|
 |
July 14, 2003 AVOIDING THE PRESS....Nick Denton makes a small but illuminating point today:
It's true. I know that all presidents try to avoid the press when something embarrassing is going on, but Bush's inaccessibility is simply stunning. The only time American reporters ever get to talk to the man is when he's in a foreign country. With that, I will now take the opportunity to repeat my suggestion for a constitutional amendment from last March.... Posted by Kevin Drum at July 14, 2003 10:21 AM | TrackBackComments
I think we should just make him debate Iain Duncan Smith every week. Posted by: taktile at July 14, 2003 10:48 AM | PERMALINKI can only hope that the Dems nominate someone who can speak and debate on their feet. Imagine W up against someone with even a tiny bit of charisma, and the ability to make a point. Of course Rove et al. know this. And that's probably one of the reasons they pushed the convention so late: minimizes the time for debates that W has to participate in. Posted by: ChrisL at July 14, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKNah, the late convention allows Bush to use his large warchest to attack a near broke Democratic nominee during the summer since he won't be able to use matching funds yet. Posted by: Rob at July 14, 2003 11:06 AM | PERMALINKAnd did you hear any of those press gaggles while he was in Africa? The man is incoherent, can't construct a sentence. Posted by: Melanie at July 14, 2003 11:17 AM | PERMALINKI love watching the House of Commons as much as the next guy, but being able to banter and debate are pretty far down the list on qualifications for a President. I want a representative deliberative democracy, or more accurately a federal republic. Not a continuing feeding frenzy from 24 hour news services and bloggers desperately seeking a new story. We already suffer from too frequent rushes to judgement. We needn't exacerbate the issue by enshrining something like this in the constitution. How would you have anticipated this working during the Cuban Missile Crisis for example? The negotiations between JFK and Khruschev were delicate enough, can you imagine the mess had the President's Questions been required in the middle of it? Just one example where such a thing would likely have been counterproductive. Posted by: spc67 at July 14, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINKspc, it's not about wanting a good debater for pres. it's about putting on a good show, to keep the media from Gore-ing the '04 Dem candidate. Posted by: ChrisL at July 14, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINKYeah, we suffer from too much debate and disemination of information as it is. A president shouldn't ever have to say anything, he's in charge after-all; who are we to hope he's more forthcoming and accessible? He's got a big job to do, he should be able to do it in private, for god sakes. I can't even imagine what this country would be like if the president actually had to engage the nation off-script every once in a while. The horror! As Bush said, things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship. Posted by: Tim at July 14, 2003 11:42 AM | PERMALINKSeems that every time in the history of this country that we've had a great president, he was a great communicator, able to speak coherently, and not afraid to answer questions. Yet another shortcoming of the Unelected Fraud. Posted by: Chuck Nolan at July 14, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINKArticle II, Section 3 of the Constitution already requires that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." And though perhaps this is the wrong week to hold up that provision as an example of good government, the "shall" language is mandatory, and custom now dictates that the speech be delivered annually. (Although I seem to recall one commentator suggesting that a president could simply send Congress a written copy of a speech and fufill his constitutional obligation.) Whatever the case, why force the president to do something that is historically within his discretion to do? And must we really transform a document of governing principles into a micromanaged schedule of television time? Gee whiz, get Phllip K. Howard on the case and see what he says about the Constitution dictate the length and set-up of a weekly presidential event. Yikes! Since the March post is entitled "Frivolous Constitutional Amendment," I can't tell if the suggestion is entirely tongue-in-cheek or whether the idea is borne of frustration. Cluttering the Constitution with any amendments aimed at ephemeral political issues simply leads to bad policy. Besides, if you dislike the current policy, you need only wait until Nov. 2004 to suggest a change. Posted by: Dedman at July 14, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINKWe don't need an amendment, just a president who's willing to take
some real questions from time to time. Why should we trust someone who
