The setup is George Bush, as usual, being an insensitive fool and making stupid jokes about tens of thousands of destroyed lives:
There's no question about it. Wall Street got drunk--that's one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras. It got drunk, and now it's got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments. And then we got a housing issue, not in Houston, and evidently not in Dallas, because Laura's over there trying to buy a house.
The punchline?
The White House says Bush's comments were in line with previous statements he's made about the economy.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A friend cc:ed me on a letter to his Congressman, and I think he's basically right about the Wall Street bailout. He writes Congress:
Please say NO. The Bush Administration's proposed bailout plan is overly broad, vastly too expensive, and lacks oversight and control that is absolutely necessary…
Under the fold:
Ex-Cheney aide: Bush won't hit Iran:
US President George W. Bush will not attack Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program before his term ends in January, David Wurmser, a key national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney up until last year, has told The Jerusalem Post.…
Under the fold....
What Makes People Vote Republican?:
Not everyone who votes Republican has been 'duped'. Conservative ideals appeal to some because they reflect heartfelt visions of a 'good society.
The Religious Right's Religious Right:
One of the fascinating things about the Palin story to me…
How critical is framing to effectively communicating about complex policy problems, especially under conditions of uncertainty? Just take a look at the debate over the economic crisis.
As I noted last week, the term "bailout" has locked in a specific framing of the issue that inflames populist…
he won't go so far, though, to recognize that there is a legitimate role for government being the designated driver to keep the drunks on Wall Street from plowing recklessly through the whole economy.
No, I'm sure he wouldn't. The analogy could actually be very effective. Why should the taxpayer be buying them pills for their headaches and repairing their drunkenly smashed up porches etc. And why didn't the gov't bartender cut them off before they got that staggeringly wasted.
It could go on...