Bush on 'Meet the Press': Good or Bad Political Strategy?
Some of us as disagree with/dislike Bush. Others are quite supportive of him. I am not suggesting that we continue that debate in this thread.
Rather, my question is: Regardless of what you think of him ? do you think that GWB?s decision to do the television interview was a good idea, strategically, for his Presidency and for Republicans fortunes generally?
I think that this interview was quite daring for the President ? a President who has been fairly sheltered in terms of direct participation in public policy debate (other than mouthing of patriotic slogans, platitudes and the odd bit of simplistic policy analysis). I salute the Republicans for having tried this. I am generally supportive of any effort by a politician ? regardless of whether I support him or her ? to expose themselves and their ideas to the public spotlight beyond tightly scripted speeches and photo ops.
On the other hand, I am not sure that it worked. I did not see the entire interview, but what I did see and hear did not impress me. Perhaps it is just my bias ? being part of the anti-Bush camp ? but I wonder if even the Republicans now think that this might have been the wrong strategy. Sometimes the best strategy is not to expose your candidate to the public beyond the simple messages and scripted appearances. This is especially the case if the ?to and fro? of actual policy debate is not your candidate?s strong suit.
Any thoughts?
Rather, my question is: Regardless of what you think of him ? do you think that GWB?s decision to do the television interview was a good idea, strategically, for his Presidency and for Republicans fortunes generally?
I think that this interview was quite daring for the President ? a President who has been fairly sheltered in terms of direct participation in public policy debate (other than mouthing of patriotic slogans, platitudes and the odd bit of simplistic policy analysis). I salute the Republicans for having tried this. I am generally supportive of any effort by a politician ? regardless of whether I support him or her ? to expose themselves and their ideas to the public spotlight beyond tightly scripted speeches and photo ops.
On the other hand, I am not sure that it worked. I did not see the entire interview, but what I did see and hear did not impress me. Perhaps it is just my bias ? being part of the anti-Bush camp ? but I wonder if even the Republicans now think that this might have been the wrong strategy. Sometimes the best strategy is not to expose your candidate to the public beyond the simple messages and scripted appearances. This is especially the case if the ?to and fro? of actual policy debate is not your candidate?s strong suit.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Personally, I want to know why the President dodged the questions about his military service. Saying, "Well, I got an honorable discharge" cleared nothing up. Heck, I transferred out of Northeastern University 2 years ago. If someone influential would vouch for me that I continued to go to the college and gave me a degree, even if I didn't attended classes there for 2 years, would that mean that I was there?
I also want to know why the President also said that he made his records, tax documents, and pay stubs from that year available in 2000 when that also isn't true. In fact, the press is saying today that they still don't have access to those documents.
Plus, why is it that they can't find the President's record out there in Colorado or wherever they keep military records? Are all the records of those who served in the Texas or Alabama National guard missing? If the President was on active duty, why can no base commanders or COs vouch for him? Why haven't any of the men he served with come forward on his behalf?
I also saw how the White House decided they were going to change the excuse of why we went to war with Iraq.
All in all, lots of incidents where the President seemed to not understand simple questions that were being asked, lots of mumbling and bumbling of answers, and he couldn't even really field national policy issues without trouble. I also don't think Russert was very tough on him, but then again, it was the President and not some regular guest on his show.
Still, in the last 4 weeks, Russert has had on: Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean, all in that order, and each of them did much better than the President did. Overall, it's an interesting insight on what the election year is going to bring, and we'll see what happens when the Democratic nominee steps forward. I think that the President's campaign is going to go into full attack mode as soon as the nomination looks like it's locked up, and I'm sure it's going to be an ugly year.
at this point, i think the dumb bastard is being hung out to dry by the republican party. as if they know he won't win, and rather than build him up anymore, they're just letting him say anything he wants in front of a camera. then when a democrat gets in office, he won't be able to fix the deficit fast enough without, you guessed it, tons of new taxes, which will give the republicans lots of cannon fodder for 2008.
too much reverse-psychology? maybe.
Having Bush answer questions for more than 2 minutes is bad political strategy.
in theory, i think it was good strategy. in practice, bad. (these aren't quotes) "testify for the commission?....uh no. i'll talk with them, but only if i'm allowed to lie my ass off." "obviously i served because i was honorably discharged. its not like they just give honorable discharges away" (which i suppose they don't, but i'd still like to see some evidence of actual time served). "yea, i was against nation building. but look, the situation in iraq isn't nation building. there's no nation to start with, we massacred them. and we can't just leave a void out there." the last one really bugged me. i remember him saying that he was against nation building back in the debates or whatever.
