Has the White House press corps found their teeth?

dahamsta

It's been a long time since we saw Ari being laughed out of the room, and the press corps have been denounced as being sycophantic for the last year or two, but I wonder does this briefing signal a change? Scott McClellan cerrtainly doesn't get ruffled like Ari, but he did come off as facetious, and the press corps weren't taking his repetition lightly.

adam

Sleipnir

Man that is just brilliant!
The press were like terriers, they didn't let him off anwering any question.

Excellent

uberwolf

someday they may persue that standard of questioing on something of consequence... or am I living in hope?

Hobbes

wow total ownage..

Scott McClellan looks like he will be scrubbing toilets in Alaska sometime soon.

mr_angry

Hilarious.

I wonder did George have him in training beforehand:

George: "Now repeat after me Scott. You get paid for the days you serve."

Scott: "You get paid for the days you serve..."

George: "The president recalls serving..."

...


...


...


And so on.

bonkey

When I saw the first bits about the White House getting involved in this ongoing mus-slinging exercise, my first thought was "why????? This has the potential to go SO wrong, and very little chance of actually going right".

I'm betting there are some people in the WH / Bush Reelection camp now currently thinking exactly the same thing, if they hadn't done so already.

jc

p.s Hobbes - looks like you might need to update either the "Military" or "records and references" section of that resume post soon......

BattleBoar

I actually take a different attitude toward this. I think this has a significant possibility to backfire against the democrats and cause people to have sympathy for bush, believing that he is being persecuted for something petty, in the similar way that Clinton's persecution for something petty in probably played a significant role in the democrats winning back a large number of seats in congress in 1998.

Americans have shown in previous elections that they really don't care what happened some 30 years ago, they care about what the person is doing now. That is what the democrats should be focusing on. Now I realize that this particular clip is the press core doing the questioning and not the democrats directly, but there are democrats out there who have been saying these things as well, and it is very counter-productive in an election year, IMO.

People care about what have you done for me lately. Bush has done more than enough damage to the US on domestic and international fronts that the focus should be squarely on his actions as president becase A: That's what matters now, and B. That' what people have shown they vote on.

dahamsta

It works both ways though. What people see now is a president that is sending their kids and their friend's kids into battle, and the apparent contrast with his own bravery is too stark too ignore. The stats show that a large percentage of Americans switched from opposing or not-particularly-supporting the "war" to supporting it the minute it was "declared", so it follows that the further down this route (and of course the hokum reasons for war route) they go, the more likely it will be that Americans will start withdrawing their support for Bush; while at the same time continuing to support the "war".

An awful lot hangs on the opposition and commentators' ability to separate Bush from the "war" though. Bush is driving hard to link himself with the war - even the other day calling himself a "war president" - and he knows that if he can do that, he has a fair chance of second term; and even a third term if he can pull it off this time; because "the war against terrorism" is one that isn't going away, as he well knows (it's why he start the "war" after all). As you say though, it could go both ways. Very hard to call at this stage. But it's still good to see the media taking a harder line with the administration. No matter who's in charge, it's important that this happens.

adam

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
p.s Hobbes - looks like you might need to update either the "Military" or "records and references" section of that resume post soon......

Ahh sure that was just a joke I got in the mail.

Actually I see Kerry had a go at National Guards claiming they only exist to dodge fighting in the wars. It must be put foot in mouth week.

BattleBoar

I guess I just see this as a way for Bush & Co. to take attention off of what really matters, in exchange for something they know will probably actually generate sympathy for Bush in the long run among swing voters. Ye all cheer because you are like 40% of the american public: vehemently anti-bush. In any given election, 40% of the voters will always vote democrat, and 40% will always vote republican, leaving the decision of who gets elected in the hands of 20%, the swing voters. Now since only roughly half of eligible people vote, that means about 10% of the population decides who wins the election.

So while the hardcore republicans were cheering like crazy watching Clinton squirm while being questioned before a grand jury, the reality is, those people hated Clinton anyway, and with the swing voters, they saw Clinton as a man being persued purely for politcal gains, and there was a backlash. I think this falls right into the lap of Bush. Get the democrats to focus so much attention on his service during vietnam and pour resources and time into that line of campaigning, then after the convention, pull out some of his old guard buddies from the closet, showing the swing voters that the democrats are a bunch of petty people who will do anything to get rid of him.

At that point, the democrats have poured so many resources into that line, they can either continue and risk a serious backlash, or give up on it and focus on the economy, the war predicated on false intelligence, the budget deficit, the out of control spending, etc... (ie. what they should be focusing on anyway, his record). But at that point they will be too far behind in pushing those messages. Memo to the democrats: stick to the issues you know are winners.

Bush has butchered the economy by increasing discretionary spending four times faster than Clinton, and creating unprecedented budget deficits in the process. He should also be held responsible for his decision on going to war with a faulty pretext, whether or not it turns out that the intelligence given to him was to blame. Why? Because as the commander in chief, he is responsible for the command decisions he makes even when those decisions are based on information from subordinates that turns out to be incorrect. There have been numerous cases of officers relieved of their commands for incidents that happened in their command but also in which they had no direct role. There are still more incidents of officers being relieved for making incorrect decisions because one of their direct subordinates fecked up. So why should bush get a free pass? He shouldn't. As the commander in chief, he is ultimately responsible for the decision he made giving final approval for the war.

I suppose I don't have a problem with the press core trying to elucidate these events, just so long as that is a sidebar and not what people are really focusing on, because if it is, it'll give Bush the perfect opportunity to bait & switch and take the focus off of the real issues that he knows are losers such that democrats won't have either the time or money to exploit them effectively.

Actually I see Kerry had a go at National Guards claiming they only exist to dodge fighting in the wars. It must be put foot in mouth week.

EDIT: That's exactly the kind of mistake that could hurt the democrats, especially when National Guard have made up such a large percentage of the casualties as they have in this war. It just gives the republicans more ammo. Kerry should be focusing on winning issues. Repeat after me: economy, budget deficit, false pretext for Iraq, economy, budget deficit, false pretext for Iraq...

chill

Originally posted by uberwolf
someday they may persue that standard of questioing on something of consequence... or am I living in hope?

On the contrary - I think this will be a major issue and could be the undoing of Bush. It is a hilarious read and hopefully the Democrats will be more aggressive in their analysis of Bush's record than the Gore campaign and really bring the spotlight on some of the stuff the baby Bush was up to in those days dodging Vietnam.

uberwolf

IN the context of the national debt, 3 wars in prog, massive unemployment and other problems probably well documented in other threads I believe Bush having served in the national guard 30 yrs ago is small fry. They could slaughter him on a number of issues. This may become important from a point scoring perspective - but ultimately its trivial compared to some things. IMO.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by chill
On the contrary - I think this will be a major issue and could be the undoing of Bush. It is a hilarious read and hopefully the Democrats will be more aggressive in their analysis of Bush's record than the Gore campaign and really bring the spotlight on some of the stuff the baby Bush was up to in those days dodging Vietnam.

Republicans thought that with Clinton's scandal too. Oh how hillarious to watch him squirm being questioned. But the swing voters didn't agree...they voted a huge number of congressional seats over to the democrats. Again, you think that its great only because if you were in the US, you'd be in the 40% that hate bush no matter what. Scoring points with those people doens't do any good in the context of winning elections. The swing voters, the middle 20%, decide elections. you don't want to appear petty to those people. They've demonstrated time and time again that they don't vote for that. Sure, your base will love it, they'll be energized, and the swing voters will perceive bush as being persecuted for petty politics and sympathise. The dems get 43-44% of the vote and lose in a landslide.

chill

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Republicans thought that with Clinton's scandal too. Oh how hillarious to watch him squirm being questioned. But the swing voters didn't agree...they voted a huge number of congressional seats over to the democrats. Again, you think that its great only because if you were in the US, you'd be in the 40% that hate bush no matter what. Scoring points with those people doens't do any good in the context of winning elections. The swing voters, the middle 20%, decide elections. you don't want to appear petty to those people. They've demonstrated time and time again that they don't vote for that. Sure, your base will love it, they'll be energized, and the swing voters will perceive bush as being persecuted for petty politics and sympathise. The dems get 43-44% of the vote and lose in a landslide.

I don't agree. This is exactly the kind of thing that will resonate with the swing voters and the democrats that didn't come out to vote last time because they assumed more votes for Gore would make him president. The Democrats will win the election if they can get their vote out and everything in the primaries and caususes is pointing toward a record democratic turnout that will be further spurred on by this little lie of Bush's. The republicans know that and that's why they are so scared of Kerry and the Bush army record.
With the economy screwed and a ginormous deficit on the backs of the middle classe's children Kerry has a real chance to kick Bush back to texas or wherever he really comes from.

Sand

It was a bit circular wasnt it....The PR sticking firmly to the mantra of He was paid for these days, to have been paid he served, he fufilled his duties, hence accusations of being AWOL or desertion are false - with the press corp asking the same question 20 different ways and getting the same answer. Terriers alright but they didnt score any particular hits apart from questioning how come no one could remember Bush being around. Having said that the commander of the Alabalma base who said he didnt remember him showing up, also later admitted ( hes 75 ) that he couldnt remeber if he was actually on the base himself on the dates Bush is supposed to have been. He also voted for Bush and apparently plans to do so again:|

Its only important as a credibility issue. I wouldnt say they care whether they have a Harrison Ford "get off my plane" type president because frontline combat isnt usually part of the job description. Kerry might have a great war record - and he does, he trounces bush without even having to open his mouth on that point - but hell ( hopefully ) have to show that he can be a good president as well. If the Democrats want to hound Bush over his credibility, especially over the Iraq war then he can easily turn the tables on Kerry who also voted in favour of the Iraq war as far as I know.

Also Kerry and co cant afford to take on Bush over his military record now. When the campaign reaches its dirtiest point the Republican machine will remind every single person who served or is serving in the National Guard, who has family who served or are serving in the National Guard that Kerry considers them to be cowards - and theyll add that 48 National Guard have died in Iraq at last count.


Bush's weakest point is the budget. Bush didnt win the last time because he was a "war president". He won because his tax cut plan was seen as being better for the economy than Gores. The budget and the economy are the bottom line. everything else can fly back in Kerrys face just as easily.

TomF

Although it seems unhealthy for people on an Irish politics board to be so focussed on American partisan politicking, I suppose I can throw in my 2 cents worth. Current hysteria in the Democratic Party concerns "JF'nK" (that's "K" for Kerry) and a young female intern (does anyone remember what happened to Slick Willy when he forgot to tell a certain intern to have that blue dress sent out to the cleaners?) who General Clark says is going to sink JF'nK's chances to be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Word going around the grapevine is that the Clinton-Machine-to-get-Hillary-Nominated may be working hard to torpedo Kerry.

Capt'n Midnight

Memories of Regan "Larry speaks"

sovtek

I've been noticing this of late...
I'm not wholly convinced of it, but it strongly reminds me of NC's Propaganda Model .
It seems to me that many in the "establishment" aren't too happy with Bush because of his cronies quest to enrich themselves is at the cost of the majority of the rich and powerful.
Since that's been obvious to me since the first day after Sept 11th, it seems it has taken alot longer for the overfeed, underworked "elite" to figure this out...
Now that they have you are starting to see alot of bad press on Bush, even though they are mostly reporting what alot of "liberal" media, or internet blogs, were over a year ago (and in some cases 4).
Chomsky talks about how that same type of established people were getting pissed at Nixon before the end of th e Vietnam War and that's why the press (sort of) turned against it/him.
Sorry for another Vietnam anology but it seems like there is the same budget busting/economic decline and quagmire as was witnessed during the Vietnam war.
That's my take on it anyway.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by chill
I don't agree. This is exactly the kind of thing that will resonate with the swing voters <snip>

You are mistaken chill. I know it's hard, but you have to detach yourself emotionally and look at the history. See Sand's reply below yours.

Chomsky talks about how that same type of established people were getting pissed at Nixon before the end of th e Vietnam War and that's why the press (sort of) turned against it/him.

Except it was Lyndon Johnson who flatly lied to congress and the american people in order to escalate Vietnam for his own political gain, not Nixon.

