I think Josh Marshall's analysis was more accurate: (TPM)
Quote:
..what I saw was a man with a quiver of cliches and a few simple stock arguments. Whatever the question, he grabbed a handful of those and tossed them back.
And how sad is it that even with this as obvious as the fact that the sun makes light, there are millions of people that don't see it.
I have yet to figure out how people can watch him and not be completely appalled.
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling. In a forum with a "no personal attacks" rule the irony here is palpable. Small mindedness on a large scale.
--------------
HI: Need a beer, Glen?
GLEN: Does the Pope wear a funny hat?
\tHi considers this.
HI: ... Well yeah, Glen, I guess it is kinda funny.
GLEN: Say, that reminds me! How many Pollacks it
take to screw up a lightbulb?
HI: I don't know Glen, one?
GLEN: Nope, it takes three!
\tHe starts laughing, then catches himself.
... Wait a minute, I told it wrong. Here, I'm startin'
over: How come it takes three Pollacks to screw up a lightbulb?
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling. In a forum with a "no personal attacks" rule the irony here is palpable. Small mindedness on a large scale.
Newsflash: it's the press's JOB to ask difficult questions and the President's job to answer them without looking like a tool; if he can set an agenda that's a bonus.
The press asked difficult questions to Clinton. He answered them better.
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling.
In all seriousness, would you consider the questions being asked of Bush to be more personally motivated or difficult to answer than what Clinton faced? I think, at least up until very recently, the exact opposite was true. Even now it appears that what's being asked is in no way more difficult than what any president has had to face.
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling.
If I were to question anything, I'd be questioning why the press wasn't harder on Bush. At least these days a few of the reporters are working their way up to playing softball instead of nerf ball with Bush. This is the President of the United States. They should be playing hardball with him.
This isn't only about Bush. The press shouldn't let any politician get away with reciting off-topic talking points and other evasions. These reporters should interrupt, even when it's the President they're talking to, and say "That's not answering the question. I asked X, please answer X!" And if they still don't get an answer, they should say flat out "You're evading the question."
Hell, when a politician doesn't answer a question, reporters should speculate out loud about what the evasion could mean, and bait the politician into having to deny or affirm the speculation. When a politician seems less that forthcoming, the interview process should be downright prosecutorial.
If there are good reasons for a politican not to answer a particular question (national security, for example) he or she at least owes us a forthright explanation of what's in or out of bounds, at the very least a solid "I cannot comment on that." When, however, politicians are simply covering their asses to avoid exposing incompetence, bad judgement, or other less-than-laudable behavior, they deserve to squirm under the spotlight.
There is certainly such a thing as unfair or misleading questioning, but nothing in that press conference last night came close to that. It was only a very weak version of what the questioning of a politician in an open and free society should be like.
These reporters should interrupt, even when it's the President they're talking to, and say "That's not answering the question. I asked X, please answer X!"
They'd never see the inside of the White House again if they did that. Unfortunately, that's the truth. If the White House staffers didn't see to it, the reporter's upper management would. I completely agree with you, though.
Listen folks, especially dmz, I saw a VERY different President last night. I don't know what was going on with him, but I honestly think that what we saw was the WORST public relations that Bush has ever conducted...and I voted for him!
I've tried to be as neutral in this whole Kerry v. Bush thing, but I've also given Bush the benefit of the doubt on many occasions because he's still the President. But I cannot see any way that someone could critically analyze what happened last night and think that everything went fine and the reporters are to blame. That's just not the case, folks.
There's dodging the question and just flat out not even coming close to answering it. Dodging at least lets the questioner know that you were listening, but you spin it the way you want to. Most of Bush's answers last night were COMPLETELY off topic and didn't come close to relating to what was asked. There was nothing to spin!
When a reporter asks you a question and part of your reply includes, "With the pressure of this news conference I can't really think of anything," that's really bad. You spin it, George. That's what you think of.
I reiterate that I think we saw George W. Bush in a different state of mind last night. Something was wrong. Something was weighing heavily on his mind and I'm curious to know if it was the realization that maybe he has gotten in over his head.
