Headline: ”Bush Apologizes For Economic Woes”
Cidu Bill on Dec 2nd 2008
Well, no…
“I’m sorry it’s happening, of course. Obviously I don’t like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we’re in. And if we need to be in more, we will.” -George W. Bush, December 1, 2008
I find it interesting how often newspapers and other media are nearly unanimous in telling us in large print that this public figure or another is apologizing for such or such (and I’m not even talking about the insipid, meaningless “I take full responsibility for” comments), when in fact they’ve done no such thing.
- Related: Mike Nifong Doesn’t Apologize
Filed in Bill Bickel, George W. Bush, Mike Nifong, economy, media, politics | 20 responses so far
Frank Dec 2nd 2008 at 04:51 am 1
The media has never had any use for Bush and wants him to apologize for not being Gore or Kerry or any Democrat.
Charlene Dec 2nd 2008 at 06:46 am 2
If that’s true, Frank, the media has more sense than I credit it with.
The headline should say, “Bush should apologize for the economy, but yet again weasels out of it”.
Nicole Dec 2nd 2008 at 10:24 am 3
Headline in today’s paper
White House ignored meltdown warnings
Regulators backed off rules for mortgage brokers and banks that took on the risk
Story here
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=745747&category=BUSINESS
Says it all
FlyingFish Dec 2nd 2008 at 10:43 am 4
Charlene: Any headline like that is obviously biased. But a headline like “Bush apologies” seems like a straightforward report of the news, but also implies “Even Bush himself admitted he’s a total loser on this one!”
Nicole Dec 2nd 2008 at 11:23 am 5
Frank - I can’t speak for the media, only for myself. I don’t want Bush to apologize for not being a democrat. I want him to apologize for trashing this country like a drunken frat boy trashes a hotel room.
Tim Dec 2nd 2008 at 01:20 pm 6
What amazes me is how congress has flown under the radar on the economy issues. They are more to blame than any president.
Nicole Dec 2nd 2008 at 01:58 pm 7
Sorry Tim — I have to disagree. WE are responsible. It is our job to hold our elected leaders resposible for their actions. We have allowed ourselves to believe that “We the people” are powerless. We elected them, we let the corporations buy their way into government, we let them get away with felonies. Democracy is a participatory sport.
DSkinner Dec 2nd 2008 at 04:14 pm 8
At least AP Obama knows who to blame for the mortgage crisis. (Hint: It’s not the ones really responsible.)
Mark M Dec 2nd 2008 at 04:30 pm 9
Nicole, what evidence do you have that Bush is “trashing this country”? And it seems odd that when Congress is mentioned, you shift the blame to the American public.
Usual John Dec 2nd 2008 at 07:27 pm 10
I strongly agree with Bill: I hate the stories that falsely state that someone has “apologized,” when in fact they have done nothing of the kind.
DSkinner - The minx.cc post to which you link is nonsense, as is the Investor’s Business Daily editorial to which it links. (I knew that Investor’s Business Daily was not a good paper, but I had no idea just how bad.) I actually know something about the causes of the mortgage crisis, as part of my day job. It was not caused by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the Community Reinvestment Act, although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a small role in making it worse.
Actually, I read stuff like this in complete amazement. Are the people who write it really unaware that they don’t have a clue what’s going on or why? They have simply concocted villains to fit their world-view, without any attempt to see if it is accurate.
Nicole Dec 2nd 2008 at 08:05 pm 11
Mark — off the top of my head
Outing a CIA agent
The firings in the justice department
The patriot act
illegal wire tapping
getting us into a unjust war
destroying the good the world had for us after 9/11
Enron
Ignoring economic warnings
Don’t get me wrong — I am no fan of congress, but they report to US — or at least they are supposed to. If we let them go their merry way then we are responsible. The constitutions starts “We the people” - not “The congress of the United States” - We are a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” All I am saying is that if Congress is not doing what we want it to then it is OUR responsibility to fix it.
Tim Dec 2nd 2008 at 11:42 pm 12
Nicole,
I agree with you. We are responsible, but WE seem to be giving the congressional leaders a bye on the economic disaster that they did nothing about until it was waaaaaayyyyy too late. They were warned years ago, but did nothing to prevent it. A few years ago, Hagel and McCain co-sponsored a bill that would have tightened regulations on Freddie and Fannie. It was killed by allllll of the democrats and a few republicans.
