Bush Press Conference, Apolitically Assessed

[WSUCougar]

I'm starting another thread on this to avoid derailing the other one (or derailing it further, perhaps?).

I also want to state up front that it is NOT my intention to start a partisan flame war, although I am willing to concede that such a thing is a strong possibility in any event. I promise not to delete the thread, but I would ask that individuals refrain from the familiar bashing to comment in the spirit of the the thread.

Also, regardless of their politics, I have a strong amount of personal respect for anyone who ascends to the Presidency.

Now, on to the meat and potatoes...

Political intentions and judgments aside, I felt that the President's performance on-camera last night was stunningly poor. While I can't state that I've seen anywhere near enough Presidential press conferences over the years to make a truly fair comparison, my gut-level reaction is that it must rank fairly low in recent memory. The President reminded me of a high school student who has to make a presentation in front of the class but hasn't done any of his homework. To say his answers were evasive or simply off-topic doesn't even begin to cover it.

My wife and I were actually embarassed for him.

In truth, I am surprised no one else has commented on this (perhaps I've missed it). What are your objective thoughts? Please, keep it civil.

[Bosco]

I only watched a few minutes and he did seem nervous and jumbled his words a few times. Not really all that Presidential sounding regardless of what he was saying.

[John Galt]

I thought the Q&A part was pretty bad for him. He seemed to be avoiding (or not understanding) questions. The questions about mistakes, apologies, and having Cheney with him before the 9/11 hearings were particularly bad moments.

I also wonder about his tendency to personalize things. He has a lot of "I will" or "I did" sentences instead of "We will" or "Together we." I don't know if that is intentional or not (it is pretty unusual for a president to do IMO).

I thought it was his worst major public appearance that I have seen. I've thought he had never been bad before (usually ok to good), but I really thought last night was close to awful.

[tucker342]

Of course Bush has never been the best speaker in the world...

Of course I didn't see it though, was it really that bad?

[Cuckoo]

I actually agree. I thought it was pretty poor despite the fact that many so-called "pundits" are saying that it will help him. I disagree with John Galt, though. I thought the Q&A was the best part. He comes across like a normal person in those typically and much more accessible. His speeches have always been, in my opinion, a poor attempt to make him into something he's not and rarely seem to address many of the important issues. When he just talks to people, I believe that voters have much more respect for him. They can overlook an inability to speak well when they feel personally connected to a man's honesty. That, in my mind, is what I got from the Q&A and not from the prepared speech.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll be as objective as I can, whether that's sufficient ... eh.

1) The press conference format was a bad idea IMO. And it would have been a bad idea regardless of whether the sitting President was a Repub., a Dem. or anybody else.

2) This had nothing to do with informing anybody about anything, it's purpose was wholly political. I'm not criticizing that as a tactic in general, I'm just critical of the notion that this was a use of it that was going to reap any major benefit. Both sides will spin it, and both have ample opportunity to spin it to their benefit. Nothing that was a slam dunk for either IMO.

3) As for being evasive or off-topic, the transcript (all I've got to go on, I was being treated to dinner by my wife & son for my birthday) doesn't strike as me being any more or less off-track than most other press conferences. The format seems to be "you ask me a question & then I use the opportunity to answer with something I wanted to say anyway whether that's what you asked or not". Again, that's a non-partisan answer, both sides do it regularly AFAIC, it's just the way it works.

[WSUCougar]

I'm surprised you saw it that way, Cuckoo. The Q&A seemed so uncomfortable to me...the media corps asking some penetrating questions, and the President seriously stumbling on them. He made no substantive responses, other than familiar phrases that he seemed to fall back on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

When he just talks to people, I believe that voters have much more respect for him. They can overlook an inability to speak well when they feel personally connected to a man's honesty.
In a general sense, I'd have to agree with that assesment. His off-the-cuff remarks (or at least not wholly scripted verbatim) are, IMO, a real strength with his supporters. It's when I believe him most & trust him most frankly.

