Said President Bush on Larry King last night, as reported by Alessandra Stanley in the NYT, who prefaces that quote with this:
Mr. King's questions rarely rile his guests; instead, his cozy, incurious style encourages them to expose themselves.Mmmm.... so.... Bush makes a classic statement about the way he sticks to principle and does not get hung up on popularity, and the association is to please-please-love-me Liza Minnelli and coming unglued?
And just as Liza Minnelli seemed to come unglued all on her own in her appearance on the show last March, Mr. Bush at times seemed tense and defensive even without needling from his host.
Well, I wasn't watching and am just reading the cold record. I didn't know this was on. I'm pretty much of a TiVo/HBO-on-Demand kind of TV watcher, and I never know what's on. If there's something I should be catching, somebody has to alert me.
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
The New York Times - No Bias There!
The article is front page, and a review by their television critic, Alessandra Stanley, not any of their national or White House reporters.
How clever. As a Bush supporter, I found the sarcastic tone offensive in the "paper of record". Oh well - the Times would have hated Lincoln in his time as well.
I only take refuge in the fact that the Times is losing national readership, and is, as Glenn Reynolds has been fond of pointing out, on a slow but inescapable road to eventual irrelevance in today's media world.
To the quick demise of the New York Times!
Frankly speaking, George Bush is dumb. We all know it, but he does have a reasonably good talent pool surrounding him.
To paraphrase James Taranto:
Bottom Story of the Day - NY Times TV Critic Pans Bush King Interview.
In other news of the day, the sun rose in the East this morning and, approximately 15 hours later, is expected to set in the West this evening. Prepare yourselves.
Frankly speaking, George Bush is dumb. We all know it, but he does have a reasonably good talent pool surrounding him.
Yes, because we all know how talented people are drawn to idiots like flies to dog squeeze.
It all makes me kind of wonder about the entourage of brilliants hovering around Mr. Goesh. Or am I speaking too frankly?
I voted for Dumb George because he is good at killing terrorists, and smarty-pants daveg, most days I laugh very loudly all the way to the bank, most assuredly I do. Nyah!
Well I saw a sizable chunk, and Bush wasn't peevish in the least.
It was just a trademark "Larry King interviewing the President" kind of interview - it's a King tradition at this point. He interviews all of them. Nothing controversial was said, unsurprisingly. Though at one point, King tried to push the point about whether Bush was upset about his polling numbers - because it is only human when polling is low - and Bush stuck to his point that he doesn't govern that way. And eventually added as King continued to push the point - words to the effect that since King was in a business that lived and died by ratings it was no wonder he was very focused on that kind of data.
But of course if you hate Bush, and his very presence irks you, you are likely to conclude Bush only consented to the interview because of ratings, etc.
dklittl, I'll try to grow up if you'll move to planet Earth and hang around awhile.
I stumbled into the interview and ended up watching it. Any critique of Bush in this is purely reflective of the commentators prior views. It was a Larry King sort of interview, and George Bush was George Bush. If his mannerisms offend, he seemed offensive. If they don't, then it was a good interview.
His broader point about polls was actually very good. He wasn't peeved at all, but quite serious, noting that one governs either for by running after the polls or by letting the polls run after the governing (poor memory paraphrase there). He noted that to do anything great one can't govern by polls, and he would rather be seen as a great president by history than as a popular president in the present. Larry King mentioned he was sounding like Truman, and Bush said he very much respected Truman's legacy and work.
Basically, one couldn't help but note that Bush was contrasting his style with Clinton's.
All in all, Bush was the same Bush we all know. I think it is the reporter who is tense and defensive.
But of course if you hate Bush, and his very presence irks you, you are likely to conclude Bush only consented to the interview because of ratings, etc.
Why else would anyone consent to be interviewed with Larry King -- whose very presence irks me. I should think that any President -- or more broadly any sentient being -- would have better things to do than talk to King!
But presumbaly someone in Camp Bush thought this was a good idea. I wonder exactly whom in the Larry King demographic they were trying to reach.
Right, and "stupid" just doesn't jibe with a resume that begins with jet-fighter pilot and Ivy-League MBA, runs through popular two-time governor of large fractious multicultural state, and two-time president of the United States.
Maybe not a self-conscious intellectual poseur, maybe stuck with a west-Texas lateral twang that would make Einstein sound ignernt, but not "stupid".
In fact, to think so is probably crazy.
"Swiftboating was using some bs anecdotal evidence to question his actual war record"
I find the denial about the Swift Boat Vets symptomatic. They made a number of charges. Most are not certain --believe what you want. But on some, and notably "Christmas in Cambodia" they are right. Kerry embellished and dissembled. There just cannot be any question about it (Nixon, for instance, was not President in December of 1968 when Kerry claimed to listen to Nixon's denial of troops in Cambodia ).
Thus "swiftboating" might as easily stand for "showing that a politician is opportunistically lying about his war time experiences" as your suggested defintion.
I caught just a few moments of the interview, skating past it as I do whenever the CNN logo arises. Meh; just another King interview.
