Replies

I think this interview has been analyzed to death. I taped it and watched it twice and didn't find it as dismal as it has been portrayed. The president seemed to be as he is normally. I think the folks in fly-over country such as myself, thought it was just fine.

I wish more people would understand that looking at whether or not Bush did well, is to miss the overall purpose of the interview. It was NOT to explain Iraq, but to frame the debate on his own terms. The election is going to be about National Security. Not the economy, not Mexican immigration or any other issue.

So, WHEN we find the weapons (as soon as we finish counting and cataloging them all) and we drag Osama from his own private hole in the ground, the election will be over.

One more thing, I am willing to wager that John Kerry will NOT be the Democrat candidate against Bush. The ticket will be Edwards/Clinton. Count on it.

I agree. I saw the interview and I got what I expected. I don't expect some slick polished talker only the facts without the flowery language. Speech writers, communications people who are adept at use of the language are the ones that are critical. Some Slick speaker is not what I want to hear.

When the libs are always talking about how good Slick was at speaking I remind myself that Hitler was a good speaker too.

I got the same impressions you did. I don't need a talking head or columnist trying to tell me whether I liked something or not. I watched it and even though I wish he would have reached over and smacked Russert in the mouth I thought he did fine. Of course he's not glib and programmed like Clinton or Kerry but that's what connects him with the average voter.

I like Peggy Noonan alot but her opinion is just that, her opinion.

The president seemed to be as he is normally.

Which is, I think, Noonan's point. Bush spoke opely and honestly (I believe) and made his points well. I half expected him to come out pearly-toothed and swinging with both fists but that's not Bush.

think this interview has been analyzed to death. I taped it and watched it twice and didn't find it as dismal as it has been portrayed.

I agree with you 100%

I, too, taped it and watched it - several times - as I did other things (some people, like me have worked hard to develop ADD and do several things at the same time!) ...

Most of the analysis that was done on this interview is to spot the least weakness, open up on that weakness, emphasis it, and overshadow everything else in the interview with it. The defense on the "AWOL" controversy while with the Alabama ANG was not even addressed. The fact is, that many of the pilots in the ANG get in their qualifying hours not on weekends, but at staggered days during the week, arranged for the availability of the planes and the schedule of the pilot involved. I suspect that George W. Bush had few command duties outside the actual piloting duties, it is not like he had to be there on the typical Air Guard duty weekends (Saturday and Sunday morning and afternoon sessions). All the training logs should be there SOMEWHERE, even if they are buried on a microfilm stored away in a cave in Colorado. Absence of these logs, however, cannot by itself be taken to be a declaration of "AWOL status". A distinction that is lost on those who have never had experience with the military, or even the truth.