100 Days of Bush
April 26, 2001 4:52 PM Subscribe
100 Days of Bush The DNC gets their digs in. I especially liked the Harper's like index. Their commercials section doesn't seem to be active yet - but there's some political ads here
Look at me, dad. I'm a president too. Thanks, Jeb. Drill we must.
posted by Postroad at 5:21 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by Postroad at 5:21 PM on April 26, 2001
owillis, be careful with that url. Here's the corrected link.
posted by dhartung at 6:03 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by dhartung at 6:03 PM on April 26, 2001
Here's the RNC's official response:
Statement by Co-Chair Ann Wagner on Democrat Attack Ads
WASHINGTON - Ann Wagner, Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee, today issued the following statement regarding recently issued attack ads on the President.
"It is truly disappointing to see certain leaders of the Democratic Party take this milestone as an opportunity to launch rhetorical attacks on the President for their own political gain.
"The reality of the last hundred days has been President Bush's focused leadership and a respectful, bipartisan change in tone that Washington hasn't seen in many years. Americans want President Bush to continue working with members from both sides of the aisle in Congress to improve education, strengthen Medicare, protect the environment, and lower taxes.
"The American people would be better served if the misguided leadership of the Democratic Party were to lower the destructive rhetoric that drives people apart and engage more constructively in the process," said Ann Wagner, Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee.
posted by Witold at 6:51 PM on April 26, 2001
Statement by Co-Chair Ann Wagner on Democrat Attack Ads
WASHINGTON - Ann Wagner, Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee, today issued the following statement regarding recently issued attack ads on the President.
"It is truly disappointing to see certain leaders of the Democratic Party take this milestone as an opportunity to launch rhetorical attacks on the President for their own political gain.
"The reality of the last hundred days has been President Bush's focused leadership and a respectful, bipartisan change in tone that Washington hasn't seen in many years. Americans want President Bush to continue working with members from both sides of the aisle in Congress to improve education, strengthen Medicare, protect the environment, and lower taxes.
"The American people would be better served if the misguided leadership of the Democratic Party were to lower the destructive rhetoric that drives people apart and engage more constructively in the process," said Ann Wagner, Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee.
posted by Witold at 6:51 PM on April 26, 2001
Man am I tired of hearing the phrase "the American people."
posted by muta at 7:09 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by muta at 7:09 PM on April 26, 2001
there is no American people. There are 280 million indivduals, from different states and different counties, with different accents and different voting systems and a little more than half of them did not vote, and a little more than half of those who did vote didn't get the guy in the office they voted for...
.oh heck, its easier to say the American people.
posted by brucec at 7:29 PM on April 26, 2001
.oh heck, its easier to say the American people.
posted by brucec at 7:29 PM on April 26, 2001
As much as I dislike President George Bush the Second, I don't think it's fair to imply that the current economic slowdown is his fault, as the DNC does here.
posted by waxpancake at 8:12 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by waxpancake at 8:12 PM on April 26, 2001
Perhaps you can't blame Bush for the slowdown per se, but there's plenty of pure evil to blame him for arctic drilling, dropping the tobacco lawsuit, lifting the arsenic limitations, dumping any hope of CO2 limitations... I could go on, but it's all been linked here many times over.
posted by shagoth at 8:23 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by shagoth at 8:23 PM on April 26, 2001
Even I don't blame him for the slowdown. I do blame him for being a crappy, right wing, bought and paid for troll.
posted by owillis at 8:33 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by owillis at 8:33 PM on April 26, 2001
A reality check on Bush's environmental policies. Pure evil? Only to a pure Democrat.
Oh, and the new arsenic rules will probably kill more people than if there were no change. And will probably cost more than if they'd just give bottled water to those at actual risk. But hey, what's a little extra death and expense? The important thing is making Bush look bad, right?
posted by aaron at 8:54 PM on April 26, 2001
A quote from the "reality check" link aaron provided:
"With the exception of oil exploration in Alaska, so far there are no meaningful differences between Bush's environmental goals and those of Clinton and Gore."
