The BuzzFlash Mailbag
March 29, 2002
Other War Room" by Joshua Green
Dear Mr. Green:
I found this article on polling just fascinating! Bush's use of polling, not to respond to legitimate concerns of the American public, but simply to better "sell" or "spin" his already decided upon right-wing agenda, is very revealing. It tells us much about the deceptive methods and strategy that Bush and his top political P/R operatives are using to run the country.
Thanks for the great column!
Subj: Joke of the day
Did you hear the story of the administration that used $135,615 in funds earmarked for solar energy to print its pro-oil energy report?
I'm not sure if you've seen or heard of this yet, but what I consider an outrageous waste of my tax money is occurring on Yahoo even as I write this. Yahoo, as you know, bills itself as an "advertising supported" service, so imagine my surprise when the banner ad gracing my Yahoo Group message *wasn't* trying to get me to buy a "hidden spy cam" but instead was regaling me with a smiling picture of George W. Bush, with a message that he "needs" me, and a sign-up sheet for me to put in my name, address, and email to receive "updates" about what's going on with the nation.
I don't know about you, but not only is this an obnoxious waste of my tax money, if it's being paid for by the drug czar, Fatherland Security Chief Ridgid, or the White House, it's also an insidious oppressive influence being inserted into democratic discussions and dissent already driven into cyberspace due to the McCarthyist baiting and attack techniques being practiced on the street.
I'm attaching a screen shot of what this looks like for someone browsing their Yahoo Groups.
As I understand it, the contact email for Yahoo ads is: firstname.lastname@example.org and the telephone contact is 1-408-349-3300 and ask for the operator.
I hope we're able to remedy this situation, contact the group placing the ads, or ramp up with ads of an opposing nature.
[BuzzFlash Note: It may be paid for by the RNC or a special-interest group. However, it's still disturbing.]
Subj: A discreet way of doing business with Iraq
From the archives...wonder if anyone in the mainstream press will bring this up?
Halliburton, the largest US oil services company, is among a significant number of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.
Thinking about the articles suggesting Bush is going to get us into a war with Iraq by hook or crook, bypassing approval or declaration of Congress.... Despite the disconnect of much of the country from Bush's actions, I think, as of now, there would be a big backlash against involving hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq.
But I'm afraid that if Bush gets us in, there will immediately be such repercussions from Iraq (maybe in the form of a chemical/biological weapons threat) or its friends that it will be impossible to protest -- there will be no choice but to continue, and "support" it, because our country will be in such clear and real danger.
Is it possible that something so incredibly cynical could be part of Bush's plan? Is there any hope that it's not?
I just watched this guy give his daily briefing. I usually don't watch since he's a master of double-talk and sees himself as a guy that has a glib answer for everything. He loves the stage. I'm telling you he's dangerous. Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney are too dumb to fool many people now. Not so Rummy. He's smart and likable with his grandfather demeanor and shy grin.
He was asked, "If some of the people in Cuba are acquitted, will they be released?"
Answer: "Of course not. Just because they're acquitted of one crime doesn't mean they're not responsible for others."
There's a novel judicial concept.
Q: How long will they be detained if they're acquitted?
A: Till the war on terrorism is over.
Q&A of the same type made it clear that this undeclared war may go
on for many years. I believe he said there were over 40 nations where
terrorists exist and must be rooted out. I wonder what makes a terrorist
a terrorist? Is hating the US enough to qualify? It's obviously clear-cut
in the WTC and Pentagon cases, but there don't seem to be clear-cut answers
in most other cases. It would help if they wore name tags with
Rummy also said the detainees in Cuba were all terrorists. I was wondering what acts of terror these 500 had committed. I hadn't heard about them. I thought they were battlefield prisoners.
The next two years will not be pretty. I hope this country is strong enough to last till we get rid of the stooges presently running things.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Please post an outrageous Reuters story of Thursday, March 28 titled "Bush Raises 1.8 Million for Texas Republicans" (released by Reuters Thur. afternoon eastern time).
it, Reuters highlights that amidst all-day fundraising for Republicans
in Texas, Bush spent 20 minutes with local firefighters, allowing him
to CHARGE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS for most of the trip. If you've
paid attention, Bush has been following this
I sent this message to Ron Brownstein in reply to his editorial in the LA Times.
* * *
Let me get this straight. The GAO expressly forbid the Bush administration from shredding any documents related to their energy policy meetings. So, the administration releases documents with everything blacked out! What's the difference between shredding or blacking out the information? It's gone in either case, right? Does it depend on what the definition of "is" is, or what? I call it "obstruction of Justice" or at the very least "contempt."
Confused in Seattle
is a copy of my email to Mr. Kushman of the "SacBee." If you
like, you may post it.
Thanks for the article above. It is quite revealing.
I used to coordinate surveys on other subjects. I'm fully aware that survey analyst groups meet for weeks on how best to word questions on a survey. It depends on who ordered the survey. In the article referenced above, notice how the questions were posed to the public. All of the questions from the Polling Organizations elude to how Bush is doing as president, overall. The question is asked in this manner, so that those polled cannot object to Bush's domestic performance, which we all know is shabby.
Regardless, the disclosed polls are coinciding with the Media beginning to report a little more fairly on Bush's shabby domestic performance. Most of the polls in the article show a peak in the 80% favorable category in Sept., Oct., and Nov. of 2001. Of course, that was when our country was in peak crises. And Bush reacted then, as any American president would. Notice the ratings in March, 2002. It appears that they have fallen to an average of 75% among the poll reports gathered in the article. Of course Fox and NBC continue to report favorable percentages in the 80's for Bush. What does that tell you? I need not elaborate.
I would like to see a poll ask the question, "Excluding his war on terrorism, how would you rate George Bush's job performance?" See how I skewed the question? Even though it is skewed, the question is more reality based. Then too, we have to consider who is being polled: Is it random? Is it according to states and if so, which states and what sections of the states? Is it according to state population? Is it according to suburban phone exchanges explicitly or an over abundance of those exchanges? If I call phone exchanges that envelope exclusive areas of my city, I would get answers totally different from those in the middle class and poor sections of the city. So as you can see, polls can sometimes be reflective of who you ask and where they live. What does that say about polls? It says that many of them can be unreliable as the weather. Somebody needs to inform the (overly-conscious, Bush poll-observation) Democrats about this!
Thanks for the link to the story about Gore's comments on the environment and the Bush administration's energy policy. I loved the line that Bush is treating the American public like children. It's funny, because one thing I've always liked about Gore is that he speaks to people with the assumption that they are intelligent and adult --maybe some people think that makes him "serious" and "stiff". Whatever, it's what I expect from my politicians --respect for my intelligence and ability to think things through. Although I think Gore was too generous. Bush doesn't treat us like children, rather like peons and nuisances.
Thanks as always for your great site.
otherwise noted, all original