first campaign. The horrible comments came after they welcomed him to his face. He was undoubtedly hurt and didn't want to return. I as a person, and not a canidate can understand that.

And cville are you kidding about the media? The media did things against Bush just for the purpose of being against him. There was a memo from ABC saying to play to his faults and overlook Kerry's. How is that not holding him more then accountable? It's ridiculous that you always have to have something complain about and it has to go back to our President. Apparently the majority does not agree with your opinions. I respect you as a person but seriously let this go. You are looking like nothing more then a bitter person who feels slighted that his cause did not win.

And Chris Bush did speak at some functions for the NAACP in his first campaign. The horrible comments came after they welcomed him to his face. He was undoubtedly hurt and didn't want to return. I as a person, and not a canidate can understand that.

As a person thats understandable. But he's the freaking president. I would hope my president would be able to overcome his feelings being hurt to address a people who he will be responsible for the next 4 years. I would hope my president would put his feelings aside to address problems that effect my community. I know that what happens in my community doesn't happen in yours and vice-versa. My public school system is $90+ million in debt!!! That being said I received a sub-par education, we didn't have paper in the schools to receive handouts and we we're going in debt. Where was our money going? My city has some of the highest STD rates, we had one of the highest homocide rates a year or two ago. I have my problems that I'd like to see addressed.

IF HE WONT ADDRESS THE BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED WHAT SHOULD MAKE ME THINK HE WILL AFTERWARDS?

Well Chris I think that you need to get out and find a local official that will do something about these things. I luckily live in a very rural area so we do not have the same issues that you have. But that does not mean that America does not care about things that do not directly effect them. President Bush gave the largest increase to Education in a very long time. How it is broken down is unforunately left to localities. I hope that he does some work to help in your area. If he doesn't write a letter. Write a bunch of letters. Regardless of what people say politicains listen to this stuff. They know who they owe their livelyhood to.

Niki,
I want the press to hold bush accountable for his policies, not try to expose his "faults" as a man or a leader. They have not done that. In the wake of 9/11, the press essentially laid down at the feet of the White House. Not ALL press has given him a free ride, but being that the Congress, White House, and the Judiciary are all in the hands of the same party, it will be MORE important that the press step up to it's job of keeping our government in check.

BTW Niki, WV is quite rural and religious, and Bush won it in 2000. His strategy, as enunciated by his "chief strategist" Carl Rove, was to play to his base of support.

I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary here. It's all out there to be seen, though you may not see it on Fox News.

Seems to me the object of an election is to get the most people to vote for you. Kerry played to his base to get everyone to come to the polls. Why is it wrong for the president to do the same. President Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. 37% of registered Republicans voted Tuesday, and 37% of registered Democrats voted Tuesday.

As far as the media, everytime I watch the news, I see negative coverage of the war in Iraq. I see false documents aired as news on CBS about the President's military service. What I didn't see is any coverage of Kerry's voting record on intelligence or defense, unless the President or Vice President said something about it.

JansenFan wrote:Seems to me the object of an election is to get the most people to vote for you. Kerry played to his base to get everyone to come to the polls. Why is it wrong for the president to do the same. President Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. 37% of registered Republicans voted Tuesday, and 37% of registered Democrats voted Tuesday.

As far as the media, everytime I watch the news, I see negative coverage of the war in Iraq. I see false documents aired as news on CBS about the President's military service. What I didn't see is any coverage of Kerry's voting record on intelligence or defense, unless the President or Vice President said something about it.

The press didn't run with the accusations about Kerry's voting record that Bush and Cheney made because they were false. But, that's besides the point.

The point is, that generally, candidates have to move to the middle to get voters. It is worrying to think that candidates will be able to gain election by moving to the right or left. Kerry ran as a moderate (in fact, his record is quite moderate, unless you believe the false GOP talking points), despite the Bushes success in painting him as some kind of extreme liberal. And Bush ran as a moderate for his first term, though he did not govern that way. The point is, I don't want to see things develop to the point of having a socialist running against a communist, rather than two middle-of-the-road candidates. I don't think our government can do it's job if the parties move farther apart. There has to be some overlap, som middle ground.

Cville (just over the hill from me, by the way)You say Bush ran as a "centrist" but then didn't govern like that...look at the facts! What do you call Education reform (and I remind you, that was legislation he worked with Teddy Kennedy on), Prescription drug coverage for Seniors (this is something Dem's campaigned on for 50 years but NEVER got done!!!), being the ONLY President to ever fund Stem Cell Research (despite what the Breck Boy, John Edwards, tries to tell you), just to name a few.

