Bush to Take Unscripted Audience Questions

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
Bush to Take Unscripted Audience Questions

By NEDRA PICKLER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Move over, Oprah. President Bush is making himself into television's newest talk show host by making audience participation a feature of his appearances.

Bush has been taking questions from audience members in recent speeches, and the White House says none has been prescreened. It's a throwback to the folksy style on the campaign trail that helped him win re-election and a departure from the heavily scripted speeches that were the norm last year.

And his answers have resulted in some revelations - both personal and political.

The White House has grown so comfortable with the format that most of his appearance Monday at Kansas State University scheduled for 12:30 p.m. ET was reserved for Q-and-A with the audience.

And unlike the more intimate settings where the president has taken questions before, this appearance was set in front of a coliseum full of several thousands, including students, soldiers from nearby Fort Riley and invited guests.

Bush has taken a wide variety of questions in three appearances during the last six weeks. Many of the people he has called on have fawned over him, thanking him for his wartime leadership, saying they pray for him and bringing best wishes from other fans in their family who couldn't be there.

``It's always good to have a plant in every audience,'' Bush joked last week in Sterling, Va., after a woman rose and said she was proud of him.

But he has gotten some tough questions, too, such as the one from a woman in Philadelphia last month who challenged the administration's linkage of the Iraq war to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bush said Saddam Hussein was a threat and at the time was widely believed to have weapons of mass destruction - which later proved false.

In response to another question in Philadelphia, he estimated 30,000 Iraqis had died in the war, the first time he publicly put a number on Iraqi deaths. In Louisville, Ky., he signaled that after initial reservations, he was resigned to congressional hearings into his domestic spying program as long as they don't aid the enemy.

He has spoken about one of the worst things about being president - exposing his daughters to public scrutiny - and one of the best - impressing his childhood friends with dinner at the White House.

``It's a great honor, pretty awe-inspiring deal,'' Bush said in Virginia. ``They walk in there and, kind of (say), `What are you doing here, Bush?'''

He also ruled out any future run for office by his wife, Laura, in response to a plea from a fan who called her ``one of the best first ladies we've ever had.'' And he disclosed that Mrs. Bush designed the rug in the Oval Office.

``I said, I want it to say `optimistic person comes here to work every day,''' the president said. ``It was the strategic thought for the rug. She figured out the colors. And it looks like a sun, with nice, open colors.''

Bush was opening Monday's event in Manhattan, Kan. by talking about the war on terror and making a point of defending his secret domestic eavesdropping program. It's part of a new administration effort to convince Americans that the National Security Agency's communications spying program is necessary to fight terrorism.

The public relations campaign comes two weeks before congressional hearings to examine the top-secret program, disclosed last month by The New York Times, are set to begin. Critics have said the president broke the law by authorizing the eavesdropping without a judge's approval and by failing to fully consult with Congress.

As part of that campaign, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a pitch for the surveillance program Monday morning on network television news shows.

``The very reason to do this is that the dots weren't connected before 9/11, to make sure we know if plans or operations are under way to attack our country again,'' he said on CBS's ``The Early Show.''

Bartlett insisted that Bush was ``not bypassing the law. In fact, we're interpreting the law correctly.''

``It would be our choice to not to have to talk about this at all,'' he said on ABC's ``Good Morning America.''

While the president was heading for Kansas, anti-abortion activists were gathering in Washington and elsewhere to protest the 33rd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. As he has in past years, Bush planned to call in his support rather than attend in person.

On the Net:

http://www.whitehouse.gov
 
It was painful to watch. What a stumblebum. I saw the segment about Hamas. It'd be nice if he actually answered the questions he was asked.
 
Another dumb friggin' college student complaining to the President that the FEDERAL government isn't spending enough money on education.

"but that guy who cuts yards should be forced to subsidize my desire for a college degree. even if I don't attend class, or intend to pay it back...."

Jon Stewarts liberal sarcasm aside, Bush actually is extremely good in more intimate settings. The strictly regimented events do not showcase him well at all.
 
What was regimented about a press conference? Really, it shouldn't be tough to give an answer to a question. My perception, and the perception of others, is that he appears the buffoon.

I am friends with many conservatives. Most are very intelligent people. I enjoy their company. To a man, they all spout the mantra about Bush's brilliance. I just don't see it.
 
barry2952 said:
What was regimented about a press conference? Really, it shouldn't be tough to give an answer to a question. My perception, and the perception of others, is that he appears the buffoon.

I am friends with many conservatives. Most are very intelligent people. I enjoy their company. To a man, they all spout the mantra about Bush's brilliance. I just don't see it.

Let's be real, barry, you're anything but objective. If there were actual footage of Bush running into a burning building to save a little girl, you'd say it was faked.

