SELF-DEFENSE

New York Post ^ | 2/09/04 | JOHN PODHORETZ

[kattracks]

February 9, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush didn't deliver a peak performance on "Meet the Press" yesterday in the midst of the dreariest days of his presidency. But still, he was very much himself - the same George W. Bush as he was last year and the year before that.

[GailA]

He was trying to trip Dubya up. Ask the same question over and over in slightly different ways, and you can produce different answers for the RATS to then pounce on. Very sly and underhanded by timmy boy.

[Ophiucus]

First being, the interview the presdient did was fine

One of the things that I liked in the Bush candidacy of 2000 was the fact that he didn't speak in sound bites and wasn't comfortable trying it. The DemoRats have turned the say nothing sound bite stump or interview into a fine art and I d=find it repulsive. I like that Bush takes his time when he can and tries to give a answer that actually says something, even if I don't completely agree.

Of course, no one but Gore could make the political phrase stumping so literal.

[Caipirabob]

I was just being somewhat sarcastic and taking a swipe at Gore, too. In the very next post I acknowledged how well he did yesterday.

Of course we don't agree on everything that the President has done. I think it shows that we are authentic in our beliefs on certain conservative principles, and not simply "Bushbots" and "Yes men". There is no one else I would vote for.

I am, however "ouraged" at Frist and others for their failures.

[Poser]

"However, if only Russert could learn how to ask new questions instead of repeating the same damn ones over and over and over .. it would be nice"

Russert is using standard cross-examination tactics. He repeatedly asks the same question looking to trip up the witness and get conflicting answers.

The problem with this technique is that it doesn't work on somebody who is telling the truth. GWB told the truth. Russert failed.

[hellinahandcart]

I had a prior engagement yesterday and did not see the interview, so can't really offer an opinion on how he did.

[Mo1]

The problem with this technique is that it doesn't work on somebody who is telling the truth. GWB told the truth. Russert failed.

Big time failed ... Russert reminded my of those reporters that ask all the stupid questions to Rummy

[hellinahandcart]

Will you release all the files? The paystubs, etc.?

Paystubs? Oh for heaven's sake. I hope my life never depends on finding a 30-year-old pay stub.

[kayak]

I thought Russert's repeatedly asking the same question over and over made him look like a dullard who couldn't understand the answers he was given. Either that or an "enemy" who wouldn't accept them. (We all know that it's the latter but many people probably don't.) In either case, the President came across far better than his questioner.

[kellynla]

I only wish W was as succinct and confident as your analysis. W appeared wavering, stammering and stuttering. Mr. Potato Head Russert continually interrupted(which was very, very rude) W trying to trip him him up. W appeared unsure and uncomfortable. I will continue to support W regarding our war in Iraq and on terrorism. However, I have a serious disagreement with W's position on illegal aliens, deficit spending and prescription drugs. Semper Fi, Kelly

[homemom]

I like your short version of the interview! If Russert wouldn't have asked each of the questions three or four or more times, he would have had time for many more, different quesitons!

[homemom]

Very interesting thoughts, and probably (I pray) very accurate. (From a mommy who was going to vote for President Bush all along!)

[homemom]

***I thought Russert's repeatedly asking the same question over and over made him look like a dullard who couldn't understand the answers he was given***

At some point in the interview--maybe several times, the President said something to the effect of, "Not to repeat myself, but I want my point to be clear." In other words, "Stop asking the same question over and over, you a**; but since you are, I'll try to explain it to you AGAIN. Listen this time!!!"

[Carolinamom]

Thanks for the ping. Russert's questions and gimlet-eyed manner reveal more about HIM than he would wish. However, he was unsuccessful in his obvious ploy of trying to get President Bush to waver.

[TigersEye]

From the comments posted there it doesn't look like a "liberal" blog to me. Most of their comments sound more rational than a lot of what passes for analysis and debate here these days.

[TruthNtegrity]

Sorry, GSG, that's an entertaining story but Robin Williams only said the last part about the Statue of Liberty.

