Comments!

My first unsolicited comment… and good stuff, too…

If there is a disdain that the press has with the White House/Bush it may be have something to do with the fact that this administration has been very secretive when going about their business. Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially. He does not do well without a script to read from (or a bug in his ear??) :-)

Regarding the press, they do a horrible job of informing the general public, it is not relegated to just one political party. All of our news seems to come with a point of view. How I long for the days of Walter Cronkite. Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.

I want spin free information. I am not a sheep that needs to be fed, I am just a US citizen seeking informational nourishment.

Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.

So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore. If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him.

Is that the case today?



Point by point response:

“Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially.”

It would be foolish to say that Bush’s lack of oratory/presentation skills hasn’t been a factor here. People naturally try to avoid what they don’t do well. But I have to dispute the notion that he’s never been forced to answer a tough question. Despite what you think about who “won” the debates (I’d submit that they tied in the second and Bush won the third one hands down) Bush answered the tough questions very well. On the other hand, the moderators were throwing Kerry softballs. Bush gets nothing BUT tough questions.

A lack of charisma and speaking skills is a legitimate criticism of a president. But I don't think it's a very important one. I would love it if George Bush was a slick and polished public speaker. But given the choice between style and substance, I'll take substance every time.


Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.

Once again, the idea that nobody is asking tough questions is just not right. Of course mistakes have occurred in Iraq. War is hell. Nothing goes as planned. We had some big time screw-ups in World War II, but our less than perfect performance didn’t change the fact that we had to win.



Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.

I’d probably amend that to say that “this administration will not cooperate with any press that actively works against him.” CBS used fake documents to try to make up a bogus story about his National Guard service. Now the New York Times has run with a story about Bush’s incompetence for allowing a stash of high explosives to be “stolen.” Except it turns out that the explosives were already gone by the time our troops showed up. And CBS had planned to put this on national TV the Sunday before the election. Bush has no reason to believe that these people will accurately portray what he says and does. He has every reason to believe that they’re using their influence to get him out of office. A president can keep the American people informed without CBS and the New York Times. What incentive does he have to “cooperate” with them?


So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore.

The idea that the press doesn’t want him to be president is a given. The point I’m trying to make is that this same media is supposed to be “objective” and presents itself to the public as such at every turn. That is plainly not the case. If CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. all want to come out and say that they despise the President and want to see him defeated, I’m perfectly fine with that. But they won’t do that because people will no longer see them as an objective source with no agenda. The fact is, they DO have an agenda. They’re more concerned with influencing people’s votes than they are with providing fair and unbiased news coverage.


If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him. Is that the case today?

To a certain extent, yes. And I think that you’re seeing it happen right now. Despite facing about 80 percent negative media coverage (my guess), the President is leading the polls. He’s going to win this election. People are seeing through the BS. But the true override will happen about 20 years from now. Ronald Reagan was attacked by the press every bit as savagely as Bush has been. Now, the world sees what Reagan did and the press has been forced to change its tune about him. I think history will be equally kind to the Bush presidency.

Thanks for your comments…