Today's discussion topic: Bush administration's alleged "talking-points-only" policy for speeches.
>>I have become frustrated with the lack of dialogue between the white house and we, the American public, regarding policy decisions--both foreign and domestic. Having heard quite a few presidential speeches this year on my commute to work (live on my local NPR station), I feel that actual disclosure of any logical rationale for the decisions of this administration has been replaced by talking points and oversimplifying rhetoric that I can only describe as f*cking condescention:
Hurricane Katrina: "we're working to solve problems 'cause we are problem solvers"
Big Oil record profits: "We're in a supply-and-demand world. If prices are high, it means demand is greater than supply."
Iraq: "Our mission in Iraq is clear: We're hunting down the terrorists"
I would give much more support to the President if he would tell us what the hell he was thinking when he made plans for actions/inn-actions, but I don't feel that we're being let in. And then the administration has the audacity to blast the newspapers for serving their purpose: telling us what the f*ck is going on. So my question is this: Do you feel similar dissent because of this? And if not, why? What have I missed that might explain their need to rely on talking-points alone?
( Collapse )