Let me be clear on me being a baffoon

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Do you fall for this nimrod's bullshit?

No votes
Of course, because he says god tells him what to do.
Total votes: 5

Entropy's Stagger
Forum Addict
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:37 pm

Let me be clear on me being a baffoon

Postby Entropy's Stagger » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:23 am

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In Washington, there are plenty of ways to say "no comment," but President George W. Bush has offered his own formulation, after he refused to "negotiate with myself in public".

Bush used the phrase to deflect a question on the future of Social Security at a televised news conference.

"Now, the temptation is going to be, by well-meaning people such as yourself and others here, as we run up to the issue, to get me to negotiate with myself in public," Bush told the questioner on Monday. "To say, you know, "What's this mean, Mr. President? What's that mean?

"I'm not going to do that. I don't get to write the law. I'll propose a solution at the appropriate time," Bush said.

In essence, this Bushism means the president will discuss options on such issues as Social Security with members of Congress who write the law, but not with the media.

Asked to explain one facet of his Social Security policy, Bush agreed but said, "I will try to explain how without negotiating with myself. It's a very tricky way to get me to play my cards. I understand that."


Imagine if you will you give this sort of anwser to a teachers question in high school. What do you think the reaction of the teacher and fellow students would be?

Mike S.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1358
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:34 pm

Postby Mike S. » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:47 pm

While I'm not exactly in this guy's fan club, this one seems pretty straightforward. If negotiating usually means that you make positions and hear responses - like saying you'll pay 20, then saying you'll pay 22, then 23 - then "negotiating with yourself" means saying these things without hearing any corresponding 30, 28, 27 out of anyone else. In his case, he's apparently not willing to commit to what he's willing to give away or what value he places on various concessions without hearing some corresponding information from a negotiating opponent.

It makes sense enough, but the notion that the amount you may or may not ever see out of the government in your old age is being "negotiated" in secret does not inspire much confidence, does it? He'd have been better off saying "no comment", not because it's trite but because we sure didn't want to hear this one.

Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests