DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice From mine: The notion that Obama has skipped his intelligence briefings was promoted by a right-leaning research group called the Government Accountability Institute, which published a report detailing that the president’s daily calendar shows Obama receiving an in-person briefing on the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) 43.8 percent of his time in office. (The percentage dropped from a high of 48.8 percent in 2010 to 38.2 percent through May of 2012.) Marc Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter who writes an opinion column for The Washington Post, then drew attention to what he called the “startling new statistics” in the report. His column on the subject is cited as the source in the American Crossroads ad. [Thiessen's column was the link you posted.] * * * UPDATE: Marc Thiessen has posted a response to this column, in which he argues that practices before the September 11 attacks should not be considered. It is an interesting, if not very factual argument. (Reagan, for instance, suffered the loss of 241 servicemen in Beirut as a result of a terror act.) We also find it curious that he now discloses the study was done at his request, by his business partner, and that he now describes the Government Accountability Institute as “nonpartisan” whereas in his earlier column he had called it a “conservative investigative research organization.” Upon reflection, we now realize that the GAI report has a bit of an inconsistency problem. Thiessen had earlier claimed Bush had oral intel briefings six days a week--though no actual schedule is available to confirm that--so at the very least GAI should have subtracted one a day week from Obama’s numbers to make a valid comparison. (The White House schedule does not list briefings on weekends but Peter Schweizer, president of GAI and Thiessen’s business partner, says the study also relied on Politico’s White House calendar, which does list some weekend meetings. Schweizer says the report is “about Obama and his scehdule.”) We had nearly given this data Four Pinocchios and in retrospect we were perhaps too generous with Three. I'm sure you both realize that these articles are 2 years old now, right? DC: Obama could be worse than reported by Sanity, in the last 2 years, couldn't he? Sanity: Obama could be better than reported by DC, in the last 2 years, couldn't he? Either way, it's much better to argue the current - or more recent - behaviors rather than previous behaviors. It's good to keep the previous behaviors in mind, but more to see change. I smoked for 7 years, but was a former smoker (behavioral change) that first day I quit (and that hasn't changed since). For me to have been considered a smoker for the first 2 years I was a former smoker - from a behavioral standpoint - would have been wrong.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|