yeah, i say we have lots more bush interviews...yeaaaaahhhh!!!
He's going to Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and This Week with George Stephanopolous, and Capital Gang, and Hannity & Colmes, and Special Report with Brit Hume, and McLaughlin Report, and Crossfire, and Late Edition, and then on to Larry King Live, YEEEAHHH!
Watching it, Bush gave me the impression of a boxer in the 10th round totally sapped out, and trying to keep himself on his feet. Just seemed like he had the brains punched out of him and was barely gasping for air. I wasn't at all impressed with his mental alertness. I did feel sorry for him. But I'm not sure how that will work for him. He doesn't need sympathy. What he needs is respect. I doubt he will get that. Although I do feel he deserves it much more than people are willing to give it to him.
He's going to Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and This Week with George Stephanopolous, and Capital Gang, and Hannity & Colmes, and Special Report with Brit Hume, and McLaughlin Report, and Crossfire, and Late Edition, and then on to Larry King Live, YEEEAHHH!
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?
I think that this is an interesting question: Does a a President ? at a least a President in this era ? have to be able to perform well in an extended television interview on policy?
I?d like to think that it is not necessary. I am sure that there are plenty of people whose intelligence and judgment I value ? and whom I would see as good leaders - who would not give a good performance in such situations. The problem for such people in these situations can be that their thoughtfulness and balanced, reflective views sometimes stand in the way of communicating a clear, strong message in a media interview of that format. And some people just don?t handle spontaneous public discourse very well. I?d like to think, nevertheless, that such people would not be disqualified from public office. I don?t just want the ?Johnny-Fast-Talks? of this world running things.
My problem with Bush, however, is that I don?t feel that thoughtfulness and reflection stood in the way of an effective performance in his TV interview. Further, I don?t think that he is reticent and is incapable of spontaneous public discourse ? I think that he is very capable of it on issues within his grasp. Rather, I think that his problem is that in respect of comprehension, analysis and judgement on complex public policy questions, he really is out of his depth. I think that it is too dismissive to call him ?stupid? ? he is not a village idiot. But he really is below the standard, on policy issues, that I think necessary for a President. He was not the Republican?s strongest candidate in 2000 and it still mystifies how he won the nomination, let alone the Presidency. I suppose that money played a big part in this.
Getting back to the issue of political strategy ? I don?t think that it was necessary for the Administration to seek this interview. I cannot recall Reagan giving an extended policy interview (but I will defer to those with better memories on this). My recollection is that Reagan?s handlers managed to keep him pretty sheltered even during some tough moments in his Presidency. With politicians like Reagan and Bush Jr., this is the best strategy. The television interview was a mistake.
It was a mistake but the adminsistration is finding that even when they get good news the affects don't last long... Bush got a spike after Saddam was caught... but now his numbers have sunk even lower.
They're trying to defend themselves and it's not working.
The best they can hope for is they catch Osama around August or even October.
Just a recap on the employment numbers...
from today's Krugman.
In the light of these dreary statistics, President Bush's recent cheerfulness seems almost surreal. On Friday, he said that he was "pleased, obviously, with the new job growth." When Tim Russert asked in the "Meet the Press" interview what happened to all the jobs that Mr. Bush promised his tax cuts would create, he replied: "It's happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."
We expect politicians to place a positive spin on economic news, but to insist that things are going great when many people have personal experience to the contrary seems foolish. Mr. Bush's father lost the 1992 election in large part because he was perceived as being out of touch with the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans. Why is Mr. Bush Ñ whose poll numbers are a bit worse than his father's were at this point in 1992 Ñ running the risk of repeating his experience?
The answer, I think, is that the younger Mr. Bush has no choice. He has literally gone for broke, with repeated tax cuts that have fed a $500 billion deficit. To justify policies that more and more people call irresponsible, he must claim that wonderful things are happening as a result.
For a while, that famous 8 percent growth rate seemed to be just what he needed. But in the fourth quarter, growth dropped to 4 percent. And as we've seen, the jobs still aren't there.
