Banner Logo
Home
The Real Kato
About Me
Twitter
Facebook
Frozen Lunches
Links
Kottke
Daring Fireball
Amalah
Secret Agent Josephine
Dooce
Contact



Archives
Most Recent

2024 March
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May


Categories
All Categories 

bloggers 
books 
commentary 
dating 
food 
funnyhaha 
interesting 
life 
movies 
music 
politics 
reviews 
science 
site-business 
sports 
style 
techwatch 
television 
theater 
travel 


Recent Comments
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre...
Ken said:
Yeah, we've both had our share of hope and disappointment in this game. Let's just hope for a good b...
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre...
Dan* said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this game. On one hand, I feel pretty optimistic that we have the tale...
On College Football 2022: Week 1 Preview
Dan* said:
Glad to see you'll be back writing football again, Ken! Congrats on the easy win today. You didn't ...
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P...
Ken said:
Yeah, sorry one of our teams had to lose. I've come to appreciate Penn State as a classy and sympath...
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P...
Dan* said:
Hey Ken, congratulations on the win yesterday! Some really odd choices by our coaching staff in that...


<< Previous: Dating Update | Next: Whew >>

Back to My Roots
Thursday, 2005 April 28 - 11:47 pm
Some notes from Bush's press conference tonight.

A year ago, almost no one read this blog. That's because it was PRETTY DAMN DULL. If you ever decide to go back in the archives, don't bother with the really old stuff. There's nothing wet and dirty back there.

Part of what started the Real Kato Online Renaissance was the 2004 election process. That's when I really started to write a lot, and to inject some snarkiness into my writing style. I got more gonzo and more personal. Most importantly, I really started to enjoy writing. A lot. Using sentence fragments. I know, some people don't like reading about politics, but I feel like that's where the roots of this blog lie, so I owe something to the subject.

Lately I've been feeling like I have less to say about politics. Sometimes, I feel like I've said the same things so many times that the words are losing their meaning. How many times can I ridicule the current administration for its illogical policies? But then I worry that I'm going to become yet another disaffected and apathetic American, who's too fed up to care about politics any more. I don't want that to happen. There are so many important things going on, and I feel like I need to care.

Tonight, Bush gave me a much needed jolt, by holding a prime-time propaganda session press conference. So just like during the days of the Republican and Democratic nominating conventions, I took notes through the whole thing so I could blog about it. I really felt like I was getting back to my roots. This is a lengthy article, and it's taken me hours to write, but it's been worth it.

By the way, tonight was a great opportunity to play the Bush Drinking Game. For those of you who aren't familiar with it: there are specific words and phrases to which you drink, like "hard work", "we're making progress", and "NU-CU-LAR". And, whenever he completely changes the topic in order to start talking about "No Child Left Behind" or 9/11, you have to empty your glass.

So here goes.

----
GEORGE W. BUSH: See me saunter down the hall in manly Texas kind of way. Ten steps to the podium... five... now, SMIRK!

First: my prepared remarks about gas prices. We have to promote increased production from the Middle East. Prices are increasing because consumption is growing faster than production. (NO DUH.)

We need to take these steps: use TECH-NO-LO-GY to improve conservation; make more efficient use of oil, clean coal, and NU-CU-LAR energy (drink); develop new sources of energy like hydrogen and biodiesel; and, pressure emerging countries like China and India to reduce usage. But mostly, we need to get an energy bill out of Congress. Clearly, oil prices are CONGRESS'S FAULT, NOT MINE.

Second: my Social Security pep talk. People understand that Social Security is heading for serious trouble, and by "people", I mean "my sycophants". The math has changed; baby boomers will retire, and we'll have 72 million retirees, who are living longer and getting more benefits, because NAUGHTY CONGRESS is allowing benefit rate increases to pass the rate of inflation. BAD CONGRESS! BAD! (Of course, we avoid talking about the obvious solution, which is to SEND ALL RETIREES OFF TO FIGHT IN IRAQ. Talk about killing two birds with one stone!)

In 2017, Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. In 2041, it will be bankrupt. (Yeah, uh huh.)

Franklin Roosevelt did a "wonderful thing" when he created Social Security as a safety net. But there's a hole in the safety net: DIRTY NAUGHTY CONGRESSES have made promises that they can't keep. I want to make it clear, though, that current retirees will keep getting their checks. If you were born before 1950, your benefits won't decrease, at least not before the next election.