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Except it was Lyndon Johnson who flatly lied to congress and the american people in order to escalate Vietnam for his own political gain, not Nixon.

True but at that stage it's possible that the sheer stupidity and recklessness of the endeavor was going to effect the right (or wrong as it were) people wasn't evident.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie

Reminds me of when Jeremy Paxman asked Michael Howard the same question 14 times without getting an answer. Although I read somewhere that there were technical problems in the studio and Paxman had no choice but to stall by repeating the quastion.

Originally posted by TomF
Although it seems unhealthy for people on an Irish politics board to be so focussed on American partisan politicking,

Why is it "unhealthy". Plenty of Irish people have American relatives (I've a cousin from Boston serving as an MP in Uzbekistan) or will have worked there. And pretty much everything that happens in the US has an effect on what happens here. I'd say it's actually healthy that we, part of the global peasantry, take an interest in what goes on outside our squalid little villages.

chill

Originally posted by BattleBoar
You are mistaken chill. I know it's hard, but you have to detach yourself emotionally and look at the history. See Sand's reply below yours.

Aunderstandable if inaccurate viepoint. History proves otherwise however and I believe Bush will find out to his cost.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by chill
Aunderstandable if inaccurate viepoint. History proves otherwise however and I believe Bush will find out to his cost.

We'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one, but trust me on this, it would be a counterproductive line to follow in the long run.

Sparks

Originally posted by BattleBoar
EDIT: That's exactly the kind of mistake that could hurt the democrats, especially when National Guard have made up such a large percentage of the casualties as they have in this war. It just gives the republicans more ammo. Kerry should be focusing on winning issues. Repeat after me: economy, budget deficit, false pretext for Iraq, economy, budget deficit, false pretext for Iraq...

Except that that's not just Kerry's view, it's stated explicitly in Colin Powell's autobiography. In fact Powell is much more emphatic in his condemnation of the National Guard during Vietnam than Kerry was.

bonkey

Originally posted by BattleBoar
You are mistaken chill. I know it's hard, but you have to detach yourself emotionally and look at the history.

History shows me that after Clinton got slammed over a minor issue, he did not win the next Presidential election.

I tend to side with Chill on this one, but for different reasons.

Throughout the primaries that have gone to date, there has been increasing amounts of coverage about how many Americans are becoming dissilusioned / dissatisfied with the goings-on concerning Iraq (the war, the intelligence, the ongoing violence, whatever) but don't see it as a significant enough issue to swing their voting habits.

However, the more Bush tries to show that "look, I did serve my time, and I was a military guy just like this Kerry bloke", the more he's gonna look foolish because - quite simply - thats one area he cannot compete in, and the obvious dubiousness surrounding his service record is only going to make things worse.

jc

dahamsta

Funny that a topic about the WH press corps leans so easily into another flame war about Bush. FYI, that wasn't why I started the thread.

adam

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
History shows me that after Clinton got slammed over a minor issue, he did not win the next Presidential election.

History shows me that Clinton won two elections in a row and didn't contest a third cos he's not allowed.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
History shows me that Clinton won two elections in a row and didn't contest a third cos he's not allowed.

Well yes....but I decided to take as accurate an interpretation of history as those who were claiming that the mud Clinton got dragged through didn't do him any harm because it didn't reflect badly on other democrats contesting other elections.

jc

sovtek

Just a thought...but it's possible the reason that Bush's Guard duty is in question because the WH and other press didn't actually investigate it properly 4 years ago.
Another reason is because Michael Moore made such a harsh public statement that the RNC felt they had to pounce on it.
The press briefing has them asking about Bush's seniors in Texas making statements that he wasn't observed on duty back in '72. Even so I still have yet to see a major outlet like the NYT or Washington Post highlight that fact.

Redleslie

Originally posted by bonkey
However, the more Bush tries to show that "look, I did serve my time, and I was a military guy just like this Kerry bloke", the more he's gonna look foolish because - quite simply - thats one area he cannot compete in, and the obvious dubiousness surrounding his service record is only going to make things worse.

jc

Exactly. He can't really play the warrior chieftain and land jets on aircraft carriers any more.