Bush Press Conference
December 21, 2004 8:16 PM Subscribe
President Bush gave a Press Conference yesterday, and it was only his 17th to date. According to Editor & Publisher, this compares to 43 for Bill Clinton, 84 for George H.W. Bush, and 26 for Ronald Reagan at similar points in their presidencies. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has an analysis of yesterday's rare event, calling him "elusive". (Milbank was the same reporter who shredded Dubya a couple of years ago for granting an exclusive interview to Rupert Murdoch's trashy UK Sun while snubbing reputable US newspapers that would have been more likely to ask hard-hitting questions.) (The WashPost links require registration, which can be bypassed with BugMeNot.) Don't want to read the entire transcript? Try the poem "Man Date", instead. RudePundit took text from Bush's statements and turned 'em into poetry.
You can tell he's a cowboy from the way he beats on the podium.
posted by orange clock at 8:26 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by orange clock at 8:26 PM on December 21, 2004
R. Mutt: We should care because, like it or not, the man is at the head of the United States for the next four years. Refusing to listen to him is forcing yourself into ignorance of your own nation and its political state.
posted by SemiSophos at 8:30 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by SemiSophos at 8:30 PM on December 21, 2004
Man Date is fabulous.
I was trying to be really brilliant.
But I'm under no illusions.
I'm not doing a very good job.
posted by anastasiav at 8:32 PM on December 21, 2004
I was trying to be really brilliant.
But I'm under no illusions.
I'm not doing a very good job.
posted by anastasiav at 8:32 PM on December 21, 2004
You are right SemiSophos. I will actively work to document the man's lies. Thank you.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:39 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by R. Mutt at 8:39 PM on December 21, 2004
If he was holding more press conferences, we'd wish he'd shut the fuck up. As it is, it's a good thing he talks less.
posted by cosmonik at 8:45 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by cosmonik at 8:45 PM on December 21, 2004
Wonkette live-blogged it amusingly.
Just when you think you have no more capacity for outrage, you get something like this: Run on a campaing to overhaul a complicated system that may not even need to be overhauled. Propose the most outlandish way of doing it. Then when anyone asks how you may deal with the obvious obstacles, accuse them of trying to trick you.
"I will try to explain how without negotiating with myself" -- what the f#*$ does that mean? This has to be something he prepped for... is that what his advisors told him to say?
posted by allan at 8:51 PM on December 21, 2004
Just when you think you have no more capacity for outrage, you get something like this: Run on a campaing to overhaul a complicated system that may not even need to be overhauled. Propose the most outlandish way of doing it. Then when anyone asks how you may deal with the obvious obstacles, accuse them of trying to trick you.
"I will try to explain how without negotiating with myself" -- what the f#*$ does that mean? This has to be something he prepped for... is that what his advisors told him to say?
posted by allan at 8:51 PM on December 21, 2004
allan, awesome link, thanks. Wonkette rocks. :)
Oh, and I took "negotiating" as a euphemism for masturbation. It makes more sense that way, at least.
posted by zarq at 8:56 PM on December 21, 2004
Oh, and I took "negotiating" as a euphemism for masturbation. It makes more sense that way, at least.
posted by zarq at 8:56 PM on December 21, 2004
Didn't we read just a few weeks or months ago that at Bush's press conferences reporters submit questions in advance so that he need never face a question like Rummy did recently? I can not seem to find the link.
posted by caddis at 9:17 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by caddis at 9:17 PM on December 21, 2004
the biggest news i got out of his press conference was the 3 times he said "Happy Holidays" and not once "Merry Christmas" (especially given the faux--Fox?--outrage over it lately).
posted by amberglow at 9:18 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by amberglow at 9:18 PM on December 21, 2004
I will try to explain how without negotiating with myself...