Here's what snopes.com has to say on the subject:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp

Origins: We don't yet know who is responsible for the piece quoted above, but it definitely wasn't actor-comedian Robin Williams (of Mork & Mindy fame). This item's debut appears to have been a 20 March 2003 posting to the USENET newsgroup alt.motorcycles.harley, and from there it was rapidly disseminated via e-mail and blogs, credited to either "author unknown" or no one at all. The Robin Williams attribution wasn't tacked on until several weeks later, apparently because along the way someone appended a genuine Robin Williams quote to the list as an eleventh item:

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'" - Robin Williams.

Obviously the Robin Williams attribution for the final item was interpreted as applying to the list as a whole, so now the entire piece is making the rounds as 'the Robin Williams plan.'

Last updated: 24 May 2003

That said, I agree with the items in the list, especially about sending the UN somewhere else. The parking tickets by Ambassadors/Representatives in NYC would probably equal the deficit right now. Okay, well maybe not. But I'd bet it's close! They have a blatant disregard for any parking/driving rules. Ship them all somewhere else and let some other snookered country have to deal with them.

[gobucks]

Well many thanks homemom. I love FR ... because it's filled with folks like me, many (most?) who think even better thoughts by far than me.

Anyway, Clinton, both times, was elected b/c of the gushy hearts of dizzy females. I was startled when I studied the election results each time he won - and witnessed how critical the female lopsided votes were to actually helping him win. ((Haven't you noticed virtually no media stories about the polls of women only and how they react to Bush??))

He gave me a deep appreciation regarding how careful I should be when I communicate w/ women who havent' made up their minds regarding who to vote for ... for though I knew, without any shred of doubt what Clinton portended, I could NOT understand how females made up their minds.

Now, I try not to worry about the complex infrastructure known as female minds too much ... and simply, gently, help them see the light of Bush, and the disguised death rays of demoRATS.

And it's going to be awhile before mothers feel safe enough to vote for a man who reminds them of how they felt when Clinton smiled at them on the T.V. Unless some terrible surprise hits, I think Bush's seat is safe indeed.

Also, FWIW, Laura herself is not a sH(r)illary .... lots and lots of women can tell when a woman is loved by her husband - and when she loves him back.

It's without-debate accepted that George loves his Laura. Another reason the rats hate them both ... and another reason your typical consumer of romance novels will 'feel' good pushing the bush button on Nov. 7.

:)

[homemom]

Yes, their marriage is certainly something to admire. They make a GOOD couple. Can you see Teresa Heinz Kerry in the WH? What a disgrace that would be. Just like the previous first whatever.

The rats hate them because they represent the "good" in the war of good vs. evil, which is part of the battle going on in our country and the world right now. The "good" consists of real Christians, conservatives, people with character and honesty, who want to honor God, protect their children (and babies), etc.

The "evil" consists of people who want this country to continue on the slide to immorality that we're currently on. The President and First Lady are so opposite of that! They represent the marriage we all want to have.

[gobucks]

Marriage, all facets of it, is my NUMBER ONE FAVORITE topic. And to me, it is the intended lighthouse on earth to help guide those not yet in Christ. (Especially those two who happen to be IN the marriage!! :))

And your comment "The President and First Lady are so opposite of that! They represent the marriage we all want to have." is especially insightful. Good v. Evil - connecting that to marriage, and Christainity. Very pithy, and very, very right.

I'm going to keep an eye out for this topic (Bushes are hated b/c they raise the Christain visibility via their healthy marriage) and post articles if I find them and ping you. Thanks for the mental linkages....

[nicmarlo]

I thought Russert's repeatedly asking the same question over and over made him look like a dullard who couldn't understand the answers he was given. Either that or an "enemy" who wouldn't accept them....

Why stop there, kayak? Why not just call a spade a spade? You know Russert's a DULLARD and an ENEMY! : )

[homemom]

Thanks for your comments. I'll look forward to reading any articles you ping me to.

You can see the love of Christ in each of them separately, and together.