1
   

On Message

 
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2004 12:00 am
As usual, Fred Barnes cuts right to the heart of the matter. He makes a lot of sense.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

George W. Bush ignores the press at his press conference and takes his message of steadfastness in Iraq right to the American people.
by Fred Barnes
04/13/2004 11:45:00 PM

WATCHING PRESIDENT BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE Tuesday night, you could see why he drives the press crazy. No matter what they asked, his answer was invariably the same: We're staying the course in Iraq. It's important to gaining freedom for Iraqis and winning the war on terror.

Not only that, he began the session with reporters by gobbling up 17 minutes of time they consider theirs. He devoted it to an opening statement--it was actually a speech--in which he said basically one thing: We're not flinching in Iraq. He was heroically on message, relentlessly repetitive, but effective in his own way.

Washington hates this type of public performance, which is characteristic of Bush. The press, the political community, the inside-the-Beltway lifers--they prefer a rich display of details, a bit of nuance, and some wit. Reporters, particularly, are soft on presidents who seem to like them or at least pretend to--or who pander to them.

Bush, of course, gives them none of that. He's not aiming to please the Washington crowd--the political elite. His audience is outside the Beltway--the mass--and he does surprisingly well in appealing to it. How does he do it? By being plain spoken and amiable and down to earth. By sounding more like Midland, Texas, than like Georgetown or Chevy Chase. By honing in on a single message and not giving reporters much else to write about. Bush tried Tuesday night to dictate the lead of stories.

If one was expecting a Kissingerian strategic case for America's intervention in Iraq, one wasn't going to get it from Bush. His argument was simple. Freedom in Iraq is good for Iraqis, good for America, and good for the world. And though we've had some tough weeks recently, we're sticking in Iraq and with our plan to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

By my count, reporters got in 15 questions. I categorize them this way: six were seeking information, three were gotcha, three were accusations, one was obscure, one stupid, one showboating. This is a pretty good breakdown of questions. More often than not, the majority of them will be either gotcha or accusations.

One of the gotcha question was disingenuous. Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times asked about a statement by Bush to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in which he said he didn't feel "that sense of urgency" about terrorism before September 11. As any reporter would have known, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had fleshed out the context of that quote in her testimony last Thursday before the 9/11 Commission. Bush was comparing his feeling before the September 11 attacks with how he felt afterwards.

Several questions were attempts by reporters to get Bush to admit mistakes. These are hardy perennials at presidential press conferences, and Bush wisely didn't take the bait. He knows the reporters won't treat an admission of a mistake as a admirable moment of introspection and candor. Rather, they'll jump on the admission and hammer him. Nor would he apologize for having allowed the September 11 attacks to occur, as his ex-aide Richard Clarke did recently. Bush said the blame was on Osama bin Laden.

The last question came from a fellow from National Public Radio, Don Gonyea, who queried Bush about his supposed failure as a communicator. Sure enough, Bush seized the opportunity to tout himself as a strong leader who can be counted on. "When I say something, I mean it," he declared. I suspect this answer didn't thrill the assembled reporters.

The press conference, only the third prime time one of his presidency, was Bush's idea. My guess is after several weeks of renewed fighting in Iraq and eroding support for the war, he wanted to get back on the political offensive. He may have done so. Polls in a day or two will tell us.

Bush left nothing to chance. Many viewers were unlikely to hang around for the full 62 minutes of the press conference. So he delivered his message right at the top and without interference from the reporters. We're not changing course in Iraq, he said. We're hanging in there. It was a message that no viewer could have missed and one that reporters have heard too often.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 862 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 04:00 am
Re: On Message
Tarantulas wrote:
He was heroically on message


That slimey little turd doesn't know the meaning of the word heroic.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 04:09 am
With a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, he probably knows the meaning of many more words than you do.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 05:19 am
I would love the chance to prove you wrong. I wonder how much his family paid for those qualifications!
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 05:21 am
And that doesn't change the fact that he sends other people to fight and die for his own holy crusade! Cowards like the shrub never do anything themselves.
0 Replies
 
unknown man
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 10:49 am
Um.... would someone be helpful and try to find us the exact gradepoint average of the President while he was in school?
It would greatly help in thies *cough* debate.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 11:54 am
Wilso wrote:
And that doesn't change the fact that he sends other people to fight and die for his own holy crusade!

You mean the military action generated by the United Nations and approved by the US Congress, right?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 03:00 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Wilso wrote:
And that doesn't change the fact that he sends other people to fight and die for his own holy crusade!

You mean the military action generated by the United Nations and approved by the US Congress, right?


