Video: Bush erupts against attention-deficit media

posted at 12:45 pm on April 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

This video is a keeper. When a reporter challenges George Bush on his credibility when he describes the US as winning in Afghanistan, Bush at first tries to explain that “winning” doesn’t mean the war is over. Bush notes that he has said repeatedly that tough fighting remains ahead. After the reporter tries asking the same question again, Bush vents his frustration:

How frustrated did Bush get? He violated the State Department policy outlawing the use of the word “jihadist”, as the boss notes. Maybe Condoleezza Rice will send him a harshly-worded memo.

Overall, though, this exemplifies the vapidity of American war coverage. We saw this in the Basra coverage, where the initial pushback by Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army got portrayed as a great victory and an embarrassing loss for Nouri al-Maliki — and within 48 hours, Sadr started offering terms for retreat. When Maliki’s forces liberated Basra a few days later, the media outlets responded by reminding everyone that the Mahdis fought back, and therefore the victory didn’t count as much.

This war will not be won in the space of a few weeks or months, in Afghanistan or anywhere else. The US and NATO have to build the Afghan government and security forces to be strong enough to maintain their own security. In Iraq, an industrialized nation with at least the traditions of modern governance, that has taken years to accomplish and appears to be on the verge of success. In Afghanistan, which has no such tradition, it will take much longer.

Does that mean we’re losing? Of course not. Does it mean that the enemy will never attempt to attack, and sometimes succeed? Of course not. However, we can count on our media to fail to look past the current news cycle and shriek failure at the earliest possible moment. Small wonder that Bush vented his frustration; after six-plus years of reporting the war, one would have hoped that the media would have learned to do it right.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Small wonder that Bush vented his frustration; after six-plus years of reporting the war, one would have hoped that the media would have learned to do it right.”

The MSM have never really reported on the war and what was
actually happening on the ground.

They have consistently cherry picked and sought out information that confirmed their ideology of “war is not the answer” and “the war is lost”.

The MSM is not interested in relaying objective information
on the War on Terror.

They are only interested in using the difficulties of war as a battering ram against this administration and then branding the defeat they hope for as a Scarlett letter on Bush and the supporters of this war,propelling their liberal heroes into power.

Thank God for the internet,Micheal Yon,Bill Roggio,Micheal
Totten and many other blogs like this that allow us to gather information and make our own decisions.

Baxter Greene on April 29, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Who is that guy and where is the REAL president?

ronsfi on April 29, 2008 at 3:11 PM

2Brave,
All that attention must have felt good, uh?

Sir Napsalot on April 29, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I did too. I told my parents when I was eleven that I was going to be the first woman president.

My mother looked at me and told me, “I think Hillary’s going to beat you to it.”

And this was in ‘92.

All the same, this was an awesome clip. I just wish he’d done this more often.

Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I thought I was the whippersnapper on this board!

beefytee on April 29, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I wish he’d get like this more often. He seems more presidential and in control.

loganthompson on April 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM

That was an awesome vid. I love how he says jihadists almost sarcastically like hes trying to piss off the State Department.

aengus on April 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Hey the GWB I came to know and love is back, if only for 2:38. I wonder what eight years of that GWB would have been like.

Mallard T. Drake on April 29, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Dayyyyyyymn. Someone ate their Wheaties today.

Seixon on April 29, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Who is that guy and where is the REAL president?

ronsfi on April 29, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Exactly. The guy in this clip would have furnished us with a presidency that led from the front, generated much greater and more consistent public support and rolled back the foolishness of our Democrat enemies. This manifestation of GW Bush would have been something I would have taken pride in rather than being being anxious for the page to turn. What a disappointment.

thegreatbeast on April 29, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Bush is at least 3 years too late showing some anger and passion. Maybe if he had shown some anger back in 2004 or 2005 his presidency would not have be in the toilet.

Hilts on April 29, 2008 at 3:40 PM

THIS IS THE MAN I VOTED FOR IN 2004.

Where has he been? Dunno, but I am glad to see he’s got his game on.

Signalfire_WI on April 29, 2008 at 3:41 PM

This clip rates right up there with the post Katrina “Don’t get stuck on stupid” put down of totally repetitive and inane media questions … loved it!

pbary on April 29, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Wow, I wish that was our President for the last 8 years. Where the hell did that come from. I hope that someone keeps him PO’d if that is the way he gets when he is ‘upset’. I would have to say that is the first time in a long time I was actually impressed with his response. Bravo!

B3 on April 29, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Small wonder that Bush vented his frustration; after six-plus years of reporting the war, one would have hoped that the media would have learned to do it right.

So true, so true.
But, they have an agenda, and that’s to make the president look bad, because they hate him and his policies.

ToddonCapeCod on April 29, 2008 at 3:46 PM

I kinda wish Bush would just go nuts for these last few months and become a force of nature on all the issues he wishes he could have gotten done during his presidency. People can’t like him much less, and his “unpredictable anger” would get a lot of issues into the media, like nuclear power and drilling in ANWR almost did today. He was pretty forceful about it (for Bush), but not forceful enough to make it repeatedly onto the 24-hour news cycle. If he had raised his voice, pounded the podium, and looked like he was about to pop a vein, maybe people would realize he’s still president and feel a little grudging respect for a second or two. Or maybe they’d think he’s even more of a clown than they already do. But again, what can it hurt at this point? He has less than 30% of us left to disappoint.

aero on April 29, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Finally some verve!

Chakra Hammer on April 29, 2008 at 3:57 PM

it just goes to further prove that Hot Air really isn’t a serious conservative blog.

2Brave2Bscared on April 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM

I suspect he will run back to Ballon Juice now. You know…that real conservative blog.

Dawnsblood on April 29, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Once upon a time the press had respect for the presidency, or at least they acted professionally instead of like spoiled brats.

cannonball on April 29, 2008 at 4:06 PM

That was awesome.

Spolitics on April 29, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Rating: Two stones (OO) for guts and principle, but only one (O) for rhetorical skill. He repeated himself too often and didn’t advance with the argument. He needs practice; he should do this more often.

njcommuter on April 29, 2008 at 4:40 PM

I thought I was the whippersnapper on this board!

beefytee on April 29, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Guess I just outed my age. Oh well. If only I looked 26. I get the strangest looks at bars, like some punk kid trying to pull something.

Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 4:41 PM

This war will not be won in the space of a few weeks or months, in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Let’s be realistic. Afghanistan would have been won by now if we had left adequate troops in the country instead of diverting the majority of forces to Iraq. Most likely, bin Laden would have been captured as well.

The US military doesn’t control large parts of the country not because the Taliban are brilliant strategists and fighters, but because we don’t have enough troops on the ground. NATO soldiers quickly defeat the Taliban and assert allied rule over any region where adequate troops are deployed, only to eventually leave for another part of the country and cede territory back to the Taliban. This is the reason why after almost 7 years of fighting, the Taliban still control of significant parts of Afghanistan.

The same policy failures account for Afghanistan’s drug harvest exceeding that of Columbia and Bolivia combined- not because of a “weak central goverment.” If you go back to 2001 and examine the record, you’ll see than few of our original policy and military goals in the country have been met.

Bush is much more adept at taking on reporters than managing a war effort.

bayam on April 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM

My favorite quote of the thread:

He should have walked down and asked for her notepad and wrote down what he said just so it was extra clear to her.

AndrewsDad on April 29, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Dave Shay on April 29, 2008 at 4:48 PM

He can be very, very compelling when he isn’t so hesitant about the words that are coming out of his mouth. When he speaks from his heart, rather than saying the things and using words he thinks he should be saying, W is a great speaker and I wish we saw more of it.

BillLalor on April 29, 2008 at 4:48 PM

I get an error up at the top what happened?
Bob

Bobnormal on April 29, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Let’s be realistic. Afghanistan would have been won by now if we had left adequate troops in the country instead of diverting the majority of forces to Iraq. Most likely, bin Laden would have been captured as well.

bayam on April 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM

The problem isn’t troop levels; the problem is Pakistan’s ISI which created the Taleban is still protecting them. Waziristan is where the Taleban is hiding out, and we have zero troops there because of Pakistani objections. Bin Laden isn’t in Afghanistan, so I don’t know how more troops would help to capture him there.

shazbat on April 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM

This war will not be won in the space of a few weeks or months, in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Forget about a few weeks or months. How about over a span of 6 + years?

In defending Bush’s incompetence, we’re talking ourselves into another Vietnam complex. I strongly disagree- the US military can successfully invade a country and defeat an enemy in a much shorter timeframe. And we should not hesitate in attacking another country in the future, when the circumstances actually demand it.

We can’t tell ourselves that the situation in Afghanistan was inevitable. It wasn’t. It’s the result of strategic failure, and certainly doesn’t speak to the capabilities of this country or our armed forces.

bayam on April 29, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Who’s the bimbo reporter and what outlet is she representing? She sounds like Aunt Helen with a too-blonde wig.

