August 15, 2004
The left is officially on crack
Headline: Bush accused of exploiting hurricane in Florida as he offers aid to disaster area
Technorati Tags:
When has a President not gone to inspect a large disaster area?
However, if it makes the Kerry Krowd nervous that’s great. Kerry’s Billionaire Buddies will have to pour another $12 million into Florida to buy more votes.
Posted by: Jake at August 15, 2004 09:02 PMdid you even read the article? it's rather mundane. a sensational headline from a UK newspaper about American presidential politics hardly qualifies as something to get excited about.
Posted by: asphnxma at August 15, 2004 11:06 PMAsphnxma, so then what do you make of this in the NEW YORK Newsday (first sentence 'Once Hurricane Charley is gone from Florida, it's a safe bet President Bush will sweep in.'):
Officials are loath to ascribe campaign motives to emergency response, but politics infuses everything this close to an election. No more so than in the state that handed Bush the presidency.
"This provides both opportunities and real dangers for the president," said Dario Moreno, a Florida International University political scientist who was safe from the storm in Miami.
Presidents are measured by the aid and sympathy that follow a big hit from nature, and Moreno said Bush stands to gain as long as he treats the emergency as more than a chance to roll up his sleeves and clear a bit of rubble for the cameras.
I was waiting for this Karol, thanks for keeping me informed
Are you freaking KIDDING ME!? Any president would go in and inspect the damage...he does that. It is HIS JOB.....and expected of him. I can't believe that people are saying that.
Posted by: Courtney at August 16, 2004 09:39 AMI liked how all the "Charley" headlines sounded like Vietnam references.
Posted by: Stephen Silver at August 16, 2004 10:11 AMso wait, you're telling me that you DON'T think that his advisers are trying to figure out the best light in which to put his trip to florida in the hopes of garnering a few extra votes in november? I can't believe you'd be that naive.
to be honest, I'm not sure why "the left is on crack" simply because some liberal newspapers have quoted political analysts as saying that there's the chance for the president to score a few points here. it's not as if they're claiming it's the SOLE reason he's there, just that, at this point in the race, EVERYTHING becomes an opportunity for him to gain (or lose) points. you can bet his advisers know that and are advising him accordingly. I would.
Posted by: asphnxma at August 16, 2004 10:47 AMAsphnxma, so which is it? The newspapers are playing up the political angle of it or they aren't? Your comments contradict each other.
Posted by: Karol at August 16, 2004 11:01 AMPoliticians politicize things, and the advisers try to make their candidates look good, no matter what the situation. I'm way beyond getting upset with either side about such things.
Posted by: Stephen Silver at August 16, 2004 12:03 PMBush and his minions at NASA created Hurricane Charlie! This gives him an excuse to write his brother a blank check instead of educating blacks. It'll also get his white Christian ass all over the media there in violation of McCain Feingold!
Posted by: Zizz at August 16, 2004 12:07 PMthey don't contradict each other at all. let me make it clear.
1. the articles are rather mundane. the newspapers get quotes from a few political analysts saying "here's a chance for the prez to score a few points." the headline is sensationalized, I admit, but that's about it. that was the thrust of comment number one -- that you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill vis a vis the headline. after all, the article does not claim that his sole reason for going to Florida is to score political points (neither does the daily news article), but it seems to me that's the impression you're trying to give to your readers.
2. comment number two, on the other hand, states that the president's advisers would be fools NOT to think about how his trip to a battleground state during an election race would impact on his image there. comment number two is not about the newspaper articles at all.
my problem with this entry in your blog is that you buy into the sensationalism of the headline hook, line and sinker without actually giving any indication that the story behind the headline (or the story in the daily news article) is simply stating a political reality.
as a further thought, though, if you really want to debate the merits of covering this angle of the president's trip to florida, in an election year, wouldn't it be remiss of the media NOT to reflect upon how this trip could impact the president's re-election campaign? certainly, the media has covered the political fallout of kerry's decisions 1) not to visit florida and 2) to direct his campaign to suspend campaign efforts and aid in the recovery process. this is the flip side of the coin, in a way.
Posted by: asphnxma at August 16, 2004 12:34 PMAsphnxma,
Most people don't read beyond the headlines. It isn't me trying to create a false impression, it's the Kerry press office, I mean uh, the media.
If Bush wasn't all over the Florida hurricane, he would be dismissed as out of touch. Sometimes no story is needed. This is one of those times.
Posted by: Karol at August 16, 2004 01:11 PMBut there is good news in this article - the liberal press reports that Bush won Florida!
"...Charley may end up helping him recover support in a state which he snatched from Al Gore in 2000 by just 537 votes."
Oh - that's right... the press has been reporting that all along:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
Posted by: michael parker at August 16, 2004 04:27 PMInkjet Cartridges - Inkjet Cartridge
Posted by: Inkjet Cartridges at October 18, 2004 06:43 AM