So Mr. Bush must put on a brave face. He and his officials must talk up weak economic statistics as if they represented stunning success, and predict marvelous things any day now. After all, they have to keep this up for only nine more months.
You guys are truly hilarious. I can't even begin to quote the parts of this thread that have me laughing out loud. No...wait....yes I can.....
Fran:
Quote:
From what I'm hearing, the majority of people who watched the interview came off as being less than impressed with the President.
Gee, I wonder why that doesn't surprise me. Oh, and BTW: Bush released his pay records today.
Moogs:
Quote:
Good strategy or not, it once again reminded of us of the long-forgotten Bush who couldn't even find a way to beat Al Gore in a slew of debates before the last election. His words seemed disingenuous, ineloquent and perhaps a bit unprofessional too?
"Couldn't even find a way to beat Gore?". Perhaps you should look at the pundits responses to those debates. Gore narrowly won the first debate, the second was a wash, and Bush narrowly won the third. In fact, some say he handily won the third. Gore, according to your assessment of Bush's intelligence, should have trounced Bush in all three.
As for Peggy Noonan, I think she's off base. Bush putting himself out there for an hour was a good thing. If you're a watcher of polls, Gallup now shows it's Bush 49/Kerry 48.
As for his performance, I generally thought he did well. He stumbled and tripped over his words too much, I agree. But disingenous? Even if one disagrees with him, I don't see how the interview came off like that. He did come across as defensive, I agree with that. But his strength of the hour was when he talked about getting reelected. Right or wrong, the American people on the whole want confidence out of their President, and when asked about losing the election, Bush said "No, I'm not going to lose". He just came out and said that he wasn;t going to change, was determined to lead, and had an agenda for his next four years. That kind of forward-looking campaign combined with his refusal to change policy based on polls will win him the election.
What truly amazes me, though, is how Democrats have gone from "Bush probably can't lose" to "well, he could lose" to "Bush really can't win". It's almost as if the overconfidence is on the OTHER side now. My, how times have changed. You guys pile into threads like this, with your wishful-thinking babble......foaming at the mouth the whole time.
Mark my words. Bush will be reelected. Kerry is not the the uber-strong war hero candidate he has been made out to be. The fighter of special interests has taken hundreds of thousands in contributions, and has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.
He's going to Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and This Week with George Stephanopolous, and Capital Gang, and Hannity & Colmes, and Special Report with Brit Hume, and McLaughlin Report, and Crossfire, and Late Edition, and then on to Larry King Live, YEEEAHHH!
You guys are truly hilarious. I can't even begin to quote the parts of this thread that have me laughing out loud. No...wait....yes I can.....
Fran:
Gee, I wonder why that doesn't surprise me. Oh, and BTW: Bush released his pay records today.
Moogs:
"Couldn't even find a way to beat Gore?". Perhaps you should look at the pundits responses to those debates. Gore narrowly won the first debate, the second was a wash, and Bush narrowly won the third. In fact, some say he handily won the third. Gore, according to your assessment of Bush's intelligence, should have trounced Bush in all three.
As for Peggy Noonan, I think she's off base. Bush putting himself out there for an hour was a good thing. If you're a watcher of polls, Gallup now shows it's Bush 49/Kerry 48.
As for his performance, I generally thought he did well. He stumbled and tripped over his words too much, I agree. But disingenous? Even if one disagrees with him, I don't see how the interview came off like that. He did come across as defensive, I agree with that. But his strength of the hour was when he talked about getting reelected. Right or wrong, the American people on the whole want confidence out of their President, and when asked about losing the election, Bush said "No, I'm not going to lose". He just came out and said that he wasn;t going to change, was determined to lead, and had an agenda for his next four years. That kind of forward-looking campaign combined with his refusal to change policy based on polls will win him the election.
What truly amazes me, though, is how Democrats have gone from "Bush probably can't lose" to "well, he could lose" to "Bush really can't win". It's almost as if the overconfidence is on the OTHER side now. My, how times have changed. You guys pile into threads like this, with your wishful-thinking babble......foaming at the mouth the whole time.