NahnCee on April 29, 2008 at 5:17 PM

It will be very interesting to see Bush in public after he’s out of office. I predict this Bush will be the one we see.

jp on April 29, 2008 at 5:20 PM

if he had it to do over again I wonder if he would’ve taken this line of attack sooner?

jp on April 29, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Right after you prove to me that Bush is not a liberal.

Genius.

2Brave2Bscared

even though this is one of the more ignorant questions I’ve ever seen in my life… I’ll indulge.

—-
Top Ten Reasons Bush is not a liberal.

10. He lowers Taxes instead of raising them.
09. he’s anti-abortion
08. he’s anti-stem cell
07. he’s all about God and what not…
06. he’s appointed strictly the most conservative minds in the Nation… Cheney, Rove, Alito, Roberts blah blah blah
05. he’s pro business and pro small business.
04. he believes that local charities and non profits should help the needy instead of massive entitlement programs.
03. he believes in personal responsibility instead of liberal finger pointing.
02. he can drink and drive without killing anyone.
01. and the number 1 reason that George Bush is not a Liberal… is his name may be Bush but that doesn’t mean he acts like one!

—–
and BTW… I was being serious about my ballot this November Cheney/Bush 08… frankly I think the country deserves Hillary, as penance for the treatment of Bush and for that matter smearing good name of the United States of America.

the country I grew up loving… the defender of Freedom, the Liberator of the oppressed… the beacon of Hope in a dark world. the liberals, like yourself are turning a once proud nation into apologists’ and isolationists’. treasonous if you ask me… which you did. right?

Kaptain Amerika on April 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM

This is my president who I know and love and still support.

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on April 29, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 4:41 PM

I know exactly what you mean! I’m turning 27 in May and I get carded all the time at bars. The funny thing is that I don’t drink, so I’ll have asked the bartender for a coke and, without fail, they’ll tell me they need to see ID.

JadeNYU on April 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I wasted two votes on this moron. I listened to this exchange on XM Radio this morning. Bush should not have responded to this idiot.

He emboldened her.

madmonkphotog on April 29, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Sure would like to see it but Red lasso isn’t working in IE, FF or Safari.

baldilocks on April 29, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Where in the hell has he been… bout time he came back! We needed this a long time ago and a lot of it. That’s serious conviction and virtually no fumbling with his words. I hope he keeps it up! If he keeps this up he may help defeat OBamBam and Shillery. Awesome!

Paladium on April 29, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Bravo!

jdsmith0021 on April 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

it just goes to further prove that Hot Air really isn’t a serious conservative blog.

2Brave2Bscared on April 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM

News Flash: No one cares what you think.

Zorro on April 29, 2008 at 7:36 PM

The video is not playing.

SoulGlo on April 29, 2008 at 7:49 PM

I would like to see that reporter PERSONALLY ending her “journalism” career on tape in an Orange Jumpsuit surrounded by Islamofascists chanting “Allah-akbar” with knives……..

Actually – I would to see that happen to HUNDREDS of “journalists”…….perhaps it would engender some honest reporting……..

grtflmark on April 29, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Well done, Mr, President.

onlineanalyst on April 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Amen to that Mr. President. I would vote for you again if you were running.

I can’t imagine what it is like to put up with idiot reporters like that one for 8 years.

He should also tell that ***** her negative attitude, and lack of optimism emboldens the enemy and gives them hope that they can defeat us which causes them to fight harder and spill the blood of more of our troops and allies than if they were reporting positive hopeful news. When was the last time they reported about all the things our greatest generation is doing for the Afghan and Iraqi people. What about the schools? Running water? Hospitals? Power plants? Iraqi security forces?

They constantly hammer away at our troops like they are incompetent and can’t win.

It makes my blood boil that the mainstream media has soured most Americans on this war instead of helping to bring us all together.

Its appalling!

Corey Wayne on April 29, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Dear Big Boss/Mr. President,

Way to kick some ass. We’re standing by to clean up ANY mess you made in making your point (shovels at the ready to scoop up ignorant journalists and dump them in the trash), and will GLADLY stomp their asses and the asses of ANY jihadist anywhere in the world to make a mudhole you can drive a gravel truck through. Awaiting your orders, Sir.

The United States Military and all US Patriots everywhere

Subsunk out.

Subsunk on April 29, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Who was the empty skirt asking the question? I wish I was president. The media would hate me!