The debates are going to be really lopsided if Bush keeps this up. Kerry will walk all over him.
The debates are going to be really lopsided if Bush keeps this up. Kerry will walk all over him.
The debates were lopsided the last time, and they'll be lopsided again (except for Gore and his STUPID LOCK BOX. Shuddup already about the lockbox). Bush isn't a debater. He's an untier.
Seriously, though. It doesn't matter if Bush gets absolutely TROUNCED in the debates. He's soooo good at lowering expectations that when he looks bad, his supporters blame everything else around him (those mean people picking on such a nice, god-fearing, brush-clearing normal guy). And so when the debates happen, and Kerry mops the floor with him, everyone will complain that Kerry was a smarty-pants or a show-off.
The problem with the last debate is that Gore didn't go for the kill. The only way to beat an expectations game when they're this low is to absolutely make your opponent look like a fool, and frankly, that's not going to be easy for Kerry to do and not open himself up to the same kinds of attacks as Gore.
I mean, come on, people. Bush couldn't name 8 major world leaders when he was campaigning for the presidency, and people still voted for him.
I mean, come on, people. Bush couldn't name 8 major world leaders when he was campaigning for the presidency, and people still voted for him.
It's the 'twang' . . .which he alone in his family has BTW.
as for his amazingly painful 'ums' and 'aahs' while staring inn different places . .. I think that there are baords with names and phrases posted in places such as the podium and it took him that long to go from one finger-post to the other . . . .
ANYWAY, I am surprised at the complete lack of critical analysis in the media: I have seen no-body point to the issues of saying that we would have still gone in 'knowing what we now know' or his evasions, or his lack of accepting responcibility for ANYTHING (which amounts to the same as saying that everything is 'tip-top . . carry on') . . . harumph!
and as for the 'LOCK-BOX' . . . Bush has shown that it would have been a good idea . . . he plundered lick old folks don't get old or somethin . . . !
Newsflash: it's the press's JOB to ask difficult questions and the President's job to answer them without looking like a tool; if he can set an agenda that's a bonus.
The press asked difficult questions to Clinton. He answered them better.
Did the press corps take a vacation when Clinton said well....all of the spin and double talk he said: no one questioned BUBU clinton, like it or not there is a double standard: explain why in 8 years all clinton did was play softball, I applaud the media for asking "hard" questions but last night was hardly that, he sumed up everything in his open and the dumb-ass journalists keep talking to him as if he is 5: "Mr president, are you sorry?" much like my mom when i was young: "Now appoligize to your sister...NOT LIKE THAT...MEAN IT" as if it is Bushes fault? why not lay the blaim where it belongs: OSAMA BIN_LADIN and the other ass-backward terrorist-dicktator thugs who helped him?
simple anwser: thw press corps (or the ones who spoke last night) are blinded by not mere opposition, but deep hatered and resentment for Pres. Bush
you say the president of the united states is responsable for the destruction of 9/11?
note to mods: LOCK THIS THREAD IT IS DECENIGRATEING INTO little more than FLAMEBATE
You see him oppressin' me? You see him oppressin' me? Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Look: OBL and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. They planned it. The perpetrated it. Could it have been prevented? We don't know. We'll never know. But we can find out how it managed to happen. We can interview people who were there. We can find out where the channels of communication broke down. We can find out where normal efforts were inadequate. We can find out whether people were wrongheaded in their thinking about terrorism. We can find out where they weren't.
And so, regarding 9/11, Bush gets a question about whether or not he feels any personal responsibility for it. In other words, looking back now, is there anything he wishes he'd done differently.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. And easy to answer and spin to his advantage:
"Prior to 9/11, the idea of a terrorist attack of this scale and complexity was essentially unthinkable in America. In hindsight, which is 20/20, I of course wish that , for the sake of the thousands of good men and women who lost their lives in the WTC and Pentagon, that we had recognized the scale on which al Qaeda was able to operate. But we don't think that now. We know, now, that al Qaeda is willing and able to strike at global targets in America and abroad in order to realize its radical agenda.