can't defend his own policies, or put together a coherent sentence? "I can't tell if the suggestion is entirely tongue-in-cheek" Oh, c'mon! Posted by: David Weman (Europundit) at July 14, 2003 12:34 PM | PERMALINKNick Denton is exactly right, and here's why: Hell, it should be a national holiday, beating a sitting joke senseless with his own words. Posted by: squiddy at July 14, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINKI agree that ephemeral necessities shouldn't be put into the Constitution. They should be made by referendum. See if the people of the United
States, the ones who (sorta) elected Bush and who pay his salary (the
official one, not the campaign warchest), actually are interested in the
president's taking questions for an hour once a week. I'd be curious as to whether a majority of Americans really would want this, or if they're kind of scared by the idea. It would be a wonderful thing if it happened; I've lost interest in The Practice so 9PM Sunday nights works great for me. Posted by: PG at July 14, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINKI never thought I'd say this, but I don't want George Bush to give a press conference right now. He'd humiliate the United States beyond all comprehension. I loathe the man but God I just don't want to live through the shame and embarrassment that 60 minutes of answers from that intellectual doorknob would inevitably produce. The Dems did nominate a candidate who was smart and could talk: Al Gore. After the first debate the American journalism corps, by the far the worst of any industrialized demcoracy, edlesslessly fixated on Al Gores sighs of exapseration as Bush told lie after lie. On MSNBC there was a column that was titled "Sighs Matters." The American journalism corps owns a great deal of responsibility for the incredible mess we're in. Dream on if you think they'll go after Bush; they're greatly responsible for putting him there. They might come to their senses. I doubt it. Posted by: bush_will_fry_in_hell at July 14, 2003 01:08 PM | PERMALINK"bush_will_fry_in_hell", you mispelled "partisan agitprop-spewing whores" wrong, several times. Posted by: squiddy at July 14, 2003 01:12 PM | PERMALINK"The Dems did nominate a candidate who was smart and could talk: Al Gore." Which Al Gore would this be??? The one who could approximate normal intonation only when screaming his lungs out and settled into a horrific robot monotone the rest of the time? 2000 was essentially duelling language pathologies. The dem I've heard who I'm most impressed with is Dean. Smart, reasonably coherent, can think on his feet. Edwards is also good but too green IMHO and overdoes the earnest southern boy shtick. In a debate the demo candidate would need to bate the thin-skinned W into saying something intemperate (probably not that hard to do) and not get derailed himself. Posted by: Michael Farris at July 14, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKIf I had ten million dollars, I'd give it to the GOP if they'd let Bush go 30 minutes with Jeremy Paxman. Or Robin Cook, for that matter. Posted by: Jon H at July 14, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINKMaybe Dean has an mother who can be relied on deliver crap like "I thought he was going to hit my son" to the lapdogs with a straight face. Posted by: squiddy at July 14, 2003 01:34 PM | PERMALINKAl Gore did not have much projected charisma, true. For some reason he kept his "miliary bearing," a posture for formal or important times. It was straight out of the Army, but our giggling, shit-head journalists just had to tell us how "stiff" he was. He danced very well at the election party, but by then it was too late. The whores had their second-grade labels and would not part with them. Al Gore is an honorable man who won, yet our "restore honor and dignity" lying killers gleefully labelled him a sore loser, even when he had 540,000 more votes. "Horrific" can be accurately described to the BBC image of an Iraqi Father cradling his dead daughter--left foot clearly blown off--after an American bombing raid in 2003. If you insist on attempting to use the English language, try not to "exagerate" your claims. You sound like that lying felon we have for a President. Posted by: bush_will_fry_in_hell at July 14, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINK"Al Gore is an honorable man" "Horrific" can be accurately described ...(cut)" Let's look for another adjective, I think his verbal performance was, well .... creepy. I bet many middle Americans thought of him dealing with other world leaders either in that monotone or screaming his head off and were scared. Bush, who was (and is) actually a lot scarier to me, was successfully sold as a JohnWayne, tough but silent figure, not nearly so scary. And "lying felon" isn't exaggeration? Posted by: Michael Farris at July 14, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKTwo points: 1. I object to the idea that criticizing Bush's verbal abilities is just about "debate and banter," or his ability to perform on television. The ability to speak clearly and coherently, complex sentences and all, is a) a practical matter, in that it is used to inspire and explain, and b) indicative (contrary to the right's assertions) of intellectual ability. Let's not pretend that talking like you're dumb is extraneous to the job of being President. 