Lindaland
  Global Unity
  White House Shifts Into Survival Mode

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   White House Shifts Into Survival Mode
Mirandee
unregistered
posted April 20, 2006 12:59 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do not envy Bolton his job. Not in Bush's paranoid and secretive White House, and not when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all 3 listen to no one and think only their opinion is right. Bush even came out and said that in the news. He decides what is right. Bush needs to surround himself with yes men and for that reason nothing Bolton may attempt to do is going to change a thing in this administration.

White House Shifts Into Survival Mode

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 20, 2006; Page A01

In a White House known for both defiance and optimism, yesterday's senior staff changes represent a frank acknowledgment of the trouble in which President Bush now finds himself. They are also a signal of how starkly Bush's second-term ambitions have shifted after a year of persistent problems at home and abroad.

Longtime Bush confidant Karl Rove -- who had hoped to use his position of deputy chief of staff to usher in an expansive conservative agenda -- was relieved of his policy portfolio to concentrate on long-term strategy and planning for a November midterm election that looks increasingly bleak for Republicans.

Rove probably will remain one of the most influential voices in the White House, but his shift in responsibilities suggests that new White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten intends to operate a different White House than his predecessor, Andrew H. Card Jr., who resigned after more than five years at the helm.

Bolten's White House, say former administration officials and Republican strategists, is likely to have clearer lines of authority and less free-lancing by powerful officials. They also expect Bolten to play a more active and influential role in shaping domestic policy than did Card.

More significantly, they said, unlike Card, who took as his principal responsibility the management of the president, Bolten probably will operate more in the mold of chiefs of staffs in previous administrations, who saw their role as managing the entire White House and sought to oversee the entire federal government, as well.

Whether the changes will fundamentally alter a troubled administration is another question. One of Bolten's biggest challenges, administration allies say, will be to find ways to open up the Oval Office to new ideas and to the opinions of people who are not longtime Bush confidants.

On that score, many people who know the administration best are privately dubious. Presidents, more than chiefs of staff, determine how White Houses operate, they said, noting that Bush has shown that he prefers a tight circle of advisers and does not welcome the advice of outsiders. As Bush put it on Monday, in asserting that he would not fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

Rove's return to a role that closely mirrors that which he played in Bush's first term demonstrates how much this White House has now shifted to survival mode -- and how far events have pushed the president from the grand ambitions with which he opened his second term just 15 months ago.

Then, with Rove as the animating force, the president sought to engineer Republican political dominance by remaking government with such far-reaching initiatives as his plan to remake the Social Security program. Today, Social Security stands as Exhibit A of what went wrong domestically in 2005.

Public disillusionment over Bush's policies in Iraq have left the country in a sour mood and Bush's presidency at low ebb, threatening the entire Bush-Rove project to create a durable Republican majority. While that goal remains central to those closest to Bush, the focus at the White House for the foreseeable future will be trying to revitalize this presidency quickly enough to avoid crippling GOP losses in November that could thrust Bush into instant lame-duck status.

Realigning the White House staff and bringing in new faces appear central to that effort. This week's changes include yesterday's resignation of White House press secretary Scott McClellan and appointment of Joel D. Kaplan as White House deputy chief of staff for policy, as well as Monday's announcement that U.S. trade representative and former House member Rob Portman will succeed Bolten as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The domestic policy process has been hampered since Bolten went to OMB, and one Republican strategist close to the White House said the new chief of staff appears bent on trying to prevent Rove and others from interfering in every aspect of the governing process.

Rove will retain the "gravitational force" of his Bush relationship and could "overpower" Bolten in showdowns because he knows the president and the inside game better, this official predicted. But he added that Bolten believed that the strategy to overhaul Social Security was sloppy and hampered by Rove's becoming too involved in every aspect of the campaign -- policy, politics and communications.

Former administration officials said that Rove, though known for his ability to juggle many roles, was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of his responsibilities when he was promoted to deputy chief of staff after the 2004 election.

In addition, he was engulfed in the CIA leak case. He is believed to be under investigation by a special counsel for providing false testimony about his role.

Bolten and Rove forged a congenial working relationship during Bush's first presidential campaign, when Rove was chief strategist and Bolten chief policy adviser. That carried over into the White House during the first term, until Bolten departed as deputy chief of staff to take over as OMB director. Administration allies say they hope that the new assignments can restore an operating arrangement that they believe worked well.

