Mark Steyn: How Bush blew his chance

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 09/16/2002 | Mark Steyn

[Reagan Man]

>>>And, in political terms, he might as well have spent this summer playing golf and watching the director's cut of Austin Powers.

What's up with Steyn? This article proves, he is out of touch with reality and his ignorance of American politics is astounding!

[CWRWinger]

Unfortunately my congresscritter Ron Paul would never be elected by this debauched nation.

If the neo-conservatives would set aside their go-nowhere, big tent agenda and get behind a winner like Paul, with some help from FR, IMO, it could happen.

[Paul Ross]

ROTFLMAO!

I don’t know when people will wake up to the fact that GW is NOT a politician

Wow! How many hugs for Ted Kennedy, literal or symbolic, did it take to convince you of that.

Or did "Islam is a religion of peace" finally nail it for you?

You haver SO skewered these guys, they could be mistaken for pincushions!!!

[Miss Marple]

Well, what I have noticed is that strategies that seem poorly chosen have turned out to be the correct ones, after all. I myself understand that there is no way to get Leahy to move on this, nor the other Rats on the committee.

However, I remain puzzled by why we have had no recess appointments. The only thing I can conclude is that a recess appointment stops the use of this as an issue for the elections.

There is a reason why I am here and Karl Rove earns a large salary, I think. Ha!

But, my original point stands, which is that Steyn is uninformed in saying that the President has not been talking about this and other issues, and also that he wasn't campaigning much at certain times during the election.

Also, there is one other thing that Steyn and a lot of people fail to realize: President Bush actually believes in his idea of a new tone in Washington, and he is going to operate in the way he thinks things should be done, whether we are impatient with it or not.

[Howlin]

But will you at least admit he HAS some strengths??

Put me down as not agreeing with Steyn on everything, but I can sure see where he's coming from. Let's call it constructive criticism.

[RAT Patrol]

But will you at least admit he HAS some strengths?? Put me down as not agreeing with Steyn on everything, but I can sure see where he's coming from. Let's call it constructive criticism. Fair enough. Constructive criticism is very valuable, but only to those wise and humble enough to listen.

I totally admit that he has some strengths. We'll leave it at that.

[glorygirl]

"Apparently people think the president can access the networks whenever he likes. Au contraire. They might be suckered once into carrying an address, but after that there would be no coverage of any national speeches."

Totally disagree with this. If Bush were to make another speech, outlining "the case against Sadaam", every network would carry it live.

The networks did blow off a couple of Clinton speeches, but I don't believe they've ever done that with Bush, and I'm certain they haven't done it since 9/11.

Again, in my view, it's not the quantity of the speeches but the quality. IMHO he does the speeches in various cities across the country,to let the heartland know he's concerned about the people who live there, which is fine, but he's also protecting himself from the tough questions from the Washington media. Can't be afraid of the vipers!!!

And I think he is concerned, given some of his past performances.

He should have more confidence, in himself and in the American people. (Go George!)

But the only way we're going to "get to know his heart" is to hear him speak extemporaneously. And that, in his own view, is his biggest weakness. I don't think so. I think most people in the country understand his problem in this area, and he should joke about it more.

Contrary to popular belief,(especially on FR) not every single journalist is a heathen or worse.Bush knows this, too, and he knows how to cultivate journalists. Whatever his reasons, he's not doing it. And I think he should and could do a better job in this department. Again, the value of propaganda shouldn't be underestimated. Karen Hughes is an expert --and she should be dragged back to Washington from Texas, again imho.

[Miss Marple]

You misunderstand me. I was discussing the idea that he has unlimited access to the networks for any speech he wants. When he gets ready to list the case against Saddam, he will get coverage, and I imagine that speech will come fairly quickly.

However, if he wanted to give a speech on the case against Leahy and the Judiciary Committee, no takers would be found on any network but Fox.

The networks are ALREADY skipping many of his speeches. I know, because I watch them on Fox and they show up NOWHERE else...not even on C-SPAN.

[Miss Marple]

One other thing...he takes questions from the Washington press almost daily. I know, because I have been watching Fox, which carries almost every press briefing he gives.

The speeches in the Heartland are not to "dodge the vipers" but for COVERAGE!!!

[glorygirl]

"The speeches in the Heartland are not to "dodge the vipers" but for COVERAGE!!!"

