President Bush, who apparently reads People magazine just like the rest of us, is hip to B-level pop culture. According to Fox News, when the president was asked about the large-scale protests that greeted his arrival in England this week, he indicated his appreciation of the phenomenon by acknowledging that
"the last American to cause such a ruckus in the city was illusionist David Blaine, who recently spent 44 days in a self-imposed fast in an elevated plastic box above the Thames River. For the first few days, Blaine’s box was pelted with food and the people jeered at him.
‘A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me," Bush said, adding that he was grateful to the Queen for interceding and allowing him to stay at Buckingham Palace."
Oh, and one other point about this article. While it’s so, so passé to marvel at the amazingly limited worldview of Fox News and its audience, some of their antics continue to provide fresh opportunities for amazement. Such as today’s headline (since relegated solely to an appearance on the front page) for this "Blaine-dropping" article: "Bush Gets Royal Treatment."
"Royal treatment" apparently no longer implies "pampering," "adoration" or a waitstaff tending to your every need. This new iteration somehow incorporates negative poll numbers indicating that a majority of British citizens were opposed to and inconvenienced by his visit, as well as managing to invoke the plans for nearly 100,000 protesters to march upon and topple a Saddam-esque effigy of the President in Trafalgar Square on Thursday.
Categories
7 replies on “Delusions of Commandeur”
Does the Prez actually read people, or does Andy Card brief him on its contents?
Prez: Andy, what are some of the latest celeb hook-ups?
Card: Well, sir, we have an intel briefing…
Prez: Andy, who’s the dictator here, you or me?
Card: Well…
Prez: That’s right, I am. And I already know about Kutcher and Moore
Card: Dick…!
Come on now…do some accurate reporting and tell your readers how many people actually showed up for the protest. I know, you’ll probably just try to defend yourself by saying “plans for nearly 100,000 protesters.” Mind you, this article is from The Guardian. The same “objective” source that completely fabricated a quote by Wolfowitz in order to whip silly liberals into a frenzy. Please don’t contribute.
well, this was written days before the actual protest, first off…second, when the protest actually occurred, police estimated the crowd at 70k, organizers at 150-200k. we all know the truth is almost always somewhere in between the two extremes. so it turns out the initial 100k quote (which appeared in a number of publications, incidentally) is very likely accurate, and potentially even a short-selling estimate.
ta-dah!
Even a short-selling estimate? Are you kidding me? Even The Guardian admits it, why can’t you?
“The number of protesters outside the palace grew into the hundreds later in the day, and police scuffled with some demonstrators.”
Hundreds! What I’m saying is that you’re leading your readers to believe a massive demonstration took place when obviously that wasn’t the case. Why aren’t you informing them now that this never happened? Perhaps, much like a certain cable station you folks love to criticize, you’re worldwide view is amazingly limited.
Tah-dah!
eh, i think i see the problem here. perhaps we’re talking about different events? i’m referring to the lengthy march on thursday, not the smaller (“hundred”-numbered) ones wednesday and tuesday in front of buck. palace…courtesy of yesterday’s BBC posting (though we know how biased they are, cf. the oversexed matter):
“Tens of thousands of people have protested in London against President Bush and the war on Iraq.
Organisers claim 200,000 joined the demonstration, although police put the numbers closer to 100,000.
The protest was overshadowed by the bombs in Turkey, but was described as good-natured and non-violent.
…
The demonstration – the biggest in London on a weekday – culminated in Trafalgar Square with music and a carnival atmosphere.
Its climax was the toppling of an effigy of Mr Bush, echoing scenes from the fall of Baghdad.”
ta ta?
For what it’s worth, the major poll conducted about British sentiment prior to the visit found that 43% welcomed Bush, while only 36% opposed the visit. In the words of the Guardian article that summarized the paper’s poll, “A majority of ‘twentysomethings’ welcome Mr Bush. Hostility is strongest amongst the over-65s.” Sorry, Grandpa.
that whole poll seemed so ‘wrong’ to me, and well, really, really not falling into the ‘objective’ polling camp.
when you have choices/answers like whether or not the US is “generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world” or that America is the “evil empire”, you don’t leave a lot of room for a true gauge of sentiment.
i mean, really, who is going to really endorse an idea of the US being “pro-evil”? its almost absurd, again, in terms of pursuing an objective and accurate depiction of sentiments.
i guess a better poll would have allowed for neutral phrasing such as “are you happy about bushs visit, unhappy, or dont care?” etc.