SouthernGent on April 29, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Having just finished reading Michael Yon’s “Moment of Truth in Iraq” last weekend, all I have to say to Martha is “get a clue.” Oh, and she might have a more thorough fund of knowledge about what is going on with Britney right now… or not.. but hey, that’s just me.

MsUnderestimated on April 29, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Bravo! I hope he keeps it up and I hope the MSM keeps giving him these oportunities to clean their clock!

CCRWM on April 29, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Darn, it’s a shame this guy can’t put a few words together to form a coherent thought. It’s painful watching him struggle to get his brain and pie hole to work together…like watching an animal suffer. Outside of frat parties and fart jokes, this guy is all thumbs.

DanKenton on April 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM

bayam on April 29, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Well, bayam, it just goes to show you W actually understands the enemy more than you.

Surprised? I’m not. I get the enemy…they’ve been at this for 1400 years, so what’s 6 years to them?

Are you tired? Good. That’s what they’re counting on, Jahil.

Miss_Anthrope on April 29, 2008 at 10:18 PM

He can be very, very compelling when he isn’t so hesitant about the words that are coming out of his mouth. When he speaks from his heart, rather than saying the things and using words he thinks he should be saying, W is a great speaker and I wish we saw more of it.

Remember that Bush has experienced eight years of hostile journalists picking over his statements with a toothbrush to find and highlight any perceived lapse of language. Such
constant ridicule could have made him extremely self-conscious about making a mistake. Someone made a comment that Bush was pausing too often to think about what he was saying–you would too if you experience such hyper-examination over every word you uttered.

Although he tends to mangle words on occasion, the media criticism was extremely petty, and often took something out of context. (Remember the Bushisms Webpage?)I doubt if many of the journalists throwing tomatoes could have met the standards they expected from Bush–and they proofread their work. It’s easier to control your language when reading off a teleprompter. If you work in a profession that requires you to evaluate what other people are saying, you notice how often bright people mangle their meaning. Its going to happen but most of us don’t have someone filming it. Overall, unless, your extemporaneous skills are beyond superb; very, very few people could cope. Even cable news anchors will typically make several mistakes during non-scripted discussions. It is ironic how they ridicule anyone else making goofs during long hours of public speaking. Yet, in comparison, presidential requirements are more demanding than a white house correspondent.

In light of the requirements, a tiny minority of people could meet the 24/7 language requirements of today’s Presidents. Public speech is no longer contained to weekly radio talks, formal speeches or even using a teleprompter. Consider the difference over the last 15 years in the type and frequency of their speaking events, and how each one is recorded and relayed to the public through cable news and the internet. How many presidents have experienced this new demand since this change?* Clinton and Bush.

*These requirements could eliminate another Thomas Jefferson from ever succeeding as President. Think of how he detested public speaking.

Ragnell on April 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Now it’s working.

And who was that again?

baldilocks on April 29, 2008 at 11:48 PM

There’s the man I voted for! I’ve been wondering where he’d gotten to.

srhoades on April 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Overall, unless, your extemporaneous skills are beyond superb; very, very few people could cope

Yes, I agree. But that also means that very few people should even be considered for this job. The role of President has “evolved” and so should the skill set of the person seeking the position. Jefferson, unlike Bush, excelled in this area despite his disdain for public speaking. And, unlike Bush, Jefferson didn’t act like an 8 year old by giggling, smirking and taunting his audience when giving speeches. GWB has no business anywhere near a podium and it’s a shame his handlers haven’t figured that out yet.

DanKenton on April 29, 2008 at 11:59 PM

DanKenton

Fools like you said the same thing about Lincoln.
Bravo, Mr President!

jgapinoy on April 30, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Hey the GWB I came to know and love is back, if only for 2:38. I wonder what eight years of that GWB would have been like.

Mallard T. Drake on April 29, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Amen and Amen! (Sadly, after this little outbreak of honest talk, Laura will probably have the President sleeping on the couch for a week or two and Condi will be giving him cold stares in Cabinet meetings.)

Others have said this before me, but….I mean, less than three minutes of this kind of talk in about the past THREE YEARS? I will never understand this President’s tragic, tragic neglect of TR’s “Bully Pulpit” that was always at his disposal for two terms.

Ten minutes of this kind of talk on national TV every week would have done wonders for our troops and those Government officials seeking the best for our country in the ongoing war.

sanantonian on April 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM

It would have been nice to see this more, however I’ve concluded that this president obviously could give a rats ass about what people think of him.

