Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 31, 2007.
Bush is a failed president. The worst of my lifetime. Hopefully the worst I will ever see. I'm embarrassed for this country.
He will be dismissed as a looney, and the righties will bring up William Clinton, while blindly defending their leader GWB. Either that or the NYT is biased, and what do you expect.
The anti-Bush team has a big tent. Even though it took this guy more than 6.5 years to figure out what most of us knew intuitively, he's welcome.
Dowd was Texas dem who then worked for Bushg and is returning to his roots, or a political whore depending on your POV.
Did the NYT point his background as a long time dem?
Of course, it's the New York Times, not Fox News. From the article:
A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bushâ€™s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the presidentâ€™s chief campaign strategist.
Mr. Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Mr. Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas, who was a political client of Mr. Dowd and a mentor to Mr. Bush.
â€śItâ€™s almost like you fall in love,â€ť he said. â€śI was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guyâ€™s personality â€” he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration.â€ť
Glad they were honest on this point, it wasn't clerar given the misleading title to the thread by mikey. Thanks for letting me know Patters.
Why not read the NYT article to find out for yourself?
What is misleading about the title? It is verbatim word-for-word reproduction of the actual title.
When it comes to making misleading statements, you take the cake.
How Bush has done as president doesn't change the fact the the NYT is biased.
One should always consider the source when evaluating the facts.
You should never fail to examine the situation simply because the source may be "biased". These days it's easy to obtain multiple sources of data to corraborate a story. If the subject is of enough import you can bet that many news outlets will provide their 2 cents.
Media outlets from both the Left and the Right simply want an emotional reaction to headlines and soundbites. It takes time for the "truth" to come out in many cases.
Separate names with a comma.