My plan has absolutely no specifics, but it consists of these three vague parts:

1. Keep the promise to retirees who depend on Social Security as a source of income, that they will receive no less in benefits than they do today. Of course, I won't guarantee that inflation won't make those benefits worth less than they are today. But who's counting?
2. Let benefits for lower-income workers rise faster than benefits for higher-income workers. Don't say "means-testing"; that makes it sound so dirty.
3. Replace "empty promises" with "real assets, real money", with the option of a voluntary personal retirement account. And to reassure people that it's not risky, one investment option would be treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. (GEE, WHAT DO YOU THINK BACKS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM?)

I'll listen to the House and Senate as THEY take the next steps in the legislative process, because it's not my job to think about details. After all, I'm only the President. I'm not some kind of genius.

----

(Okay, so now on to the press conference... with minor embellishments.)

Terry "Don't Call Me Mike" Hunt: Are you frustrated that a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of Social Security, gas prices, the economy, and the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston breakup, and that you aren't getting things done despite the Republican majority in congress?
Prez: People just aren't used to doing the hard work. (Drink.) I've been explaining to people that we have a problem. Once they realize we have a problem, they'll ask their DIRTY CONGRESSIONAL REPS to get working on it. And polls? Fuck the polls. If a president makes decisions based on polls, it's like a dog chasing his tail, and I mean that in a totally non-Jeff-Gannon kind of way.

Steve "Amsterdam" Holland: Why is the Iraqi insurgency as bad as it was a year ago?
Prez: We're winning. Some people still want tyranny and death. We're making progress. (Drink.) Iraq still has people who want to kill, but democracy is taking hold. In order to defeat the terrorists, in the long run we must spread peace and hope. I talked to the Iraqi PM, and he understands how important it is to get a constitution written, to reach out to disaffected groups, and to make sure Ben Affleck doesn't marry Jennifer Garner.

David "Two First Names" Gregory: The head of the Family Research Council says, filibusters are an attack against people of faith. Do you agree?
Prez: I don't want people who legislate from the bench. But judges deserve an up-or-down vote, out of "fairness". Religion is a personal matter. (But do you agree with the statement that the Democrats are against people of faith? We're not letting you squirm out of an answer.) No, I do not agree with that. I don't condemn someone in the political process because they don't agree with my religion. You're equally patriotic regardless of belief. But I'm a "man of faith". Stay with me, Religious Right, can't you see I'm just giving lip service here?

John "I Have Brokaw's Hair" Roberts: How would the energy bill have an effect on the current price of gas and oil?
Prez: The most effective way to affect gasoline prices is to put more crude oil on the market. The energy bill is not a quick fix. We haven't had an energy policy. (Except, I guess, to invite Ken Lay over for drinks and give favorable treatment to Enron.) There's that contentious ANWR stuff, where we want to plow up a mere TWO THOUSAND acres of wildlife refuge, and everyone's got their eco-panties in a twist. We need to develop liquified natural gas, NU-CU-LAR energy (drink), clean coal projects. These are long term projects. If we did something ten years ago, we wouldn't have this problem now. And I do mean, TEN years ago when someone ELSE was in office. Clearly there's no way we could have done something FOUR years ago.

Terry "I Am Macaulay Culkin With Gigantism" Moran: Terrorist attacks are at an all time high. How do you explain that if we're winning the war on terror, more people are dying than ever before?
Prez: We've chosen to fight terrorists abroad instead of here. As long as people don't die in America, IT DOESN'T REALLY COUNT. Hey, when you engage terrorists abroad, it causes "action". And we're "relentless", so we expect plenty of "action". But we're making good progress. (Drink.) In the long term we must spread freedom and democracy. Will there be more near term casualties? I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST THE PRESIDENT.

Suzanne "My Eyes Are Up Here, Jackass" Malveaux: What do you think of Putin now that he's expressed a willingness to provide weapons to outlaw regimes (missiles to syria, nuclear components to Iran)?
Prez: I'm "talking" to him about democracy, and so is my sweet baby Condie. We made ourselves clear that we "didn't appreciate" him giving weaponized vehicles to Syria. That'll do the trick, won't it? And as far as Iran is concerned, Russia has offered to enrich the uranium FOR Iran, and then take it back once they've made energy from it. There's NO WAY that process could get abused. "We cannot trust the Iranians when it comes to uranium". Catchy.

Wendell "My Precious" Goler: Do the allegations against Bolton warrant your personal intervention? If allegations are true, should he be disqualified?
Prez: Bolton is a good diplomat, and he has been confirmed by Senate four times (for other jobs, like Official Fluffy Mustache Grower). Bolton is blunt (wait, what? someone's got a blunt?), he can get the job done, he's capable, he's smart, he isn't afraid to speak his mind, and he's hung like a horse. The UN needs reform. I asked Bolton if the UN is important, and Bolton said yes, but it needs to be reformed. Now I'm going to talk about some unrelated person, who happens to be the diplomat to Syria... I mean Lebanon... and are you bored enough by this topic yet?