He’s working the war behind the scenes and since 9/11, that’s been his focus….his heart isn’t into the dog and pony shows BJ Clinton was in to.

mylegsareswollen on April 30, 2008 at 12:24 AM

After all this immigration and global warming hooha, thanks, I needed that. THAT’S the President I know and support. THAT’S the President for whom I voted.

hadsil on April 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM

It is called the global war on terror, babe.

Johan Klaus on April 30, 2008 at 1:37 AM

AP,

I sent you a note.

More vapid war coverage from the Associated Press.

Headline:
Militiamen ambush drives back US patrol in Sadr City

Never mind the fact troops were pulled back so bigger ordinance could be used.

AP vapid coverage here.

91Veteran on April 30, 2008 at 1:54 AM

Well said Mr. President. I am very proud to have supported this man because he gets it.

I’ve been in a lot of fights both physical and tactical and I have to say that when I fight, I adhere to my baser instincts. I hit first, I hit fast, and hard and I hit where it does the most damage. I aim for the back of the head though the nose and, in short, I am savage. I say again… This man gets it and that’s why I voted for him.

I may be just an old brawling soldier but I see the same “come and get it” mentality in GWB and that echoes louder than some douchebag anti-American AP reporter.

Claypigeon on April 30, 2008 at 2:51 AM

About F-ing time! He should have been talking like that for the last 4 years. He’s about the most inarticulate President I have ever witnessed but he near enough spit it out that time! Bravo! Encore!

pleaseandthankyou on April 30, 2008 at 5:15 AM

Holy crap! Where was this CNC three years ago?

Mr. Excitement on April 30, 2008 at 5:49 AM

My favorite quote of the thread:

He should have walked down and asked for her notepad and wrote down what he said just so it was extra clear to her.

AndrewsDad on April 29, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Dave Shay on April 29, 2008 at 4:48 PM

That was pretty funny. And….this annoying lady (sic) wouldn’t shut up even after her mike was cut off and continued to disrupt the proceedings (even though the resulting tongue lashing was awesome). Given her behavior am surprised no one on this thread’s suggested tasing her, bro. I keed.

W, great job; thanks for fighting for our safety. Somebody upthread said anger shows you care. Yep.

inviolet on April 30, 2008 at 7:03 AM

Bush: Shut up beyotch!

You go Mr. President!

fossten on April 30, 2008 at 8:31 AM

Ooh he used the banned phrase “jihadists” – I guess Condi didn’t give him the memo about not using that phrase yet.

Neo on April 30, 2008 at 8:40 AM

That 2:46 was a great explanation why we have to continue the war on terror and the jihadists.

slp on April 30, 2008 at 8:59 AM

I’m curious, who was that “waste-of-space” reporter that got her haranguing mouth shut?

MechEng5by5 on April 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Who’s the brain-dead blond reporter?

Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

I watched it live and said, Great job boss, don’t let the PC MSM talk you into a corner. Put them in their place and tell them the truth-”We the People” know what is going on.

Those on the left need to be on the receiving end of more of this demeanor to straighten out their thought process and be reminded of their actual place in the pecking order.

The journalist must have had such a stroke that the electrical impulses affected the mic so much it will never work properly again.

MSGTAS on April 30, 2008 at 9:38 AM

F__K the media. And if I ever get a chance you can bet your sweet bippy I will.

Griz on April 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM

That was really great. They keep trying to make this President out to be an idiot from Family Guy to the MSM nightly news, but he is genuine and has his goals firmly in place. I love this President for that.

He’s got more going for him than any of those news meat puppets. They actually believe the President is a fool and get chopped off at the knees every time they try to out match his knowledge and commitment to keep this country free.

Hening on April 30, 2008 at 9:58 AM

DanKenton on April 29, 2008 at 11:59 PM The role of President has “evolved” and so should the skill set of the person seeking the position.

Why are you rephrasing and explaining what was explained in that previous post? The point was made that this new requirement evolved during Bush’s administration. Previous presidents did not have to meet this challenge. Clinton only encountered the initial phase of internet coverage such as YouTube

Jefferson, unlike Bush, excelled in this area despite his disdain for public speaking.

What historical source gave you that impression? Jefferson communicated primarily through the informal method of letters. At any rate, his few speeches were formal, not extemporaneous. Did Jefferson have to deal with the constant presence of cameras, recorders and the internet? Only Clinton and, in particular, Bush, have encountered an entirely new set of demands for presidential communication. How could anyone know how any previous president would have performed?

And, unlike Bush, Jefferson didn’t act like an 8 year old by giggling, smirking and taunting his audience when giving speeches.

