The Democrats Gloat Thread

Finn wrote:
"The stakes of the modern press conference are amazingly high for the president. Almost every reporter in attendance is trying to make the news by asking a question which will illicit a controversial or stupid answer. These sessions are not a way for the American people to learn about what the president thinks or is doing, they are a way for the hounds of the press to bait the presidential bear in his den."

There is some truth in that!!

I often think of the press as something I laud in concept (given their role in society) but loathe in practice. There IS a horrible sensationalism to a lot of coverage.

It is almost as though there is a contest, sometimes, between hunter (press) and prey (politicians) as to who can become least substantial and meaty.

Nonetheless, there is a fine press remaining in your country, and even in mine, amongst the scum. It is easy enough, I would have thought, for Bush to find good, probing interviewers, if he was of a mind to dare to speak for himself about weighty matters.

0 Replies

He has been interviewed more than a few times.

0 Replies

Who's been interviewed a few times? In five years?

0 Replies

Nonetheless, there is a fine press remaining in your country, and even in mine, amongst the scum. It is easy enough, I would have thought, for Bush to find good, probing interviewers, if he was of a mind to dare to speak for himself about weighty matters.
_______________
He has found interviewers and he has spoken for himself about weighty matters.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Sure, they script as much as they can.

I agree with Finn that performing under the pressure of a modern press pack is not necessarily an indicator of ability to get things done.

I think the ability to think under pressure DOES reflect a skill necessary to leaders, Finn.

So do I, and have not said otherwise. The ability to articulate soundbite worthy comments under pressure is not.

It would appear that Mr Bush may take a little while to get into high gear when a crisis occurs (as compared with someone like Rudy Guilliani), but after all the man is hardly the perfection of presidential leadership. The key is whether or not the race is lost by the time he makes it to fourth gear, and so far it has not been.

There is just as high a probability that innocents will be harmed when someone is quick on the draw as when they are slow.

If Bush is to be measured, in all thing, by the profile of a perfect president, he will most assuredly fail, but then who would not?

John F Kennedy was as good an extemporaneous speaker as there has ever been in the White House during my life, but we all know he had flaws of personal and presidential character.

By the way, what democratically elected leader doesn't dare go outside a completely controlled environment, for anything but the briefest of moments, to answer questions.

Let me save you the typing, as I know you will answer Bush. This, however, is more unfortunate hyperbole that does nothing to serve your argument.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Independent of whether the Democrats or the Republicans have the better policies, trust-building measures like Reagan's are important, and sorely lacking in the Bush presidency.

Thanks for the whole section there, Thomas. I'd extend that "sorely lacking" to American politics, not just the Bush presidency. The few times that U.S. politicians go outside prepared sound bites these days, it seems that people/reporters don't know what to make of it. I blame the media business in the U.S. for that - they seem to want/prefer sound bites - not full responses to real questions. It's frustrating to observe.

It simply isn't acceptable in a lot of other western countries. We still have full body-press scrums here - pushing and shoving - by the media and the politicians - inappropriate questions and answers. I think it's important to see how people who want to be our leaders react when they don't have time to prepare a response/reaction.

If they can't handle unscripted interviews, the thought of what they're doing in real emergencies is horrifying.

Happening here, too, goddammit, and damn the black hearts of television news producers and Oz politicians.

The "new" federal parliament house was designed to cut off press contact (and electorate contact) with the politicians. Security was given as the reason, (and doubtless WAS a strong reason, I guess one cannot expect our nonviolent tradition to continue in the modern world) but it also meant that the press can no longer have access to all pollies as they leave the house, which was a part of daily life here for many years. The doorstop, which dealt with matters as they had come up during the day.

But these damned soundbites!!!!

Pollies carefully coached to give the one message for the day!!!

What stands out like dogs' balls, though, is the polly trying to give the one message for the day in an extended interview.

