Posted on 01/21/2005 10:23:27 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
At about 10:40am EST, Rather wondered: "Having studied every American president in some detail, has there been any American president in a time of war who has asked for as little sacrifice as President Bush has done? Or is that a misreading of history?"
Professor Joseph Ellis, a CBS News analyst, a historian and an author, most recently of a new biography of George Washington, confirmed: "No, I think you're right, Dan. I think what's unusual about President Bush is that he's perhaps the only President that took us to war at the same time as he cut our taxes. And that's supposed to not be possible, and so it's an unusual situation, and perhaps we should listen today to see if he does ask us for, for some sacrifice. ..."
Rather asked his other panelist, Ed Rollins: "Would you expect President Bush to give a surprise in this inaugural address and ask for some measure of sacrifice from the country as a whole that he hasn't asked for before?"
At 2:10pm EST Ellis, the MRC's Rich Noyes noticed, predicted the media will try to "get" Bush, something Rather has already tried.
Ellis speculated: "I thought about this conspiracy thing historically and I wonder if you agree. There's a pattern. Republicans get caught for corruption with regard to money and Democrats get caught with regard to sex. Jefferson and Sally Hemmings to, you know, Clinton. So we should, we can remove the sex side of this, that's not going to happen. But Halliburton, CIA scandals, those are all just lurking beneath the surface waiting for some adventurous investigative reporter to go find them. Guantanamo Bay. And some how it's the ducks, the chickens and the sharks. The chickens come home to roost, you're a lame duck and the press is really out to get you. And they can get you if they want to get you. And they're going to go after him. You can already start to see it. And what the press defines as a scandal becomes a scandal."
Rather quickly changed topics: "Professor Joe Ellis. Well the lights are beginning to come up in the room" where the congressional lunch for President Bush took place.
An hour later, the MRC's Brian Boyd observed, Thalia Assuras checked in from the back of a truck along the parade route: "I'm going to let you listen to some of the sound here, there are distinct boos. The majority of the signs have, are anti-war signs if I could put it this way. We've just passed a major crowd and we're heading past a media area. The President's car is a little bit further behind me. And as you can see the crowds, they're about five to ten people deep and the majority, at least on this side, and again this is the President's side, the majority have been at this point booing the President."
Ed Rollins pointed out: "I think it's important for the first time, at least in my history, they have actually set areas up for protesters here. You know, where before you wouldn't have those signs anywhere near. The advance guys would have been out there and cleaned them out long before that. So obviously I think our viewers are getting a view of democracy in action but I don't think it should be distorted in the sense that there are thousands of people out there who are very happy to see the President and let's move forward."
Rather agreed: "Well, this is a very good point, Ed. And one of the continual debates we have among ourselves, those of us in television journalism and others, it's clearly a story that there are people who don't like the fact that George W. Bush was reelected. They are around the motorcade route, but it's, television does so many things so well. We take you there, we take you right there. But where television has difficulty is with depth and putting things in context and perspective. The television camera is more like a flashlight beam. We can show you what's right at the end of the beam, but what's going on at the side of it, or above and below it we don't see."
Rollins: "I think it's important to see all that. I mean, I think, I just also want to remind people that this was a deliberate part of the planning. Was to give them space so they could make their protest. And I think that's-"
Bob Schieffer: "I didn't know that."
Rather: "But overall and in the main, this is a friendly, even jubilant crowd. And let's go back to Russ Mitchell who's along the parade route, Russ."
Russ Mitchell: "Dan, right now the Washington DC, motorcycle corps is going by us right now to the cheers of the crowd. I agree with you. Most of this crowd, when you hear the crowd there are a few boos at this point, but for the most part this is a jubilant crowd shouting out 'Four more years' and 'We love President Bush.'"
Yes. It was this Rather stuff, and the reporters who kept saying things like, "This isn't a parade, it's a military procession. I feel no joy here, only somber moods and faces," etc. I could not bloody believe what I was hearing.
It's always interesting when certain folks reveal that they see taxes as a punitive measure. Taxes aren't about funding necessary government services and no more; they're about making people sacrifice. And sometimes they let it slip.
Unlike Clinton who everyone wanted reelected.....well except for a handful whacky Clinton-haters, but these are concerned citizens who don't like Bush.
Joe Ellis was a liar for years and was outed in 2001.
He claimed he was an airborne infantryman and officer in Vietnam. He actually taught history at West Point.
The consensus though is that his scholarship stands, even though he let people believe a lie for 30-odd years.
"No, I think you're right, Dan. I think what's unusual about President Bush is that he's perhaps the only President that took us to war at the same time as he cut our taxes."
PRESS-
"Times are good, let's raise taxes"
"Times are bad, let's raise taxes"
"We're at war, let's raise taxes"
"We're at pease, let's raise taxes"
Dan Blather and Ed Rollins--two peas in a pod. For Rollins fiasco and lies, see http://archives.cjr.org/year/94/1/cynicism.asp
Any chance on cleaning out the left and cleaning up all the garbage in this country in the next 30 days? If so, please let me know, I'd like to help. (+)
I might even argue this main point. While we may not have been technically in a hot-war with the Soviets in the 1980's, we did everything else to appear as though we were. From the military build-ups and expanded deployments, support for insurgents (Nicaragua) and even small conflicts (Grenada), Reagan did wage a shadow war while cutting taxes.
Yeah...and the irony is that the military is one of the explicit services that is to be funded by taxes. Democrats have confused the meaning of "PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare."
Question Bush on "mistakes" he has made:
Note the lack of sacrifice demanded by Bush:
You hit the nail on the head but I think it is a double bind not double blind strategy. It is amazing to me.
But .. it was supposed to be a parade to HONOR SERVICE - that was the theme of the inauguration.
Of course it would be full of military groups. They're the ones who do THE SERVICE.
Hmmmm? I guess the two bummers for the left was the fact that GOD was not left out, and neither was the military, in the President's celebration.
How easily this historian dismisses (or forgets?) Clinton + fund-raising = money.
Ellis is wrong on the war/taxes observation. President Polk cut import tax rates (at that time, the main revenue source for the government) during the Mexican War. And during the Civil War Jefferson Davis lowered tariffs (import taxes), or exempted tariffs altogether, for vital war materials.
Ellis is wrong on the revenue side also. While President Bush cut income tax rates, in reality federal government revenue collections (and of course spending) have risen. The true and only measure of whether taxes have risen or declined is whether the government is collecting less or more.
Really? Only because the MSM wasn't looking. Otherwise how do we explain Fannie Mae and Oil For Food? And that's just for starters...
Ok. I'm ready to make a sacrifice ---- of Dan Rather. Should it be at the stake, or in the volcano? I wish Bush would just tell me which.
Clinton was all-round corrupt. He also was responsible for burning more than 90 US citizens to death at the Branch Davidian compound. He was trying to convince the American people that they were facing "Right-wing Extremist Terrorists". He should have been looking for Islamic extremists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.