I would have preferred Bush do a WWF takedown on Larry, with the old figure 4 toe-hold until he said 'uncle'.
I turned it off when King asked (essentially) "Aren't you worried about your popularity?" King clearly would worry about that. Bush doesn't. Who knew?
I learned more from 'Design on a Dime'.
Swiftboating was using some bs anecdotal evidence to question his actual war record.
Which could have been, and could still be, defused by the simple expedient of releasing his records. Read into his failure to do so what you will, just as others are apprently projecting their firmly held beliefs onto Bush's demeanor with LarryK.
As I didn't watch this program I can't comment on anything other than the NYT piece. The point of the piece (a review not a political assessment) was that this was a cozy rehab venture on the part of the WH, and Stanley observed that even in that context Bush was apparently sometimes defensive. I think it was a mistake on Stanley's part to use Liza but that doesn't invalidate the observation nor--more importantly--destroy the thrust of the review.
Regular readers of the NYT know that Ms. Stanley is as lazy and sloppy as she is tendentious. She even has her own tag on Gawker. I'm sure she was as surprised as anyone to find her "review" on A1.
Keller. In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"
Re: "...that doesn't invalidate the observation nor--more importantly--destroy the thrust of the review"
The observation and thrust of the review were the usual partisan sniping. Opinion on a subjective matter (is he defensive, or confident?) can't be validated. You must mean something else. The 'thrust' of the opinion can't be 'destroyed' either. One can disagree, mock it, find it worthless or ill-informed, describe it as wishful thinking or even ill-tempered.
But as the opinion is a purely subjective take on a puff piece interview, your defense is meaningless.
Pogo is right--the only news here is that Keller is still trying to sell opinion as news.
And even that ain't exactly A1 material; just more of the NYT making itself the story.
If you want to study the worst traits of Boomers, the lab is in the blue bag.
I saw the last half--I thought he and his wife were quite relaxed. I also noticed his joking with reporters lately--not exactly the portrait of a devastated man. But that's me, part of the VRWC.
It's all fodder for the mill--it fills pages with the PC opinion.
And the "mill" produces public opinion, with world events only the raw material. Stanley Kubrick had his "Dr. Strangelove" Russian ambassador--when asked why in the hell USSR would develop the Doomsday Bomb which was about to kill the entire planet--answer that they had to have it because the USA had it, and he knew it because he "...read it in the NYTimes".
Ha ha (*sob*).
Frankly speaking, George Bush is dumb. We all know it
What we all know is that Democrats always call every Republican politician dumb, because it's just part of their stale bag of tricks. If they repeat it enough times it suddenly becomes true. Yet I recall articles about an intelligence test given to Bush in the military which placed him in the 95th percentile of the population. Put that with his learning how to fly fighter jets, never losing elections for either governor of Texas or the White House, and his two degrees from Ivy League universities, and it seems to me the dummy is the one who'd call him dumb.
I tried to watch Lamont's big debate last night because I just had to see the politician who has the Democratic base so excited. What I saw was a total slave to the most over-used talking points and cliches, as if he was a programmed robot. I don't know if that makes him "dumb" but it certainly makes him useless to the Senate. And I must say his absolute lack of concern for the Iraqi people was immoral. But you run with that loser and keep talking about how everyone else is so stupid.....
You can call garbage garbage without tossing in more garbage...can't you? Ann's a self-professed Democrat. Is she guilty of your accusation?
Whether Ann is a Democrat or not (I find her non-partisan and hard to label) has nothing to do with age-old tactics from the Democratic Party. Every high profile Republican politician is obsessively referred to as an idiot from the moment they hit the national stage. When you see it enough times you begin to roll your eyes.
I don't think any politician in sight is up to snuff if compared with, say, the days of Thomas Jefferson. But those calling Bush an idiot and a chimpanzee, and called Regan mentally retarded, then turn around and just as obsessively refer to the likes of John Kerry as brilliant. I'd say Bush and Kerry are in about the same IQ range and see no reason to think otherwise. I don't know that you have to be any smarter than that to be a good president, but if you consider that IQ range unfit for office than be consistant about it. It looks ridiculous for someone to declare Bush unfit due his supposed lack of brain power while he's got a Vote Kerry sticker on his car.
Bush must seem to the Democrats like Inspector Clouseau, while they are the long-suffering boss, Chief Inspector Dreyfus.
Dreyfus is -apparently- smarter and more , yet driven mad by Clouseau's repeated victories. It's fun to watch Dreyfus get mad and get hurt over and over again.
I agree with some of your comment, but not all:
"The observation and thrust of the review were the usual partisan sniping."
Well, that's your assessment. As it's a subjective one, I guess there's no need to respond to it other than to say I disagree.
"Opinion on a subjective matter (is he defensive, or confident?) can't be validated."
I don't think I was suggesting that validation was somehow relevant here (if anything, I was careful to suggest the opposite) so I am puzzled by the introduction of an irrelevant yardstick.