There is a morning radio program in my city that has two presenters whose finger is truly on the pulse and whose research is excellent. The pollies need them to get their message out, but know they will be asked lots of searching questions NOT on the agenda they have come with.

It is so painful to hear a couple of them, particularly our health minister, who INSISTS on continuing to try to just parrot whatever message her minders and she work out, whatever the question. It is awful to hear, since she is a decent enough woman, but clearly not up to the job. I have to assume she still has it because nobody else wants such a poisoned chalice, (Health is always a political minefield.)

She would probably appear reasonably competent if she could get away with sound bites and staged questions.

0 Replies

"Let me save you the typing, as I know you will answer Bush. This, however, is more unfortunate hyperbole that does nothing to serve your argument."

When has he done it, for a sustained and wideranging series of questions, Finn? And how often? How does this compare with others? Badly, I believe.

Addition: I wouldn't just say Bush, BTW.

As I said early in this discussion, I see this as an increasing phenomenon in modern western politics.

As I understand it, the Kennedy White House was one of the first truly to manage media, and this has been an increasing trend.

I DO think Bush takes it to an extreme, and I think the stats are quite clearly demonstrating my point.

I do not know how the leaders of other western democracies rate, except my own, and, despite my dislike of Howard's policies, I do think he subjects himself to some real scrutiny from time to time.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Nonetheless, there is a fine press remaining in your country, and even in mine, amongst the scum. It is easy enough, I would have thought, for Bush to find good, probing interviewers, if he was of a mind to dare to speak for himself about weighty matters.
_______________
He has found interviewers and he has spoken for himself about weighty matters.

That's interesting.

When and by whom?

Did he have all the questions beforehand, or was it a real interview where he could be asked unsubmitted questions?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
sozobe wrote:
But why doesn't Bush do MORE press conferences?

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

"Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences [..] Over a comparable period, his father held seventy-one and Bill Clinton thirty-eight." Thanks for that, Soz.

Lash wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Off-the-cuff ones, not reading from a teleprompter?

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?.

Reagan, apparently, for one, lots of times - a thank you to Thomas too.

Good to see facts. Wanted to acknowledge them in case nobody else does.

That's very interesting. I was not surprised to see Pappy Bush's figures, but I would have thought Clinton did more.

0 Replies

Bush has had far more than 11. The press and some here aren't interested in those, though.

Who has interviewed Bush... Diane Sawyer, Russert?, Brokaw... I'm sure more. I'll have to look around for a definitive answer.

Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

As I understand it, the Kennedy White House was one of the first truly to manage media, and this has been an increasing trend.

.

I have always wondered about Kennedy bringing Edward R. Murrow on board to head the USIA. Murrow was not a big fan of JFK, and was, in effect neutralized by becoming part of the machine.

Times were much different then.

There existed such a thing as a real journalist.

ERM is spinning in his grave.

0 Replies

Bush, speeches and talking points...

excerpt from Peggy Noonan's Opinion Journal article
Philosophy, Not Policy

[...] Mr. Reagan had a ready wit and lovely humor, but he didn't as a rule give good interviews when he was president. He couldn't remember his talking points. He was a non-talking-point guy. His people would sit him down and rehearse all the fine points of Mideast policy or Iran-contra and he'd say, "I know that, fine." And then he'd have a news conference and the press would challenge him, or approach a question from an unexpected angle, and he'd forget his talking points. And fumble. And the press would smack him around: "He's losing it, he's old."

Dwight Eisenhower wasn't good at talking points either.

George W. Bush is not good at talking points. You can see when he's pressed on a question. Mr. Russert asks, why don't you remove George Tenet? And Mr. Bush blinks, and I think I know what is happening in his mind. He's thinking: Go through history of intelligence failures. No, start with endorsement of George so I don't forget it and cause a big story. No, point out intelligence didn't work under Clinton. Mention that part of the Kay report that I keep waiting for people to mention.

He knows he has to hit every point smoothly, but self-consciousness keeps him from smoothness. In real life, in the office, Mr. Bush is not self-conscious. Nor was Mr. Reagan. [...]
________________
It goes on to say how the Clinton's are both masters of the talking point insertion into an interview. Smooth people can slide them in without the listener realizing it. I don't know why anyone really prefers someone who is more adept at manipulation.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Bush has had far more than 11. The press and some here aren't interested in those, though.

Who has interviewed Bush... Diane Sawyer, Russert?, Brokaw... I'm sure more. I'll have to look around for a definitive answer.

Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?

I would assume that any leader worth their salt would not only do interviews where they know exactly what they will be asked, and can parrot their aide's answers.

As I understand it, often there is agreement about what areas an interview will cover, and in some interviews questions may be submitted (I am actually not sure how often) but here, at least, interviews routinely have completely out of the blue questions, and politicians face very searching and confronting questions.

Especially about huge things like invading another country, and other matters of enormous weight.

DON'T US presidents routinely - except, it seems, generally for Bush - face the same? Are you saying all US presidents have only faced questions submitted beforehand? I cannot believe that is true, surely?

A real interview should be one where the person cannot entirely rely on their minders, but will take questions that are not all submitted beforehand, in my mind.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?

Of course not! Shocked

Well, Putin probably does ... which should tell you something, I suppose.

I can assure you that our Prime Minister habitually (namely, whenever there is some event or development or discussion of importance) is addressed by reporters with questions that have not been pre-announced.

They take part in a lively to-and-fro between the different parties' leaders in pre-election debates too; none of yer you get five minutes, he gets five minutes stuff, real debate between them.

This must be the scariest thing in this discussion so far: that people apparently have started to think its only normal, natural, that a President will only take questions he's been shown before. Shocked

0 Replies

Meanwhile, the failure of Merkel's Christian-Demorats to get a majority for her proposed right-wing government in Germany, which would have been markedly Bush-friendly compared to Schroeder's past two governments, must be a new reason for US liberals to gloat...

0 Replies

Has the fat lady sung on that, Nimh?

I heard that both are claiming the ability to form a government?

0 Replies

Well, yes, but either way there isn't going to be the right-wing government that was predicted.

Ie, Merkel campaigned for a right-wing government of her Christian-Democrats and the free-market Free Democrats, which would make a clean break with the policies of the current left-wing government of Socialdemocrats and Greens.

That break would most likely include a significant shift to more accomodation of Bush's Strums und Drang (though that was the one thing she was wise enough not to talk about in the campaign, as every mention of it would have cost her precious votes).

That clear break is now no longer forthcoming. Christian-Democrats and Free Democrats did not get a majority, after all.

Of course, neither did the Socialdemocrats and Greens.

What we'll see is some kind of left-right government of compromise through the centre. Christian-Democrats and Socialdemocrats in a Grand Coalition, most likely (though Schroeder's and Merkel's competing claims to the Chancellorship make it unexpectedly more difficult).

Less likely alternatives include the "traffic light coalition" of Socialdemocrats, Free Democrats and Greens or the "Jamaican" coalition of Christian-Democrats, Free Democrats and Greens. The latter would come close to a right-wing government, but it is practically unthinkable that the Greens would join such a coalition.

Bottom line: there'll be some mix-and-match through the centre, which means there probably won't be all that much change from policies so far (since Schroeder himself had already moved way to the centre). Thats a very different story from the unabashedly right-wing, perhaps even Thatcherite, government and its clean break with Schroeder's legacy (including his foreign policy) that had been predicted.

0 Replies

Great.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

It is stunning to foreign eyes, too, that there is almost no way of getting rid of a president, except impeachment.

This is "stunning"? We've had our Constitution for over 200 years. Laughing

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?

Of course not!

Well, Putin probably does ... which should tell you something, I suppose.
...

I think this just was a trick question, and Lash was pulling our leg Laughing

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know