Mark my words. Bush will be reelected. Kerry is not the the uber-strong war hero candidate he has been made out to be. The fighter of special interests has taken hundreds of thousands in contributions, and has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.
That might be what you think.
I think that Bush's goose is cooked already. He just doesn't realize it yet.
I don't think it's " over confidence ". It's just the situation he's in. As I've said before once the things that he's been doing are dragged out into the light he's going to be held accountable. And SDW there are too many things to just ignore.
I think it is you who are practicing " wishful-thinking babble ".
Of course when there's no other path before you I suppose denial is an option.
This interview is just another log on the fire. I really do hope there's a debate.
?Bush putting himself out there for an hour was a good thing. ?
As for his performance, I generally thought he did well. He stumbled and tripped over his words too much, I agree. But disingenous? Even if one disagrees with him, I don't see how the interview came off like that. He did come across as defensive, I agree with that. But his strength of the hour was when he talked about getting reelected. Right or wrong, the American people on the whole want confidence out of their President, and when asked about losing the election, Bush said "No, I'm not going to lose". He just came out and said that he wasn;t going to change, was determined to lead, and had an agenda for his next four years. That kind of forward-looking campaign combined with his refusal to change policy based on polls will win him the election.
[...]
I?ll leave aside the parts of your post which address the pro-Bush vs. anti-Bush arguments. Instead I?ll comment on your arguments about good vs. bad strategy (and good vs. bad performance) in relation to this particular TV appearance.
I must say that your post does not have me convinced. You acknowledge that Bush stumbled and was defensive. The best thing you can say about Bush?s appearance was that the President indicated confidence about being re-elected. ??? Damning with very faint praise, I would say.
I do have some admiration for Bush?s political courage in ?putting himself out there?, but the fact that this would be an unusual or daring step for the GWB Presidency perhaps says a lot, in and of itself, about this President.
SDW: I don't go to "pundits.com" to ascertain whether or not someone has won a debate. I make up my own mind, thanks. And in both debates I watched, Bush was (not looked like, not sounded like... WAS) a bumbling idiot. All he does when asked a tough question, is not answer it and instead gives a long list of platitudes about "I'm fighting for America", "I'm keeping America Safe", "I'm doing my duty as President".... blah blah f-ing blah.
I have never ONCE heard him give a thoughtful and well-reasoned answer to "Mr. President, why did you choose to do x instead of y? (in effect)". This is no great secret SDW, and you don't have to be a Democrat to be of that opinion. There are staunch Republican lifers in my extended family who are practically nauseated by Bush and the way he so nonchalantly brushes off important questions about his policies.
As for "can't win". I acknowledge he most certainly CAN win, and it scares the hell out of me. However, I would be AMAZED if this time around he won a single debate against Kerry or Dean or Edwards (for sure). And I mean it won't even be close this time because he won't be debating someone with the personality of a brick. He could possibly one-up Clark because but I doubt even that. Sometimes lousy speaking ability is not a sign of nervousness or being flustered. It's a sign that you haven't thought clearly about the questions being asked, and so you go to your "list of things to say" from your advisors and hope they "sound OK."
But he doesn't and never has when put on the spot. You know it, I know it... we all know it. Doesn't mean he can't win the election though. This is America we're talking about. Lot's of stupid people among the millions of registered voters. People who can't name the three branches of government or define the basic role of each cabinet position, but can still vote for George. Yahoo.
I think that Bush's goose is cooked already. He just doesn't realize it yet.
I don't think it's " over confidence ". It's just the situation he's in. As I've said before once the things that he's been doing are dragged out into the light he's going to be held accountable. And SDW there are too many things to just ignore.
I think it is you who are practicing " wishful-thinking babble ".
Of course when there's no other path before you I suppose denial is an option.
This interview is just another log on the fire. I really do hope there's a debate.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
This is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about. You actually believe Bush has a very good chance of losing. In fact, it seems like you are thinking he has a better chance of losing than winning. That's simply a joke.