One former administration official, who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely about his former colleagues, called yesterday's shift in Rove's responsibilities a "huge" development. "This is putting back things where they belong," he said. "It's given Josh back policy. Joel [Kaplan] is a total Josh disciple, and he is very good in the policy world. It focuses Karl back on politics, which is what he needs to do."

But former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said Rove's losing the policy portfolio also is significant, because the policy job "is where ideas comes from, where creativity comes from, and that is where presidents rise and fall."

"I think this is another building block in bringing in other voices to reenergize and reinvigorate the West Wing," said Kenneth Duberstein, White House chief of staff to president Ronald Reagan, who predicted Rove will remain one of Bush's most trusted aides.

Despite his power, Rove has not been immune to criticism. Inside the White House, some aides were unhappy that he had sent McClellan out to say inaccurately that Rove had no involvement in the CIA leak case. Outside allies feared that Rove was so invested in the policies he had helped to shape and sell to Bush that he lost his ability to see where the administration had gotten off track.

Mindful that Rove's changed responsibilities might be seen as a demotion, administration officials and allies offered a counterview, saying that, given his personal relationship with the president, he will continue to exercise wide influence on policy and politics while having new freedom to think more strategically about the administration.

Other changes are expected at the White House and perhaps in Bush's Cabinet. One will be a replacement for McClellan; another is likely to be a new domestic policy adviser. Criticisms of the legislative affairs and communications operations as well as the national economic council suggest the potential scope of changes. But one of the most important steps came yesterday. As one strategist who has worked closely with the administration put it, "I don't know how you change the White House without changing Karl's role."

Staff writer Jim VandeHei contributed to this report.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 20, 2006 07:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's the American media who need mouth to mouth resuscitation Mirandee. Their poll numbers are far lower than the Presidents.

Only about 20% of respondents believe all or even "most" of what they print.

Perhaps they're the one's who need someone to throw them a life jacket before they drown in their own lies.

Of course Mirandee, you still believe the press. You have far too much invested in your hate Bush campaign to do otherwise.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 20, 2006 08:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, so now you just choose to lie, Jwhop?

I guess that's not surprising for someone so defensive of this adminstration.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 20, 2006 09:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here's the chart:

Here's the nail in the coffin:

'All' and 'Most' do not mean the same thing by definition, right? Therefore if someone is categorizing themselves as believing, "All or most," then they are contradicting themselves, because someone who believes, "Most," can't possibly believe, "All!" A pollster would never give a person a category in which they'd contradict themselves. Therefore, it only logical that, "All," and "Most," are meant to be equal in this case. "Most," is used simply to make the extreme option more palatable.

This is further evidenced when you look at their questionaire where they regularly put the possible answers on a scale. Look here: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=841

You see where Q.6 starts? There are 5 columns. They are titled Very Closely, Fairly Closely, Not Too Closely, Not at All Closely, and DK/Ref. There's a clear structure to the columns, which is exactly how the chart in question is done.

Questionaire Part 2 is the same: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=842

Q.34 has columns titled: A Lot, Some, Not Much, Not at All, and Don't Know/Refused.

Q.23, which is after Q.79 somehow, states explicitly:


quote:

Now, I'm going to read a list. Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say. How would you rate the believability of (READ ITEM. RANDOMIZE LIST) on this scale of 4 to 1? (INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "NEVER HEARD OF" AND "CAN'T RATE")

As I've pointed out Column 3 is the most popular right down the line meaning that most people won't give a full endorsement (and make themselves look gullible), but will state that they generally believe the media.
--------------------------------------------

So are you going to continue misstating the facts, Jwhop? Are you really ready to give up any sense of credibility you might have?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 12:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Give it up acoustic. You are hopelessly in over your head.

Of course "all" and "most" don't mean the same thing....not to anyone.

"Most" is an indefinite, meaning anything more than half..could be 50.0000000000001%, could be 99.999999999999999999%, but "all", by definition must be 100%

So acoustic, among those who believed "all" or "most", there could have been those who only believed slightly "more" than half of what the NY Times prints.

What we know for sure is that 79% of respondents DID NOT believe even MOST, an indefinite amount but clearly, by definition, less than any amount above 50% of what the NY Times prints...declining to "almost nothing".

I know this is rocket science for you acoustic. But for "most" it's everyday, common English usage.

Of course, you could attempt to lift your mind out of the fog and go look the word "most" up. If you do, you will find the application of the word...when amounts are discussed, to be exactly as I said it is.
The majority of, the greater part of.

