Post News Conference Media Coverage Thread (FOX,CNN, MSNBC)

[jern]

post everything here

[Tennessean4Bush]

I disagree completely with your assessment. He was very good.

[mombonn]

I trust you've been properly flamed by now. I add "dittos" to the flames.

[ChiefKujo]

I did have my 15 minutes with the post about how the President was eating in my undisclosed location for Thanksgiving.

[jbstrick]

You should not be suprised. You are the one calling GW an idiot. If you consider yourself above recieving personal attacks, please refrain from spewing them in the future.

Also, if you do not like it here, you are free to post an Opus and ...

[kcvl]

Richard Holebrook is on now. God, how do these Clintonites show their faces after they FAILED so horribly?!

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

So is Clinton. Not that I would trust any smooth-talking snake oil salesman that rolls into town.

Exactly. I could go down to the used car lot and find a dozen guys who could've given a better Q&A session than Bush, but that doesn't mean that any of them are qualified for the job, or more 'intelligent' than Bush.

It's amusing seeing some people in this thread flaunting their ignorance by attempting to judge someone's IQ based on public speaking. But, bah, I'm not going to go into the problems with IQ, much less the pop culture version of IQ.

[Bob]

Ah, the standard FR response, attack the poster and ignore the points.

Yeah, it's similar to the standard democRAT tactic of calling the President a dullard with a below average IQ. You're a blatant hypocrite.

[graf008]

Good point. He is better than the alternative..

Was the speech that good? I really can't watch political speeches anymore and only read the transcript as it removes any nervous ticks or smooth slight of hand by the speaker and narrows down to the context.

[JLS]

I was just thinking about what Colmes was to say? His job is to represent the other side. So matter what Bush said, he has to say that he needed to do such and such tonight and I am not sure he did. It is sort of silly position to be in, but that is the job Colmes took.

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

Yes? There are dozens of reasons that the situation in Iraq can't be meaningfully labeled as Vietnam 2, none of which Bush mentioned.

[I still care]

I think he said all he really could. Maybe he wasn't forceful about it, but is essence he said Kennedy and others were supporting the enemy and harming the troops when he talked like that.

For those watching who are discerning(!) that was a pretty strong slapdown.

[Thom Pain]

"Gore had SATS in the 1300's - I wouldn't vote for him, but I never considered him dumb."

Don't forget - Gore flunked out of Divinity School!

[BluH2o]

I think his speech was forceful. The question and answer session wasn't as good.

Except he kept pursing his lips then licking them ... he seemed tentative during his speech. One of the criteria in the military for advancement, as an officer, is something called command presence. It has to do with projecting confidence, having a strong physical profile helps, giving those you lead confidence in your ability to lead ... after all, you are asking these people you lead to risk their lives. Frankly, I didn't feel Bush conveyed that type of strength ... he has lost his confidence.

[MEG33]

If you liked it in Baghdad,then I trust I'm not just a big supporter and biased!

He says we are not getting chased out and that's what the Iraqis need to hear.

[TheBigB]

Troll alert, gang! I think we need some kitten action!!

[StriperSniper]

Audio Here ;-)

[LibLieSlayer]

"I'm as Conservative as it gets, which means I'm also honest.

Bush IS NOT any where near smart. I would guess an IQ of 85-95.

His 'heart' may be in the right place, but HE IS A DULLARD".

If this is truly how you feel, you live with a very warped sense of reality.

LLS

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

Attacking them won't convince the undecideds.

Attacking dems, while satisfying, isn't as powerful as pointing out to the middle ground voters - the ones that WIN elections - exactly why the comparisons are BS.

[Bonaventure]

What basis do you have for your guess? The fact that President Bush is less than articulate proves nothing. Thomas Jefferson was notoriously frightened of public speaking and was never especially good at it. But his IQ most assuredly did not fall in the 85-95 range.

In March 2000, the Washington Post published a synopsis of Bush's college performance. It was perfectly respectable. (Keep in mind that SAT scores were much lower in the 1960s.) So, unless you think slightly above average grads of very good universities are morons, you're pretty far out.

Here is what the Post said back in 2000:

Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore, were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard, respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush), neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.