Is the president required to have a say on everything?

The BBQ Pit
1

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.radio.ap/index.html

You’re lucky he said anything at all. Why have some people in this case complained that the president took to long to comment on this tragedy? While it’s a kind thing to do, I think the president has better things to do (The office, not the actions of our current president. So please, no comments like, “well he has time for the war!!” type crap). The article mentioned that Clinton “publicly expressed his condolences” shortly after the Columbine shootings. So what. That was Clinton. Is this the standard now? To require the president to respond in a timely manner if MSNBC runs a controversial story for more than two days? Are the condolences of the county and reservation authoritys on public television looped for hours on end not enough?

If anyone should speak, how about the governor? Why the President? What is he going to say that people aren’t already feeling about the shootings? Are you hoping he’s going to say something that will instill confidence in our society, because if you’re looking for that, I believe it’s already gone.

2

Well, he had time for Terri Shiavo.

He had time to cut short his vacation to sign Congress’s bill in the middle of the night, and time to plea for the courts to order the reinsertion of her tube, and time to express his great disappointment Wednesday that it hadn’t happened.

He has taken time to pander to his constituency, despite the fact that 80% of the country thinks what Congress did was wrong, but hadn’t taken 5 minutes to offer condolences to the victims of the biggest school shooting since Columbine, in which the victims are naturally 100% sympathetic. People are comparing and contrasting his reactions to the two events. If they weren’t happening concurrently, I doubt there’d be a flap.

3

The President is, by many understandings, the United States. As such, EVERYONE wants him to have an opinion (theirs) on every subject. He ignores it at his peril.

While he isn’t required by law to have a position on every issue and event politically he can be expected to do so.

4

The President would have been all over this had it occurred at a white, Christian school.

5

I think it’s a parental approval type thing.

6

I don’t know whether to agree with you or not in general, but if I die tragically before the next election, I hope the panderer-in-chief keeps his weak mouth shut and his ill-informed opinions to himself.

7

Who cares if the president goes on TV and mutters the predictable platitudes about how tragic it is and how the people of Red Lake will be in his thoughts and prayers?

8

“Some American Indians”, according to the artice in the OP.

9

But what if your community complains that he didn’t say anything about you in four days? For the love of og, what will happen!!!? OMG!!1

I’m not pitting the President actually doing this. I’m pitting the people that are “outraged” because he supposedly waited too long to say something. I understand that this was the biggest shooting since Columbine, but does it require the president to speak on it every time one occurs, does it? People experience tragedies that are sometimes worse off then this one, why aren’t they demanding a speech from him?

I understand that our current President hasn’t been the most favorable one. That’s not what this is about. I’m trying to figure out why these people are criticizing the amount of time it took for him to make a speech. You mentioned Terri. In her case, it’s a life and death matter that required his immediate attention that was intertwined with Federal BS that I don’t quite understand, the shootings do not require his attention at all really (which we all know the outcome of, no need to debate Terri and the Presidents actions here). Where as the shootings, well… there was no life and death matter (as sad as it is), they’re already dead.

10

This was part of the problem, which I did not address clearly. The Florida state court system, the federal court system, and 80% of citizens polled say Terri Schiavo did NOT require his immediate attention, as the bill in Congress should never have been drafted, much less passed, much less signed. Legally, politically, and socially, it was a mistake for him to get involved.

Yet he addressed the issue of poor, poor Terri repeatedly this week (until Thursday, when it was clear his approval rating took a dive), to the point of cutting into his own vacation time, while ignoring another event equally tragic (if not more so) and equally gripping in the public consciousness: a school shooting. No, he can’t do anything about the results, but that’s hardly a good reason to forego compassion, politically or socially. Reagan couldn’t do anything about the explosion of the Challenger, but his public statement afterward is considered one of the best speeches he ever made. Bush blew a golden opportunity to win back some PR points by pretending to give a crap about the high school victims. At least his levels of compassion would have appeared more balanced.

He miscalculated the public reaction to his involvement in the Schiavo case. Strike one.

He failed to quickly address the Red Lake shootings. Strike two.

He made both mistakes within a couple of days of each other. Strike three.

The public perception becomes, “If he has all this time to waste sticking his nose into this issue which is none of his business, why doesn’t he take the time to express his condolences to the victims of a high school shooting?” (For that matter, has he said anything about the Texas oil refinery explosion yet either?)

Hell, how much time would it have taken? He could even work them both into the same statement. “The impending death of Mrs. Schiavo is a real tragedy. Speaking of tragedies, I want to offer my condolences to the victims of the Red Lake Massacre…”

11

It has been a tradition for our country’s Chief Executive to represent the nation in expressing both sorrow at terrible tragedies and joy in accomplishments.

President Bush has taken pride in “no child left behind.” The lives of children were left behind permanently in a mass slaughter on public property. Public servants were murdered while on duty. A broken child took his own life. The security of other children has been forever violated.

The President is pro-life and says that he is a compassionate Conservative. If he can find the time to go to Florida and hand out water to hurricane victims, he must also take at least a few minutes to express the nation’s sorrow for a national tragedy. It’s the least he can do. Otherwise, people will believe that he has misrepresented himself and is actually very shallow and callous.

This is at least twice in the last three months that the President has been slow to respond to great tragedy. Does he have to be prompted?

12

Jenaroph touched on it, and I’ll be damned if I ever thought that I’d be using this man as an example, but…

Ronald Reagan always got that right. There were a lot of times that the country needed to hear from him, and invariably, we did. Whenever the country needed to feel the calm of the hand on the rudder, we did.

That is the big difference in the subsequent two administrations, the sense that they were either too silent, or the sense that it was time for the speaker to STFU. Mr. Reagan had an amazing gift for saying just enough at the right time.

And you know, I didn’t even agree with him…

13

And here’s the crux of it.

Actually, I don’t think he has time to hand out water to hurricane victims. I believe he did it because of public pressure, plus an opportunity for a photo op for the media. You think he really made a difference? Why do you feel that because he does one thing, that he SHOULD do another because he had the time to do something else before? I’ve had the time to do things, should I be doing other things because I had the time for other things before?

I get it, and some what agree with some of your alls opinions of Bush. He hasn’t done things in a timely manner. He’s managed his public time poorly. But the question still remains. Why do some members of society demand his time? One mans time? I mean, he’s gonna do things we don’t agree with. Past Presidents have done so, and so will future Presidents. What do we have here, close to 300,000,000 million people? He cannot speak on the behalf of everyone. Some of you are saying it’s tradition to do so. I feel that there shouldn’t be a tradition to do so. Is there national sorrow? If yes, would it have existed if the media had not beaten it do death?

It’s not that I’m a sadistic bastard or anything. What happened at Red Lake really sucks, and I cannot for the life of me understand what would make an individual flip the switch that says, “today, I’m going to kill as many people as I can, and possibly myself.” Agreed! It is fucking awful!! I do have empathy for these people. But I don’t see how complaining that the President didn’t say something soon enough is a tragedy in and of itself. I’m probably making a big deal of nothing here, but I just don’t understand I guess. If this had happened at my school, the last thing I would request is that the President “say something”. The very last thing I’d complain about was that it was too late. I’d rather focus on the more important things in the situation then a personal eulogy from the President. Who cares really? And why?