Maybe not THIS President. ;-)
No, seriously...what I was suggesting was one of the following possibilities: 1) a 5-10 minute monologue by the President to the nation, followed by questions and answers, or 2) a unsupervised/uncontrolled (gasp!) interview with Larry King or Chris Mathews.
In the first case, Bush gets 5-10 minutes to get his point across...that CFR is an egregious violation of Free Speech. (Of course, Bush doesn't really think this, since he signed CFR.) In the second case, both Larry King and Chris Mathews have demonstrated that they are amenable to "softball" interviews. (Chris Mathews' program name notwithstanding.) Basically, Larry King and Chris Mathews both allow the interviewee to make whatever point he or she wants to make.
All Bush's handlers have to do is say to King or Mathews--or Jennings, Brokaw, or Rather, for that matter--is, "Look, the President wants to make a point here. You must give him time to make his point. Then, if you disagree, feel free to do that...MILDLY...and let him try to respond to you. If you do this, there are more interviews with the President in your future. You PERSONALLY can be the channel by which the President of the United States communicates to The People. But if you rake him over the coals, or disrespect his point of view in any way, you'll NEVER get anything from him again."
NO serious journalist, even one as far Left as Rather, would either turn down that offer, or attempt to "cheat" around it in any way. Mainly, because they'd be fired immediately. But King and Mathews would honor that offer because that's their routine mode of operation. (Larry King interviewed both Kathleen Willey and Susan McDougal. Both were given complete freedom to tell their side of their stories. Larry King cares about ratings.)
As for the assertion that even Dan Rather would give a fair interview, I doubt it with all my heart, and I'm sure he wouldn't be fired. Especially after reading "Bias".
In any event, if Bush had vetoed the legislation and gotten an interview to explain why it is wrong in a Constitutional way, I don't think he would sway many kool-aid drinking liberals into understanding that fact. Remember, these are people who think that the loss of freedom for perceived safety is a good thing. I think the issue would still be on the table as a successful campaign point for this year's elections regardless of an explanation because the speech portion would be ignored while vetoing getting soft money out of politics would be played up. Those on the left would hammer again and again that Bush only vetoed it to ensure big money contributors got to influence politics for Republicans.
Plus, you can't get this anti-1A crap ruled unconstitutional until it becomes law. At least, that's the way I see it.