Tell me acoustic, did Bush get MOST of the votes in the 2004 Presidental election?

Did Bush get ALL the votes?

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted April 21, 2006 10:13 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mygawd, are you two still having this debate?

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted April 21, 2006 10:35 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Men are such sillies.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 11:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You ladies are the "most".

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 11:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Now, I'm going to read a list. Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say. How would you rate the believability of (READ ITEM. RANDOMIZE LIST) on this scale of 4 to 1? (INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "NEVER HEARD OF" AND "CAN'T RATE")

------------------------------------------

There's no winning this one Jwhop.

The meaning of 'Most' isn't at issue. Clearly the meaning of 'or' is the challenging word for you as I've already shown.

I can't fathom how you can't get this. Perhaps you were a child 'left behind?'

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 01:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hahaha acoustic, I don't know whether to laugh OR cry at the sorry state of the public school system.

Still, you have no excuse for ignorance of the English language. You had a chance to sink OR swim; you chose to sink.

Your theory that all and most are synonyms/synonymous is hogwash.

Or is sometimes used between 2 synonyms or synonymous words or phrases to clarify meaning, particularly when one word might be obscure to a reader or listener.

CPR or cardio pulmonary resuscitation is required training for paramedic jobs. They mean exactly the same thing.

As used in the Pew question, or was used to set apart, a modifier of all. To provide an alternative to all, in this case most. Two words which are not synonyms, having different meanings as I've clearly shown you...on numerous occasions.

All is the whole enchilada acoustic, the whole, entire enchilada. Most, at best is only a part...the greater part, the majority to be sure but still, only a part.

You should consider an English tutor acoustic.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 02:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ok, then answer for me if you will why a pollster would put two descriptors with two different meanings as a singular choice? If they are meant to mean different things for purposes of the poll why wouldn't 'ALL' have one column, and 'MOST' have a different column? It's clear that you are the one with the deficiency in language comprehension. There is absolutely NO logic in what you've said.

I think you're simply trying to drag out the debate because you erroneously believe that as long as you provide opposition then the truth can't be true. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You only make yourself look foolish by clinging to your erroneous argument. You need to humble yourself and concede.

This poll asked people to rate how much they believe in a source on a scale of 4 to 1. It's a very common polling technique, and one that EVERYONE understands. If you are asked to rate things on a four star scale it would be the same thing. Four stars means you think it's terrific, and one star means you think it's bad. Four, in this case, means you believe strongly in the source, and one means you don't believe it very much. Very simple.

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted April 21, 2006 02:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Acoustic God..your first sentence..holds the answer..and you can't see it..

don't blame Jwhop. ...

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted April 21, 2006 03:10 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm shocked the major papers won such high scores. 40% and higher gave them 3's??!! Sad.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 03:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lotus, my LAST sentence holds the answer. I don't expect you to grasp it either, though.

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted April 21, 2006 03:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
it's okay..that we see things differently. ...

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2006 03:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Tink, the study is interesting and perplexing. It is contradictory to a certain degree. People want to be skeptical about the news, and yet they often like the news none the less.

From the same report we get:

quote:

The public continues to express skepticism toward news outlets and those who run them. More than half (53%) agree with the statement "I often don't trust what news organizations are saying." Nearly as many (48%) believe people who decide on news content are "out of touch." http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215


quote:

Four-in-ten Americans say that for major news stories, they usually want in-depth analysis of the news in addition to the headlines and basic facts. A similar proportion (37%) say they prefer the headlines plus some reporting on the facts, but not in-depth analysis. Far fewer people (18%) say they prefer just the headlines. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=837

quote:

There are a handful of news outlets that attract a disproportionate share of the in-depth audience. Fully 63% of regular NewsHour viewers say they want the news provided with in-depth analysis from experts, far above both the national average and the audiences for all other television news programs. The Internet, particularly the websites of major national newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, also draws significant interest from those who desire in-depth coverage.

quote:
By their nature, the news outlets that appeal to narrower, hard news-oriented audiences are drawing viewers who see important differences between the credibility of news organizations. By large margins, people who watch the O'Reilly Factor and the NewsHour say they trust certain sources more than others, as do those who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh and read online news sources and weekly news magazines. By comparison, regular viewers of the major network news programs and readers of daily newspapers are less discriminating, though even here most say they trust some sources more than others. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=837

--------------------------------------------

People are just contradictory by nature I guess. That whole study is just bizarre.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a