Richard "Don't Call Me Stretch... Or Jaws" Kiel: Would you consider it a success if the NAUGHTY NAUGHTY CONGRESS passed a bill that addressed Social Security's solvency without including personal accounts?
Prez: No. Fuck off. People have to understand that Social Security is not a bank account; it's just a big set of IOUs. Unlike, say, those SUPER-SAFE treasury bonds, which are NOTHING LIKE IOUs, except that they're pieces of paper which say that the government promises to pay you money in the far-off future.

David "My Dream Is To Be George Will" Sanger: You've set no benchmarks on when troops will come back from Iraq. Can you say in a year that troops will come home?
Prez: I don't want to set a timetable because if I do, the enemy will "adjust", and I'm not talking about your Wee Waw, dude. We'll bring troops home as soon as possible, which means, when the Iraqis can take care of themselves. (Which means, well after the next president is in office, and I won't have to care about it any more.) Recruitment in the Iraqi military is high (unlike our OWN military), Iraqi troops are being equipped, and General Petraeus is pleased with progress in setting up a command structure. But there's still work to be done. (Drink.) We shouldn't politicize the military. We're making good progress. (Drink.) We reduced numbers from 160,000 to a mere piddling 139,000. At this rate, our troops will be home in just eight short years!

David "I'm Still Talking Here" Sanger: Are our options elsewhere in the world limited because of the number of troops in iraq? Like in North Korea and Iran?
Prez: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says no, we're not limited. In South Korea, we've replaced troops with more "capacity", and by "capacity" I mean "fewer troops". Um. Um. I'm trying to come up with more to say here. Kim Jong Il is a dangerous person. Did you know that? We're trying to deal with him diplomatically by bringing in more countries, a CON-SOR-TEE-UM. Oh, and this, by the way, is the reason for having a multi-trillion-dollar missile defense system. It's part of the overall comprehensive strategery.

Ed "Not The Token Asian Guy" Chen: Why is there a "poisonous political atmosphere" in washington. Have you contributed to it?
Prez: I dunno. I'M JUST THE PRESIDENT. I've been disappointed by it. There's a lot of politics in Washington, which was TOTALLY UNEXPECTED! There's a "zero sum" attitude. But we've had successes, like the education bill and September 11th (Everybody drink! Chug! Chug!), and the way we've supported our troops by sending them off to die needlessly. With tough issues, sometimes people divide into camps. I've been proud of MY party, we're the party of ideas. But even though MY party is CLEARLY SUPERIOR to the OTHER party, I don't really know why we have such a poisonous political atmosphere. American people are more concerned with why we don't have an energy bill and a Social Security bill. Did I mention how those guys in Congress are really, really in need of a good hard spanking?

Bill "Going Upstream To Spawn" Sammon: You came to us saying you'd change the tone, but we're still deadlocked on stuff like Bolton and judge nominations. Will that harm your agenda, and your ability to get things passed?
Prez: Well, we passed the class action lawsuit reform law, and the bankruptcy reform law, so clearly we can WHOMP on Democrats at least some of the time. Oh, and we passed a budget agreement. We are making progress. (Drink.) We need to get something done on Social Security. Did I mention that? If we don't do something now, the payroll tax will have to go up to 18%, and next thing you know, Britney Spears will be pregnant. What?

Michael "Wookh! Call me Fletch" Fletcher: North Korea: are the six-party talks working, and how long before we do "something else"?
Prez: Yes, it's helping to have China and Japan involved. We'll "continue to work" on this. This conversation has become tiresome.

Mark "Holy" Knoller: Our practice of swooping up terrorist suspects, and holding them in other countries... how would you feel if other countries did that to Americans?
Prez: We're acting within the law, and by "the law" I mean "whatever John Ashcroft said was okay". We're acting within our commitment not to torture people. Got that? NOT TORTURING. Just a few sex games. That's all. Hey, if people are going to harm Americans, then yes, we'll detain them. We're still at war. So it's okay for us to go illegally detain people. Wait, I didn't mean "illegally". Anyway, don't you idiots remember 9/11? (Chug.) You know, that thing that got me re-elected despite the fact that I'm a moron?