What could we have done? Maybe we could have beefed up security at airports. Maybe we could have reviewed some immigration records. Maybe we could have demanded better communication between the CIA and the FBI.
And we've fixed that now, so we're headed in the right direction."
That's all it would've taken. Did he do that? Sort of. He approached it. But his seeming inability to admit when there's a mistake isn't going to endear him to some folks.
...the dumb-ass journalists keep talking to him as if he is 5...as if it is Bushes fault? why not lay the blaim where it belongs: OSAMA BIN_LADIN and the other ass-backward terrorist-dicktator thugs who helped him?
First of all, "fault" is a matter of degree, unless of course you are five years old, and a debate about fault or blame devolves to "Is!", "Is not!" You can question whether or not someone in our goverment bears some degree of fault for what happened without at all losing sight of where the deepest blame lies.
Secondly, as President, it's completely appropriate to apologize for any failure within the United States government, regardless of whether it's personally your fault or your administration's fault. The sad thing about is that 9/11 we did have the information to stop the attack, but we didn't put it all together in time.
While theoretically the terrorists could have been hard to detect, and slipped past even a top-rate intelligence apparatus, they were actually a bit sloppy. They sent out enough signals that we should have put the pieces together. Not having done so is certainly worthy of a apology, to say the least.
Quote:
simple anwser: thw press corps (or the ones who spoke last night) are blinded by not mere opposition, but deep hatered and resentment for Pres. Bush
If they truly felt that way, they would have been much, much harder on Bush. If the questions reflected emotional attitudes toward the President, the strongest emotion out there was mild distaste, because the toughest questions were very restrained, and when Bush couldn't even handle those, the press let him evade all he liked.
If you think the "liberal" media -- i.e., anything other than Fox, Rush, and explicitly right-wing publications -- is tough on Bush, look at CNN today.
CNN home page, name of link to article about the President's press conference: "Bush sounds confident note"
Title of the article: "Bush stands firm on Iraq, war on terror"
Subtitle: "President: 'I don't plan on losing my job'"
Apparently, the only really important thing about the event was swaggering confidence. Our fearless leader!
Analysis of what was said? Missing in action.
Alternative viewpoints: A brief mention of how Kerry responded, mentioned in such a way as to make it no more that part of the horse race, with again no real analysis.
You see him oppressin' me? You see him oppressin' me? Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Look: OBL and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. They planned it. The perpetrated it. Could it have been prevented? We don't know. We'll never know. But we can find out how it managed to happen. We can interview people who were there. We can find out where the channels of communication broke down. We can find out where normal efforts were inadequate. We can find out whether people were wrongheaded in their thinking about terrorism. We can find out where they weren't.
And so, regarding 9/11, Bush gets a question about whether or not he feels any personal responsibility for it. In other words, looking back now, is there anything he wishes he'd done differently.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. And easy to answer and spin to his advantage:
"Prior to 9/11, the idea of a terrorist attack of this scale and complexity was essentially unthinkable in America. In hindsight, which is 20/20, I of course wish that , for the sake of the thousands of good men and women who lost their lives in the WTC and Pentagon, that we had recognized the scale on which al Qaeda was able to operate. But we don't think that now. We know, now, that al Qaeda is willing and able to strike at global targets in America and abroad in order to realize its radical agenda.
What could we have done? Maybe we could have beefed up security at airports. Maybe we could have reviewed some immigration records. Maybe we could have demanded better communication between the CIA and the FBI.
And we've fixed that now, so we're headed in the right direction."
That's all it would've taken. Did he do that? Sort of. He approached it. But his seeming inability to admit when there's a mistake isn't going to endear him to some folks.
the thing about this commision that bothers me is all of the monday morning quarterbacking: anyone can call the right play once they have seen the game film
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think Josh Marshall's analysis was more accurate: (TPM)
Quote:
..what I saw was a man with a quiver of cliches and a few simple stock arguments. Whatever the question, he grabbed a handful of those and tossed them back.
And how sad is it that even with this as obvious as the fact that the sun makes light, there are millions of people that don't see it.
Originally posted by giant
I have yet to figure out how people can watch him and not be completely appalled.