Yeah, but for those (many!) of us who despised Clinton and Gore for their neo-"liberal", Republicrat ways, this isn't a ringing endorsement. And I dunno, it seems like oil exploration in Alaska is a pretty big exception.
I don't think Bush is the devil incarnate. I don't think he's legit and I rolled my eyes over his cabinet choices, but I have little confidence that Gore would have been significantly better. Hence my vote for Nader in 2000. I just wanna point out that a significant number of those of us who criticize Bush on MeFi were just as vocally opposed to the same lame-ass corporate-kowtowing political stances when Clinton took them, too.
posted by Zettai at 9:22 PM on April 26, 2001
"With the exception of oil exploration in Alaska, so far there are no meaningful differences between Bush's environmental goals and those of Clinton and Gore."
Yeah, but for those (many!) of us who despised Clinton and Gore for their neo-"liberal", Republicrat ways, this isn't a ringing endorsement. And I dunno, it seems like oil exploration in Alaska is a pretty big exception.
I don't think Bush is the devil incarnate. I don't think he's legit and I rolled my eyes over his cabinet choices, but I have little confidence that Gore would have been significantly better. Hence my vote for Nader in 2000. I just wanna point out that a significant number of those of us who criticize Bush on MeFi were just as vocally opposed to the same lame-ass corporate-kowtowing political stances when Clinton took them, too.
posted by Zettai at 9:22 PM on April 26, 2001
With the exception of oil exploration in Alaska
I like how that's reduced to a line item on the bottom of the article.
My problems with Bush are:
- attempted rollback of abortion rights
- allowance of further mergers in the telecom sector
- cowtowing to china on one hand
- stepping up the rhetoric on the other hand
- ignoring the problems of a state because they didn't vote for him
- attempted violation of separation of church and state
Oh, and here's a new one: ordering military action without knowing what the hell he was doing
posted by owillis at 9:25 PM on April 26, 2001
I like how that's reduced to a line item on the bottom of the article.
My problems with Bush are:
- attempted rollback of abortion rights
- allowance of further mergers in the telecom sector
- cowtowing to china on one hand
- stepping up the rhetoric on the other hand
- ignoring the problems of a state because they didn't vote for him
- attempted violation of separation of church and state
Oh, and here's a new one: ordering military action without knowing what the hell he was doing
posted by owillis at 9:25 PM on April 26, 2001
Good linking aaron.
Bush's strict new diesel rules will spare many lives and reduce urban haze; in fact, they represent the most important anti-air-pollution advance in a decade. The reform will also cost billions of dollars, and it came over the howls of the petroleum industry, whose pocket Bush supposedly is in.
posted by tiaka at 9:40 PM on April 26, 2001
Bush's strict new diesel rules will spare many lives and reduce urban haze; in fact, they represent the most important anti-air-pollution advance in a decade. The reform will also cost billions of dollars, and it came over the howls of the petroleum industry, whose pocket Bush supposedly is in.
posted by tiaka at 9:40 PM on April 26, 2001
What I find amusing and depressing, as an interested non-American, having watched with ever-increasing dismay the succession of Presidential fools and scumbags tramping through the White House in the last 20 years (the roll call of evil : Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) is how quick everyone seems to focus on the latest outrage perpetrated by the latest scoundrel who's managed to lie, steal and cheat his way to the Top Banana position. Nothing will ever get better by focussing on the individual and his or her deeds or misdeeds - it's the rot at the very core of the system that needs fixing. 'Course it's a whole helluva lot easier to just say
(all together now!)
Bush SUCKS
(as he well and truly does)
...but it's a waste of time and energy, really, no matter how good it makes us feel. Those who forget history yadda yadda...
Thus endeth the lesson.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:30 PM on April 26, 2001
(all together now!)
Bush SUCKS
(as he well and truly does)
...but it's a waste of time and energy, really, no matter how good it makes us feel. Those who forget history yadda yadda...
Thus endeth the lesson.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:30 PM on April 26, 2001
Merci, tiaka.