SDW: I don't go to "pundits.com" to ascertain whether or not someone has won a debate. I make up my own mind, thanks. And in both debates I watched, Bush was (not looked like, not sounded like... WAS) a bumbling idiot. All he does when asked a tough question, is not answer it and instead gives a long list of platitudes about "I'm fighting for America", "I'm keeping America Safe", "I'm doing my duty as President".... blah blah f-ing blah.
I have never ONCE heard him give a thoughtful and well-reasoned answer to "Mr. President, why did you choose to do x instead of y? (in effect)". This is no great secret SDW, and you don't have to be a Democrat to be of that opinion. There are staunch Republican lifers in my extended family who are practically nauseated by Bush and the way he so nonchalantly brushes off important questions about his policies.
As for "can't win". I acknowledge he most certainly CAN win, and it scares the hell out of me. However, I would be AMAZED if this time around he won a single debate against Kerry or Dean or Edwards (for sure). And I mean it won't even be close this time because he won't be debating someone with the personality of a brick. He could possibly one-up Clark because but I doubt even that. Sometimes lousy speaking ability is not a sign of nervousness or being flustered. It's a sign that you haven't thought clearly about the questions being asked, and so you go to your "list of things to say" from your advisors and hope they "sound OK."
But he doesn't and never has when put on the spot. You know it, I know it... we all know it. Doesn't mean he can't win the election though. This is America we're talking about. Lot's of stupid people among the millions of registered voters. People who can't name the three branches of government or define the basic role of each cabinet position, but can still vote for George. Yahoo.
And here we are again. You may not visit "pundits.com", but they tend to judge the winners and losers of debates and spout those views to the public. There are also many post-debate polls that measure opinion. Bush never lost by more than a few points, and in fact won narrowly in the third.
What we have here is a classic case of underestimating Bush, which amazingly, is what the Dems have done since 2000. Time and time again, Bush gets his way: Tax cuts, the war vote, taking back the Senate, the Medicare bill, etc. True, he doesn't speak well and often gives obvious answers. But no matter how many times his opposition gets burned, they continue to believe that he's a bumbling moron.
Comments
the media takes dean out, then bush next
g
Originally posted by thegelding
yeah, i say we have lots more bush interviews...yeaaaaahhhh!!!
He's going to Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and This Week with George Stephanopolous, and Capital Gang, and Hannity & Colmes, and Special Report with Brit Hume, and McLaughlin Report, and Crossfire, and Late Edition, and then on to Larry King Live, YEEEAHHH!
Originally posted by BRussell
He's going to Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and This Week with George Stephanopolous, and Capital Gang, and Hannity & Colmes, and Special Report with Brit Hume, and McLaughlin Report, and Crossfire, and Late Edition, and then on to Larry King Live, YEEEAHHH!
Best political post on AI EVAR!!!!!111
Originally posted by BRussell
[...]
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?
I think that this is an interesting question: Does a a President ? at a least a President in this era ? have to be able to perform well in an extended television interview on policy?
I?d like to think that it is not necessary. I am sure that there are plenty of people whose intelligence and judgment I value ? and whom I would see as good leaders - who would not give a good performance in such situations. The problem for such people in these situations can be that their thoughtfulness and balanced, reflective views sometimes stand in the way of communicating a clear, strong message in a media interview of that format. And some people just don?t handle spontaneous public discourse very well. I?d like to think, nevertheless, that such people would not be disqualified from public office. I don?t just want the ?Johnny-Fast-Talks? of this world running things.
My problem with Bush, however, is that I don?t feel that thoughtfulness and reflection stood in the way of an effective performance in his TV interview. Further, I don?t think that he is reticent and is incapable of spontaneous public discourse ? I think that he is very capable of it on issues within his grasp. Rather, I think that his problem is that in respect of comprehension, analysis and judgement on complex public policy questions, he really is out of his depth. I think that it is too dismissive to call him ?stupid? ? he is not a village idiot. But he really is below the standard, on policy issues, that I think necessary for a President. He was not the Republican?s strongest candidate in 2000 and it still mystifies how he won the nomination, let alone the Presidency. I suppose that money played a big part in this.