Talent at extemporaneous speaking will not overcome an overtly hostile and partisan crowd (the US media, and in particular, the White House Press Corps). The taunting and jeering was initiated early on by the press corps.* It is true that presidents have to rise above the bad behavior of other people; but media hypocrisy at ridiculing Bush for the responding to their provocations was stunning. Even Bill Clinton with his superior speaking skills, began to make verbal gaffes when he encountered a hostile environment. No one speaks well while enduring interruptions, jeers and even episodes of journalists shouting. While the entire environment has become counterproductive and insane; the stark unprofessionalism of agenda-driven journalists ranks as a leading cause of a declining media reputation.

Several people have commented that Bush spoke in the manner they remembered from 2004. His speech patterns have changed; from what cause we can only speculate. My guess, is that the office has exacted some level of damage; not an usual situation considering that Bush has borne a terrible level of stress for his country. “Heavy is the head that wears the crown…

Stop and consider how well you could have functioned carrying the responsibility for the events of the last eight years.

Handling an emergency is stressful enough—but imagine the strain of having to restrain a shipload of hysterical, hostile passengers, who attempt to attack the captain while he’s piloting them through a hurricane.

*What you observe is influence by your point of view. It’s been my observation that speakers attempt to use jokes and laughter to defuse hostility in crowds. “Smirking and taunting could also be interpreted as an attempt to banter with an over-the-top level of press hostility.

Ragnell on April 30, 2008 at 12:00 PM

We’re giving funds to the Palestinian jihad.
We’re letting Iran build nukes.

What war?

Halley on April 30, 2008 at 12:02 PM

the reporter’s tread worn line of questioning upholds the premise that most msm reporters are ninnies, not to be listened to.

jimmer on April 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM

I wonder what eight years of that GWB would have been like.

Don’t waste your “wonderment” on this one . . . The feisty GWB of the other day was just a mistake . . .

Sigh . . .

seanrobins on April 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Stop and consider how well you could have functioned carrying the responsibility for the events of the last eight years.

Uh, that’s exactly my point. Individuals should not be President if they 1) cannot handle the stress of the job and 2) articulate the positions and intentions of the office.

Handling an emergency is stressful enough—but imagine the strain of having to restrain a shipload of hysterical, hostile passengers, who attempt to attack the captain while he’s piloting them through a hurricane.

This analogy is simply moronic. Presidents have always faced a hostile press corp and mass media. This is nothing new. GWB hardly cares what the MSM, press corp or the general public for that matter think of him so your suggestion that the media has turned him into something of a babbling simpleton shows your unwavering bias. You obviously have never owned a business that employs others since you can’t identify the employee who was mistakenly hired for a job they were ill-prepared for.

DanKenton on April 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Forget McCain. Can’t we repeal that stupid Constitutional Amendment and just have a third Bush term?

He’s finally won me back. (Been away since his idiotic Dubai Ports deal a couple years ago.)

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican blog& Founder,
Libertarians for Bush, 2004

ericdondero on April 30, 2008 at 2:47 PM

The Bitch is back!

Wade on April 30, 2008 at 3:04 PM

doubt if many of the journalists throwing tomatoes could have met the standards they expected from Bush–and they proofread their work.

Give me a break, the man couldn’t pronounce any ‘big words’ during his first presidential run. His speech has improved (and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the result of speech therapy) but the guy sounded like an idiot for a long time. It was another reminder that if not for the money and name, this man would have had not the slightest chance of winning any elected office.

bayam on April 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM

the guy sounded like an idiot for a long time. It was another reminder that if not for the money and name, this man would have had not the slightest chance of winning any elected office.
bayam on April 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM

One of my sons was born with a speech issue much like what the President deals with. It has zero to do with his intelligence. The kid is a highest honors student and a decorated Naval cadet. He had to deal with average people calling him retarded or slow since he started school, yet he was a top student in advanced classes and gifted athlete and musician. It’s all the way his brain works, and is no reflection of his abilities

This is a real cheap shot at a man that earned his office and has done a great job protecting this country. Having to find fault with his speaking ability must make you an Obama supporter since there’s someone that seems to make people swoon with his speeches, and has no clue about leadership or defending this country.

Hening on April 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Presidents have always faced a hostile press corp and mass media.DanKenton on April 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Compared to what administration? Let’s review some examples:

If any reporter had shown the slightest whiff of such hostility to FDR they would have been barred from the White House. Was his political landscape devoid of any opposing viewpoints?

Watch the films of the media interviewing Presidents JFK and LBJ (Democrats) during their times of crises. Both were addressed with respect and civility. Criticism was expressed through their writing, backed up by their research.