Zettai: I'm not claiming that every single think Bush does is sacred, fun though it would be; there's plenty of room for rational discussions of the policies and actions. What's annoying is the never-ending hyperbole and name-calling ('pure evil'?!), combined with wild accusations that often turn out to be somewhere between slanted and outright false. (You're not personally one of those doing such things.)
posted by aaron at 11:33 PM on April 26, 2001
stavros: while not perfect, the last Top Banana was/is much better than the current Banana Split
posted by owillis at 11:43 PM on April 26, 2001
posted by owillis at 11:43 PM on April 26, 2001
The thing that gets me is how the same people who criticize those who are currently criticizing Bush never even gave the last president a chance. They spent the last eight years (and then some) bashing Clinton, and now they expect us to play nice towards Bush, especially after the questionable turnout of the election? I'm not one for revenge, and I even tried to tell myself, "It won't be as bad as you think." But the minute he re-established the global gag order, I realized that yes, it was, is, and will be as bad as I thought!
posted by lannie628 at 12:31 AM on April 27, 2001
posted by lannie628 at 12:31 AM on April 27, 2001
I didn't bash Clinton. There were a few actions and decisions I question but all and all I thought he was a pretty good Republican.
posted by Mick at 5:20 AM on April 27, 2001
posted by Mick at 5:20 AM on April 27, 2001
owillis - nice links. You missed Bush raising the tension with China with his most recent speech. When Jesse Helms was asked where this current set of issues with China might end, Helms response was, "Armageddon" (from this past Sunday's 60 Minutes).
posted by vanderwal at 5:33 AM on April 27, 2001
posted by vanderwal at 5:33 AM on April 27, 2001
The previous administration was far more bipartisan than this than one. Welfare Reform, Nafta and the thawing relationship with China begun under Bush Senior that Bush Junior is now doing his best to wreck are all examples of Clinton's ability to work with members of both parties.
Bush, so far, has tried to ram everything through on party line votes and terrorize Democrats from conservative states into moving his way by holding campaign-style rallies in their home towns.
If the Republican Party were serious about a "respectful bipartisan tone," surely at least one GOP member of congress might have been allowed to vote with the other side on at least one of these issues:
estate taxes
budget resolution
tax cut
disapproval of Clinton Administration ergonomics rules
posted by steve_high at 6:35 AM on April 27, 2001
Bush, so far, has tried to ram everything through on party line votes and terrorize Democrats from conservative states into moving his way by holding campaign-style rallies in their home towns.
If the Republican Party were serious about a "respectful bipartisan tone," surely at least one GOP member of congress might have been allowed to vote with the other side on at least one of these issues:
estate taxes
budget resolution
tax cut
disapproval of Clinton Administration ergonomics rules
posted by steve_high at 6:35 AM on April 27, 2001
Question: When did political issue-specific sites begin?
I was working on the website for the [insert presidential campagin] team, and this became the norm. Campaign launches new policy agenda and 6 page issue website, other camp buys domain that attacks rhetoric and puts up 6 page website against the policy.
It seems to be that this started out between the Gore and Bradley camps. But then again, the RNC & DNC have been doing this for awhile. Are they really effective? (I don't think so, unless a campaign ad is aired to promote the site.)
posted by jennak at 7:59 AM on April 27, 2001
I was working on the website for the [insert presidential campagin] team, and this became the norm. Campaign launches new policy agenda and 6 page issue website, other camp buys domain that attacks rhetoric and puts up 6 page website against the policy.
It seems to be that this started out between the Gore and Bradley camps. But then again, the RNC & DNC have been doing this for awhile. Are they really effective? (I don't think so, unless a campaign ad is aired to promote the site.)
posted by jennak at 7:59 AM on April 27, 2001
there are 2 ads running supporting the 100days site, I don't know how effective these are either though (I really liked the iknowwhatyoudidintexas.com one though)
posted by owillis at 11:28 AM on April 27, 2001
posted by owillis at 11:28 AM on April 27, 2001
« Older A penny | The Harvard Living Wage Campaign Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by owillis at 4:57 PM on April 26, 2001