2. That said: Calpundit's comments boards are starting to look disturbingly like DKos'. "bush will fry in hell"? C'mon. This kind of over the top demonization belongs on FR (or in the House, in 1996). Let's be grown-ups. Posted by: Realish at July 14, 2003 02:15 PM | PERMALINK"From time to time" in the State of the Union clause means something different now than it did then. It was not the equivalent of "whenever." It had the strict, legalistic denotation of a specific time period. Absent, though, is the specification. Annual? Biannual? Biennial? And, just for the record, Presidents Jefferson thru Taft escaped the spectacle of delivering the information & recommendations in person. Posted by: Grumpy at July 14, 2003 02:20 PM | PERMALINK"Which Al Gore would this be??? The one who could approximate normal intonation only when screaming his lungs out and settled into a horrific robot monotone the rest of the time?" Geez Ferris, you forgot "didactic and patronizing" and "inexplicably sighing." C'mon, if you're going to recycle the standard press corps scripts, get 'em right! Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at July 14, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINKBush is certainly a liar. Their is no classification for a man who lies to start a war with the blood of 10,000 on his hands. "Felon" is a mild term for such a man. I didn't mean to get in a pissing match, and I'm sorry I crossed the line a little up there. It's just that verbal skills are never horrific. Please. With all the horror out there he had to choose a better word. Kevin Drum is allegedly a lot more liberal than his blogging. He's around 10-15 years older than Markos and Atrios, which probably explains his inherent caution. Still, I'd expect a lot more posts with the tone of "just like DKos." Lying to start a war is the most profound act of Presidential malfeasance any of us will ever witness. You have no idea the limitless well of outrage this is going to produce in angry writing, which is why you see the difference today with Mr. Drum. Doy. Posted by: bush_will_fry_in_hell at July 14, 2003 02:28 PM | PERMALINKSorry, that comment above was directed at the commentators on Calpundits blog, not the blog itself. Lol oh well Kevin will blow his top someday. Maybe. I know the moniker is stupid. There's a real story behind that I can't talk about. Posted by: bush_will_fry_in_hell at July 14, 2003 02:32 PM | PERMALINKNo Amendment necessary. Presidents like Bush always have spinmeisters like Ari Fleischer. Simply pass a law prohibiting any federal employee from disseminating false or misleading information to American citizens. While Ari's finishing out his 10 to 20, Bush will have to speak for himself. (After all, who will volunteer to be his press secretary when the perks include a prison term?) Posted by: RonZ at July 14, 2003 02:36 PM | PERMALINKRealish, re: Banter etc., If public speaking/debate it has purposes, then judge on the basis of whether those purposes are achieved, not as some stand alone merit. Short declarative sentences can have huge impact. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," and "I have a dream, today." Judge the result, not the format. BTW, keep cleanin' up the Left. I am rooting for you. Posted by: spc67 at July 14, 2003 02:46 PM | PERMALINK"Short declarative sentences can have huge impact." Why yes they can. For example: "We have to make the pie higher." "The question we should ask is, 'Is our children learning?'" "I know how hard it is for small businesses, I was one." Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at July 14, 2003 02:53 PM | PERMALINKOr "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton, or "That great American fom Minnesota Hubert Horatio Hornblower!" Carter, or "That's not something I need to know to run in the Democratic primary" Dean, or "This is Clinton country rrrRRRRRRrrrrr" Kennedy, or "This country was founded on progressive taxation" Clarke. Posted by: spc67 at July 14, 2003 03:09 PM | PERMALINKspc67: What was it Dean "didn't know", and "didn't know" it any less correctly than the Pentagon? Answer: He was within 1% of the Pentagon's estimate, and in fact, closer than self-appointed Presidential gatekeeprt Russert. Now, what is something you need to know before propagating a non-operative partisan talking point? Character assassination in progress. Posted by: squiddy at July 14, 2003 03:29 PM | PERMALINKRE: Dean's estimate of troop strengths http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062703.shtml Character assassination in progress. Learn to recognize the parroting of media circlejerk. Posted by: squiddy at July 14, 2003 03:33 PM | PERMALINKNow that's a BS counter and you know it. He got the troops in Iraq well enough, the question he denied needing to know the answer to was how many troops does the US have! He guessed 1-2 million, not wrong, but a little like me saying the economy is $5 to $15 trillion, not wrong, but not insightful either. Come on. BTW, read the thread before accusing me of anything other than responding to what you are seemingly accusing me of. (ending sentence with preposition, ugh) Posted by: spc67 at July 14, 2003 03:44 PM | PERMALINKYes, spc, that bit about Dean misunderestimating troop strength is, on the facts, entirely unfair and misleading. And yes: speeches, press conferences, informal remarks on the tarmac, all verbal communications from the President have their purpose. And they are all heavily freighted, what with being interpreted and analyzed by the entire world. Right now, many folks around the world worry that Bush is intellectually weak and incurious, and that he forces and manipulates facts to fit with his ideological predelections. And when, every time he opens his mouth, he confirms this, it has real consequences. I guess I'd put it this way: if you believe him, and you believe in his mission, his lack of communication will look "strong and silent," and his declarative sentences will look forceful and resounding. But if you don't, he can't convince you. Not even close. And that matters. Posted by: Realish at July 14, 2003 03:48 PM | PERMALINKYou know what I heard on the radio yesterday that is really unbelievable? Russia's pres gives ONE press conference per year. That is it. The whole rest of the time the press have no access and no ability to question the admin at all. Put's stuff in perspective a little... Posted by: ibyx at July 14, 2003 03:56 PM | PERMALINKHey, the Chimp squeaked up today. In 'person', and all. Anyone squeak chimp? I only speak squid. Posted by: squiddy at July 14, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINKRealish, That's a standard I can live with. I do think Bush's leadership and persuasive skills paled next to Tony Blair's for example. Reagan was accused of many of the traits (intellectually weak, incurious etc.) that some ascribe to Bush. Reagan's forceful speaking ability enabled him to persuade in a way Bush currently can't. BTW, do you see a major improvement in this area though from the days of the 2000 campaign? One way or another he did quite a job in the 2002 elections. Posted by: spc67 at July 14, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINKspc, agree about Blair--I disagree with him sometimes, but disagree in that, "ooh, I'd love to argue it out with him!" way, rather than the, "ooh, I want to puke on my shoes, and get that guy out of the oval office immediately!" way. And yes, Reagan had a rhetorical gravitas that makes Bush look like a weenie. I don't see any improvement in Bush's ability to speak, but what I do see is Rove and the Republican machine doing what effective political organizations do: playing to their guy's strengths. They keep him away from impromptu speaking--they send him to pump up the base, and reach the wobbly middle with carpet bombed tv ads and the testimony of his more eloquent supporters. I'll give them credit for effectiveness. Problem is, that works better in mid-terms than in presidential elections. I'm sure they're going to try to keep Bush inaccessible as long as possible this election. I bet they even try to keep him out of debates. But it will cost him this time--I just don't know how much. Posted by: Realish at July 14, 2003 04:26 PM | PERMALINKRealish, I find it difficult to agree with you sometimes, but your imagry always makes me laugh! I don't really think not debating is possible any more. I do suspect that Bush will be holding the cards when it comes to negotiating format, moderators etc. and that Rove will drive a very hard bargain. Posted by: spc67 at July 14, 2003 06:08 PM | PERMALINKOver at Body and Soul (and probably here, but I've been gone): Symbolic, but telling. Posted by: MattB at July 15, 2003 08:52 AM | PERMALINKPS -- Maybe Bush should be made the debate Jayson Blair, who can out-fantasy the other. Posted by: MattB at July 15, 2003 08:55 AM | PERMALINKGood people strengthen themselves ceaselessly. Posted by: Steil Jennifer at May 3, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINKAsian Heat - Asian Pleasures - Teen Steam - Classic Mature - Captain Stabbin - Mikes Apartment Posted by: Free xxx gallery at June 21, 2004 08:01 PM | PERMALINK
Best XXX Sites - Is it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information! at georgeadams1978@yahoo.com. Posted by: penis enlargement at August 10, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINK4577 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 05:12 AM | PERMALINK4316 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINK349 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 10:28 PM | PERMALINK8519 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:24 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
