You won’t like him when he’s angry…….

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.

‘BOUT.DAMM.TIME!

LL

Another “Are We Winning The War” Question. The problem, President Bush said yes when she wanted to hear a “NO”

The Article
ShareThis
……

“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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 . . .

What war?

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.

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.