At Symbolic Milepost, Bush to Hold News Conference Tonight
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, April 28 - On the eve of the 100th day of his second term, President Bush will hold a prime-time news conference this evening to make his case for revamping Social Security and, more broadly, to reassert himself at a moment when he is under pressure on a variety of fronts.
Mr. Bush will answer questions from journalists in the East Room of the White House after making a statement of approximately 10 to 12 minutes, his chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said.
Mr. Bush will also talk about high gasoline and crude oil prices and the importance of addressing the nation's long-term energy needs, Mr. McClellan said. The session in the East Room of the White House is to begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time.
(The White House initially set the starting time as 8:30 p.m. It said it changed the time "due to the complications of networking programming," according to Reuters.)
The news conference - the fourth Mr. Bush has held in prime time - marks a vital moment in the administration's efforts to convince the nation and Congress that Social Security's projected long-term financial problems need to be addressed now and that individual investment accounts should be part of any solution.
Mr. Bush is also certain to be asked about John R. Bolton, his embattled nominee for United Nations ambassador, whose confirmation the White House has made a top priority. Mr. Bush may be asked, too, about his relationship with Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the powerful House majority leader, whose political future has been clouded by accusations of ethical missteps. Mr. Bush may also be queried about his lagging strength in public opinion polls.
It is probably not coincidence that his appearance tonight virtually coincides with the 100-day mark of his term. Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first 100 days of a term have been a measure, artificial or otherwise, of how a president is doing. Mr. Bush's advisers are well aware of that, just as they know that before too many more months have passed, Mr. Bush's influence could begin to wane. Lawmakers will be focusing less on his agenda and more on their re-election campaigns in 2006 - or on the 2008 presidential contest.
As for Social Security, administration officials from Mr. Bush on down have blanketed the country for two months, trying to convince workers and retirees of the need for prompt action and of the benefits of the president's approach. But polls show that support for Mr. Bush's handling of Social Security has fallen and that voters increasingly disapprove of investment accounts. The White House had signaled that once its 60-day Social Security push ended, as it will this weekend, Mr. Bush would begin to talk specifically not just about the retirement program's problems but his preferred solutions.
His appearance tonight will be the first opportunity since Mr. Bush's State of the Union address nearly three months ago that the president can make his case to a national audience. But it will also be the first time that he has talked in any detail about the steps that he believes will be needed beyond the creation of investment accounts to ensure Social Security's solvency as the baby boom generation retires.
Mr. McClellan declined to say what steps Mr. Bush would discuss. But the president and some of his top officials have tipped their hands in recent weeks. In particular, Mr. Bush has made clear his support for cutting benefits for future retirees in a way that would hit higher-income people harder than lower-income people through an approach called progressive indexation.
Mr. Bush has also signaled that he will be willing to consider a tax increase in the form of an increase in the cap on the amount of wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. House Republican leaders have rejected any tax increase, and it is unclear that Mr. Bush will embrace one in the end, but his intention in putting the possibility on the table was to signal to Democrats that he was serious about taking the politically difficult steps needed to meet his goal of making Social Security permanently solvent.
Please post your comments here.
I'll be watching.
I'll be watching. I check in on the thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162751/posts
Are all the broadcast networks going live tonight, at least for the first 30 minutes?
Checking in.
I was watching Brit' show and he kept asking the panel why Bush was having this press conference and no matter what each of them said, Brit would still say, "But why is he doing this?"---It sounded almost like he was afraid of something---
I guess he worries because he knows that the press just gang up to make Bush look bad instead of asking pertinent questions...I don't know.
I hope he is well-coached to do this. The media is going to come out swinging.
I'm here so early I think I got a good seat.
Who's got popcorn? With lotsa buttah!
Thanks, Howlin. I'm reporting for Live Thread duty.
Redistributionist bullsqueeze from Bush, as expected. More Big Stupid Government crap from our Maximum Politician.
Can someone please tell me what the year was that Bush mentioned that those born before that year don't have the option of participating in his proposal.
Since these live threads have so many inane comments, which we have to scroll through to find the gist of the actual opinion/reporting of the broadcast, I'm coming to the point of giving up reading them - especially during business hours when we are stuck in cubicles. Who has the time to read through hundreds of posts that say nothing about the subject that is supposedly to tell us cubicle bound people what is being said. I had to give up on the live Frist cast on C-Span today. Too much hot air and no substance on these live post. I want to hear Freepers reporting the news, not their opinions about the ties, etc.
He just pointed out that the gas prices are a result of there not being an energy policy in 10 years.
ITS ABOUT TIME THAT SOMEBODY POINT THAT OUT.
Lil Tommy D probably questions the timing of that question........Since he, and his stalling of energy legislation in the Senate, are, in part, responsible for the raise in gas prices...........He should question nothing.
They no longer serve any purpose.
They are inane,insipid and totally irrelevant.
Haven't followed all the thread, didn't see all the conference, BUT --
You were wanting him to take names and kick butt?
You must be very disappointed.
That response to the vile David Gregory's question about FRC, and whether the Dems basically were being anti-people-of-faith was pathetic. It was evasive, shallow, uninformed, clueless, and more than a little treacherous.
I like and support W. But he's so busy reaching out to his enemies and making sure he doesn't hurt their feelings... it'd be nice if he'd WORK HARD with his FRIENDS sometimes.
Dan