Bush on meet the press...
- Thread starter Cruentus
- Start date
OP
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I saw it.
I thought the President did better than I would have expected.
I thought Tim Russert was not asking difficult questions.
I thought several responses that required follow up were not followed up on properly.
For Example:
When talking about budgets, the President said that he did not know what assumptions were used to put together the charts about the state of the US debt and deficit in 2009. Mr. Russert should have followed up with: The Congressional Budget Office is required to look at the laws as they stand today, and project forward exactly as those laws predict. Currently, Mr. President, several of your tax initiatives are set to expire in coming years. You, Mr. President have proposed that those tax cuts be made permanent. If those tax cuts are made permanent, Mr. President, the CBO numbers are, which are factoring in those tax expirations, will be much worse, because of the policy you propose Mr. President. What's more, as the CEO of the government of the United States, should you know how the policies you propose will impact the fiscal health of the country?
But, oh, well. We'll see.
Mike
I thought the President did better than I would have expected.
I thought Tim Russert was not asking difficult questions.
I thought several responses that required follow up were not followed up on properly.
For Example:
When talking about budgets, the President said that he did not know what assumptions were used to put together the charts about the state of the US debt and deficit in 2009. Mr. Russert should have followed up with: The Congressional Budget Office is required to look at the laws as they stand today, and project forward exactly as those laws predict. Currently, Mr. President, several of your tax initiatives are set to expire in coming years. You, Mr. President have proposed that those tax cuts be made permanent. If those tax cuts are made permanent, Mr. President, the CBO numbers are, which are factoring in those tax expirations, will be much worse, because of the policy you propose Mr. President. What's more, as the CEO of the government of the United States, should you know how the policies you propose will impact the fiscal health of the country?
But, oh, well. We'll see.
Mike
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I skipped watching it, because I figured that it would be best not to get aggravated first thing Sunday morning.
But of the parts I saw/heard later, my personal fave was the whole, "America can't wait until a threat becomes immanent," routine. Not only does it throw the whole, "clear and present danger," right out the window, but it raises a set of interesting questions: a) North Korea? b) so anytime anybody looks like they might look like a threat sometime, we attack? c) so is he admitting the whole Iraq thing was a screw-up, since what he spoke up for was the idea that if we think they look like a threat, then they're a threat, d) North Korea?
The part I liked was that to me, he looked beatable in the next election. The part I didn't like, was that he made this country look like a nation of fools...
Well, nobody to blame but us. Molly Ivins has been warning us for years about this guy...maybe we shoulda invaded Texas to suppress the threat, back when he was merely governor?
But of the parts I saw/heard later, my personal fave was the whole, "America can't wait until a threat becomes immanent," routine. Not only does it throw the whole, "clear and present danger," right out the window, but it raises a set of interesting questions: a) North Korea? b) so anytime anybody looks like they might look like a threat sometime, we attack? c) so is he admitting the whole Iraq thing was a screw-up, since what he spoke up for was the idea that if we think they look like a threat, then they're a threat, d) North Korea?
The part I liked was that to me, he looked beatable in the next election. The part I didn't like, was that he made this country look like a nation of fools...
Well, nobody to blame but us. Molly Ivins has been warning us for years about this guy...maybe we shoulda invaded Texas to suppress the threat, back when he was merely governor?
M
MisterMike
Guest
~Unfortunately we cannot wait for a smoking gun anymore, because it may be a mushroom cloud.~
..or something like that.
..or something like that.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Uh...Mike, if we follow down the trail of that particular logic, we might want to think about the rather long list of countries that we end up in more-or-less immediate war with...
The other issue has to do with stuff like ALL of this nonsense is just a cheap way around the fact that in this country it is 'spozed to be CONGRESS that declares war; that even the War Powers Act set out some guidelines that these yahoos just don't want to have to follow. I realize that it is convenient for Congress also to avoid the Constitution and the law...but it's still wrong.
If it's so damn all-fired vital, well, present an honest and substantiated case to the people, go to Congress and get proper authority, and away we go. If it's worthy of support, we'll support it...if not, well, I was under the impression that this is a democracy.
It may be useful to compile a list off these little war-and-power stampedes over the last century or so...and consider just exactly how well they've worked out, and how truthful they've been...
Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? remember that big fat lie, which Johnson's gov't KNEW was a big fat lie? it gave us the Vietnam War...yeah, that went well.
The other issue has to do with stuff like ALL of this nonsense is just a cheap way around the fact that in this country it is 'spozed to be CONGRESS that declares war; that even the War Powers Act set out some guidelines that these yahoos just don't want to have to follow. I realize that it is convenient for Congress also to avoid the Constitution and the law...but it's still wrong.