"You must mean something else. The 'thrust' of the opinion can't be 'destroyed' either. One can disagree, mock it, find it worthless or ill-informed, describe it as wishful thinking or even ill-tempered."
I disagree with this notion but I will grant that I could have spent more time explaining what I meant. There are more options than the ones you suggested. One example would be using something out of context to manufacture outrage. (I am not suggesting that's what occurred here, just giving a straightforward example.) A common legal practice example is to create doubt on small issues in the hope that the large issues will somehow become obscured. There are many methods that can be employed to disparage any form of discussion. At the risk of redundancy let me repeat I am not suggesting that anything like that occurred here: as I said, I thought the Liza comparison was ill-advised.
"But as the opinion is a purely subjective take on a puff piece interview, your defense is meaningless."
Well, that's your subjective opinion and you are most assuredly entitled to it.
Hi Coco
Sorry for the confusion. When I posted (the first comment at the top), I had just finshed reading the New York Times on the Web (notice the comment "time"). The article was, at that time, the second below the primary left corner "Major" first article. That made the article in question still "above the fold" - so to speak - on the "Front Page" of the New York Times on the Web for many early, prime morning reading hours.
I think that if the Times wants to be taken seriously, really meaning what Managing Editor Bill Keller said in his two public letters last week after the SWIFT incident - that there is a "wall of separation" between the news and editorial sides of the paper - then they should not editorialize on the "Front Page"
- Just Report.
- Please just the facts.
- Please. I'm a big boy; just the facts.
I'm certain that it's a real possibility when probably NOT ONE person in their management - either side of the "Wall" - voted for Bush.
Because that's supposed to be okay. I'm supposed to trust the New York Times to be accurate and fair.
Why?
My dream commercial (James Earl Jones voice-type):
"You just can't trust (pause for effect)
. . .the New York Times"
the sun rose in the East this morning and, approximately 15 hours later, is expected to set in the West this evening. Prepare yourselves.
You think you're kidding,
Dear Chriso,
The main point was exactly that it was the television reviewer, placed on the "front page" and the implication that it is "hard" news. Please spare me an argument on this -you "get it" also that the lead articles are supposed to be "hard" news).
The Times can do whatever it desires. The greatest political problem in this country today is the overall ignorance perpetuated by a "neutral" media. I find it preposterous in this Information Age that one cannot reliably trust ONE news source to give the straight scoop. The constant cry of the Times,et al and general "Main Stream Media" is that they are able to play it straight, fair and accurate. That is infuriating to those of us that have to deal with the obvious bias in the reporting against things that we value. The question of our age is not whether bias on all sides of an issue exists in reporting, but whther someone is "up-front" about their bias.
Why does this matter?
Because: children. I subbed a fourth grade class several years ago where the teacher made every child read an article-of-the-day from the donated Los Angeles Times. She left a note saying have them read the article on the oil spill and efforts to clean birds after the spill. To a student, the discussion centered around such words as "evil" and "stupid" when describing the oil companies and how how bad they were - why do we even need oil anyway? This impression came completely from reading the one-sided article on page 1 of the Times. The children were not "informed" by the "Main Stream" LA Times - they were inflamed by agenda journalism.
That happens everyday,in this day and age,in America. The next generation is handed something about which so many pretend and say "it's only fair reporting".
It's not. State your agenda up front, and move forward. Until that time, blogs and alternate sources will prosper more and more, and the MSM will eventually change or die.
Lastly, the same question can be asked of anyone:
. . . ."Why are hiding your agenda and world view behind a "neutral" stance?
Answer: because what you seek to sell won't sell as much under full disclosure.
Okay Chriso (sigh . . )
Take any front page article of your choosing from the New York Times dealing with Bush Administration (say today's "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit) and read it out loud to 5th to 7th graders (who at that age still have no dog in the political arena)and ask:
. . . "who's the smart people quoted?"
. . . "who seems to be less smart"
. . . etc.
This study was performed in my college Statistics class with 460+ local 5th, 6th, and 7th grade participating. We asked all of them in small groups of 12 or less what they thought about 3 articles that were read to them out loud. The children were then rearranged into other small groups of 12 or less, reread the same 3 articles. Then, they were all rearranged into one more group of 12 or less.
We then asked a series of questions to determine the views of the children about what was read to them.
Our statistics class, made-up of 14 self-identified "liberals", 7 self-identified "conservatives", 4 self-identified political "middle-of-the roaders", and 1 self-identified "left-leaning reactionary" (our professor) had identified responses beforehand that would determine a "neutral", "liberal or left-leaning", and "conservative or right-leaning" view of the issues discussed.
The results: even our professor was shocked to find that the children, from the 2 articles read from the Los Angeles Times, and the one read from the New York Times yielded what was best described in our final report as "Strongly left leaning" in their naive, honest impressions of what was read to them.
By the way, this was from one of the (then and now)"reddest counties and school districts in the nation, with a cross-section of all income groups and ethnicities represented.
C'mon - the only reason you can't or won't see bias is because you agree with their reprting stances over 75% of the time.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा