Hmm, that's a good point, fair point. He'd've gotten red in the face and shaken his finger. (We guess! Because it almost never happened!)
You know, honestly... no. I don't think he's doing that great. He either lets himself be put on the defensive, gets apologetic, or avoids the question too much.
The one I feel most keenly is the one I knew most about, the vile David Gregory one. W bobbled that. There were 100 tactfully aggressive ways he could have responded. Instead he said, "No, I disagree with Frist and the FRC. It's not about their faith. It's just [blah blah blah, wander meander stray]."
I'd have loved it, of course, if he'd said "Duh! Next question!"
But he also could have said, "Well David, when a senator says in so many words that it is a candidate's 'deeply held religious views' that give him pause, I can certainly see why people say that." I can think of a dozen other tactful responses without breaking a sweat. Can't you?
And (as I've said often before, discussing the debates) HE HAD TO KNOW THIS WAS COMING.
Dan
I guess you and I didn't drink the KOOL-AID tonight and actually saw the same press conference where Bush could have done a much better job. As someone else wrote, no one but the hard-core on either side watch these things anyway (sad).
The polls should show no change, or a slight loss in support for W - if anything.