So, what did everyone think of this press conference?
My opinion is that it was very, very impressive. This is a man who everyone kept saying can’t perform without a script, and here he was answering complicated questions longer than any press conference I can remember in some time, and I didn’t think he made any major mistakes.
I was impressed with his candor, forcefulness, humor, and depth of knowledge.
I think what has happened here is that in the past he was trying to find a ‘voice’ that wasn’t his, which is why he always sounded stilted and hesitant. But now he’s just talking as himself, with all the colloquialisms, contractions, and other natural speech. It strikes me that he’s not so much making speeches now as just ‘talking’. And that simple language fits him perfectly.
Helen: “Mr. President, could you give us some details as to what people should be on the lookout for? You’ve told us to be vigilant against terror, but what should we specifically be looking for?”
Bush: “Gee, Helen… If you see some strange person climb into a crop duster he doesn’t own, you might want to report that. Use your common sense!”
I don’t mean to be a stickler…well, I guess I do. Helen Thomas didn’t ask that question. She asked an earlier question and said “I have a follow-up.” And the President responded: 'Thanks for warning me."
I think he did really well. I know he may sound stilted at times, but I’d rather have a Pres who flubs a word or two but speaks from the heart then a Pres who’s a great orator but knows he’s lying through his teeth.
The answer to the last question and his ending statement (children should help Afghani children) were both very strong. His proviso that the alertness of the U.S. should not be turned against people of different colors, faiths, et al, was seemingly heartfelt and dropped in at the best possible time. The earlier parts of the conference were pretty much what I expected, but he surprised at the end. If recency is the criterion, he left me feeling that he has a handle on some of my biggest concerns. I am sure he exceeded expectations, showing some off the cuff abilities. He tends to benefit from low expectations, which he bounds over with ease.
Is it genetic that he does not talk about the economy, like his father? Although, with the market going up and a stimulus package on the way, maybe he should just stick to his constitutional responsibilities–which he did well.
I thought it was disappointing. He gave little specific information on what’s been accomplished and focused too much on how “different” this war is, without explaining why. Personally I thought he seemed lost in regards to many of his answers and seemed to stick to talking points.
Someone should tell him that a press conference is different from an address to the nation. At this point we need facts and lots of 'em.
I did like the “kids send in a buck” idea, though. That’s a very good way to give children a sense of accomplishing something. Much better than the corny “simultaneous pledge of allegiance” I heard was being planned.
I have got to agree here…as someone routinely looking at the style rather than the content of Bush’s speeches, he’s shown vast elocution improvement with tonight’s press conference. His delivery jumped out at you tonight in a way it hasn’t before-not even right after the attacks. Although I’ve noticed that he has an easier time when he’s interacting with people rather than giving scripted statements. Even so, his plain speaking, general pleasant intonation and ability to project a little humour, insert a few quips here and there made for a nice speech. His face showed more depth and emotions tonight. I was happy for him-I don’t think he’s that bad a guy, I think he’s doing a decent job and I’m sorry that his poor speaking style allows his detractors to paint him as more of a shlub than he really is. The afghani children thing was very strong, the humour was good. A couple of small points-other than really obvious mistakes that you do have to correct right away (like Afghan instead of Afghanistan) there’s no need for him to be preciso-correct about his speech. For instance, he said “we’re having progress…making progress,” and corrected himself. I don’t think that he needs to retract stuff like that if he stick in “having progress…i’m seeing it on many fronts,” make it into more of a localism by adding a small correct line after it rather than highlighting his regionalism as a mistake (let’s face it…he’s Texan, why should he hide his regionalisms? I think they’re cute). He needs to project more confidence on what HE thinks of his delivery…I’m sure he has a thousand different people yelling at him about it.
Got to say…Clinton’s elocution really spoiled me because I’m a sucker for a smooth voice (although I wasn’t big on him personally) but when Bush shows emotion I’m touched in a way that I’m not with Clinton. Although when I see Clinton connecting with people and I watch them reacting to him, I’m also touched. It’s just that Clinton seems to have an abundant reservoir of “about-there” tears that I don’t think Bush has. I was really, really touched when I saw the video of him on the 12th in the morning right after his cabinet meeting and you could see the tears in his eyes.
I didn’t watch, but I have to say, he’s surprising me. I don’t approve of EVERYTHING he’s done, but as far as racial/religious tensions right now, he’s not taking that crap, and the humanitarian aid thing is just great.
I would agree with you Max Harvey on the content…but what I think (and it’s scary) is that THEY don’t have that many more facts that we do…and the ones they do have they probably can’t release for security purposes. It would make no sense to talk about precise military plans or who issued what threat…the lack of general, communicable information they can satiate us with is scary.
also the way he addressed the racial problem…“don’t take this as an opportunity to bully people different than you-a different colour and a different faith,” was really good. I liked the exasperation he portrayed that people might take such actions. Also his sardonic response to the question to “how would you know,” was good.
I haven’t seen the speech, and I’m with Medicins Sans Frontieres on the ridiculousness of the humanitarian aid, but I was impressed with the restraint, prior to and during the attacks. We saw a diplomatic offensive first, getting everyone on side as best he could, and the chance to the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. Shooting from the hip hasn’t been evident. The relative absence of civilian casualties in the air offensive has been impressive. Bush is showing that he can crush the Taliban’s military capability without apparently harming the bulk of non-combatants. The restraint shows a high moral ground (cf. carpet bombing in Vietnam). Having a Muslim chaplain on board the ships and involving Muslims clerics in public ceremonies displays relgious tolerance. Bush is saying that he is better than them. I am impressed by that.
In a time when we most need direct information, and some detail about his plans and what has been accomplished so far, he rambled instead. After declining to give the answers we so obviously needed about this warning, he made a smirking joke about cropdusters. Anyone wanting to think that’s impressive leadership had their minds made up about that going in. Anyone who wonders why he waited 9 months for his first prime-time news conference shouldn’t wonder anymore.
Btw, what was that line about Muslim “women of cover”? Did I hear that right?
When I compare Bush’s performance to Blair’s, it’s saddening. Anyway, unlike most other politicians in this case, he’ll be ultimately judged by results, not words, and that time isn’t far off.
compared to many, bush is a poor orator. for his past performances and perceived mental capabilities…tonight was really impressive. i have reasonable confidence in Bush…I’m not some slavering Republican. But no less than I had in Clinton. A little bit more because it’s easier for me to catch when he’s lying or getting help (come on…first he’s pronouncing it Eee-rack and then the second time around he hits “I”-rahk? There has to be a little eensty little thingamabob in his ear). One can have a finite amount of faith in a career politician that’s demonstrated a degree of ability to handle a situation-anything else is just your personal politics.
I guess we’ll have to look at the public approval ratings tomorrow but I would wager that the majority of people think that he did a decent job. And if that is true then I would say his goal was probably fulfilled.
Besides…you KNOW kids are going to love sending off an envelope to the white house.
He should not be speaking extemporaneously. He should not have press conferences. He cannot speak. It is difficult to watch the most powerful man in the world haltingly try to get a point across. Look at the other world leaders and compare them to George Bush. He isn’t even close.
I am going to have to agree about Blair. Man, I heard that speech driving back from Canada. Really, really impressive. What a sharp voice!! And his intellect really came through. Usually I have a good memory for speeches but I’m kind of tired and not in the mood to pull it out of the grey matter. I wish Bush could at least talk like that!!
At the same time I think you sound like you had your mind made up on Bush before you got to the speech. People on either side are going to love or hate him no matter what he does. I’m just machiavellian. But I’m going to give him a B+ with a big old “Lotsa Improvement” up at the top.
I meant what’s already happened. Of course he shouldn’t go into specifics about future strikes. But I can’t think of any reason why he can’t tell us that Cave #B909-7 was struck two days ago with genuine DeathBringer[sup]TM[/sup] missles.
I also noticed he seemed to back away from putting emphasis on bin Laden. I don’t remember him mentioning that name once in his opening remarks. When asked about OBL, he said he was “one of 22 suspected terrorists”. But then later he referred to The Evil One.
[nitpick]
Regarding his “regionalisms”, could he please pronounce it “Is-LAHM” and not “Is-LAMB”? Very grating. (At least he’s not talking about “AY-rabs”…)
[/nitpick]
The difference is that was a speech. I was talking about how Bush managed to field the questions from the crowd. That’s indicative of his ability to think on his feet without a script, and I thought he did an excellent job.
I kept thinking about how bleemin’ terrified I would have been up there. That press conference was watched all over the world, by people just waiting for him to say one tiny thing wrong that they could jump all over. He had to convey the gist of what’s going on, without giving away specific information. He had to appear tough, without looking like a cowboy. He had to condemn the actions of terrorists. He had to maintain a certain amount of ambiguity over what the U.S. might do to countries like Iraq or Syria, without either sounding too hawkish or too soft. Those are pretty tough challenges - tougher than fielding questions about your new Farm Bill or Social Security Plan. That is a real challenge, and he managed it quite well.