[Cuckoo]

I'm surprised you saw it that way, Cuckoo. The Q&A seemed so uncomfortable to me...the media corps asking some penetrating questions, and the President seriously stumbling on them. He made no substantive responses, other than familiar phrases that he seemed to fall back on.

Oh I agree that he dodged some tough questions, but I don't think that hurts him. To me, and to several others I've spoken with, it looked like the media was trying as hard as they could to attack him, and he didn't get upset by it but took each of their blows, albeit stumbling at times. I think that standing in the fire gives a person much more credibility than simply reading a prepared speech. Would I have liked him to give some better answers? Absolutely. But, the repeated attempts by the media to get him to apologize for 9-11 was the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Bush didn't fly planes into the towers, for God's sake, let it go. I think, in many ways, the reporters came out looking worse than Bush.

[WSUCougar]

Understood. However, from my perspective, he did not come across as sincere in his responses, but rather floundering for the "right thing to say." I agree that Bush has a personal demeanor that can be engaging, but I felt it was sorely lacking last night.

And for my two bits, the media did what needed to be done (in terms of our current society), and the administration had to know it was going to be that way.

[Butter]

Bush didn't fly planes into the towers, for God's sake, let it go.


Let it go?!?!?!?

[Cuckoo]

Let it go?!?!?!?


Yes, LET IT GO!! Stop trying to attack the President because of something that was done by TERRORISTS. If something comes out of this commission that shows that Bush was woefully incompetent about his handling of the situation and could have stopped the attacks, I'm the first in line to scream for an apology and his removal. But until that happens, asking for an apology for something that was not his fault is, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous.

[wig]

I thought Bush did a great job.

[WSUCougar]

I thought Bush did a great job.So how would you counter the remarks already made about his performance in this thread?

[Bosco]

So how would you counter the remarks already made about his performance in this thread?

Lets be honest Bush could have came out and said every gay and brown skinned person should be killed and some people would still think he did a great job.

[John Galt]

Lets be honest Bush could have came out and said every gay and brown skinned person should be killed and some people would still think he did a great job.

See, that is what WSUCougar was trying to avoid. Do you come to every political thread just to bait people?

[wig]

So how would you counter the remarks already made about his performance in this thread?

I think the purpose of the conference was not to actually answer the questions, but to use the media to get his message out.

He said exactly what he wanted to say, and didn't let the reporters force him into uncomfortable areas. In that, I think he did a great job.

[Eaglesfan27]

One of his responses was something to the effect of him being disappointed the reporter didn't give him the written question beforehand. Didn't this imply that he had all of the other questions before the press conference and therefore had some time to plan a reply to the questions? Or did I misunderstand his comment?

[Butter]

If something comes out of this commission that shows that Bush was woefully incompetent about his handling of the situation

That's pretty subjective, though, isn't it?

But until that happens, asking for an apology for something that was not his fault is, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous.

As Commander-in-Chief, he is responsible for our security. He failed. I don't know what was said in the press conference, as I didn't watch it (I was watching Band of Brothers on History Channel) but he should apologize for 9/11. And I imagine he already has apologized to the families involved and probably to the nation. No matter who was responsible for it, whether you believe it was Clinton, or even Bush I, it happened on W's watch. In my mind, he can't apologize enough. And he is going to have to answer for it for the rest of his life.

[Cuckoo]

One of his responses was something to the effect of him being disappointed the reporter didn't give him the written question beforehand. Didn't this imply that he had all of the other questions before the press conference and therefore had some time to plan a reply to the questions? Or did I misunderstand his comment?

I don't think you misunderstood at all. To my knowledge, he's given a signficant amount of the general concepts behind the questions in advance, and he works off of a script of sorts when choosing specific reporters.

[Cuckoo]

That's pretty subjective, though, isn't it?



As Commander-in-Chief, he is responsible for our security. He failed. I don't know what was said in the press conference, as I didn't watch it (I was watching Band of Brothers on History Channel) but he should apologize for 9/11. And I imagine he already has apologized to the families involved and probably to the nation. No matter who was responsible for it, whether you believe it was Clinton, or even Bush I, it happened on W's watch. In my mind, he can't apologize enough. And he is going to have to answer for it for the rest of his life.