Getting back to the issue of political strategy ? I don?t think that it was necessary for the Administration to seek this interview. I cannot recall Reagan giving an extended policy interview (but I will defer to those with better memories on this). My recollection is that Reagan?s handlers managed to keep him pretty sheltered even during some tough moments in his Presidency. With politicians like Reagan and Bush Jr., this is the best strategy. The television interview was a mistake.
They're trying to defend themselves and it's not working.
The best they can hope for is they catch Osama around August or even October.
Just a recap on the employment numbers...
from today's Krugman.
In the light of these dreary statistics, President Bush's recent cheerfulness seems almost surreal. On Friday, he said that he was "pleased, obviously, with the new job growth." When Tim Russert asked in the "Meet the Press" interview what happened to all the jobs that Mr. Bush promised his tax cuts would create, he replied: "It's happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."
We expect politicians to place a positive spin on economic news, but to insist that things are going great when many people have personal experience to the contrary seems foolish. Mr. Bush's father lost the 1992 election in large part because he was perceived as being out of touch with the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans. Why is Mr. Bush Ñ whose poll numbers are a bit worse than his father's were at this point in 1992 Ñ running the risk of repeating his experience?
The answer, I think, is that the younger Mr. Bush has no choice. He has literally gone for broke, with repeated tax cuts that have fed a $500 billion deficit. To justify policies that more and more people call irresponsible, he must claim that wonderful things are happening as a result.
For a while, that famous 8 percent growth rate seemed to be just what he needed. But in the fourth quarter, growth dropped to 4 percent. And as we've seen, the jobs still aren't there.
So Mr. Bush must put on a brave face. He and his officials must talk up weak economic statistics as if they represented stunning success, and predict marvelous things any day now. After all, they have to keep this up for only nine more months.
Fran:
From what I'm hearing, the majority of people who watched the interview came off as being less than impressed with the President.
Gee, I wonder why that doesn't surprise me. Oh, and BTW: Bush released his pay records today.
Moogs:
Good strategy or not, it once again reminded of us of the long-forgotten Bush who couldn't even find a way to beat Al Gore in a slew of debates before the last election. His words seemed disingenuous, ineloquent and perhaps a bit unprofessional too?
"Couldn't even find a way to beat Gore?". Perhaps you should look at the pundits responses to those debates. Gore narrowly won the first debate, the second was a wash, and Bush narrowly won the third. In fact, some say he handily won the third. Gore, according to your assessment of Bush's intelligence, should have trounced Bush in all three.
As for Peggy Noonan, I think she's off base. Bush putting himself out there for an hour was a good thing. If you're a watcher of polls, Gallup now shows it's Bush 49/Kerry 48.
As for his performance, I generally thought he did well. He stumbled and tripped over his words too much, I agree. But disingenous? Even if one disagrees with him, I don't see how the interview came off like that. He did come across as defensive, I agree with that. But his strength of the hour was when he talked about getting reelected. Right or wrong, the American people on the whole want confidence out of their President, and when asked about losing the election, Bush said "No, I'm not going to lose". He just came out and said that he wasn;t going to change, was determined to lead, and had an agenda for his next four years. That kind of forward-looking campaign combined with his refusal to change policy based on polls will win him the election.
What truly amazes me, though, is how Democrats have gone from "Bush probably can't lose" to "well, he could lose" to "Bush really can't win". It's almost as if the overconfidence is on the OTHER side now. My, how times have changed. You guys pile into threads like this, with your wishful-thinking babble......foaming at the mouth the whole time.
Mark my words. Bush will be reelected. Kerry is not the the uber-strong war hero candidate he has been made out to be. The fighter of special interests has taken hundreds of thousands in contributions, and has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.
