Skip to comments.President to speak at 1:45 p.m. (Re: Prisoners in CIA prisons)
Posted on 09/06/2006 8:35:48 AM PDT by July 4thEdited on 09/06/2006 9:26:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
1:45 [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
The White House is asking networks to break into soaps for the president later today. Stay tuned.
Posted at 11:09 AM
Mod update: ABC banner
Why should you care any more about what charlatan Savage thinks than you do Alec Baldwin or Martin Sheen?
They have equal credibility when it comes to evaluating the President. They're all actors who despise a man of character......and are on the edge of insanity themselves.
What conservative cares what ANY of them think?
Just got back...has anyone posted W's speech? I just read it at the WH web site.
Most people are at work
By the time the MSM gets done letting the dem spokesmen get they shots out on prime time news you won't recognize the speech as the one we watched this afternoon
The GOP out to put up a REAL bitch if they don't get to give their views also
I am kind of close to both the stage and the pulpit, so I have a sensitivity to presentation. I am not much good at it myself, but I do appreciate the opinions of pros on delivery.
Channel 4 News at 5:00 out of NY spent about 30 seconds on coverage of the speech, so quick I missed most of it
Iraq was invaded. So was Afghanistan, and that should have been a declared war, too, but my comments were toward the invasion of Iraq and were made at the time.
The speech was carried on radio only in Los Angeles. Thank you, KNX-AM 1070 on your dial. No non-cable networks, nor the local Fox affiliate. KFWB radio cut away after 10 minutes or so.
IMO, the speech should have been watched in all school classrooms and I'll bet not one school here showed it to the students. I know it wasn't carried on the LAUSD channel as it should have been.
Somehow, following the War on Terror, which benefits not only all Americans but all who RESIDE in America and in the free world ... has become an esoteric occupation.
That is not right!
And what about evaluating it yourself?
Michael Savage's opinion means absolutely nothing.
And there is something fundamentally unbalanced in the priorities of anyone who still cares that President Bush isn't a smooth talker (like actor Ronald Reagan or slick liar Clinton) to the point of missing the enormous weight of what he says.
Read the text of his speech, Whale. And think for yourself about what he really said.
I know you weren't listening while he was talking anyway............and now you're waiting to evaluate his 'delivery' based on an insane phony??
I'm beginning to think there's something seriously wrong with you....
Amazing. It was a great speech, not only because the President was strong on defending Guantanamo but in the way he did it.
Had you already concluded that you as 'the base' would be dissatisfied with the speech?
Yes, I would have been dissatisfied with the speech, if he had said something like what Minus_The_Bear posted. (which he, the President, did not say anything like that) I must ask though, if he had said something like that, then what true conservative wouldn't be dissatisfied with the speech?
Had you already concluded that there would be no 'red meat' in the President's words?
Had you already concluded that this would be a 'read my lips' betrayal by the President, thus agreeing with Minus' silly post?
I would have agreed with that assessment, if the President had said something like what Minus_The_Bear posted. And please remember, that this wasn't some made up headline. The headline as Minus_The_Bear posted is what ABC News was reporting at the time, although now of course, they have changed it to reflect the actual content of the President's speech. The original story was based on "inside sources" (that were obviously wrong), but, despite the blunders the media have made lately, they do get some "inside scoops" right sometimes. And indeed, my post was not implying either opinion. (see below)
You can be honest even though it might be embarrassing now that you know what the President actually said. Why don't you tell me what you meant by this non-condemnation.....
I already told you in Post 784. Quote from me, "That if it were true, then the base wouldn't like it at all." Emphasis added for clarity.
As I said in that post, if one gives the benefit of the doubt to the poster in question (me), and doesn't automatically assume someone on a conservative site is a leftist with an agenda (which you appear to be assuming), then that implication is clear.
There's nothing in the sentence, "Hmm, not exactly the red meat the base was looking for." that says it is definitely what the President would say. At most, it's only a comment that, IF he said it, it would "not be the red meat the base was looking for".