Subjective or not, isn't that what the commission's there for? There won't be any kind of smoking gun of inaction by the administration, I can pretty much guarantee that, but if it came out that they had specific intel and didn't act upon it, I would agree with you in an instant.

I agree that he's responsible for the security of our country, but I think that maybe our disagreement is a semantic one. An apology, in my opinion, admits some sort of mistake that was made and a culpability on his part. I don't think that exists, and it seems to me that those against Bush are simply looking for any kind of ammunition against him they can get, and if he apologizes, they can emphasize an incompetence in dealing with terrorists that I don't believe existed. Is he sorry that people lost their lives? He better be. Should he admit some kind of mistake that he didn't make just to placate his opposition. I don't think so.

[Cap Ologist]

I think that Bush did the best he could hope for. He is not a great speaker like Clinton was, but there is something about the way he stumbles around that makes me like him. I don't know why, but I think that when he is in that kind of format, he comes across as more of a normal guy than the President of the United States. I can relate to him better that way.

I wish he would have given some better answers to some of the questions, but I like that Bush is firm in his convictions. He said a couple of times that he doesn't use polls to make decisions, which I think is a great characteristic of a leader. Bush basically says this is who I am, this is what I'm going to do even if it's unpopular, who's with me?

Of course, some might argue that a leader should be more concerned about the opinion of their followers (by followers in this case I mean all Americans, not just Republicans) and then make decisions that please those people. It's probably a safe way to keep your job, but in the end you don't do your job. It reminds of the scene in American President where Michael Douglas says "I was too busy keeping my job that I didn't do my job."

Bush will never rival Clinton for charisma, but I like that he is driven by his convictions. Whether you agree with his convictions is a different matter, but in terms of leadership, I think he's the leader I can trust because he isn't afraid of tough choices.

On another note, I sense genuine empathy from Bush for those who've lost family members and friends. The war in Iraq has gotten more personal for me lately. When the contractors in Fallujah were ambushed, a humvee was blown up in another part of Iraq. Inside was the best man at my sisters wedding two years ago. He was killed and his wife is expecting their first child in May. When Bush says he understand the consequences of his actions and his commitment to giving our soldiers what they need, it really affected me. The war in Iraq is no longer the top news story, it has become a little too personal for me.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

[kingnebwsu]

They delayed 24 for it, therefore it was the worst press conference in history :(

[Barkeep49]

I found the President rather bland. I'm not really a supporter of his and know that his strength isn't giving delivered speeches/remarks (look at his first address before Congress after 9/11 for further proof of this). However despite all this I found myself being able to agree with 90% of the things he said. As others have mentioned I didn't think he really answered the questions asked, but I found it interesting that I actually could agree with so much of what he said since normally I have policy differences with this guy so I think bland is the best word to describe how he did.

[Butter]

and it seems to me that those against Bush are simply looking for any kind of ammunition against him they can get, and if he apologizes, they can emphasize an incompetence in dealing with terrorists that I don't believe existed.

So, you think the media is against Bush, and I disagree. I can live with that. I guess. :D

[Fonzie]

I also found myself cringing at his responses on several occasions, as they were clearly rambling, poorly phrased, and generally clear attempts at avoiding providing an answer. All presidents do the latter to some degree, but Bush was particularly poor at it, especially with the joint Bush/Cheney 9/11 commission appearance query. That response was horrible.

And I was also stunned at how little the mainstream press remarked upon all of this - many, even some of the more liberal commentators, mentioned that they thought he communicated a clear message. I found it strange that I saw it so differently.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It seems that the president skirted some questions. It seems as if the Press Conf. may have back fired on The Pres. He really seemed lost and confused sometimes.
I think were seeing the Bush admn. stumble once again just like with Condi Rice's testimonies last week.

[Cuckoo]

So, you think the media is against Bush, and I disagree. I can live with that. I guess. :D

Oddly though, I agree tremendously with what Fonzie said in that I haven't seen the media being near as harsh about his performance as I thought they would. I didn't think this was his best speech or Q&A for that matter, but all the talking heads keep saying he helped himself.

