Democratic strategist James Carville upset about oil spill; White House pushes back

Damocles said:
Silly ad homs, again your post is just rich with irony.
Click to expand...

Eh, maybe - but at least I'm not just making stuff up.

I think it's ironic on a thread where the OP has already posted links to a story about Carville slamming the admin & a story about how Obama's coolness is too cold (from MSNBC, no less) that you're still trying to peddle a trite theory about the media's kid gloves treatment of Obama.
 
Onceler said:
Eh, maybe - but at least I'm not just making stuff up.

I think it's ironic on a thread where the OP has already posted links to a story about Carville slamming the admin & a story about how Obama's coolness is too cold (from MSNBC, no less) that you're still trying to peddle a trite theory about the media's kid gloves treatment of Obama.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are just making crap up. You insist that, regardless of examples of stories, your memory is somehow "proof" of something. Ironically while telling me that my "memory" is jacked.
 
Damocles said:
Sad ad homs, again your post is just rich with irony.

The media talk was about the Bush Administrations mishandling of the cleanup with pictures of suffering birdies. You don't like that I am right so you stoop to this pretense. Saying, "It simply wasn't" when I point to direct examples of stories is just sad insistence without any evidence.

You accuse me of only what you see in yourself, I think it is because you believe that everybody reacts to everything exactly as you would. You're wrong.

Shoot even just "some" stories at all 14 days into it about how he wasn't "doing enough" was far more than what we've seen here for this Ad Ministration.
Click to expand...

Um, there are certainly stories criticizing the admin & saying they are not doing enough, Damo. Want me to post some?

Your characterization was of Bush as the main focus of criticism - "bad Bush" every day. That wasn't how it was, and most of the posters here know it.

Save your pet psychology theories. Exxon Valdez was not about Bush, and never was. Again, I think you're attempt to portray it that way is embarassing.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, you are just making crap up. You insist that, regardless of examples of stories, your memory is somehow "proof" of something. Ironically while telling me that my "memory" is jacked.
Click to expand...

Damo - your 'examples' are pathetic. First, there are no links. Second, even if there were, they do not back up your characterization one iota, and you know it.

You were shooting from the hip, and someone called you on it. Sorry 'bout that.
 
The media coverage was so thick that Bush (who ran as an environmentalist) went from 61% approval on his handling of the environment to 39% approval in just 20 days, 60 days into his Presidency he dropped over 20 points in that area, he was pounded by the media because he just wasn't "doing enough" to clean up the spill. (20 days after the spill, that's still less time than now...)

Onceler's evidence? Well, it's his insistence that my memory is "jacked".
 
If the media coverage was "so thick," I would love to see some links. I'm doing some searches, and every thing that comes up backs up what I am saying: the blame was for the captain, his superiors and Exxon.

You're full of it.
 
Onceler said:
If the media coverage was "so thick," I would love to see some links. I'm doing some searches, and every thing that comes up backs up what I am saying: the blame was for the captain, his superiors and Exxon.

You're full of it.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Onceler said:
Well, when you realize you're wrong, it's always best to start in w/ the personal attacks.

Seriously - I railed against Bush Sr. for everything during his 4-year tenure, but not for Exxon Valdez. The media focus at that time was the drunk captain, and the lax rules by his superiors to allow it to happen, and the characterization of the cleanup as "fantastic" by Exxon. There was no "bad Bush" every day. That's just BS.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, 100% correct. Bush didn't even visit the area, for God's sake. It was all about Exxon's practices, Hazelwood and his lax command of the ship, the seamen not having their mandatory off-duty time, the radar blunders and the entire comedy of errors that led to the spill.
 
Onceler said:
If the media coverage was "so thick," I would love to see some links. I'm doing some searches, and every thing that comes up backs up what I am saying: the blame was for the captain, his superiors and Exxon.

You're full of it.
Click to expand...

LOL, so true. I've been googling this for several weeks now and the only thing I found was the quote about the superfund. I watched this situation unfold at the time and it's patently false that Bush was constantly harangued over his response to the spill.
 