Further, the media is consumed with liberals. Rather, Jennings, CNN, MSNBC...i could go on and on. So don't blame FoxNews simply for their more conservative viewpoint (yes, I'll give you that FoxNews is slanted to the right...just as I implore you to admit that all the others are slanted to the left -- read Bernard Goldbergs book, BIAS, if you don't believe me). The media blamed Bush for EVERYTHING!!! How can you say that aren't holding him accountable? CBS even had to use some fake documents to try to hold him "accountable"...the media, as a whole, is Liberal! Check out websites such as www.mediaresearch.org, www.ratherbiased.com, etc. There's a whole inventory of left-wing slant in there.

No, Bush didn't speak to the NAACP, which should be renamed the NAALCP...the L standing for liberal. They are not an unbiased entity. They are beholden to left-wing interests. Bush did speak to the National Urban League, the Unity Journalists of Color and many more. Further, he has increased financial funding for fighting Aids in Africa, increased SBA assistance for black-owned businesses, created educational assistance for blacks via the No Child Left Behind Act, and has increased assistance to traditionally black universities. He's got a record to stand on with Black voters...and that message got out (I know because I work closely with the methods that he utilized), he just chose not to use BET or NAACP. Don't confuse that with giving up that segment to Kerry. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican Party is making sound inroads with African-Americans because the democratic party has lost touch with them.

People are going to believe what they want to believe...but, don't discount those more centrist legislation...and he would have done more. But, I remind you that, some Arab Terrorists flew some planes into our buildings. That dramatically changed his entire agenda. I'm amazed he got as much done as he did considering the circumstances. The American people have given Bush a resounding victory....in part, I believe, because the know that he got dealt a crappy set of cards and did the best he could. I predict you'll see his popularity escalate significantly in the next 4 years.

Bush governed in the middle until September 11. The No Child Left Behind Act is proof of that. Since 9/11, he has been pre-occupied with foriegn policy which is a standard difference between Republicans and Democrats. He was well known in TX as governor for getting things done with bipartisan support and I think he would like to again.

Also, Republicans not only won the presidency, but also gained seats on both sides of congress, including the Tom Daschle, the first senate party leader to be ousted in 52 years. The Democratic Party is in trouble, not the Republican Party.

Yes, to unite this country, it will take work both by the Republicans and the Democrats, but since this election was an overwhelming victory for Republicans across the board, its says that the majority of Americans, (the first outright majority since 1988), identify with the beliefs of the Republican party, so I would think that you will see more compromise by the Democrats in an effort to bring THEIR party closer to the center.

As far as the whole talking points, blah blah blah, not even going there. The election is over, Bush v Kerry is over and as far as I am concerned, the difference between the two is moot.

cvillehog wrote:

Texas Hog wrote:"Let's hope that the media does a better job of holding him accountable in this term, though I doubt it."

Hilarious!

Do you have something substantive to say? Do you have examples of where the media has held Bush accountable in the past 4 years?

The media has done nothing other than try and hold Bush accountable for every "mistake" associated with the war, the economy or domestic issues for the past four years. That's my opinion, like it or not. I don't have time to research examples to try and justify my opinion. If you don't like, tough.

Here you go... http://www.cnn.com

Search for President Bush and read every single story that comes up. That should be enough proof for you.

thanks JF

JansenFan wrote:Here you go... http://www.cnn.com

Search for President Bush and read every single story that comes up. That should be enough proof for you.

There's a reason it's called the "Clinton News Network"

Someone give me one example of where the "liberal" media has held the Bushes accountable on a matter of policy?

Attacking his Vietnam-era record is not holding him accountable, I don't care what you say.

Bush has been the most divisive president this country has ever had.

His policies are heavily based in right-wing ideology. He has made no effort to govern openly and honestly, or to be a "uniter not a divider" as he claimed he would be.

Let's not forget that more than 55 million Americans voted against Bush. That is no small number, and they were not all in NYC and LA.

An example of Bush's leadership style, is that he has decided he has a mandate for Tax reform and privatizing Social Security, but he ran for reelection on the war on Terror.

Kerry is out of the picture.

Bush clearly won.

But, that doesn't mean we need to drop all scepticism and let him and the other Republican leadership govern and legislate unchecked.

The media is not without it's problems, and it may or may not be liberally biased (there are just as many sources pointing to the opposite of all those sources you all have pointed out, but I will leave them to you to find), however supposed liberal bias is not the problem here. The problem is that the media is more concerned with ratings than contributing to the greater good. They would rather report on death and distruction than anything else.

cvillehog wrote:Bush has been the most divisive president this country has ever had.