That is, unless one assumes that the poster in question (me)is a leftist. But I don't think, in the nearly 5 years I've been on this site, that I've given any indication, to a non-biased person, that I'm a leftist. I'm not a leftist. I voted for Bush twice. I believe in limited government and taxes. Social security should be reformed. The government has no business in education, nor in universal healthcare. Sure I disagree with the President on some issues (and I'm allowed to disagree with him, and still be a conservative), but the WOT is not one of them.
I don't expect anyone here to know me well enough to know these facts about me offhand, but a look at my history over even the last month should show that. Or, as I've stated all along, simply assuming that someone on a conservative website is actually a conservative, instead of a leftist troll, would probably be a good idea too.
I can guarantee you though, you're on a witch hunt here, and I'm no witch. I honestly don't see how, if one takes the time to at least research my posting history, how one can continue to assume that my comment was meant to be anything derogatory. In fact, since the President didn't say anything like the post I was commenting on, there's no way my post was derogatory. If anything is to be read into my original post at all (and I'm not saying that anything should be read into it, in fact, nothing should, but if one must), it was a criticism of Minus_The_Bear's post, the implication being that Bush would never say anything like that. You do realize that that's a potential interpetation of my post too, don't you?
Now if you must, run with that "potential interpretation" phrase. Say I've "admitted that your interpretation of my post is a potential interpretation too", and that will be "proof" of me being a liberal plant or something. Like I implied earlier, look for witches elsewhere, there aren't any here.
Substance was zilch as far as the war is concerned. He shouldn't be battling internal foes during a war. He is adjusting policy to conform to legal opinion. He is also making a demand from Congress that won't be met. That's the substance. I think his tone was harsh.
btw, I never said anything about your being a leftist. I never assumed that.
I figured you were a 'purist' who jumped on MSM biased articles to criticize the President because you thought they were true. It happens all the time around here with fringers who think they're better than the President.
btw, the real base (i.e. folks like me) were thrilled with this speech.
I'm sure Minus was gravely disappointed because he can't honestly bash the President for it. His 'read my lips' speculation looks even more ridiculous after the speech than it did before.
There are a couple of hundred posters, and probably far more than that who are lurking who strongly disagree with you.
I'll bet phony insane actor Savage will back you up, though, so buck up. You won't be completely alone in missing the entire point of the speech.....
(Don't you hate it when the President gets 'harsh' with terrorists? It's such bad acting.......)
Pres was harsh with Congressmen and MSM. This had nothing to do with terrorists.
You have a problem with the President being 'harsh' with Congress and the MSM?
(Don't you think he was a bit testy with the guys who brought down the WTC too? Or did you just happen to miss that part of the speech. OH, never mind. You missed the WHOLE speech, didn't you? That's why you're waiting for charlatan Savage's opinion....)
Not concerned with aesthetics except as to the intended effect. Was the delivery professional or not?
It was a strong message from the Leader of the Free World, and one of the only people in that world strong enough to wage the necessary war against terrorists who are trying to destroy us.
Unless, of course, you think it's 'unprofessional' to come close to tears among those who have lost loved ones in a brutal attack on America.
He did that today, so you might think he needs acting lessons.
One of many outrageous crapolas coming out of that group that's actually supporting the terrorist over our US troops. What a disgrace...to say the least.
I would love to see the democrats take over long enough to fail so badly even they couldn't deny it.
They have already proved it in many cities across America. They will never admit failure, only a "need to do more."
I just finished watching it for myself and thought it was fabulous. Oh yea, Bush is not a smooth talker and he flubbed his lines. Big dang woop. Anybody who focuses on that is an imbecile. What he said was substative, and incredibly passionate. He knows what he's talking about and believes every word he says.
This man has more concern for this country and the American people than bj-pervert-in-chief EVER had in his fat little pinkie.
I love GW!!! Thank God he is president. No wonder liberals hate him. He is everything they're NOT.
"Pres was harsh with Congressmen and MSM."
Have you seen what the Democrats in Congress and the MSM are saying about Bush's speech? Who's being harsh? And this is exactly the same thing they've been doing every day for years.
Outstanding job Ohio! ;*)
C-Span finally updated their TV schedule for this evening.