Originally posted by BRussell
He's going to Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and This Week with George Stephanopolous, and Capital Gang, and Hannity & Colmes, and Special Report with Brit Hume, and McLaughlin Report, and Crossfire, and Late Edition, and then on to Larry King Live, YEEEAHHH!
This is the BEST!!!
Fellows
Originally posted by SDW2001
You guys are truly hilarious. I can't even begin to quote the parts of this thread that have me laughing out loud. No...wait....yes I can.....
Fran:
Gee, I wonder why that doesn't surprise me. Oh, and BTW: Bush released his pay records today.
Moogs:
"Couldn't even find a way to beat Gore?". Perhaps you should look at the pundits responses to those debates. Gore narrowly won the first debate, the second was a wash, and Bush narrowly won the third. In fact, some say he handily won the third. Gore, according to your assessment of Bush's intelligence, should have trounced Bush in all three.
As for Peggy Noonan, I think she's off base. Bush putting himself out there for an hour was a good thing. If you're a watcher of polls, Gallup now shows it's Bush 49/Kerry 48.
As for his performance, I generally thought he did well. He stumbled and tripped over his words too much, I agree. But disingenous? Even if one disagrees with him, I don't see how the interview came off like that. He did come across as defensive, I agree with that. But his strength of the hour was when he talked about getting reelected. Right or wrong, the American people on the whole want confidence out of their President, and when asked about losing the election, Bush said "No, I'm not going to lose". He just came out and said that he wasn;t going to change, was determined to lead, and had an agenda for his next four years. That kind of forward-looking campaign combined with his refusal to change policy based on polls will win him the election.
What truly amazes me, though, is how Democrats have gone from "Bush probably can't lose" to "well, he could lose" to "Bush really can't win". It's almost as if the overconfidence is on the OTHER side now. My, how times have changed. You guys pile into threads like this, with your wishful-thinking babble......foaming at the mouth the whole time.
Mark my words. Bush will be reelected. Kerry is not the the uber-strong war hero candidate he has been made out to be. The fighter of special interests has taken hundreds of thousands in contributions, and has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.
That might be what you think.
I think that Bush's goose is cooked already. He just doesn't realize it yet.
I don't think it's " over confidence ". It's just the situation he's in. As I've said before once the things that he's been doing are dragged out into the light he's going to be held accountable. And SDW there are too many things to just ignore.
I think it is you who are practicing " wishful-thinking babble ".
Of course when there's no other path before you I suppose denial is an option.
This interview is just another log on the fire. I really do hope there's a debate.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by SDW2001
[...]
?Bush putting himself out there for an hour was a good thing. ?
As for his performance, I generally thought he did well. He stumbled and tripped over his words too much, I agree. But disingenous? Even if one disagrees with him, I don't see how the interview came off like that. He did come across as defensive, I agree with that. But his strength of the hour was when he talked about getting reelected. Right or wrong, the American people on the whole want confidence out of their President, and when asked about losing the election, Bush said "No, I'm not going to lose". He just came out and said that he wasn;t going to change, was determined to lead, and had an agenda for his next four years. That kind of forward-looking campaign combined with his refusal to change policy based on polls will win him the election.
[...]
I?ll leave aside the parts of your post which address the pro-Bush vs. anti-Bush arguments. Instead I?ll comment on your arguments about good vs. bad strategy (and good vs. bad performance) in relation to this particular TV appearance.
I must say that your post does not have me convinced. You acknowledge that Bush stumbled and was defensive. The best thing you can say about Bush?s appearance was that the President indicated confidence about being re-elected. ??? Damning with very faint praise, I would say.
I do have some admiration for Bush?s political courage in ?putting himself out there?, but the fact that this would be an unusual or daring step for the GWB Presidency perhaps says a lot, in and of itself, about this President.
I have never ONCE heard him give a thoughtful and well-reasoned answer to "Mr. President, why did you choose to do x instead of y? (in effect)". This is no great secret SDW, and you don't have to be a Democrat to be of that opinion. There are staunch Republican lifers in my extended family who are practically nauseated by Bush and the way he so nonchalantly brushes off important questions about his policies.