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling. In a forum with a "no personal attacks" rule the irony here is palpable. Small mindedness on a large scale.
--------------
HI: Need a beer, Glen?
GLEN: Does the Pope wear a funny hat?
\tHi considers this.
HI: ... Well yeah, Glen, I guess it is kinda funny.
GLEN: Say, that reminds me! How many Pollacks it
take to screw up a lightbulb?
HI: I don't know Glen, one?
GLEN: Nope, it takes three!
\tHe starts laughing, then catches himself.
... Wait a minute, I told it wrong. Here, I'm startin'
over: How come it takes three Pollacks to screw up a lightbulb?
HI: I don't know, Glen.
GLEN: Cause they're so durn stupid!
\tHe laughs; Hi doesn't react.
... Shit man, loosen up! Don't ya get it?
Originally posted by dmz
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling.
So, even though everything in Iraq has turned out exactly the opposite of everything Bush claimed before the war, no one should question it?
Bush '04: It's Not My Fault...even if I said it.
Originally posted by dmz
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling. In a forum with a "no personal attacks" rule the irony here is palpable. Small mindedness on a large scale.
Newsflash: it's the press's JOB to ask difficult questions and the President's job to answer them without looking like a tool; if he can set an agenda that's a bonus.
The press asked difficult questions to Clinton. He answered them better.
Originally posted by dmz
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling.
In all seriousness, would you consider the questions being asked of Bush to be more personally motivated or difficult to answer than what Clinton faced? I think, at least up until very recently, the exact opposite was true. Even now it appears that what's being asked is in no way more difficult than what any president has had to face.
Originally posted by dmz
You guys aren't willing to question the motives of the press---very telling.
If I were to question anything, I'd be questioning why the press wasn't harder on Bush. At least these days a few of the reporters are working their way up to playing softball instead of nerf ball with Bush. This is the President of the United States. They should be playing hardball with him.
This isn't only about Bush. The press shouldn't let any politician get away with reciting off-topic talking points and other evasions. These reporters should interrupt, even when it's the President they're talking to, and say "That's not answering the question. I asked X, please answer X!" And if they still don't get an answer, they should say flat out "You're evading the question."
Hell, when a politician doesn't answer a question, reporters should speculate out loud about what the evasion could mean, and bait the politician into having to deny or affirm the speculation. When a politician seems less that forthcoming, the interview process should be downright prosecutorial.
If there are good reasons for a politican not to answer a particular question (national security, for example) he or she at least owes us a forthright explanation of what's in or out of bounds, at the very least a solid "I cannot comment on that." When, however, politicians are simply covering their asses to avoid exposing incompetence, bad judgement, or other less-than-laudable behavior, they deserve to squirm under the spotlight.
There is certainly such a thing as unfair or misleading questioning, but nothing in that press conference last night came close to that. It was only a very weak version of what the questioning of a politician in an open and free society should be like.
Originally posted by shetline
These reporters should interrupt, even when it's the President they're talking to, and say "That's not answering the question. I asked X, please answer X!"
They'd never see the inside of the White House again if they did that. Unfortunately, that's the truth. If the White House staffers didn't see to it, the reporter's upper management would. I completely agree with you, though.
Listen folks, especially dmz, I saw a VERY different President last night. I don't know what was going on with him, but I honestly think that what we saw was the WORST public relations that Bush has ever conducted...and I voted for him!
I've tried to be as neutral in this whole Kerry v. Bush thing, but I've also given Bush the benefit of the doubt on many occasions because he's still the President. But I cannot see any way that someone could critically analyze what happened last night and think that everything went fine and the reporters are to blame. That's just not the case, folks.
There's dodging the question and just flat out not even coming close to answering it. Dodging at least lets the questioner know that you were listening, but you spin it the way you want to. Most of Bush's answers last night were COMPLETELY off topic and didn't come close to relating to what was asked. There was nothing to spin!
When a reporter asks you a question and part of your reply includes, "With the pressure of this news conference I can't really think of anything," that's really bad. You spin it, George. That's what you think of.