They will re-broadcast the President's AWESOME speech from today at 10:52 PM EDT tonight:
Additionally, Katie Couric will include snippets of her interview with President Bush tonight curing CBS' 911 Special at 10 PM EDT.
Geesh, why not give these fabulous speeches during prime time, the best he can across the eastern, central, mountain and Pacific time zones?
President Bush is energized by talking to People, not TV cameras. Remember how stiff he was years ago when he sat at his Oval Office desk or stood at a podium in a hallway of the White House, to deliver important prime-time messages. So many viewers who were not his voters, saw little to recommend him (and thus his words) to them.
A venue like today, in a room packed with involved people, brings all his passion into view. His team have obviously decided that this packs more punch than the deer-in-the-headlights-teleprompter-reader look.
(I especially like the 'Big dang woop' part. ;)
During Ronald Reagan's second term none other than William F Buckley dismissed him (Reagan) as nothing more than an "SPEECH READER IN CHIEF" . . . According to Buckley, Reagan (the actor) had the FORM but lacked the SUBSTANCE. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
[NOTE: The uber conservatives turned on Reagan during his second term just an several are doing with GWB now! It didn't matter to Reagan's eventual legacy and it won't matter to Bush's.]
It is the quintessence of shallowness, IMO.
I can't believe it's even brought up on a forum like this.....
It gets tiring dealing with it, doesn't it?
Right on jackv!!! Mega dittos!
Questions I have asked myself! (as you well know ;*)) It boggles the mind that one elevates delivery over substance.
.but some guy that is on Fox just characterized this as "Bush has passed the buck"...
I'm just catching up on this thread now. Do you remember if the Fox idiot who made the above remark was a staffer or a guest? That has to be one of the dumbest things ever voiced on that channel.
It was a guest that was later identified as Joe Reeder, an ex-Clintonista!!
Never thought much of Buckley. Lots of words, big vocabulary, liked to go sailing, early conservative magazine. Maybe it was the air of aristocracy.
It's not like it's a secret.
People believe what they want to believe, and no matter what President Bush and his team actually do, his detractors, especially the media, continue to willfully NOT study the man or watch what he does. I call them self-hypnotists.
So Katie will have President Bush on her Special, but did she allot any of her precious 22 minutes to his speech today? Himself speaking, not some commentator telling us what he said, what he neglected to say, or what he meant to say!
Thanks, first time I've come across that name is on this thread.
" "Bush didn't "pass the buck", but he did pass the ball back into the legislature's court, where the Supremes told him the ball should be. .."
Russert and Williams decried the timing tonight.
Why now...? Why not a month ago or the day after the elections ..????
Then they and David Gregory sniffed that it was all political.
I just checked the cspan schedule and the speech now is listed as starting at 11:13 pm. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi's presser will be shown four times on that channel, counting the LIVE performance this afternoon.
Poor babies. Maybe they can console each other in the MSM hottubs for whining liars, er, whatever they are called.
Thank you, Star...I'm still smiling. ;-)
I think it stems from a culture that watches way too much TV. And has come to expect life to be delivered in easy to understand sound-bytes with mistakes and mis-speaks ending up on the cutting room floor.
It is shallown, I absolutley agree. And childish, and demonstrates a real lack of being able to appreciate message over delivery style and difficulty in focusing..
I thought the President did well. It was a very long speech. Few here could even hope to do as well as the President did in reading a speech of that length in front of an audience and on national TV.
President Bush was Great! I thank God we have such a leader.
Good speech? Sure. Well delivered, authoritative, thick in detail.
Smart politics? Sure. Now McCain, Warner and Linds are on the hot seat with their Dems pals. Instead of whining about how we don't have room service for terrorists, they actually have to accept some responsibility for the fact war is hell and come clean about what they think is acceptable, and not acceptable. Then explain that to the people this year, and '08.
I can appreciate the value of what the President did, I just wish he wouldn't consistently do things like this once every two years. I'd rather it be consistent. We'll see what comes of this. On this issue I'm supporting the President, but McCain is often known for sabotage. No predictions.
I have no problem with Santorum!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.