BTW, I know you can't live with it. It's eating you up inside. ;)

[Easy Mac]

I'll be as objective as I can, whether that's sufficient ... eh.

1) The press conference format was a bad idea IMO. And it would have been a bad idea regardless of whether the sitting President was a Repub., a Dem. or anybody else.

2) This had nothing to do with informing anybody about anything, it's purpose was wholly political. I'm not criticizing that as a tactic in general, I'm just critical of the notion that this was a use of it that was going to reap any major benefit. Both sides will spin it, and both have ample opportunity to spin it to their benefit. Nothing that was a slam dunk for either IMO.

3) As for being evasive or off-topic, the transcript (all I've got to go on, I was being treated to dinner by my wife & son for my birthday) doesn't strike as me being any more or less off-track than most other press conferences. The format seems to be "you ask me a question & then I use the opportunity to answer with something I wanted to say anyway whether that's what you asked or not". Again, that's a non-partisan answer, both sides do it regularly AFAIC, it's just the way it works.
I agree with JiMG. I watched the first 5 minutes and thought "this isn't saying anything new." Then I flipped back and caught a few minutes of the Q&A and thought "shocking, a President not answering questions but stating his policy." I think this exercise was pointless (also regarding party politics), and I am pissed they pushed back American Idol.

[Radii]

All I know about this is that 24 now comes on at the same time as the Sopranos. Add this to the already long list of reasons I won't vote for Bush! :D

[KWhit]

I thought he did a pretty poor job during the Q and A (I didn't see his prepared speech, but saw the Q and A twice due to a wierd TV coincidence).

The things that jumped out at me:

At one point when a reporter tried to jump in and ask a question, Bush said "I have some must-asks to get through." Meaning he had some reporters lined up that HAD to ask their questions. I know this is done at every press conference, by every president, but I don't think he wanted to highlight the fact that certain reporters knew they would be called on and he knew the questions they would ask him.

The "I wish you would have written that question out and given it to me beforehand" or whatever was a really bad moment for him, I thought. It again highlighted the fact that the press conference was essentially scripted, and when it deviated from the script, it through Bush.

The answer to the question as to why Cheney and Bush would appear at the 911 commission together was probably the low point of the evening. His response made him look uncomfortable and evasive. How could he be unprepared for that question? I'm sure he (and his staff) knew that would come up!

It also bothers me when he uses his chuckle at inappropriate times. He did it last night when asked the question about the discrepancy in the PDB regarding the 70 agents working in the field on Bin Laden. He said something to the effect of "I expect to have good information <chuckle>." His answer was a good one, but it didn't seem to be a laughing (or even a chuckling matter at the time).

The Q&A portion of the evening made him look very un-presidential, IMO.

[Cuckoo]

I think this is a good thread. I find it incredibly interesting how people can have such different views upon the same speech. It shows how everyone places importance on different things, I think.

[CamEdwards]

I missed the news conference last night and I really don't feel like reading this entire thread, so forgive me if it's already been stated: one of the reason's the president might have avoided answering those questions about apologizing, etc. is because he doesn't want to give John Kerry any soundbites to use in campaign commercials.*


*I can't claim credit for this thought. Limbaugh mentioned it on his show today.

[BishopMVP]

I come from a point of supporting the Iraq war strongly. I also missed the very beginning and some parts of the Q&A (Bruins game ;).)

I thought his speech was good. The people already set for and against the war weren't swayed at all, but it seemed to be a speech that will shore up support and move those in the middle more towards his side. He should have done this weeks ago. He made some great points that needed to be made - we're going to do what it takes, it is not a quagmire, it will be long and difficult but it is worth it.

The Q&A was not very good. It seemed every question was loaded against him, especially in the beginning, but he appeared evasive and like he was trying to hit a talking point rather than answer the question. He's not very quick on his feet, and it shows. Some people find it endearing, some mock him mercilessly for it.

I think the address will shore up support for our actions in Iraq among Americans, and the polls on the issue will go up some.