If it's so damn all-fired vital, well, present an honest and substantiated case to the people, go to Congress and get proper authority, and away we go. If it's worthy of support, we'll support it...if not, well, I was under the impression that this is a democracy.
It may be useful to compile a list off these little war-and-power stampedes over the last century or so...and consider just exactly how well they've worked out, and how truthful they've been...
Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? remember that big fat lie, which Johnson's gov't KNEW was a big fat lie? it gave us the Vietnam War...yeah, that went well.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Oh I know, I was just using Rice's quote to explain that we can strike pre-emptively, given that we thought (and most of the rest of the modern world) the information at the time was accurate.
And I thought congress did vote to authorize some sort of action. I know we don't always call it war any more. We have "conflicts" and "peace keeping" and what-not, but didn't congress vote to use force to uphold the UN resolution?
And I thought congress did vote to authorize some sort of action. I know we don't always call it war any more. We have "conflicts" and "peace keeping" and what-not, but didn't congress vote to use force to uphold the UN resolution?
On the original topic, I think ol' GW is squirmin'. He saw his popularity plummet recently and realized that this election is not sewn up. The media is currently saturated with the Dem candidates and the only press the Pres. is getting is negative (no WMD, new personal finace questions, ect.). The same haughty, arrogant bugger who wouldn't give any interview to the press when things were going good for him, just realized things ain't that good for him anymore, so its time to reach out to the people for a little damage control. Still it's fun to see him swirm.
War Is Peace
Dang this is getting scary.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Actually, Mike, my point is that Congress also likes these evasive votes because it allows them to be...well, evasive.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Ahhhh..OK..Gotcha 
OP
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Instead of talking about what I liked and didn't like, which points more towards my political opinions, I'll state what worked in Bush's favor, and what didn't.
A few things in Bush's favor:
1. The interview humanized him. People see that the guy isn't an uncaring tyrant, and that he actually seems to care. Some of this is staged, but I think some of it is sincere as well. Regardless, he comes off as a very likeable guy who is just trying to do the best thing for us.
2. The interview allowed the public to see his logic behind his actions. When he gives speaches, it sounds like a lot of propiganda with no substance. In an interview like this he can't just throw out catch phrases about the war on terror or Saddam being an evil man without actually having to back up his statements and give the logic behind it. Giving this logic, though, will actually help him because people will at least be able to understand where he is coming from.
3. This interview shows that he is not afraid to address the many problems with the things that have been going to during his administration.
Things not in Bushs favor:
1. The interview humanized him. Yes, I know this worked in his favor, but it will also hurt him. Most voters who dislike Bush have had a very defeatist attitude. They have been completely apathetic, whining "I don't like Bush, but I am afriad he is going to get elected again..." Most of these morons won't even show up at the polls. Now, that he did this interview, for those who actually watched and do oppose him, and who listened to all the critical evidence brought to the table, this interview could make people realize that Bush is human, and he is beatable.
2. This interview allowed the public to see the logic behind his actions. I know that this also works in his favor, but this could also hurt him. There are many glarring flaws in his logic and arguements that many voters will see right through.
3. THis interview brings to light the host of problems that have been running rampent during his adminstistration. Correct or not, he will be blamed for most of these problems.
So, thats my overall assessment.
PAUL
A few things in Bush's favor:
1. The interview humanized him. People see that the guy isn't an uncaring tyrant, and that he actually seems to care. Some of this is staged, but I think some of it is sincere as well. Regardless, he comes off as a very likeable guy who is just trying to do the best thing for us.
2. The interview allowed the public to see his logic behind his actions. When he gives speaches, it sounds like a lot of propiganda with no substance. In an interview like this he can't just throw out catch phrases about the war on terror or Saddam being an evil man without actually having to back up his statements and give the logic behind it. Giving this logic, though, will actually help him because people will at least be able to understand where he is coming from.
3. This interview shows that he is not afraid to address the many problems with the things that have been going to during his administration.
Things not in Bushs favor:
1. The interview humanized him. Yes, I know this worked in his favor, but it will also hurt him. Most voters who dislike Bush have had a very defeatist attitude. They have been completely apathetic, whining "I don't like Bush, but I am afriad he is going to get elected again..." Most of these morons won't even show up at the polls. Now, that he did this interview, for those who actually watched and do oppose him, and who listened to all the critical evidence brought to the table, this interview could make people realize that Bush is human, and he is beatable.
2. This interview allowed the public to see the logic behind his actions. I know that this also works in his favor, but this could also hurt him. There are many glarring flaws in his logic and arguements that many voters will see right through.
3. THis interview brings to light the host of problems that have been running rampent during his adminstistration. Correct or not, he will be blamed for most of these problems.
So, thats my overall assessment.
PAUL
Similar threads