John "I Write for the WSJ So I Only Understand $$$" McKinnon: What's your view of the economy? First quarter GDP growth was lower... is that just a bump in the road or a real cause for concern?
Prez: Well, it's all about gas prices, which are a tax on small businesses and families, and did I mention, THAT'S NOT MY FAULT? Gas prices have affected consumer SEN-TEE-MENT. But experts say forecast looks good. Yeah, there's more to do to make sure we don't slip back into slow or negative growth. We have to keep taxes low. We have to get asbestos lawsuit reform, because there's nothing that jump-starts an economy like LUNG CANCER. We have to open up markets for US products (CAFTA), reduce regulation, and get some tax reform (like collecting the $330 billion a year in unpaid taxes... from ALL YOU BASTARDS THAT DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES... except if you're a Republican, of course.)

Richard "Pope" Benedetto: With the No Child Left Behind act, the teachers' union filed a lawsuit that says it's woefully underfunded. Is NCLB working?
Prez: The measurements say it's working. We're making progress. (Drink.) We're measuring, Richard. Be glad I didn't just say "We're measuring Dick" because that would have CRACKED ME UP. We've increased federal spending, and we're saying "measure". MEASURE, DICK. Tee hee! I don't know about the lawsuit, because I'm not a lawyer, I'm JUST THE DAMN PRESIDENT. Some people are trying to unwind the NCLB. Some states don't like it, and I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that they have to pick up the check for this unfunded mandate. If you teach a child to read and write, it shouldn't matter that you're measuring them. NCLB is a case where bipartisanship was working well. Let's "change the attitude", and assume every child can learn. If you assume every child can learn, you can assume every classroom can teach. Teachers appreciate that the system shows children's deficiencies early. Okay, now is the time, mein Sprockets, when we dance.

Olivier "Clash of the Titans" Knox: A follow-up on North Korea: Did you mean you won't take further action without the consensus of the other five countries involved?
Prez: It's best to consult with other countries. Except, of course, when invading a country with Brown People in it. When will there be consequences? We'll work with our allies to have a consensus. Our aim is to solve this diplomatically. All options are on the table. I'm not talking to you any more.

Ron "Starsky And" Hutchenson: How far will you go with this means-based system for Social Security, to insure solvency? And by the way, the current level of benefits won't mean much somewhere down the road [because of inflation]. Are you...
Prez: Let me interrupt you before you ask a really tough question. All of this is up for negotiation. Maybe 30% of people will be in the lower income scale? That's for those DIRTY CONGRESSMEN to negotiate. Yes, it's a means-based system, so wealthy people will get less. But the current system isn't fair for dead people, so my proposal must be better than THAT, at least. You hear me, dead people? I'm looking out for you. You other people are screwed. Now I'm leaving. God bless our country.


(The end. Hic.)
Permalink  3 Comment   Bookmark and Share
Posted by Ken in: politics

Comments

Comment #1 from Nicholas (Guest)
2005 Apr 29 - 10:08 am : #
Thanks for the summary. I missed it because I put the kids to bed from 8-8:30. Sounds about like I expected. Though the talk of lessening benefits for high wage workers makes it more of a progressive tax. Bush promoting a progressive tax was surprising. It is more of a tax for high wage workers. I've always considered Social Security a tax, even though it is not supposed to be one.
Comment #2 from MonoCerdo (Guest)
2005 Apr 29 - 10:48 am : #
Great post. I just wish it weren't true.

My favorite part: When he got all cowboy on that guy who mentioned that Dick Cheney was a rich person. "Don't get personal! You're on national television!" Shit. Now we all know Dick Cheney is rich. Nice job, liberal media!
Comment #3 from Crouching Hamster (Guest)
2005 Apr 29 - 4:47 pm : #
So ... when I called you last night, you were drunk? It's likely I was too.
I watched CNN at about 2 and fell asleep. But I did catch several mispronunciations (which El Prezidente does not even grasp). I wish I could say he was a product of our failing public schools. But Jesus - he went to Yale and Harvard! WTF?

As I sit here in my spacious and quiet (for real) Harlem apartment, writing term papers so I can be a more knowledgeable and better contributor to our society, I wonder what it's all about.

I for one am not counting on getting a $400 check which will keep me flush in beer money when I'm 70. And I've been out of the labor market for so long, my contributions to social security have been ridiculously low.

I predict, in the future, a crisis, and then a New Deal II. Unless we have further techonological advances (macroeconomic theory which I can't really get into here). Then the crisis will only happen to the poor. And who will speak for them? Dick Cheney?

Comments are closed for this post.
Login


Search This Site
Powered by FreeFind