The benchmark of 100 days
As the arbitrary benchmark of the first 100 days in office approaches (Saturday, April 29th), 45 is doing his best to downplay the significance of this marker.
In an interview with the Associated Press, the Cheeto-in-Chief said, "The hundred days is just an artificial barrier. The press keeps talking about the hundred days. But we’ve done a lot. You have a list of things."
When he was running for election, he used the phrase "the first 100 days" a lot. He himself established it as a benchmark, arbitrary or otherwise. his own 100 day plan can still be found on his website, where he says the American people will vote on that plan last November 8th.
The Cheeto-in-Chief has been scrutinized by the mainstream media regarding this and other flip-flops and that is fair. When you make promises regarding how you will govern and you fail to keep those promises, you should be held accountable.
In the L.A. Times today (4/26/2017) there is an article about the promises made, kept and not kept by 45. There is a graph at the top.
Promises kept - 4
Promises in progress - 9
Promises stalled - 9
Promises scaled back - 4
Promises abandoned - 5
Time magazine has a great article on their website with a video showing the Cheeto-in-Chief flip-flopping in his own words on the following issues:
NATO being obsolete
China being a currency manipulator
Janet Yellen
Steve Bannon and how well 45 knows him
Personally I think that the current occupant of the Oval Office is the most unqualified person in our nation's history to be elected to that office and based on what little he's done during these first months; will go down as our nation's worst president ever.
That being said, is the mainstream media being fair in covering him? Highlighting his flip-flops is fair. Pointing out his broken promises is fair.
But is the L.A. Times article (and others from other media outlets with a liberal bias) fair, when compared to their coverage of the Cheeto-in-Chief's predecessor, President Obama?
The Times headline for their story on Trump's first 100 days - "Here's where Trump's campaign promises stand"
The Times headline for their story on Obama's first 100 days - "Obama begins leading America in a new direction"
Is that fair? Depends on your perspective. Take note that a study by the Pew Research Center showed that President Obama received much more favorable press coverage in the first months of his first term than President Bill Clinton or President George W. Bush received.
Is it possible that there is a correlation between a president's election result and approval rating in terms of the positive/negative coverage of that president? There are two factors involved here where President Obama was ahead of Clinton, Bush Jr. and 45.
1. Only Obama won the popular vote in winning the presidency among the four.
2. Obama's approval rating early on was much higher than the other three.
The Cheeto-in-Chief is his own worst enemy in such things. He refuses to consider ethics in how he conducts his administration in light of his business holdings. The recent State Department blog post extolling the virtues of Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort was clearly improper. No apology. No admission of guilt. Just a prompt deletion of the post as soon as it was pointed out just how wrong it was.
In the end, the reality is that 45 has done a dismal job at best thus far and there is little hope for improvement.
In an interview with the Associated Press, the Cheeto-in-Chief said, "The hundred days is just an artificial barrier. The press keeps talking about the hundred days. But we’ve done a lot. You have a list of things."
When he was running for election, he used the phrase "the first 100 days" a lot. He himself established it as a benchmark, arbitrary or otherwise. his own 100 day plan can still be found on his website, where he says the American people will vote on that plan last November 8th.
The Cheeto-in-Chief has been scrutinized by the mainstream media regarding this and other flip-flops and that is fair. When you make promises regarding how you will govern and you fail to keep those promises, you should be held accountable.
In the L.A. Times today (4/26/2017) there is an article about the promises made, kept and not kept by 45. There is a graph at the top.
Promises kept - 4
Promises in progress - 9
Promises stalled - 9
Promises scaled back - 4
Promises abandoned - 5
Time magazine has a great article on their website with a video showing the Cheeto-in-Chief flip-flopping in his own words on the following issues:
NATO being obsolete
China being a currency manipulator
Janet Yellen
Steve Bannon and how well 45 knows him
Personally I think that the current occupant of the Oval Office is the most unqualified person in our nation's history to be elected to that office and based on what little he's done during these first months; will go down as our nation's worst president ever.
That being said, is the mainstream media being fair in covering him? Highlighting his flip-flops is fair. Pointing out his broken promises is fair.
But is the L.A. Times article (and others from other media outlets with a liberal bias) fair, when compared to their coverage of the Cheeto-in-Chief's predecessor, President Obama?
The Times headline for their story on Trump's first 100 days - "Here's where Trump's campaign promises stand"
The Times headline for their story on Obama's first 100 days - "Obama begins leading America in a new direction"
Is that fair? Depends on your perspective. Take note that a study by the Pew Research Center showed that President Obama received much more favorable press coverage in the first months of his first term than President Bill Clinton or President George W. Bush received.
Is it possible that there is a correlation between a president's election result and approval rating in terms of the positive/negative coverage of that president? There are two factors involved here where President Obama was ahead of Clinton, Bush Jr. and 45.
1. Only Obama won the popular vote in winning the presidency among the four.
2. Obama's approval rating early on was much higher than the other three.
The Cheeto-in-Chief is his own worst enemy in such things. He refuses to consider ethics in how he conducts his administration in light of his business holdings. The recent State Department blog post extolling the virtues of Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort was clearly improper. No apology. No admission of guilt. Just a prompt deletion of the post as soon as it was pointed out just how wrong it was.
In the end, the reality is that 45 has done a dismal job at best thus far and there is little hope for improvement.
posted by me at 9:29 AM
<< Home