As for "can't win". I acknowledge he most certainly CAN win, and it scares the hell out of me. However, I would be AMAZED if this time around he won a single debate against Kerry or Dean or Edwards (for sure). And I mean it won't even be close this time because he won't be debating someone with the personality of a brick. He could possibly one-up Clark because but I doubt even that. Sometimes lousy speaking ability is not a sign of nervousness or being flustered. It's a sign that you haven't thought clearly about the questions being asked, and so you go to your "list of things to say" from your advisors and hope they "sound OK."
But he doesn't and never has when put on the spot. You know it, I know it... we all know it. Doesn't mean he can't win the election though. This is America we're talking about. Lot's of stupid people among the millions of registered voters. People who can't name the three branches of government or define the basic role of each cabinet position, but can still vote for George. Yahoo.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
... he didn't seem totally sober, to me atleast.
That was my impression. And tired.
About "da 2 by 4" as Blue Shift fondly calls Bush, the man can't even speak English. What did you expect from an unscripted one on one interview?
Originally posted by jimmac
That might be what you think.
I think that Bush's goose is cooked already. He just doesn't realize it yet.
I don't think it's " over confidence ". It's just the situation he's in. As I've said before once the things that he's been doing are dragged out into the light he's going to be held accountable. And SDW there are too many things to just ignore.
I think it is you who are practicing " wishful-thinking babble ".
Of course when there's no other path before you I suppose denial is an option.
This interview is just another log on the fire. I really do hope there's a debate.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
This is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about. You actually believe Bush has a very good chance of losing. In fact, it seems like you are thinking he has a better chance of losing than winning. That's simply a joke.
And if he keeps looking like he did on MTP... he'll get slaughtered.
can't wait for the debates! I suspect that Bush will want no more than two.... and he'll have to prepare for weeks in order to even compete.
Originally posted by Moogs
SDW: I don't go to "pundits.com" to ascertain whether or not someone has won a debate. I make up my own mind, thanks. And in both debates I watched, Bush was (not looked like, not sounded like... WAS) a bumbling idiot. All he does when asked a tough question, is not answer it and instead gives a long list of platitudes about "I'm fighting for America", "I'm keeping America Safe", "I'm doing my duty as President".... blah blah f-ing blah.
I have never ONCE heard him give a thoughtful and well-reasoned answer to "Mr. President, why did you choose to do x instead of y? (in effect)". This is no great secret SDW, and you don't have to be a Democrat to be of that opinion. There are staunch Republican lifers in my extended family who are practically nauseated by Bush and the way he so nonchalantly brushes off important questions about his policies.
As for "can't win". I acknowledge he most certainly CAN win, and it scares the hell out of me. However, I would be AMAZED if this time around he won a single debate against Kerry or Dean or Edwards (for sure). And I mean it won't even be close this time because he won't be debating someone with the personality of a brick. He could possibly one-up Clark because but I doubt even that. Sometimes lousy speaking ability is not a sign of nervousness or being flustered. It's a sign that you haven't thought clearly about the questions being asked, and so you go to your "list of things to say" from your advisors and hope they "sound OK."
But he doesn't and never has when put on the spot. You know it, I know it... we all know it. Doesn't mean he can't win the election though. This is America we're talking about. Lot's of stupid people among the millions of registered voters. People who can't name the three branches of government or define the basic role of each cabinet position, but can still vote for George. Yahoo.
And here we are again. You may not visit "pundits.com", but they tend to judge the winners and losers of debates and spout those views to the public. There are also many post-debate polls that measure opinion. Bush never lost by more than a few points, and in fact won narrowly in the third.
What we have here is a classic case of underestimating Bush, which amazingly, is what the Dems have done since 2000. Time and time again, Bush gets his way: Tax cuts, the war vote, taking back the Senate, the Medicare bill, etc. True, he doesn't speak well and often gives obvious answers. But no matter how many times his opposition gets burned, they continue to believe that he's a bumbling moron.