I need a vacation from my vacation.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:52 pm

Again my failure to envoke the emoticons comes back to bite me on the ace. Sorry WYCAT. Yes, you were asking BAC. "Just trying to have a little fun with you there." Kind of like on "Best of Show" when Fred Willard (Buck Laughlin) is announcing the dog show with his sidekick from England played by Jim Piddock (Trevor Beckwith). Willard (me in this case) does a great job of just being an inappropriate boob to Piddock's conservative, stoic character. Most amusing, I do say.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:55 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:There was a big article in the Chronicle last week talking about the fact that [Bush] was the first President in XX years (about 100, maybe?) that hadn't visited San Francisco. He does tend to only go where the crowds can be filtered so that he is speaking before a purely supportive audience, so I'm not surprised by his snubbing of SF.

This is not a policy that is unique to Bush. Every President--heck, even every presidential candidate--tries to mold his audience to be sympathetic to his message. It does, after all, make for better TV; and that is what our presidental election campaigns have pandered to for quite some time.

Some time ago in Johnson's PolS 219 course (if memory serves), we had a discussion about modern American poltiical campaigns. If you use charisma and looks as a barometer, the candidate that has the better charisma and looks wins the campaign more often than not.

Our political climate in the US has become one of soundbites and looks, rather than substance.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:02 pm

That's all well and good, but avoiding San Francisco. C'mon. I'd like to see an example of another prez that has avoided a city like that. Not saying you're wrong and that it hasn't happened, but when I heard this about Bush, I was floored. I just looked it up and SF's metro area is fifth in the nation. Behind NY, LA, Chicago and Wash/Balt. (and I don't really consider Wash/Balt a metro area, so let's move it to fourth). SF/Oak are basically one town. I've driven from DC to Balt and it's quite a pull.

Throw me crumb on this one. I'll even cut him some slack on his Utah/Idaho trip. Weren't they both 70/30 for Bush in 2004. 70/30? Think about that!!

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:29 pm

iaafan wrote:That's all well and good, but avoiding San Francisco. C'mon. I'd like to see an example of another prez that has avoided a city like that. Not saying you're wrong and that it hasn't happened, but when I heard this about Bush, I was floored. I just looked it up and SF's metro area is fifth in the nation. Behind NY, LA, Chicago and Wash/Balt. (and I don't really consider Wash/Balt a metro area, so let's move it to fourth). SF/Oak are basically one town. I've driven from DC to Balt and it's quite a pull.

Throw me crumb on this one. I'll even cut him some slack on his Utah/Idaho trip. Weren't they both 70/30 for Bush in 2004. 70/30? Think about that!!

You're trying to get me to defend his decision to omit San Francisco as a visit; I'm not his campaign manager/aide, so I can't.

Let's look at this a bit. California is home to lots of big cities (LA, SF/Oakland, SD, plus myriad cities with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants), as well as military bases. Google for it yourself; there are tons of visits that have been made in the President's term in office, not only in California as a whole, but the greater Bay Area itself (Fresno, Burbank, San Jose) as well as Sacremento and Travis AFB.

To say he's avoided San Fransisco is to miss the forest for the trees, I'm afraid.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:02 am

What's worse not visiting a certain city or refusing to be interviewed by anyone that will actually ask a tough question.

Both Clintons, Kerry, and Gore were masters at this. Unless of course you consider Barbara Walters or Oprah hard hitting journalism.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:12 am

I'm finding it hard to believe that we've denigrated to talking about what cities the President visits...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:01 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Let's look at this a bit. California is home to lots of big cities (LA, SF/Oakland, SD, plus myriad cities with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants), as well as military bases. Google for it yourself; there are tons of visits that have been made in the President's term in office, not only in California as a whole, but the greater Bay Area itself (Fresno, Burbank, San Jose) as well as Sacremento and Travis AFB.

I'm not sure how many people consider Fresno as part of the greater Bay Area, but I'm pretty sure that no people are putting Burbank into that category.