JFK was facing a great deal of criticism over the Bay of Pigs debacle. LBJ had sent in thousands of US soldiers to the extremely unpopular Vietnam War. Yes, these presidents experienced high levels of stress from emergeries; but they were not required to engage in constant combat with the media, or have someone videotape every minute of such a conflict. The focus has moved from external foreign conflicts to making internal media wars the central of attention. It is similar to how Hollywood began to make narcissistic movies about itself. In short, the press of LBJ’s day lacked the arrogance to consider themselves, the story.

Nothing in the earlier press’s demeanor has approached the level of incivility practiced by the White House Press Corp under the Bush Administration. They were not allowed to interrupt, jeer or shout or make over-the-top accusations. If they had done so- they would have lost access to the President.
The journalists of that day held strong opinions about events; but unlike today’s media, they didn’t abandon their professionalism in order to push their agendas.

The first time any reporter showed public rudeness and overt hostility to a President was Dan Rather’s famous confrontation with Richard Nixon. Even during that shark feeding frenzy era, there were far greater limitations on the amount of media pressure and hence, far greater stress.(Please take the time to read the entire part of my earlier post so there is no need to repeat them)

But I will repeat one earlier point: No one could have predicted the communication revolution and its new demands on presidential wannabees. For example, Clinton could not have pulled off his long (Monica) disappearing act under today’s conditions. Even so, because of the birth of cable news, Clinton had several awkward media moments.

“Uh, that’s exactly my point. Individuals should not be President if they 1) cannot handle the stress of the job”

Why would Bush’s extemporaneous skills be put under the microscope in 1999-2000? The birth of the new media was in its very early stages–and the birth of horrible manners in the media–had not yet prioritized that ability.

Back then, the emphasis was placed on formal speeches. If Bush had been president in the early 90’s, his speaking abilities would not have been challenged to such a degree. His formal speech skills have always been good, but the language requirements changed in mid-steam. Considering this changed reality; why gripe that people chose him despite his extemporaneous skills? Everyone knows we have a new reality, so that gift has become a necessity.

Unfortunately, this change will eliminate many gifted people who lack the gift of gab. Any executive or academic is well-acquainted with the disappointments of a “snow-job” artist whose gifts of speech fail to match their quality of product or research.

Final note: Resorting to defending your point by making assumptions about the professional background of someone who you don’t know; indicates a lack of confidence in your argument and personal experience.

Ragnell on April 30, 2008 at 4:36 PM

This is the bush I like. Man he should have been venting like this weekly. People keep forgetting what we are up against.

spacekicker on April 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM

He should have given this speach years ago, and weekly ever since. He did not sound upset; he sounded resolute, and frustrated with trying to communicate with people whose minds are already made up.

Peyton on April 30, 2008 at 8:03 PM

If only he’s been this assertive for 8 solid years…

ArtLindsey on April 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM

She’s Martha Raddatz, ABC News chief White House correspondent.

RMCS_USN on April 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM

Wow, Bush went and got himself a new pair! Yeah!

4shoes on April 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Why would Bush’s extemporaneous skills be put under the microscope in 1999-2000? The birth of the new media was in its very early stages–and the birth of horrible manners in the media–had not yet prioritized that ability

Listen Rag, your hero was doomed from the start. His mannerisms were no more analyzed that Clinton’s who, on average, appeared 29 times/month in front of the public during his first term. GWB was nailed because he came off like a little kid who couldn’t keep still during engagements and even during the debates. His answers to some of those questions were downright idiotic: “Who is your favorite philosopher?” GWB: Jesus. That answer right there brought him a years’ worth of ridicule from the media. He might as well have said The Riddler from Batman.

Final note: Resorting to defending your point by making assumptions about the professional background of someone who you don’t know; indicates a lack of confidence in your argument and personal experience

Really? Hmmm…I didn’t quite catch the name of that firm you own where you make those hiring/firing decisions…but I’m guessing your office looks a lot like your kitchen. Probably better off for Corporate America though as your judgement skills leave much to be desired. GWB will undoubtedly be listed as the worst US President in our history that squandered just about every ounce of political capital available. Buy a newspaper Rag and join us in reality.

DanKenton on May 1, 2008 at 9:47 AM

I LOVE it when the president talks like this. The American people need to hear this stuff much more often.

Jewels on May 1, 2008 at 12:16 PM

The kid is a highest honors student and a decorated Naval cadet. He had to deal with average people calling him retarded or slow since he started school, yet he was a top student in advanced classes and gifted athlete and musician. It’s all the way his brain works, and is no reflection of his abilities.

