Bush's LR visit: the media coverage
Driving home from work this afternoon, I caught a segment on National Public Radio about how the local Arkansas media covered President George W. Bush's visit to Little Rock yesterday.
The angle of the story was that there wasn't much to cover, because his event was not open to the press. The reporter speculates that may have been an indication that Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson wanted to avoid a connection with Bush.
The piece includes a couple of audio clips from KTHV and KATV and some analysis from University of Arkansas professor Hoyt Purvis.




Comments
Warwick (you little stud, you), I hate to whore out Greasy Creek yet again, but we've been the blogosphere's trailblazers re: Asa!/W coverage today.
http://www.greasycreek.org
Posted by: Sam Faubus
|
August 31, 2006 09:06 PM
There should be a statue of Hoyt prominently displayed on campus. That man is a legend.
Posted by: Fayettevillian
|
August 31, 2006 09:30 PM
I don't like the tone of the Greasy Creek plug above. Sounds like one blog I can definitely skip.
NPR had an interesting observation. Get Bush in town to collect $600,000 for the campaign, but hide Bush in an effort to dissociate from him. Don't know if that was really their plan, but it's an interesting take on it.
Posted by: Spirit
|
August 31, 2006 10:31 PM
I took a chance, Spirit, and clicked on the Greasy Creek site.
It's ok.
I think it is a shame that $650,000 was raised in a single day for Asa! and the Party, when obviously he won't be elected.
If those people would contribute a like amount to feed and house the homeless in Arkansas, I might consider them to be good Christians.
Posted by: BlueRidge
|
August 31, 2006 11:16 PM
"I think it is a shame that $650,000 was raised in a single day for Asa! and the Party, when obviously he won't be elected.
If those people would contribute a like amount to feed and house the homeless in Arkansas, I might consider them to be good Christians."
What about the money Beebe has raised? Why is it when Beebe raises money it's a good thing? But when Asa does "it's just a shame. All those poor people could use some money..."?
Posted by: Anonymous
|
September 1, 2006 12:20 AM
"The angle of the story was that there wasn't much to cover, because his event was not open to the press. The reporter speculates that may have been an indication that Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson wanted to avoid a connection with Bush."
Why didn't Beebe invite the media to his Big Hollywood fundraiser? Why hasn't he been making a big deal out of it?
If Asa is so ashamed, why did he has he been issuing press releases bragging about it?
Posted by: Anonymous
|
September 1, 2006 12:29 AM
"If Asa is so ashamed, why did he has he been issuing press releases bragging about it?"
Hey NutButt. How about some links or examples of A$a's press releases. I've seen notta. He ain't proud of suckin up to the biggest loser since Richard Nixon and a loser that paddled his ass and sent him back to the hills without the appointment.
We will wait til yo mama lets you back on the comp.
Posted by: Lwood
|
September 1, 2006 02:13 AM
Right. Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure all the supporters who showed up with $650 K were ashamed, too.
Posted by: Anonymous
|
September 1, 2006 02:23 AM
Hey Max,
I'm looking forward to you posting this article from the NY Times by David Leonhardt, the same author, that you posted on Monday in your "Rich Get Richer II" post.
It pretty well repudiates the first article. I know you're just dying to post it. I have a suggestion. Why don't you title it "Everybody Gets Richer"?
Here's a great passage from it, which flies in the face of the earlier article:
"Perhaps the biggest surprise in today's report was a surge in wage-and-salary income during the first half of this year. Between the fourth quarter of last year and the second quarter of 2006, it grew at an annual rate of about 7 percent, after adjusting for inflation, up from an earlier estimate of 4 percent, according to MFR, a consulting firm in New York.
As a result, wages and salaries no longer make up their smallest share of the gross domestic product since World War II. They accounted for 46.1 percent of economic output in the second quarter, down from a high of 53.6 percent in 1970 but up from 45.4 percent last year.
Total compensation - including employee health benefits, which have risen in value in recent years - equaled 57.1 percent of the economy, down from 59.8 percent in 1970. Still, compensation makes up a larger share of the economy than it did throughout the 1950's and early 60's, as well as during parts of the mid-1990's and the last couple of years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/business/31econcnd.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1156996800&en=3cb6de5794692dac&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
Thanks,
Anonymous
Posted by: Anonymous
|
September 1, 2006 02:34 AM
Poor Anonymous, he's such a tool. He left out the opening and most inportant sentence.
"The American economy grew more quickly in the second quarter than the government had initially estimated, and inflation was slightly lower, the Commerce Department reported today."
Anybody who'd believe any numbers from this administration deserves what they'll get - screwed.
Posted by: 70%er
|
September 1, 2006 05:27 AM
Anonymous gets a little sensitive when somebody talks bad about his hero. He LOVES George Bush. Thinks he's the best president ever. He wants to MARRY George Bush, if Republicans allowed such a thing.
Posted by: Sparky
|
September 1, 2006 10:43 AM
Amazing how none of you read the rest of the story.
Posted by: Anonymous
|
September 1, 2006 11:49 AM