Originally posted by groverat
I watched the interview, and it was bad political strategy.
Having Bush answer questions for more than 2 minutes is bad political strategy.
i agree. he's just not a smooth public speaker, especially when he has to think on his feet outside a scripted environment. he has a tendency to come across as a smirky bastard.
"Yeah".
The correct response is "Yes", with an "s" Mr. President. Also, loved how you dodged the question about your ANG service "Look, I'm tellin' ya, I did my duty."
Yeah.
The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event. When he was thrown the semisoftball question on his National Guard experience--he's been thrown this question for 10 years now--he spoke in a way that seemed detached. "It's politics." Well yes, we know that. Tell us more.
She of course then goes on to excuse this with the same excuse people have used for American conservatives since, probably, Reagan: sure, he's not good with facts, but he's wise. He has vision, not details.
Democrats have minds that do it through talking points, and Republicans have minds that do speeches. (Mr. Bush has given a dozen memorable speeches already; only one of his Democratic challengers has, and that was "I Have a Scream.") And the reason--perhaps--is that Democratic candidates tend to love the game of politics, and Republican candidates often don't. Democrats, because they admire government and seek to be part of it, are inclined to think the truth of life is in policy. How could they not then be engaged by policy talk, and its talking points?
Republicans think politics is something you have to do and that policy is something you have to have to move things forward in line with a philosophy. They like philosophy. But they are bored by policy and hate having to memorize talking points.
Speeches are the vehicle for philosophy. Interviews are the vehicle of policy. Mr. Kerry does talking points and can't give an interesting speech. Mr. Bush can't do talking points and gives speeches full of thought and assertion.
Philosophy takes time. If you connect your answers in an interview to philosophy, or go to philosophy first, you can look as if you're dodging the question. You can forget the question. You can look a little gaga. But policy doesn't take time. Policy is a machine gun--bip bip bip. Education policy, bip bip bip. Next.
They're NOT OK. He's the President of the United States for cryin' out loud! The leader of the largest economy and largest Democracy on the planet. And he is not capable of even thinking on his feet during an interview? Cannot convincingly answer (in the words of a long-time GOP die-hard) the simplest of political barbs? What's he like in the closed boardrooms when there are no cameras and therefore no need to at least *pretend* to be interested in the issues surrounding him?
Snap decisions or "leave it to Dick and Don" I suspect (we'll have to wait a few years to find out for sure).
Anyone who votes for this man in the upcoming election is surely one of four types of people:
1) The GOP lackey who votes down party lines (city, county, state, federal) in every election, never taking into account whether the other candidates might actually be more qualified because "they're not Republican".
2) The people who think "doing real good on defense" is qualification enough to be re-elected.
3) The GOP intellectual who, if he votes against Bush now, must admit that all the lame arguments they floated over the last four years about his competency ("yeah") were basically incorrect. What's that old line about pride never helping but only hurting?
4) A Bush.
Bush's speeches have not been interesting unless you think that the mouthing of pre-canned platitudes is interesting. And his speeches certainly have not been "philosophy". A philosophical speech analyzes a problem from various points of view, subjects ideas to a rigourous analysis, and arrives - if possible - at a well-supported conclusion. Bush's speeches never do this. Instead, Bush's speeches have been in the category of "propaganda" (and I mean that in the simple non-pejorative meaning). I will agree, however, that his speeches have sometimes been effective propaganda: while I might not find patriotic platitudes to be interesting, may people do ,and I think that Bush often has been effective in "communicating" (in the way Reagan did) to the country and the world on these terms.
As for denigrating policy debate, I disagree with Noonan entirely. It is important that a President have something to back up the propaganda, else his Administration will be ineffective or worse when making actual policy choices. While it can be difficult for anyone to think on their feet during an extended television interview - and it is not fair to entirely rate a President on his ability to ?perform? in this way ? I would like to think that a President would at least show flashes of something a bit more substantial. I am not asking for brilliance, just signs of good judgement.
Even though I am a liberal and I don?t like Bush, I wish ? for the benefit of the U.S. and the world ? that this ?something more substantial? were there. I am not sure that it is.