He never went to the UN. What little fantasy are you creating for yourself now? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 03:05 pm
I believe English was one of the subjects that kept his average as a Cee. It's just all too obvious. He has the vocabulary of my patio furniture.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 04:43 pm
Here's one Harvard MBA graduate's take on GWB's college 'performance' and what they might mean to his current ways of doing things:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378

The thesis is that you don't get a Harvard MBA by being stupid or mediocre no matter who your parents are.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 04:56 pm
Quote from the article:

"By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush's political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, a least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically."

He's as far off on this as anyone could be so how's his logic working for the rest of his reasoning? Answer: pretty skimpy proof of anything.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 04:57 pm
Explain Lightwizard. How is he far off?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 05:01 pm
If I have to explain it, you've not followed his campaigns. His attack on McCain was straight out of the starting gate. That's just the beginning of this writer's lack of consistency in what is basically opinion. It's therefore just more borrowed opinion. In fact, I'm doubting the writers own credentials based on probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read about Bush's style or capacity to learn.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 05:10 pm
The Presdent's present poker hand?

Two dueces.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 06:50 pm
Wilso wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
Wilso wrote:
And that doesn't change the fact that he sends other people to fight and die for his own holy crusade!

You mean the military action generated by the United Nations and approved by the US Congress, right?

He never went to the UN. What little fantasy are you creating for yourself now? Rolling Eyes

Iraq's continued violation of UN Security Council resolutions was a big reason cited by the US Congress when they authorized the use of military force. You can read all about it in Public Law 107-243.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 07:31 pm
Oh, Fred Barnes just has his miniskirt and hip boots on, walking the streets and working the corner down by the wharf again.

"Heroically on message".

Well, I think it's significant that the President's pants stayed up, personally.

I mean, shouldn't we be proud that he didin't pick his nose on camera?

Another paragon of Republican virtue, Bob Novak, treasonous leaker that he is, seems a little worried about President Bring 'Em On:

Quote:
Congressional Republicans I reached, while unwilling to be quoted by name, were harshly critical that the president and his aides had failed to evoke the impression of strong leadership. They could not believe that Bush stuck to his plans to be at his Texas ranch as violence spiked and death tolls mounted in Iraq. They grumbled that there was no effective White House response to rising criticism and that beleaguered Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was a disaster. They cited Bush adviser Karen Hughes, hawking her book on ''Meet the Press'' two Sundays ago, as the only effective voice for the president.

The time was past due for Bush to go to the nation. For a president who only twice previously in more than three years had held a prime time televised news conference, Tuesday's venue seemed odd. Dropping in the polls while Iraqi insurgents launched a shooting war, Bush chose to face predictably harsh questions from an unsympathetic press corps. Congressional Republicans asked why he did not go public with a full-length prepared speech. It was too late for that, it was decided at the White House. Now, Bush had to face news media questioning that he detests.


Now, let's just skip to Bob's take about that question. You know, the one Bush hadn't been prepped for.

The one about having been mistaken about something. Anything.

Quote:
Inexplicably, however, Bush seemed adrift when asked whether he had ever made a mistake other than trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs when he owned the Texas Rangers. He apparently did not anticipate being asked why he and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on testifying together to the independent commission, and simply refused to give a responsive answer even when the question was repeated. That is why the president avoids news conferences.


"I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hasn't yet."

Has a President ever uttered more demoralizing words in the course of seeking to reassure Americans and the world? ("I am not a crook," maybe...)

What Barnes is doing with that column Tarantulas gave us is what's called 'putting lipstick on a pig.'

Deep down inside, Barnes may know that's what he's doing. If he doesn't, however, then he's just nuts. Or stupid. Or both.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 08:12 pm
...and the pig can still only just oink and roll in the mud.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 09:32 pm
The president publicly lobbied hard for a new UN resolution authorising military force in Iraq. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to get it, he made up his own mind that it wasn't needed due to previous resolutions and went ahead with his conquest. And it was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and it wasn't until it became obvious that there were none, that he conveniently switched the focus to the war on terrorism. Not to mention the removal of a despot-an aim not without honourable, but why the need for the lies?
The conservatives can keep rewriting history and reinterpreting laws as many times as they like, but it won't change the truth.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 09:35 pm
And I've encountered plenty of people in my life with all sorts of qualifications, and my experience is that it means less than nothing. I've seen communications go through my workplace written by people with degrees in engineering, economics, management, and some of them would embarrass a ten-year-old. Bush was, is and always will be a moron.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 09:40 am
The conservatives and Bush inparticular have barked about revisionist history. Perhaps they should give this message to those of them who are filmmakers. The new film "The Alamo" is being called revisionist but John Wayne's original version is so laughably distorted it's pathetic. The new version is really not too far off from the actual event.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » On Message
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/26/2024 at 06:45:02