I reiterate that I think we saw George W. Bush in a different state of mind last night. Something was wrong. Something was weighing heavily on his mind and I'm curious to know if it was the realization that maybe he has gotten in over his head.
The debates are going to be really lopsided if Bush keeps this up. Kerry will walk all over him.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
The debates are going to be really lopsided if Bush keeps this up. Kerry will walk all over him.
The debates were lopsided the last time, and they'll be lopsided again (except for Gore and his STUPID LOCK BOX. Shuddup already about the lockbox). Bush isn't a debater. He's an untier.
Seriously, though. It doesn't matter if Bush gets absolutely TROUNCED in the debates. He's soooo good at lowering expectations that when he looks bad, his supporters blame everything else around him (those mean people picking on such a nice, god-fearing, brush-clearing normal guy). And so when the debates happen, and Kerry mops the floor with him, everyone will complain that Kerry was a smarty-pants or a show-off.
The problem with the last debate is that Gore didn't go for the kill. The only way to beat an expectations game when they're this low is to absolutely make your opponent look like a fool, and frankly, that's not going to be easy for Kerry to do and not open himself up to the same kinds of attacks as Gore.
I mean, come on, people. Bush couldn't name 8 major world leaders when he was campaigning for the presidency, and people still voted for him.
Originally posted by midwinter
I mean, come on, people. Bush couldn't name 8 major world leaders when he was campaigning for the presidency, and people still voted for him.
It's the 'twang' . . .which he alone in his family has BTW.
as for his amazingly painful 'ums' and 'aahs' while staring inn different places . .. I think that there are baords with names and phrases posted in places such as the podium and it took him that long to go from one finger-post to the other . . . .
ANYWAY, I am surprised at the complete lack of critical analysis in the media: I have seen no-body point to the issues of saying that we would have still gone in 'knowing what we now know' or his evasions, or his lack of accepting responcibility for ANYTHING (which amounts to the same as saying that everything is 'tip-top . . carry on') . . . harumph!
and as for the 'LOCK-BOX' . . . Bush has shown that it would have been a good idea . . . he plundered lick old folks don't get old or somethin . . . !
Originally posted by Harald
Newsflash: it's the press's JOB to ask difficult questions and the President's job to answer them without looking like a tool; if he can set an agenda that's a bonus.
The press asked difficult questions to Clinton. He answered them better.
Did the press corps take a vacation when Clinton said well....all of the spin and double talk he said: no one questioned BUBU clinton, like it or not there is a double standard: explain why in 8 years all clinton did was play softball, I applaud the media for asking "hard" questions but last night was hardly that, he sumed up everything in his open and the dumb-ass journalists keep talking to him as if he is 5: "Mr president, are you sorry?" much like my mom when i was young: "Now appoligize to your sister...NOT LIKE THAT...MEAN IT" as if it is Bushes fault? why not lay the blaim where it belongs: OSAMA BIN_LADIN and the other ass-backward terrorist-dicktator thugs who helped him?
simple anwser: thw press corps (or the ones who spoke last night) are blinded by not mere opposition, but deep hatered and resentment for Pres. Bush
Originally posted by pfflam
I guess this is becoming standard operating procedure for Republicans: blame anybody and everybody else for their own liabilities
you say the president of the united states is responsable for the destruction of 9/11?
note to mods: LOCK THIS THREAD IT IS DECENIGRATEING INTO little more than FLAMEBATE
Originally posted by a_greer
you say the president of the united states is responsable for the destruction of 9/11?
note to mods: LOCK THIS THREAD IT IS DECENIGRATEING INTO little more than FLAMEBATE
You see him oppressin' me? You see him oppressin' me? Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Look: OBL and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. They planned it. The perpetrated it. Could it have been prevented? We don't know. We'll never know. But we can find out how it managed to happen. We can interview people who were there. We can find out where the channels of communication broke down. We can find out where normal efforts were inadequate. We can find out whether people were wrongheaded in their thinking about terrorism. We can find out where they weren't.