Here's a link to an article that has gone through all the files that were obtainable...
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671
it's very clear about the order of events and the way the commanders felt about it.
It's also probably evident that there is no more evidence in the file... Bush cannot prove he served during the time span covered in the article.
One repurcussion of not attending your requirement is that they can send you to war for up to 2 years. That obviously didn't happen.
The best interpretation of Bush's thinking is that... "I'm right... my reality is more important than whatever facts have come to light... my reality doesn't change."
Originally posted by Chinney
Interesting thoughts by Noonan. But I beg to differ with her.
Yeah, I think her fallacy is that if you're bad with facts and details, you must therefore be good with philosophy and vision. We know Bush is bad with details and facts, but that doesn't mean he's good with the big picture.
Clinton was the quintessential policy president. He could rattle off a 10-point plan for the most obscure policy issues. But I don't see any reason to believe that he was therefore bad with the big picture. His basic economic policy was to 1. put the fiscal house in order and 2. expand trade. That was his big picture, and it was arguably a sound one.
I think, more likely, vision comes from a detailed knowledge of basic facts and issues. Everything I know and believe about philosophy and wisdom (OK, maybe not much) suggests that they must come from a sound basis of factual information. They don't just come from nowhere.
On the other hand, it could just be that he's a poor communicator, at least in that type of spontaneous situation. Fair enough. I'm sure I would wilt in front of Russert on international TV. But it's something a president perhaps should be good at?
On the other hand, it could just be that he's a poor communicator, at least in that type of spontaneous situation
Of course Bush is a poor communicator in spontaneous situations. He wanted to go on Meet the Press and we would have to believe he prepared rigorously for it. But he still bombed. Noonen is right in that he can't get his talking points straight.
Bush's speeches have not been interesting unless you think that the mouthing of pre-canned platitudes is interesting
I don't agree with that and would put up his speech to the U.N. and his speech in England as evidence.
Do I think it was a mistake to go on Meet the Press? Yes. Do I think Bush will win the election? Yes. He poll numbers have been going down because of the relentless beating in the press by the Democratic candidates. Once there is a nominee, he can go on the offensive. Until then, it's a waste of time to respond to 4 different candidates.
Well, I guess except for when he's drinking at a party.
They dropped after the SOTU and they'll drop after MTP.
He talks about the economy and defending his reasons for going to war and at least 50% of the country goes..."huh? that's defending your policies?"
Saddam is a madman is his defense. What about Kim Jong Il... he's much much closer than Saddam ever was to having a nuclear bomb... North Korea actually has nuclear power plants.
His ratings have gone down because noone was opposing him for almost 3 years... now people are thinking that the Democrats are making sense when they hear their criticisms.
Remember the tax cuts that were supposed to create 3 million jobs last year? We lost 54,000.
And now he's saying they'll create 3.8 million jobs this year. Does anyone believe that? Anyone?
And now he's saying they'll create 3.8 million jobs this year. Does anyone believe that? Anyone?
Does anyone believe that a President can create any jobs other than government jobs? Anyone? What's ANY elected official going to do to create jobs? Force me or my employer to hire people?
Originally posted by k squared
Does anyone believe that a President can create any jobs other than government jobs? Anyone? What's ANY elected official going to do to create jobs? Force me or my employer to hire people?
So why did he tell us that the tax cuts were going to create jobs?
The only thing that the policies achieved is a huge deficit.
That sort of dogged one-note tone seems to have played well up to a point, but when it comes time to explain what's gone wrong, you need a little more nuance.
Hence, he is a war time president that has to make tough choices. No expanding on what that might mean, or sense that as such we might expect a modicum of care around who we invade. Just that phrase, like it preempted every question.
Hence, Saddam was a mad-man and a gathering threat. Weapons, if not present then soon. When that gets repeated 6 or 7 times, with the typical Bush vibe of being kinda irritated that it's even being asked at all, I think a lot of people start feeling like plain spokedness starts sounding stubborn and kind of dull witted.
Hence, he served his country and got an honorable discharge. Again, if pressed, he can only say basically that with the words in different order. Because he doesn't have anything else in his kit back, it sounds canned and evasive. Like a little kid caught in a lie that just keeps repeating some lame excuse.
I reallly got the impression they loaded him up with sound bites and when asked a question he was just trying to piece together whichever of those seemed pertinent.