T Nation

GOP Convention Update!

I just got this in my e-mail:

Because of Gustav, Bush and Cheney will not be attending the convention.

Good of Bad?

A wash?

There is talk of rescheduling the Convention.

What do you guys think? (I would have to lean toward it being a “bad” idea in the sense the “'ole momentum” is there with the Palin announcement; “good” in that the GOP would not want to be painted as “indifferent” to people in the Keys and on The Gulf).

What do you guys think?


McCain asked them not to come




They Quoted McCain in today�??s paper as saying the first day you have to be polite to Bush and Cheney then don�??t let the door hit you. And I have heard Bush say he will do what ever he needs to do to see McCain elected. I think it is more than likely considering the economy

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I doubt if Mccain asked them not to come, but this is a happy accident. He can avoid having every news organization in the country with endless footage and life size posters of He and Bush together while using a plausible unrelated event as the reason.

For the record, I’m no fan of GWB, but I can’t think of another POTUS in modern times that has been unfairly blamed for more shit than he has.

Nixon was no worse in any way (other than foul language used in private) than Clinton, but sure got different press.

There were analyses done on bias in the news even back in early 60s, and the findings back then were that negative-tilted reporting on Nixon exceeded neutral or positive-sounding by some vast ratio.

Not that covering up (or trying to) the illegal actions of his underlings was a good or legal idea, but exactly what Democrat President wouldn’t have done or actually did do the same in their careers, I don’t know.

You had to have lived through the Watergate era to understand how extreme the media effort was to demonize and destroy Nixon. The prime example I recall was a family I boarded with listened to country music, and the DJ – now this is a music station, not a news or talk radio station – would break down in tears about how the country was being betrayed and could we ever survive this, this was the darkest moment America had ever faced, and so on. Just sobbing away.

(And yeah, I absolutely think the purpose and intended effect of the DJ’s posturing was to affect public opinion to desired political effect as much as he and his station could.)

At least with Bush, you can listen to a music station and probably not deal with propaganda like that. The DJ might well personally hate him, but wouldn’t do this.

Reagan also got extreme bad treatment.

Ford got quite unfairly treated. He was probably among the most athletic men ever to occupy the White House, but the media devoted enormous effort to portray him as a hopeless klutz. (If any of us were near-constantly filmed in public, there would be film of us bumping our heads or tripping too, and I’d bet dollars to donuts Clinton for example bumped his head or tripped more than once, yet somehow – go figure! – the media made no efforts to portray him as a klutz.)

Or for example, on Ford deciding not to taxpayer money from the rest of the country to give NYC a with-time-proven-unneeded bailout, created a gigantic frontpage headline reading FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.

And caused most New Yorkers to believe that Ford actually said this when of course he did not.

It did seem to me that GHW Bush was not badly treated by the media. On the other hand, he pretty much might as well have been a Democrat, so maybe that explains that.

I was pretty young, but I do remember watching Nixon’s resignation address live on TV and knowing only that it was important.

What Nixon did was the exact same thing Clinton did and in fact on one level wasn’t as bad because Clinton lied about his own actions. Nixon had no idea what was going on until after it was done and was trapped between stooling on people who risked their professional lives for him (and the cause, McGovern was the Obama of the day) or covering it up and lying. I can’t imagine being in that position. He made the illegal of the 2 choices, but either one would have damaged his presidency.

With GWB though, it’s everything. Oil prices, hurricanes, the economy (which is actually not even that bad), lost jobs, the destruction of the planet on and on. His approval rating is low with me because he spends like a Liberal, not because of the war or most the other things that are cited as his failings.

For sheer public perception Mccain has to keep his distance from Bush and this hurricane of all things may actually help him do that better than he could,ve done by himself at least in context of the convention.

How badly do you guys think that the momentum created by the Palin announcement will be affected?


The “Liberal Media Conspiracy” has always been a far-fetched argument that I’ve never brought into, but obviously many believe. Maybe I choose to not look at the “facts”; but like most conspiracies, facts are often skewed to support the underlying argument.

What is NOT in dispute is that a Presidency can have the misfortune (or fortune) of occuring at a time of economic downturn or up-tick.

As the economy goes, so does the Presidency.

And if there was one lesson learned in Vietnam, its that protracted modern Wars will doom a Presidency. We simply don’t want to see our Sons and Daughters coming home in Flag draped coffins.

GWB had the misfortune of being the President during both an economic downturn AND a protacted, modern War.


[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How badly do you guys think that the momentum created by the Palin announcement will be affected?


I’m not even sure how much momentum has been created yet. She isn’t even known by almost anybody at this point. Except the wonks who’s mind it wouldn’t have changed one way or the other.

On your other post. Conspiracy probably isn’t the right term, but it is just undeniable that the media is largely waaaay to the left and campaigns for Democrats and against republicans every election cycle.

NBC announced the Palin pick by asking how many houses she would add to the campaign.

Obama had an absolute army of major “news” personnel tattooed to him on that trip to Europe and the middle east and the fact that he did or said nothing of profound significance didn’t stop them from from reporting it as if he had finally cast down all doubt that he was the exalted savior of the globe.

I sure hope that I don’t sound like a broken record; but its pretty obvious that the Palin choice “Awakened a sleeping Giant and filled them with a terrible resolve…” (using a "Tora! Tora! Tora! reference!) i.e. the Christian/Evangelical right.

Now I agree; these were people that in NO WAY would have voted for Obama anyway; but when they are fired-up and mobilized, they are a force to be reckoned with.


[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The “Liberal Media Conspiracy” has always been a far-fetched argument that I’ve never brought into, but obviously many believe. Maybe I choose to not look at the “facts”; but like most conspiracies, facts are often skewed to support the underlying argument.

Agreed. I think the media has a liberal bias, but it is not due to any conspiracy or organized effort. I think, much like academia, conservatives have largely stayed away from mainstream media.

Ignore the crappy opener, good article on conservatism needing journalists more than activists:

Misfortune? Economy maybe, but Iraq was his war, and a war of choice. You can argue (or attempt to argue) that it was a good choice, but it was definitely a choice. Misfortune had nothing to do with it. Quite the contrary. 9/11 provided the justification for attacking Iraq.

“Misfortune” may have been a bad choice of words.