Well, yes, I said that. And unless things have changed radically in the last few months (and maybe they have, but I haven't noticed it) CNN usually carries whatever presidential speeches FOX does, along with MSNBC, or at least a portion of them. That, I guess, is what I'm referring to as the "networks."

And I would have to challenge your assertion that Bush takes questions from the Washington press corps every day. Ari takes questions most days, but not Bush. Unless, of course, there's a total blackout on Bush's remarks,(newspapers and TV) which I doubt. I haven't been watching as much daytime TV as I did before, but I do read the threads and check the White House website regularly.

[Miss Marple]

He took questions Friday at the Waldorf Astoria. He took questions Saturday at Camp David with Berlusconi.

The networks I am talking about are the ones that are NON-cable and which most working people depend upon for their news: CBS, ABC, and NBC. I don't care if CNN and MSNBC have coverage (which isn't as often as Fox, by the way) they are not viewed by very many people.

Let me explain this again. The President takes questions from the press at least 3 times a week, sometimes more than that. Press briefings are archived on the White House web site, if you don't believe me. He takes questions from Ron Fournier of the AP, who is not exactly a big conservative.

The problem is that there is NO coverage of his speeches on the non-cable networks. The speeches in the Heartland are to get coverage in those venues, and to get word-of-mouth out. The speeches are NOT to dodge the press in DC. He could answer questions all day long and they still wouldn't show him on the nightly news.

I hope this clarifies my position. Your comment ignores the importance of coverage to the parts of America that do not have access to cable, satellite, and/or daytime viewing, and you yourself admit you haven't been watching daytime TV that much, THEN you say that he hasn't been on!!

[jwalsh07]

Thank you. I guess I nodded off when you were appointed ultimate definer of topic limitation, too.

You're a unique sort of twit. I was discussing a Homeland Security veto with another poster, you inserted yourself into the discussion absent a clue and then you take umbrage at my informing you of what we were discussing. LOL, actually twit doesn't do justice to you but it'll do for now.

[beckett]

Steyn, the best columnist in the world today, makes some good points, but in general overstates his case. I think he just wants to gets W's attention and remind him of some fundamentals, and in that I think he's succeeded.

[iconoclast]

Have you given any thought at all to actually answering my question? You are representative of a type of low IQ bludgeoner that may ultimately spell the demise of this forum.

[jwalsh07]

What question asshole?

[nicmarlo]

The RATs' job is to deny Bush everything on both the domestic and international front. That way, they can proclaim him a total failure in the 2004 election

I agree. This is always their goal with any Republican. They have no concerns but their own power and money, which, of course, gives them more power. Bush has been doing a good job overall.....and I do think much more is going on behind the scenes than we will ever be aware....your comments are valid; unfortunately, there is also truth to Steyn's essay. And if Bush's camp reads these kinds of articles of criticism, this is good....especially when it comes from one who historically admires Bush on many counts. Even better if they read our comments, the "little guys," who want success for Bush and usually have much praise for what he is doing.

[maica]

For the record, I watched the 11pm news on our local NBC affiliate. the editors gave President Bush an 8 second soundbite, and Colin Powell got out part of a sentence - 4 seconds worth.
The item was Iraq's letter to the UN and American reaction.

[iconoclast]

What question asshole?

Some friendly suggestions:

Get your blood pressure checked.

Try to pay more attention to what you're trying to respond to.

Work on elevating your level of discourse above Jr. High.

BTW, does the 07 in your name refer to your IQ, your age, or the grade level you managed to achieve?

[stands2reason]

I want to tell you, Howlin, I have to agree. I'm typically referred to a BushBot (I'm from Midland, and my mother-in-law is friendly with both George W. and his mother, so there! I'm allowed. ;-)) but the President, as honorable as he may be (and is), has wasted his political capital. He's been tough in the international arena, but too much of a "nice guy" (I won't use the "w" word) here at home. We needed him to stand up and fight, to make waves-at least more than he was willing to do.

[stands2reason]

You're absolutely right. I don't see how party people could stick with such raping, traitorous, scumbags such as Clinton and Bush, after all of their scandals.

I mean, have you seen the list of all the people who conveniently died who were associated with Bush? No? I'm sure there's one out there.


You've heard about all the women who speak of being propositioned and manhandled by Bush, right? Oh, wait, that was Clinton...