Why Bush Held His Own with Russert (Noonan is wrong)

TechCentralStation.com ^ | 02-09-04 | Fraser Seitel

[The Wizard]

and there are the Viet Nam Vets Against Kerry...when they show up, that will be news...

[joesbucks]

So why was Rush in damage control rather than talking about the Presidents Home Run appearence.

[Ann Archy]

Peggy Noonan is suffering from " Stockholm Syndrome" from the hideous way Chrissy Matthews treats her on his show. She should NOT go on anymore...he makes her out to be a FOOL!

[Brasil]

Thanks for posting this. I am disgusted with the people who should be on our side, finding ways to trash President Bush. Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Rush---There are so many negative things about the RATs we should be stressing and there shouldn't be any energy spent on bad-mouthing the good guy.

[veronica]

Peggy Noonan in general is good, but she's rather GRAND....and full of herself.

[maica]

The fact is to answer his accusers; Bush chose to enter the ring with the best interviewer on television. And the President held his own. He appeared conversational, controlled, candid and committed. As the initial media salvo in his reelection campaign, President Bush did fine.

I also think President Bush did a great job with Russert. One final proof for me - At the end of the hour Russert looked ruffled and frustrated; President Bush looked like he could have kept on going for hours. Russert was not even polite at the close of the interview.

[CGVet58]

thank you much for posting this, Veronica. A particularly sober and upfront analysis, and from someone who knows a thing or three about media.

Me, I thought the Prez did great. I was beginning to see Red at Russerts bias - the jobs chart showing a 23% increase in unemployment (while not mentioning the drop from 6.something to 5.6% - what an encouraging display of journalistic "objectivity") - but having seen the interview twice, and having read the transcript, I believe more and more that the Prez kept control.

He didn't let himself get pushed around, discussed most all the points I wanted him to bring up (nobody got their full christmas list on rebuttals-that-might-have-been... another topic enjoying full life in recent analyses) and sounded just like a decent American who's trying his best to fulfill his responsibilities... something that I expect two thirds of America will readily identify with.

Another bonus from this interview is that anyone seeing it cannot deny Russert's bias and lack of respect for the forum and the host - from his almost slovenly and disheveled look (correct me if I'm wrong, but did the lefty actually appear unshaven!!!???), to his characterizations of negativity throughout his questions, through his skewed and incomplete economic numbers. Again, two thirds of America will note this.

Thanks again, God Bless America and our troops!

Juan // CGVet58

[veronica]

I heard Rush and he did not say Bush did poorly. Not that I heard. He did address the perception among some that Bush did badly, but said it's far too early to make any assessment on how the interview (so far from election day) would impact the race.

[nicmarlo]

Interesting read; thanks for posting. BTTT

[olliemb]

It is interesting--you diss the president and then beg the person you are discussing with not to insult you. Oh, My, how delicate!!!!

Personally I think GWB was great!!!. I think he is much better looking than on the TV and I think that they both should have sat at a table. However, TRUTH is what came out--the TRUTH--did you not notice that he did not change his answers to accommodate the polls or the democrats. Your guy Kerry went as far as to say that Bush changed his mind for going after Iraq. Did he and I listen to the same interview?

[WOSG]

Any question about Sadaam would have highlighted a positive - Sadaam's removal from power and capture. Tim Russert deliberately did not ask a single positive question of a president who has won two wars and is now leading a booming recovery. Russert is a chump who blows with the prevailing winds. Many of his questions were offensive.

Fascinating point. I also notice the sneering "how come you didnt expect it to be this bad in Iraq?" kind of questions ... but they NEVER ask "Were you surprised that we cpatured baghdad after only 21 days and had no refugee crisis and found the people were very happy to be free of Saddam?" ... uh, cant ask that kind of question. Likewise, the justification questions focus on WMDs and not the wider question of terrorism, saddam's killing fields, etc.

The Russerts never ask questions that have positive premises for the right-wing.

The article is right that Bush did a good job of pulling the premises back into rightful context. I think he could have been a bit more forceful and clear in his verbiage and could have brought in more facts to bolster his points. He did okay, but could have done better.

[WOSG]

Assuming it was Gore who did what W did. The question would have been: "You flushed out Al-Queda, liberated Aghanistan and Iraq and captured Sadaam Hussein. How close are we to getting Osama?

How about: The economy is roaring back thanks to the tax cuts you passed, with the fastest growht in 20 year in Q3 of 2003, but your opponents are talking down the economy - how damaging do you think it is to the American worker for them to do that?

Note: This "talking down the economy" meme was a SERIOUS COMPLAINT from the Democrats back in 2001, when Bush administration officials were telling the truth about the weak economy.

[jackbill]

I find it curious that many "conservatives" - Noonan et al - think that he did poorly yet many in liberal media said that he did well. Go figure.

Sure, most of us could find something that he could have said better, but I think that the liberal media knows that he came across as honest and decent to the people in fly-over country, and that's what matters.

[joesbucks]

I heard Rush and he did not say Bush did poorly.

It was not my intent to say he did poorly. Nor did I. I said Rush was doing damage control. Unfortunatley, Bush needed a home run on this. He didn't score a home run. But, please, I didn't say he did poorly. To say that the impact on election day that the interview had is an indication it wasn't a home run, especially since he was addressing the perception among some that it didn't go great. And never once did Rush say it was great, that it acheived it's intended purpose. Not once. And at some point near the end of his show, he even admonished the Presidents supporters or those likely to support the presidentfor even watching it. Again, Rush wasn't ready to form a ticker tape parade.

[joesbucks]

We'll have to reassess what Rush said. From his website...."Now, you can sit there and you can complain to me all day if you want about the president on Meet the Press and I'll listen to you, and you can sit there and say I'll probably agree with a lot of what you say."

Again, hardly a ringing endorsement.

[wtc911]

Can you read? How do you come up with calling Kerry my guy?

If you can find even one word indicating that I am behind anyone other than Bush then I might consider taking you seriously.

If you can't then I've got no choice but to see you as one more freeper who can only misrepresent, not discuss. There's enough of them and, thankfully even more who know how to read and think for themselves.

So go ahead, prove me wrong, quote where I supported Kerry...remember, quote means use my own words, not what you or any other yahoo would like to read into them.

[wtc911]

Disregard my previous post. I checked your page, you're nothing but a groupie.

[olliemb]

you saw my page and tell me I am a groupie. Are ya for Bush or not? Your posts leave one to wonder. If you are a Bush supporter then fine. If you are here to disrupt or play devils advocate or diss the president then not fine.

But a groupie? Groupie of what?

[nutmeg]

Great article, veronica! Thanks for posting it.

Here's a similar thread, with a blog by Andrew Sullivan: Perspective as to W's Game--another side to MTP Interview?

[nutmeg]

ping