posted by madamjujujive at 9:25 PM on December 21, 2004
One has to give credit to either Bush or his handlers that he speaks to the press so little. By systematically denying access and stonewalling any access to the administration the current incumbents have managed to leave the press outside and spluttering where if allowed more footage and documents they could truly do him damage. The worst part is that the press is getting what they deserve for years of just re-writing White House papers during Reagan's time and now that their skills have atrophied at actual investigative journalism and the investors and owners of the media outlets have been merged into giant corporations. It seems beyond hope that someone of Edward R. Murrow's caliber will appear again.
posted by Vaska at 9:26 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by Vaska at 9:26 PM on December 21, 2004
I saw this, and I'm so disappointed when I see my president act so petulant. it's the same "why are you questioning me?!?" schtick we saw in the debates. Not making any comments on policy disagreements people have with him or anything, I just think Presidents have a responsibility to answer legitimate questions from a free press.
posted by menace303 at 11:30 PM on December 21, 2004
posted by menace303 at 11:30 PM on December 21, 2004
gwbush is so afraid of argument and debate he won't even risk losing against himself.
hee.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:15 AM on December 22, 2004
hee.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:15 AM on December 22, 2004
Judging by the soft ride American journalists have given Bush for the last four years, I would not be at all surprised if Graham Kavanaugh of The Sun asked far harder questions than his American colleagues. The Sun may well be trashily downmarket, but it doesn't deserve that sneering article from the Washington Post.
posted by salmacis at 12:42 AM on December 22, 2004
posted by salmacis at 12:42 AM on December 22, 2004
It would be pretty difficult to call those questions hard. It seems like the Sun interviewer was mostly making listening noises.
posted by Vulpyne at 2:32 AM on December 22, 2004
posted by Vulpyne at 2:32 AM on December 22, 2004
RudePundit for President
Yes, indeedy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:23 AM on December 22, 2004
Yes, indeedy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:23 AM on December 22, 2004
stav, the post where Nixon's ghost rapes Safire on the kitchen counter is one of the funniest pieces of commentary on the American Media I've ever read.
"...telling Henry that this is how he wanted to enter Cambodia before tearing down Pat Buchanan's pants. Or Safire's (Safire was usually Laos)."
priceless
posted by matteo at 3:50 AM on December 22, 2004
"...telling Henry that this is how he wanted to enter Cambodia before tearing down Pat Buchanan's pants. Or Safire's (Safire was usually Laos)."
priceless
posted by matteo at 3:50 AM on December 22, 2004
"No! He just wants you to negotiate with yourself!"
[Washington Post cartoon. May require registration]
posted by terrapin at 6:45 AM on December 22, 2004
[Washington Post cartoon. May require registration]
posted by terrapin at 6:45 AM on December 22, 2004
Well, we already know what happened the last time he tried to negotiate with himself. He almost wouldn't let himself finish.
posted by Timeless at 7:30 AM on December 22, 2004
posted by Timeless at 7:30 AM on December 22, 2004
Reporters who bitch about this are more interested in access for its own sake, rather than in actual answers to questions. How else do you explain multipart questions that give Bush dozens of ways to dodge them, reporters' cowering before Bush's now-explicit refusal of followups, and their unwillingness to collude in getting Bush to respond to specific points?
For instance, which question would Bush rather answer:
Q. A month ago in Chile, you asked Vladimir Putin to explain why he has taken actions widely seen as a move away from democracy. What do you think Mr. Putin's intentions are, and do you think that Russia's behavior has chilled relations with the United States?
or
Q. Is Vladimir Putin abandoning democracy?
Try again:
Q. Any lessons you have learned, sir, from the failed nomination of Bernard Kerik? As you look forward now to pick a new Director of the Homeland Security Department, and also as you pick a Director of National Intelligence, any lessons learned in terms of vetting, and particularly with the DNI? What sort of qualities are you going to be looking for in that man or that woman that you choose?
or
Q. Why didn't the White House know about Kerik's past?
If reporters were interested in answers, they'd ask direct, short questions that are hard to dodge. Instead, they ask meandering questions that draw attention to themselves, and then sit and listen to Bush ignore them.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:52 AM on December 22, 2004
For instance, which question would Bush rather answer:
Q. A month ago in Chile, you asked Vladimir Putin to explain why he has taken actions widely seen as a move away from democracy. What do you think Mr. Putin's intentions are, and do you think that Russia's behavior has chilled relations with the United States?
or
Q. Is Vladimir Putin abandoning democracy?
Try again:
Q. Any lessons you have learned, sir, from the failed nomination of Bernard Kerik? As you look forward now to pick a new Director of the Homeland Security Department, and also as you pick a Director of National Intelligence, any lessons learned in terms of vetting, and particularly with the DNI? What sort of qualities are you going to be looking for in that man or that woman that you choose?
or
Q. Why didn't the White House know about Kerik's past?
If reporters were interested in answers, they'd ask direct, short questions that are hard to dodge. Instead, they ask meandering questions that draw attention to themselves, and then sit and listen to Bush ignore them.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:52 AM on December 22, 2004
Refusing to listen to him is forcing yourself into ignorance of your own nation and its political state.
posted by SemiSophos
Just like the 2/3rds of Americans who don't (know|care) who's on the Supreme Court, just one thread over...
posted by vhsiv at 8:00 AM on December 22, 2004
posted by SemiSophos
Just like the 2/3rds of Americans who don't (know|care) who's on the Supreme Court, just one thread over...
posted by vhsiv at 8:00 AM on December 22, 2004
StupidSexyFlanders, so right.
The left needs to get it straight: the liberal media are part of (their) problem, not part of the solution. Totally absorbed in their own ambition and utterly incapable of seeing reality beyond their big city secular consensus.
What's amazing is how the smarter people in the liberal media can actually put their face in the evidence (as, say in the fact-finding of "The Trouble with Kansas") and then proceed (as in the balance of "The Trouble with Kansas") entirely to ignore the implications of the evidence.
The New York Times might do great things for liberals if they dumped the Ivy Leagues and the earnest skinny strivers and sought young reporters from among honors graduates who were also in top frats of big state schools. They'd keep getting an elite, for sure, but a very different one, and quite possibly more useful one.
posted by MattD at 8:33 AM on December 22, 2004
The left needs to get it straight: the liberal media are part of (their) problem, not part of the solution. Totally absorbed in their own ambition and utterly incapable of seeing reality beyond their big city secular consensus.
What's amazing is how the smarter people in the liberal media can actually put their face in the evidence (as, say in the fact-finding of "The Trouble with Kansas") and then proceed (as in the balance of "The Trouble with Kansas") entirely to ignore the implications of the evidence.
The New York Times might do great things for liberals if they dumped the Ivy Leagues and the earnest skinny strivers and sought young reporters from among honors graduates who were also in top frats of big state schools. They'd keep getting an elite, for sure, but a very different one, and quite possibly more useful one.
posted by MattD at 8:33 AM on December 22, 2004
top frats
you gotta be kidding. their interests are generally in line with the vested elite (i.e. BushCorp), and those guys wouldn't work for that little money anyway. reporters who believe exclusivity is a good thing are part of the problem. that's what frats do.
what are "top frats" anyway? the christian ones?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:05 PM on December 22, 2004
you gotta be kidding. their interests are generally in line with the vested elite (i.e. BushCorp), and those guys wouldn't work for that little money anyway. reporters who believe exclusivity is a good thing are part of the problem. that's what frats do.
what are "top frats" anyway? the christian ones?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:05 PM on December 22, 2004
Why should we care? The man is a liar.
Ahh, such a well reasoned and thoughtful response. Thank you for joining the community and adding so much.
posted by justgary at 8:44 PM on December 22, 2004
Ahh, such a well reasoned and thoughtful response. Thank you for joining the community and adding so much.
posted by justgary at 8:44 PM on December 22, 2004
« Older arcana imperii | Jose Miranda, Rumpologist Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by R. Mutt at 8:26 PM on December 21, 2004