Monday, August 19, 2002

AP Writing For The VRWC There is a really atricious article in the USA Today. Here are the first three sentences: Hillary Rodham Clinton has begun building a national political organization, softening her liberal image and taking a lead role in Democratic criticism of President Bush — steps toward a potential campaign to become the first woman president. Former President Clinton speaks about his wife's run for the presidency as a matter of "when," not "if," say people who have discussed it with him. Several of her associates said she is eyeing 2008 as the year to run. What is the support of these statements? Mainly a bunch of unsourced comments and unremarkable actions. Here's an example, "Her husband was at a small dinner party in February, in Perth, Australia, when someone asked if Sen. Clinton would run for president. One person described the former president's unhesitating reply, "Not in 2004," as reflexive, confident and leaving the clear impression that his wife had already decided to try in 2008." One unnamed person hears a three-word denial of presidential aspirations and that somehow morphs into a "clear impression" that Hillary will run? Another sign given that Hillary is going to run is that she "defended her husband's presidency against attacks from Republicans while sharpening her criticism of Bush." Isn't it just as likely that she defended her husband's presidency because she likes him? Haven't most Democrats sharpened their criticism of Bush? Apparently to provide balance, the article makes comments that seriously undermine its first three sentences. If the author truly believes "It is impossible to characterize Sen. Clinton's prospects with any certainty; the sources close to her could be trying inflate her standing among Democrats or may be caught up in the Clinton-for-president speculation buzzing about the party's grass roots", then why unequivocally state she is taking steps toward a potential campaign for president? Hillary Clinton is a politician. She is one of the Democratic party's top draws and fund raisers. She probably would like to be the first woman president. However, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon because she draws such a negative reaction from Republicans. My guess is that she is probably much more focused on collecting favors to cash for votes and possibly getting a leadership position in the Senate. With no substantiating quotes or overt actions for a presidential campaign, why write the article? My guess - to feed conservative pundits. My impression is that of all the currently active Democratic politicians, Hillary gets the biggest response on conservative talk shows. I can just picture Rush saying "From today's USA today", reading the first three sentences of the article and then going on an hour-long Bash Hillary tirade. Shouldn't newspapers be reporting news instead of gossip? 8/19/02 - Changed the wording on the second sentence 8:15:32 PM    comment []

It's The "Find All The Hidden Contradictions" Game! Do you remember as a kid finding the hidden images in a picture?  Well, today we have a new game like that.  It's find all of the hidden contradiction in an article about Bush's economic policies.  Here's the article.  I find 5.  Try your luck. My list: Bush is struggling to keep federal deficits from growing even larger when Dubya has initiated or signed lots of spending such as the farm bill once it was known that the federal government was going to be running a defict he used his weekly radio address Saturday to promote the no-deficits theme that emerged from the economic summit last week - no deficits?!?  The federal government is running an estimated $165 billion deficit But he will, as he has shown this past week, insist on fiscal discipline - but the president has refused all calls for freezing future tax cuts, which are needed to restore fiscal discipline Bush is examining ideas raised at last week's economic forum in Texas for fresh tax cuts for small investors that could form the basis of a new White House economic plan - Hold it!  This is a total contradiction of everything that was said before in this article!  How can the president be remotely serious about fiscal discipline when he is talking about another tax cut?  (I know, he can't) If he does choose to pick new proposals that will stimulate the economy, we believe it's in the best long-term interest of the American people and the federal budget - Increased spending that increases deficits is bad, but tax cuts that increase the deficit are in the best long-term interest of the federal budget? I keep expecting that the totally contradictory ideas that the Bush administration officials appear to hold at the same time will cause their heads to explode. 7:28:01 AM    comment []

Max Sawicky has a piece that estimates the impact of the 2001 tax cut on the drop in the projected surplus.  It is a bit too dependent for my taste on if estimate A was true and estimate B was true, the C is true.  Still, it is good to see someone doing this kind of thinking.  12:00:34 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2002 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 9/1/2002; 9:33:20 AM.