Bush has visited the area for some cash-raising functions in Silicon Valley, so he made himself a short drive away for those people who really wanted to get to him. I think the only thing that gives the SF story legs is that every other President has visited the city going so far back, and as it is one of the major cities in the country (from both a historical and cultural perspective), some locals are irked at getting ignored. However, in all honesty, I think the only trip Bush Sr. made to SF was following the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, so that shouldn't really count, either. Anybody can get a Presidential visit after a natural disaster. It's like, in the Constitution or something.

BBG -- we've (as a country) denigrated (or degenerated) to much lower standards of discussions involving our Presidents, so we're just following on tradition. Cigar, anyone?

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:27 pm

Ponycat don't make me puke. No one has ever had more softball interviews than Bush. But that's by default.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:39 pm

Every politicial loves the slow pitch softball but most aren't afraid to answer tough questions from time to time and I've yet to see any of the ones I mentioned above do this.

I think that puke your talking about is from that spoon fed liberal BS you've been reading.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:00 pm

PC: Well I've watching, listening to and reading a lot of spoon fed conservative BS, too. I certainly don't recall Bush ever tackling a tough question. Not on his own at least. He had to wear the little back transmitter to hang in there with Kerry at one debate, but the best he could score was a draw on that one.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:17 pm

iaafan wrote:PC: Well I've watching, listening to and reading a lot of spoon fed conservative BS, too. I certainly don't recall Bush ever tackling a tough question. Not on his own at least. He had to wear the little back transmitter to hang in there with Kerry at one debate, but the best he could score was a draw on that one.

And yet somehow won RE-election.

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:02 pm

WYCAT wrote:
iaafan wrote:PC: Well I've watching, listening to and reading a lot of spoon fed conservative BS, too. I certainly don't recall Bush ever tackling a tough question. Not on his own at least. He had to wear the little back transmitter to hang in there with Kerry at one debate, but the best he could score was a draw on that one.
And yet somehow won RE-election.

Well how can you be elected to a position when you have done next to nothing as a senator (see his record while a Senator in Mass, if he decided to show up to anything, that is)? If you remember correctly, he only said that he could do things better than Bush and co. but he never really elaborated on what he would do. When he said he had a plan for something, it always seemed he had a plan for that plan and then a plan for the plan he was talking about. He's one of the best debaters in the Senate and he proved it against Bush, yet he offered no substance to his case. That's where I feel the dems have lost a lot in politics. They don't have many solutions that are feasible or worth hearing to the average Joe Q. Voter.

Regarding Bush not going to SF, why would he bother? The majority of the voting electorate in Cali is in SF metro and LA metro. Seldom will you find anyone who votes Republican there. When the heroes of SF represent the likes of Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Gavin Newsom, et al, you can get a good idea that campaigning there is futile. Those ever so "welcoming" and "open-minded" places are frothing with hate at Bush, thus demonstrating their own hypocrisy about being progressive, welcoming, and open-minded. Every election, it's a given that the republicans will concede the 50+ electoral votes in that state.

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:05 pm

iaafan wrote:PC: Well I've watching, listening to and reading a lot of spoon fed conservative BS, too. I certainly don't recall Bush ever tackling a tough question. Not on his own at least. He had to wear the little back transmitter to hang in there with Kerry at one debate, but the best he could score was a draw on that one.

Yes, the back transmitter. Care to elaborate and offer proof of that urban myth?

Bush hasn't had to handle many tough questions because he avoids it for the most part. Unlike Bush, Slick Willy, Lurch Kerry, and his ilk are given a multitude of kiss-ass questions by the likes of Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Katie Couric, etc because they actually like those aforementioned guys. Of course, they'll show up and talk to those pundits. They received the royal treatment.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:42 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:I'm not sure how many people consider Fresno as part of the greater Bay Area, but I'm pretty sure that no people are putting Burbank into that category.

Well, I guess I can't hide it now...I just don't know CA geography. Guess it's pretty obvious I haven't been stationed at Travis AFB, isn't it?

Wait...what's there to be embarrassed about? It's not like the People's Repulik of Kalifornia is important or anything...

American politics have gotten terrible. As I've alluded to before we've become a "highlight reel" society in almost every aspect--soundbites and video clips taken out of context.