Two recent blog entries really illuminate the Bush administration's attitude toward facts, this time with those of the economic variety. First, Josh Marshall reports on hilarious parsing at the White House press gaggle yesterday. Ol' Scotty is being asked about Marc Racicot's claim that the 2.6-million-new-jobs forecast was really a "goal" for the administration. Hear him spin:
Scott McClellan: John, I think it is what it is. The data is a snapshot that economists use at a point in time for economic modeling. That's what I said yesterday. So it is what it is --QUESTION: Right, but Racicot --
Scott McClellan: -- and it's based on the data available at that point in time.
QUESTION: So was Racicot wrong in describing it as a goal?
Scott McClellan: I haven't seen those specific remarks. I'll be glad to look at them, but it is what it is, and it is how I described it yesterday.
...
Scott McClellan: John, I'm giving you the facts. It is what it is.
QUESTION: And the meaning of the word "is" is?
Scott McClellan: Well, John, I think that where the discussion of policy should be -- or the discussion should be is on policy. And the President is a decision-maker. The President leads by making policy decisions.
The other post comes from Nick Confessore, musing about the administration's attempt to reclassify fast-food restaurants to the manufacturing sector, in order to shore up poor performance there. Nick asks:
Is there anybody on the Bush administration's economic team thinking about ways to create new jobs, instead of thinking about ways to fool people into thinking they've created new jobs?
Both of these items are absolutely of a piece with the administration's approach to factual issues in general -- on Iraq, on the economy, on science. They cite "facts on the ground" which are inflated by politically-motivated analysts, and when someone confronts them about it, they move the goalposts. That's a goal, not a forecast. Saddam was a bad dude, so it doesn't matter if he had weapons. Besides, we'll find the weapons anyway. The President leads by making policy decisions.
Shouldn't the President's decisions rest on the facts, and not vice versa?
Posted by Chris at February 20, 2004 10:38 AMChris--
Notice that unlike Ari, Scott doesn't seem to try very hard. Its obvious to everyone that these guys haven't even planned the spin to come up with even a half-decent lie. In fact, all of the Bushmen these days are just going through the paces. Three years of national rape seem to be enough for them, and the fire in their bellies is just gone.
The Bushmen have presided over the worst job creation record since Hoover-- and Hoover was the last guy that had as many consecutive down years in the stock market.
While the Bushmen MIGHT have been able to blame 9-11 and warmongering on the economic malaise, by insisting on their tax cuts for the country club set, they can't really blame that: fiscal policy (or lack of it) was unchanged as a result of those events, and we're still bleeding jobs.
Throw in the piece I saw in the Washington Times that the hard-religious right may bolt because Bush isn't burning gays as witches for getting married in San Fran, the fact that the usual working stooges who think that GOP racism constitutes "moral values" are going to bolt in fear of their own jobs.
Just how effective will the Diebold black box cheating be? I mean, even the "October Osama capture" should not offset all the negatives. Outright fraud is about all I see the Bushmen have going for them now... Of course, GOd knows, it made the difference last time...
Posted by: the talking dog at February 20, 2004 12:31 PM