The Democrats Gloat Thread

The had a White Press corps worthy of the name, and the president wasn't too goddamn scared to take real questions and speak for himself and defend his views.


Kennedy actually ran a very managed publicity machine, but have a look at how many press conderences, in depth interviews, public meetings etc that he did.

He believed he could actually make sense without a script.

dlowan wrote:

The had a White Press corps worthy of the name, and the president wasn't too goddamn scared to take real questions and speak for himself and defend his views.


Kennedy actually ran a very managed publicity machine, but have a look at how many press conderences, in depth interviews, public meetings etc that he did.

He believed he could actually make sense without a script.

There were a lot of questions they didn't dare ask back then--and the press behaved in a professional manner back then. There were no freaky gasbags like Helen Thomas arguing policy with a press secretary or being outwardly disrespectful to the office of the presidency. (Yes, I know a forty year younger version of Thomas was there--but she bears no resemblance to the Alzheimery fruit salad of today.

Kennedy would have been disemboweled by today's press corps-----if he were a Republican, of course. He had the dirtiest secrets of ANY President.

You don't have a clue what your talking about.

Chrissee, I'm joining in the laughter....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ROFLMAO Pot=Kettle=Black. ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Lash wrote:

dlowan wrote:

The had a White Press corps worthy of the name, and the president wasn't too goddamn scared to take real questions and speak for himself and defend his views.


Kennedy actually ran a very managed publicity machine, but have a look at how many press conderences, in depth interviews, public meetings etc that he did.

He believed he could actually make sense without a script.

There were a lot of questions they didn't dare ask back then--and the press behaved in a professional manner back then. There were no freaky gasbags like Helen Thomas arguing policy with a press secretary or being outwardly disrespectful to the office of the presidency. (Yes, I know a forty year younger version of Thomas was there--but she bears no resemblance to the Alzheimery fruit salad of today.

Kennedy would have been disemboweled by today's press corps-----if he were a Republican, of course. He had the dirtiest secrets of ANY President.

You don't have a clue what your talking about.

Sigh, whatever.


Kennedy was capable of enunciating and arguing his policies and defending them himself, not with only the words and careful coaching of his minions and the help of a tame and spayed press corps.


Sure, he would have been disembowelled by the same crazed witch hunt that went after Clinton.

So?


I am actually not suggesting crazed insane witch hunts, of Bush or anyone else.

I am suggesting piercing and confronting challenging and questioning of POLICY.


But, of course, I don't know what I am talking about.


You can have your witch hunts.

They disgust me.

I speak of policies and political decisions.


But you wouldn't understand.

If you don't think Kennedy had stringent coaching--he STARTED the day long rehearsal prior to televised appearances-- you are ignorant of the facts. He gathered a crack team of buddies--and they were as much polish as policy. Read before making your erroneous proclamations.

Because it was a different world--and he is guilty of much worse than Bush--and the modern press that divulged Clinton's personal life and have demozed Bush would have had Kennedy for a mid-morning snack.

You need a vacation. I didn't think you were suggesting a witch hunt--and I'm certainly not. Your reading comprehension is at an all time low. You were incorrect about Kennedy's innocence of Machiavellian methods. You are just wrong.

Then, stop participating in them.

I know more about US policy and political decisions than you do. You've proven you're the one who doesn't understand.

Is anyone debating that, though?

Quote:

Dlowan said this: The had a White Press corps worthy of the name, and the president wasn't too goddamn scared to take real questions and speak for himself and defend his views.

Quote:

Of course, Bush defends his views CONSTANTLY. Kennedy hid several very serious secrets from this country--and to see him lionized--wrongly--while Bush is doing the things people accuse him of not doing--requires a truthful response

.

Soz said--I think the fact that politicians "tone up" for debates, major addresses, etc., is agreed-upon here. Not particularly controversial.

Quote:

Dlowan said-- He believed he could actually make sense without a script.
Kennedy started the "script studying and reciting". He did NOT believe he could do alright without a script. If you are saying he was popular, quick witted, or had better hair--I'll concede that. Fluff. Bush has shared his goals, his plans, what he is doing and why a billion times.

But why doesn't Bush do MORE press conferences?

Quote:

Does anyone know the number of press conferences that is normal--? How does his number compare?

Off-the-cuff ones, not reading from a teleprompter?

Quote:

And, is he now supposed to be a showman? What other president has done this? If ANY, how often? Who has set such a standard that anyone even suggests this? And, he almost always takes questions after speeches--many of which he delivers.

He can "tone up" all he wants beforehand, if he answers the questions, and if real questions are answered. I think all of those things are healthy for a Democracy. (Toning, asking, answering.)

Quote:

What questions has he not answered?

Why should the press corps be all fawning and uncritical?

Quote:

They shouldn't be dogs, either. It is quite easy to ask a tough question in a professional manner. Helen Thomas lost her ability to do that. These liberals don't want to see Bush answer tough questions. They want to see people screeching at George Bush in a press conference

.
Which of the below would you choose for a press corps?

a.) Asking incisive and not always particularly respectful questions about policy

b.) Being nice and respectful at all times and asking softball questions

c.) Ferreting out every little indiscretion in a politician's private life

d.) Leaving the politician's private life alone utterly

e.) Leaving out the politician's private life unless it has a direct bearing on the politician's policies -- a strident anti-gay politician turning out to be gay himself, or whatever

I'd choose a) and e), myself.

Yet Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences, fewer than almost any modern President. Over a comparable period, his father held seventy-one and Bill Clinton thirty-eight. The Bush White House claims that they have answered thousands of press questions, but the bulk of those answers come from the handful of questions allowed a couple of times a week after photo opportunities, and from joint press conferences, where the President gets only one-quarter the number of questions and few follow-up questions are permitted.

"I think the press, which arguably was cowed by the (Bush) administration in the run-up to the war with Iraq, was certainly not cowed in covering the aftermath of Katrina," said Ken Auletta, who writes for The New Yorker magazine and is author of the network news history Three Blind Mice.

He and other observers said the biggest factor in changing the dynamic was the media's success in beating the government to the disaster zone.

"The press was doing its job, and in doing its job, they saw this clash between what they were witnessing with their own eyes and what officials were telling them," Auletta said.

He added that news media historically tend to reflect the mood of public opinion and may have felt emboldened by a prevailing consensus that government's early response to the storm was too slow.

I'll read it.