And so, regarding 9/11, Bush gets a question about whether or not he feels any personal responsibility for it. In other words, looking back now, is there anything he wishes he'd done differently.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. And easy to answer and spin to his advantage:
"Prior to 9/11, the idea of a terrorist attack of this scale and complexity was essentially unthinkable in America. In hindsight, which is 20/20, I of course wish that , for the sake of the thousands of good men and women who lost their lives in the WTC and Pentagon, that we had recognized the scale on which al Qaeda was able to operate. But we don't think that now. We know, now, that al Qaeda is willing and able to strike at global targets in America and abroad in order to realize its radical agenda.
What could we have done? Maybe we could have beefed up security at airports. Maybe we could have reviewed some immigration records. Maybe we could have demanded better communication between the CIA and the FBI.
And we've fixed that now, so we're headed in the right direction."
That's all it would've taken. Did he do that? Sort of. He approached it. But his seeming inability to admit when there's a mistake isn't going to endear him to some folks.
Originally posted by a_greer
...the dumb-ass journalists keep talking to him as if he is 5...as if it is Bushes fault? why not lay the blaim where it belongs: OSAMA BIN_LADIN and the other ass-backward terrorist-dicktator thugs who helped him?
First of all, "fault" is a matter of degree, unless of course you are five years old, and a debate about fault or blame devolves to "Is!", "Is not!" You can question whether or not someone in our goverment bears some degree of fault for what happened without at all losing sight of where the deepest blame lies.
Secondly, as President, it's completely appropriate to apologize for any failure within the United States government, regardless of whether it's personally your fault or your administration's fault. The sad thing about is that 9/11 we did have the information to stop the attack, but we didn't put it all together in time.
While theoretically the terrorists could have been hard to detect, and slipped past even a top-rate intelligence apparatus, they were actually a bit sloppy. They sent out enough signals that we should have put the pieces together. Not having done so is certainly worthy of a apology, to say the least.
simple anwser: thw press corps (or the ones who spoke last night) are blinded by not mere opposition, but deep hatered and resentment for Pres. Bush
If they truly felt that way, they would have been much, much harder on Bush. If the questions reflected emotional attitudes toward the President, the strongest emotion out there was mild distaste, because the toughest questions were very restrained, and when Bush couldn't even handle those, the press let him evade all he liked.
CNN home page, name of link to article about the President's press conference: "Bush sounds confident note"
Title of the article: "Bush stands firm on Iraq, war on terror"
Subtitle: "President: 'I don't plan on losing my job'"
Apparently, the only really important thing about the event was swaggering confidence. Our fearless leader!
Analysis of what was said? Missing in action.
Alternative viewpoints: A brief mention of how Kerry responded, mentioned in such a way as to make it no more that part of the horse race, with again no real analysis.
Originally posted by midwinter
You see him oppressin' me? You see him oppressin' me? Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Look: OBL and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. They planned it. The perpetrated it. Could it have been prevented? We don't know. We'll never know. But we can find out how it managed to happen. We can interview people who were there. We can find out where the channels of communication broke down. We can find out where normal efforts were inadequate. We can find out whether people were wrongheaded in their thinking about terrorism. We can find out where they weren't.
And so, regarding 9/11, Bush gets a question about whether or not he feels any personal responsibility for it. In other words, looking back now, is there anything he wishes he'd done differently.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. And easy to answer and spin to his advantage:
"Prior to 9/11, the idea of a terrorist attack of this scale and complexity was essentially unthinkable in America. In hindsight, which is 20/20, I of course wish that , for the sake of the thousands of good men and women who lost their lives in the WTC and Pentagon, that we had recognized the scale on which al Qaeda was able to operate. But we don't think that now. We know, now, that al Qaeda is willing and able to strike at global targets in America and abroad in order to realize its radical agenda.
What could we have done? Maybe we could have beefed up security at airports. Maybe we could have reviewed some immigration records. Maybe we could have demanded better communication between the CIA and the FBI.
And we've fixed that now, so we're headed in the right direction."
That's all it would've taken. Did he do that? Sort of. He approached it. But his seeming inability to admit when there's a mistake isn't going to endear him to some folks.
the thing about this commision that bothers me is all of the monday morning quarterbacking: anyone can call the right play once they have seen the game film