In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel’s bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats opposed it (along with a few republicans). The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.
Unfortunately, we let them do nothing and we will forget that it ever happened (some already have).
Mark in Boston Dec 3rd 2008 at 12:50 am 13
Democrats and Republicans seem to live in parallel worlds of parallel facts. When I talk to a Republican, he tells me that Bush practically begged Congress to increase regulation on the banks, but the Democrat-majority Congress we had for all those eight years refused to do it. When I talk to a Democrat he tells me that the Democrats, who were in the minority all those eight years, kept trying unsuccessfully to pass legislation regulating the banks, and Bush vetoed most of the bills that came out of Congress anyway.
Mark M Dec 3rd 2008 at 10:44 am 14
Nicole, I won’t argue with your list. However, I thought we were talking strictly about the economy. I have a hard time believing there is much, if anything, he could have done about it.
Nicole Dec 3rd 2008 at 11:15 am 15
Mark M
Well — when I said “trashed the country” I was talking more generically than just the economy. Could Bush or the Congress have stopped the meltdown — there is, of course no way to know. What we do know is that the sub-prime lending played a huge part in the financial mess we are in now. We also know that Bush was warned and did nothing. This from the article I posted above
“The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown”
The fact is that there were warnings, the president knew about them and did nothing. He deferred once again to big business. His belief that the free market is self regulating has proven to be false and that is at least in part what has brought us to this place. Even Alan Greenspan admits this now. The free market can only be self regulating if businesses are small enough to fail and not bring down the world economy, however without regulation they continue to get bigger till they are too big to fail, negating the free market theory. This is the paradox of free market theory — unless you really are willing to let the world economy collapse.
Usual John Dec 3rd 2008 at 01:46 pm 16
Mark in Boston - The thing is that there actually are ascertainable facts, though most people don’t have time to spend all day figuring out what the relevant facts are.
The claim that “Bush practically begged Congress to increase regulation on the banks” is based on a single legislative initiative, which would have placed stricter regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Fannie and Freddie, which buy or guarantee higher-quality mortgage loans, did not really have that much to do with subprime lending. It’s true that they did eventually start buying subprime mortgage loans, which was a significant factor in their being placed in conservatorship, but it was not a particularly significant factor in the overall rise of the subprime market.
I can’t think of any important Democratic initiatives to pass bank regulation. Democrats presumably would answer that there already was adequate regulatory authority, which is true. However, federal regulators largely chose not to act on that authority. This was not, strictly speaking, deregulation; it was a decision not to use existing authority to adopt regulations to address new risks and abuses.
The initiative identified by Nicole, if adopted in its original strong form, would have had only a moderate effect, because that regulation would have applied only to banks, S&Ls, and credit unions, and most subprime lending was by other lenders. Still, it would have had some positive effect, and its adoption would have made it easier to adopt a regulation with broader impact.
DPWally Dec 4th 2008 at 01:21 pm 17
It’s unfortunate that publishers sometimes change headlines without consulting the reporter who wrote the story. No one who read and understood the quote would put “apologizes” in the headline.
Bush’s “sorry” was intended as empathy, not apology. As in “I’m sorry for your loss”.
It wouldn’t make sense for Bush, or anyone else, to apologize for the economy. It WOULD make sense for Bush to identify which of his actions contributed to this mess and apologize for those mistakes. But Bush continues to believe he has NEVER MADE A MISTAKE, EVER. So that kind of apology won’t happen.
CIDU Bill Dec 4th 2008 at 02:30 pm 18
You’re right about that, Wally: I’ve heard that complaint from reporters often (and on the other side of the coin, I had an uncle who did some of the headline-changing for a Major Metropolitan Newspaper, but only when “absolutely necessary”).
I’ve also had the titles of at least one magazine article and one short story of mine changed without my having been even told ahead of time — which doesn’t necessarily relate to all this, but I’m still bitter.
DPWally Dec 4th 2008 at 03:21 pm 19
“Bitter Bill doesn’t know own stories”
Lola Dec 4th 2008 at 05:46 pm 20
ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa ha Great headline DP.