Bush meets the press

John Reynolds said:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003217.html

A # of interestingly premeditated "truths" in that interview. For those who watched, a lot of the president's answers seemed, for lack of a better expression, a bit AWOL IMO.
I missed it...I've been being run around by a couple of kids, a couple of cats, and three puppies!

I'll have to catch the re-broadcast tonight, I look forward to finding out how creative the Shrub was. :devilish:
 
I saw it and thought he did a reasonable job of coming off as a person, and offered reasonable answers to most of the questions that were asked. Certainly not the most eloquent person, but not a complete buffoon. It also appeared that he wasn't reciting stuff by rote, but coming up with the answers himself.
 
I particularly liked how, when asked about his missing 14 months from the Guard, it took Bush about 2-3 sentences before he segued the question into defending the National Guard. He also mentioned how fun it was flying those fighter jets.

Bush did come off better than I expected. Which means he's getting better at uttering rehearsed sound bytes without sounding rehearsed. I still think he ducked 'n bobbed more than your typical boxer in a title bout.
 
I liked the part about it not being the existance of weapons, or weapons programs, but merely the capacity to make weapons that took us to war. Yup, the cycle of lowered expectations continues. I can only shake my head and hope for the slow and steady implosion to continue right through election day.
 
Natoma said:
I liked the part about it not being the existance of weapons, or weapons programs, but merely the capacity to make weapons that took us to war. Yup, the cycle of lowered expectations continues. I can only shake my head and hope for the slow and steady implosion to continue right through election day.

I'm not sure the lesson that whatever tools or means this administration has used to gather intelligence upon which it took our nation to war was proven unreliable has truly been learned. And all the chest-thumping the Bush administration has done as the last self-proclaimed super power belies the truth that we need the cooperation and assistance of other nations to obtain our goals.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Bush win in November.
 
Meh. When you contrast his temperment and public figure with Kerry, its obvious who's a person with whom you'd like to be associated with, and who's not.

Edwards also shares that affable quality, but Kerry is simply going to alienate the common voting person by consistantly b(l)eating the 'I hate Bush' drum. Its tough to take a guy seriously when he's constantly trying to paint somebody else as divisive and partisan while at the same time tearing the same guy down about everything he does.
 
Natoma said:
I liked the part about it not being the existance of weapons, or weapons programs, but merely the capacity to make weapons that took us to war. Yup, the cycle of lowered expectations continues. I can only shake my head and hope for the slow and steady implosion to continue right through election day.
Uh, I think the capacity was the weapons programs, which Kay has reported to be real and not missing in action like the actual weapons themselves.
 
RussSchultz said:
Its tough to take a guy seriously when he's constantly trying to paint somebody else as divisive and partisan while at the same time tearing the same guy down about everything he does.
Why? Bush IS divisive and partisan as hell, he deserves some tearing down.
 
digitalwanderer said:
Why? Bush IS divisive and partisan as hell, he deserves some tearing down.

His administration certainly deserves criticism, but I think Russ' point that you can't win an election by constantly attacking your opponent is valid.
 
digitalwanderer said:
Why? Bush IS divisive and partisan as hell, he deserves some tearing down.

I don't see how.

While Bush is a principled leader. That, in and of itself, is not what I see causing the divisvness.

I challenge you to find a quote or sound-bit where bush had any negative comments to say about "the other party" or individuals in that party.

Now, look at the reverse...the Kennedys, Daschles, Gephardts, and just about any democrat leader or candidate has been personally attacking Bush.

You can disagree with Bush and his policies, but still be respectful in doing so. Or, you can go and create conspiracy theories about motives, etc.

Bush touched on that in the interview: he basically said that he simply cannot control what "others" do or say about him...and he's learned to deal with that / accept it a long time ago. He has certain and strong principles that guide him, and he can tell us that all he wants, but opponents in the political arena will always try to cook up some "motive".
 
digitalwanderer said:
RussSchultz said:
Its tough to take a guy seriously when he's constantly trying to paint somebody else as divisive and partisan while at the same time tearing the same guy down about everything he does.
Why? Bush IS divisive and partisan as hell, he deserves some tearing down.
I see you've drunk the kool-aide, also.

Lets see some nasty divisive and partisan examples, please. The mere fact that people seem to despise him isn't an example, by the way, of his partisan and divisive nature.
 
John Reynolds wrote:
Bush did come off better than I expected. Which means he's getting better at uttering rehearsed sound bytes without sounding rehearsed. I still think he ducked 'n bobbed more than your typical boxer in a title bout.
You mean he's a politician.
RussSchultz wrote:
saw it and thought he did a reasonable job of coming off as a person, and offered reasonable answers to most of the questions that were asked. Certainly not the most eloquent person, but not a complete buffoon
So true. God, I wish he was more eloquent.
Joe wrote:
Now, look at the reverse...the Kennedys, Daschles, Gephardts, and just about any democrat leader or candidate has been personally attacking Bush.
Now that I think of it all I've heard from Kerry lately is sound bites attacking Bush, nothing about issues.
 
Heh.

What I'd like to know is how the budget's supposed to really work. I mean I've only skimmed over the stuff that's been said, but it seems to be spend more and simultaneously reduce income, while keeping the cost of the war hidden(aka outside it.). The views I've seen must be biased or corrupted, for that does not make sense.

Is that the jist of it? Or is there something more?
 
This year's proposed budget has kept discretionary spending in check (increasing slower than the rate of inflation), and raises military spending--just what you'd expect when we're "at war". Though I'm not sure thats quite right, as congress recently passed this big drug benefit program.

Generally, though, we are supposed to swing between surplus and deficit as the tax revenue rises and falls with the business cycle. One of the problems is that when there's a surplus, the dolts in congress are more than willing to find ways to spend it, making the deficit on the 'bad years' even worse.

While Bush didn't explain it terribly well for people who weren't listening for it, he stated the tax cuts are/were necessary to stimulate the economy, and that the debt is a troubling long term problem that needs to be addressed.
 
AFAIK, many of the war-related expenses were not addressed in the budget but will be presented as supplemental spending request at the later date.
 
RussSchultz said:
Lets see some nasty divisive and partisan examples, please. The mere fact that people seem to despise him isn't an example, by the way, of his partisan and divisive nature.

Some people would consider appointing a segregationist to the U.S. Appeals Court the day after visiting Martin Luther King Jr's grave to be slightly divisive.

But beyond that, being divisive means that your decisions leave no room for comprimise. You make no effort to meet people in the middle, and thus force them to either jump on your bandwagon or to oppose you head on. How this word fails to describe Bush's policies, from Tax Cuts to Iraq to the Environment, his crappy treatment of veterans, to just about anything else you could mention about him is beyond me. For none of these has he made any serious attempts at concessions or compromise, and thus his administration has forced those who agree and disagree with his policies into increacingly polarized positions. This is divisiveness incarnate.
 
You mean when he holds true to values or appoints/nominates people who holds values that are contrary to you, he's divisive.

Of course he makes no effort to meet people in the middle, and the stem cell research or Gulf Coast drilling, or tax cut amount, or medicare compromises were complete flukes.

Face it, he's divisive because of Florida/2000. It started the dance off wrong, and some folks have never forgiven him. It certainly doesn't help that the media paints him as divisive, while strangely painting Dean as a uniter.
 
Back
Top