You Fibs view everything that happens in this country through the predetermined prism of "Bush sucks." You'll never see anything good the man does. That makes you biased and therefore lacking in credibility. No matter what Bush does, it's wrong because he's 'the devil.'

Now, lest you try the same thing with me, I remind you in advance that I have been critical of Bush several times on this forum when I have felt that he's been wrong. I view everything Bush does through the prism of my conservatism, thus, I am able to both praise and criticize him based on his performance according to my personal beliefs. But, again, my prism is based around my ideology, not around Bush.

It's called INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, and you Fiberals don't have any.
 
barry2952 said:
Nonsense.

What are you doing, barry, trying to pad your post count?

Say something meaningful. We know you can't defend your position, so why bother even posting at all if you're going to hit-and-run like that? That's cowardly.

I'm 'casting my pearls before swine,' I'm convinced of it. I'm wasting my time talking to you.
 
Calabrio said:
Jon Stewarts liberal sarcasm aside, Bush actually is extremely good in more intimate settings. The strictly regimented events do not showcase him well at all.

Sorry, but even if I had a $100k to donate to a political party I wouldn't think it worth it to see Shrub be "extremely good". That is how one gets to see him in more intimate settings, right?

:D
 
barry2952 said:
Please stop. I'm allowed to express my opinion.

Haven't you learned anything yet? You're only allowed to have an opinion if it views GWB as a brilliant master president.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Haven't you learned anything yet? You're only allowed to have an opinion if it views GWB as a brilliant master president.

Sorry, wrong. You're only FREE FROM RIDICULE if you BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS WITH FACTS.
 
Is this the gay cowboy thing that was no the news and was funny as hell
 
fossten said:
Sorry, wrong. You're only FREE FROM RIDICULE if you BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS WITH FACTS.

If Barry had undeniable and irrefutable proof that Bush was indeed a buffoon a moron or a dolt, then it wouldn't be his opinion that Bush is so, it would be a fact that Bush is. Here's the definition of opinion from Webster's... Please see entry 1 & 2a and 2b relates in a way to what he said about peoples perception of Bush.

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is base
 
95DevilleNS said:
If Barry had undeniable and irrefutable proof that Bush was indeed a buffoon a moron or a dolt, then it wouldn't be his opinion that Bush is so, it would be a fact that Bush is. Here's the definition of opinion from Webster's... Please see entry 1 & 2a and 2b relates in a way to what he said about peoples perception of Bush.

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is base

Your post is irrelevant, as I still can and will ridicule anyone who states a frivolous opinion without backing it up with facts.
 
fossten said:
Your post is irrelevant, as I still can and will ridicule anyone who states a frivolous opinion without backing it up with facts.

Like you really matter around here, Mr. "NewsMax.com" hate spewer.
 
He thinks he does. He's part of the No RWW Left Behind.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Like you really matter around here, Mr. "NewsMax.com" hate spewer.

Awww, Johnny, I must really be getting under your skin, since you're resorting to name calling. You want a tissue...? [snif snif] You remind me of Ted Kennedy - the more he loses, the shriller he gets.

Oh, wait, that's your natural response. Nothing out of the ordinary.

How pathetic that you accomplish nothing but:

1. Call names
2. Attempt to bash sources
3. Fail to refute arguments
4. Make baseless assertions
5. Continue to LOSE

How does it feel to see that everything you Fibs attempt to do to bash Bush ALWAYS ENDS UP FAILING? It must be hell to wake up every morning and be you. I feel sorry for you.
 
Where do you see the BuSh-bashers failing. We're growing in numbers every day. It is you that is the cry-baby. Watch your dark master tonight. See what you think.
 
barry2952 said:
Where do you see the BuSh-bashers failing. We're growing in numbers every day. It is you that is the cry-baby. Watch your dark master tonight. See what you think.

*Yawn* Once again Barry, you misquote me. Typical typical typical.

I didn't say you weren't around anymore. I said you KEEP LOSING. Every major issue. The war, the Supreme Court, attacking Bush, you name it, you continue to FAIL FAIL FAIL.

Here's a classic example:

Despite Months of a Media Full-Court Press, Alito Is Confirmed

Posted by Noel Sheppard on January 31, 2006 - 11:14.

In the past few months, conceivably the greatest attention given by the antique media to any subject has been to quash the confirmation of Samuel L. Alito to the Supreme Court. According to a LexisNexis search, CBS News has done 156 stories on this nominee's background along with objections to his confirmation. ABC News has done 174. NBC News has done 133. CNN has done a staggering 679.

As for the print media, the Washington Post has done 257, while the New York Times has done an extraordinary 339.

Yet, despite all the efforts by the antique media to block it, Mr. Alito was just confirmed in the Senate by the vote of 58 to 42. It appears that the losing streak of the antique media continues unabated.



Hilarious.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top