Bush was never any of the above. Bush didn’t hit a triple, he was born on third base. You should be proud of your son, hopefully he will go far in life.

bayam on May 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM

“Listen Rag, your hero was doomed from the start. His mannerisms were no more analyzed that Clinton’s who, on average, appeared 29 times/month in front of the public during his first term. GWB was nailed because he came off like a little kid who couldn’t keep still during engagements and even during the debates”DanKenton on May 1, 2008 at 9:47 AM
M

dan
Setting up a straw man and then asking me to chase after it is a weak attempt to redirect the discussion. I don’t believe I stated he was “my hero”. I never saw Bush as a political messiah; even though he had a far more successful political record in comparison to Obama. I do recognize that he faced a left-wind media convinced that he was an illegal president; and as a result, they were out to destroy his presidency. Keeping that obstacle in mind, I weight any evaluation of his performance.

Neither did I state he performed well in extemporaneous speaking situations. In fact, I discussed his problems adjusting to that media. He does do a decent job at making a formal speech. The point I made, and you continue to not address, is that the communications revolution has changed the requirements. Leaders of political parties will be selecting their candidates on that basis in the future.

Although I’ve never consider Bush a towering intellect; neither do I regard him as the bumbling parody you have burned into your psyche. I don’t evaluate people’s intelligence or management skills solely on their public speaking skills. Too many bright people lack that specific ability. Neither does the ability to engage in extemporaneous debate with a hostile audience equate to the same type of communication skills used in management or teaching.

Most of us will admit we’ve met many intelligent people who express themselves well through their writing, yet lack the ability to verbally debate.(the opposite is true as well) In fact, I find that very few people can verbally debate in the class sense of the Lincoln-Douglas format. The current cable news method consisting of two people who attempt to shout their talking points while their opponent is speaking, does not qualify as a debate. Neither do internet flame wars.

His mannerisms were no more analyzed that Clinton’s who, on average, appeared 29 times/month in front of the public during his first term.

I think everyone was paying more attention to Bill’s interesting sexual activities and creative versions of his personal history, rather than his body mannerisms; but I will grant Clinton is a natural at extemporaneous speaking– even when he is lying to the nation.
No one doubts that Bill’s ability at extemporaneous lying is unmatched to this day. That must explain why he was a media darling during the first part of his administration, but lost control of his image once scandal hit the air. At that point, Bill Clinton didn’t handle a hostile press well either, and experienced micro-evaluations of his word.

Of course, the media has been widely mocking Bill’s recent improv attempts. Haven’t we been reading snide descriptions that suggest he might have been drunk? Most likely an untrue description, but isn’t it remarkable how the press suddenly notices that a politician who falls from favor, has developed very strange mannerisms?

At any rate you aren’t suggesting that Bush had ever been liked or given fair treatment by the press or that journalists don’t attempt to manipulate how we see a politician?

Another classic example is how the press first ignored LBJ’s singularly unpleasant personality and frankly, his extreme ugliness, during his first campaign. Yet, after Vietnam, the media suddenly discovered and ridiculed this fact. That abuse took place before the age of constant media surveillance. Poor LBJ would have suffered greatly from the demands of our modern media.

You are dodging the main point: which is that the blogosphere was still in its infancy during the Clinton years, and that Bush is the first president required to deal with YouTube, online sound bites and still shots among other new realities. How could anyone have known? Bush was more venerable to this new media, but he won’t the last presidential victim of its merciless critiques.

Note on your kind request for my resume/vita:
Why is it that every time someone doesn’t like being contradicted, they have to fall back on infantile food fights? It is an unfortunate trend in political discussion and it doesn’t encourage a good exchange of ideas.

So, grasshopper, state your argument and try to refrain from letting all those emotions cloud your mind.

rags

Ragnell on May 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Three words….

‘BOUT.DAMM.TIME!

LL

Lady Logician on May 1, 2008 at 10:49 PM

It seems some of you forgot Civics 101:

Martha Raddatz is to be commended her for her aggression in pursuing the story + defending our democracy in holding the President accountable plus supporting our troops.

President Bush is to be commended for finally voicing thoughts that he’s held back for too long and for defending our democracy by letting our troops fight. Also for the character of taking questions from the MSM (need I say more) and dealing with Martha’s gung-ho attitude.

Our troops are to be commended for actually making sure we still have a democracy. Don’t forget them.

HotAirJosef on May 2, 2008 at 2:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2