Lincoln was pretty divisive, too. Does that, automatically make him wrong!!! Of course not. History will treat GW Bush well...just as it has done Reagan well...and, of course, Lincoln

DieselFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:Bush has been the most divisive president this country has ever had.

Lincoln was pretty divisive, too. Does that, automatically make him wrong!!! Of course not. History will treat GW Bush well...just as it has done Reagan well...and, of course, Lincoln

Excuse me? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

cvillehog wrote:

DieselFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:Bush has been the most divisive president this country has ever had.

Lincoln was pretty divisive, too. Does that, automatically make him wrong!!! Of course not. History will treat GW Bush well...just as it has done Reagan well...and, of course, Lincoln

Excuse me? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Based upon that question, I'm wondering the same thing about you. What do you not understand?

Watch the personal attacks or take it to smack.

Texas Hog wrote:Watch the personal attacks or take it to smack.

Sorry...I'm genuinely wondering what he doesn't understand about my comment. Cville? Did you read it wrong or did I not communicate correctly what I was trying to say?

No apolgies necessary

DieselFan wrote:

Texas Hog wrote:Watch the personal attacks or take it to smack.

Sorry...I'm genuinely wondering what he doesn't understand about my comment. Cville? Did you read it wrong or did I not communicate correctly what I was trying to say?

I'm sorry as well. It was not meant as an attack.

Diesel,
Starting on 9/11 the president had the almost unanimous support of all Americans, and in fact the entire non-terrorist world, and in short order, turned that around into an even more deeply devided country than when he was sworn in as president.

Lincoln is remembered as a great by history for the speeches he gave, the stand he took for the rights of all men, and also he was assasinated, which gets him some sympathy I'm sure.

Whose rights is Bush standing up for? Certainly not yours or mine. We can argue over whether his policies are keeping us safe or not in the long and near term, but certainly he hasn't done anything to expand our rights and freedoms.

Lincoln's time was a very divisive time in this country, but that is not to say the man himself was divisive. Bush on the other hand, right or wrong, took the greatest unity this country has had in my lifetime and turned it into what we have today.

OK...I (sort of) see your point. My point was that Lincoln took tough stands on tough issues. Those stands were so unpopular that Civil War broke out. Do we then blame Lincoln for the war. Of course not, we praise Lincoln for taking the tough stands and for quelling the rebellion. Certainly Lincoln was not revered in the Southern States before or AFTER the War. Yet, history has smiled upon him because, in retrospect, he did the right thing.

Similarly (now I'm NOT comparing the greatest of Lincoln to the greatness of Bush...please don't get me wrong), Bush has taken tough stands on tough issues. Those stands have been unpopular with 1/2 the country.

It happens. But I genuinely feel he did what he thought was right. Should he have compromised his beliefs to ensure that he would appeal to a greater portion of the country? When it comes to ensuring the safety and protection of the United States...that answer should always be an emphatic NO...

Yes, I realize that no WMD's have been found. But, at the time he made the decision, the intelligence (the same intelligence that prompted John Kerry to say the Iraq was a great threat) said otherwise.

I do see your point, and it certainly remains to be seen how G.W.Bush will be remember.

It seems to me that most, if not all, presidents are remembered fondly by history for their roles in making this country what it is, regardless of how they were percieved at the time.

It wasn't so long ago that "Reagan" was used as a dirty word by some, yet most of that sentiment has eroded and he is seen for his good actions.

You are right that it's likely Bush will be remembered fondly as well, however there is no way to tell when that time will come.

However, the greater man will be the one who manages to clean up the fiscal mess that he is creating with his uncontrolled spending and deep tax cuts, which is going to put a great deal of preasure on the bond market and eventually the enconomy in general.

I named my daughter Reagan...that's how much I admired the man (and also gives you an indication of which side of the fence I stand on). But I'll be the first to say that Bush is no Reagan. I wish he was...but, as of yet, he falls well short of the standard Reagan set. It's not his fault, per se...it's just that the bar (in my mind, at least) was set so high, that few will be able to achieve what he was able to achieve...and communicate it in the manner that he was able to (no one is ever...EVER going to compare the communication skills of Reagan with those of Bush and say that they were on par with each other).

The tax issue and the deficit issue I would disagree with you on. However, It's one of those issues where I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of the debate...basically i've come to the conclusion that intelligent people can have differing views.