Onceler said:
Meanwhile, here are some examples of the kid gloves treatment Obama is getting, according to Damo (with actual links provided):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../05/28/AR2010052801331.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/science/earth/20noaa.html

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/is-it-obamas-oil-spill-now/

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/is-it-obamas-oil-spill-now/
Click to expand...
Right, again, the point was:

1. The Exxon/Valdez happened 3/24, about 40 days after Bush took office, yet in just 14 days later Jennings was all "took long enough"...
2. 14 days is much shorter than, how many are we at yet?

I mentioned that they (the press) are finally getting into it, so pointing out that they are finally getting into it now doesn't really make you right, it underlines what I said. They seem to reluctantly wading into this story, while they jumped in eagerly with Bush.

Another huge difference, it was impossible to even get to the spill in Prince William Sound except by boat or helicopter, this one... Not so much.
 
Damocles said:
Right, again, the point was:

1. The Exxon/Valdez happened 3/24, about 40 days after Bush took office, yet in just 14 days later Jennings was all "took long enough"...
2. 14 days is much shorter than, how many are we at yet?

I mentioned that they are finally getting into it, so pointing out that they are finally getting into it now doesn't really make you right, it underlines what I said.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, actually.

A) I provided links
B) You said it was "bad Bush every day", and characterized a media that was ALL OVER the Bush admin. And all you have is Jennings saying "too little, too late?"

Really?
 
christiefan915 said:
LOL, so true. I've been googling this for several weeks now and the only thing I found was the quote about the superfund. I watched this situation unfold at the time and it's patently false that Bush was constantly harangued over his response to the spill.
Click to expand...
Much of that is because the stories weren't published on the web back then. Hopefully somebody in competing media will release them again in a compilation. It would help.
 
Onceler said:
No, it doesn't, actually.

A) I provided links
B) You said it was "bad Bush every day", and characterized a media that was ALL OVER the Bush admin. And all you have is Jennings saying "too little, too late?"

Really?
Click to expand...
Again, your links are much later than the whole 14 days before Jennings was on Bush. And it was the Seattle Times that was "too little, too late" and that was on day 15...
 
What we're seeing with Damo is the typical hyperbolic memory displayed by many conservatives over the Bush years. Yes, Presidents get criticized (and trust me - they all do). But once Bush was out of office for a day, the characterizations went to the extreme.

There is no better example than the Iraq war. Rightie posters on here consistently portray a media that held a daily body count, with daily pictures of coffins and massive headlines about disasters regarding the war & fatalities. While some of that was true in the first few years of the war, it is a complete fabrication for the last part of Bush's term.
 
Damocles said:
Much of that is because the stories weren't published on the web back then. Hopefully somebody in competing media will release them again in a compilation. It would help.
Click to expand...

I found articles from back then; again - blaming Exxon, blaming the captain, blaming his superiors.

And that was when I was specifically trying to find something on Bush.
 
Onceler said:
What we're seeing with Damo is the typical hyperbolic memory displayed by many conservatives over the Bush years. Yes, Presidents get criticized (and trust me - they all do). But once Bush was out of office for a day, the characterizations went to the extreme.

There is no better example than the Iraq war. Rightie posters on here consistently portray a media that held a daily body count, with daily pictures of coffins and massive headlines about disasters regarding the war & fatalities. While some of that was true in the first few years of the war, it is a complete fabrication for the last part of Bush's term.
Click to expand...
What we are seeing from Onceler is a typical dismissal, which will later be conveniently "forgotten" by him after the old stories are brought out again in a comparison video released by a competing media outlet.

The rich irony will be lost on him, as it always is as he tries to compare something that happened 40 days into one Presidency and the serious criticism of the President at that time to something that happened 1.5 years into a Presidency with stories written (IMO reluctantly) more than a month later...

The discrepancy in the response (over 30 days compared to 14 days) underlines my point.

I thank you Onceler for helping, again ironically, to prove my point.
 
Damo, just so's you know, your "14 days" characterization is meaningless without any links.

What...did Jennings make that comment after 14 days? I'm pretty sure I can find a comment about Obama 14 days into BP, as well.

A comment does not = "bad Bush" every day. What a strange characterization of that event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top