Bush speech at Kansas State...

[recxjake]

Anybody catch it?? He was cracking jokes left and right.... he did a very good job... Iraq, Alito, SS, China, Blair, etc etc

[jAZ]

Didn't hear it, but in reading a pseudo-running transcript (simliar to gameday thread) it sounds as if it was another campaign-type staged Q&A with zero challenging questions from the cherry picked audience.

If so, it's amazing that the media let's him get away with broadcasting such staged events as "news".

[recxjake]

Didn't hear it, but in reading a pseudo-running transcript (simliar to gameday thread) it sounds as if it was another campaign-type staged Q&A with zero challenging questions from the cherry picked audience.

If so, it's amazing that the media let's him get away with broadcasting such staged events as "news".

the questions aren't staged........ some guy just asked about Brokeback Mountain, one chick asked about 12 billion in cut education funds...

[dr00d]

both of you guys are obviously completely biased by your avatar and sig lines...so why don't you just quit now.

it was a pretty good speech though and had some humor.

[jAZ]

the questions aren't staged........ some guy just asked about Brokeback Mountain, one chick asked about 12 billion in cut education funds...
Staged? Depends on what you mean. Screened and questioners cherry picked? Absolutely.

[patteeu]

Didn't hear it, but in reading a pseudo-running transcript (simliar to gameday thread) it sounds as if it was another campaign-type staged Q&A with zero challenging questions from the cherry picked audience.

If so, it's amazing that the media let's him get away with broadcasting such staged events as "news".

It's still going on. Someone asked him if he liked Brokeback Mountain. Something tells me that wasn't a staged question. His answer, BTW, was that he hasn't seen the movie.

There was one woman that he had to cut off though. She was going on and on about what a great decision he made to free 27 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. She said she had two female relatives in the new Iraqi parliment. She continued to effuse praise on the President and after a couple of efforts to get her to ask a question, he finally had to cut her off and kind of make a question out of what she had said. He told her that his advice to her two relatives was that they should work hard to form a government that respects the rights of minorities and that is acceptable to Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike. She started to go on about how her husband was a Sunni, some other relative was a Christian and she was a Kurd when the President had to cheerfully cut her off and move on to the next question.

[jAZ]

both of you guys are obviously completely biased by your avatar and sig lines...so why don't you just quit now.

it was a pretty good speech though and had some humor.
Welcome to the DC. You'll be catching up on the personalities around here soon enough.

I can't comment too much, other than speak in generalities since I didn't witness it myself. But based on what I've read so far, and based on his trackrecord, I'm guessing I'm correct.

And it was probably a decent speech. My comments are limited to the Q&A portion. Which is more important, IMO.

[jAZ]

It's still going on. Someone asked him if he liked Brokeback Mountain. Something tells me that wasn't a staged question. His answer, BTW, was that he hasn't seen the movie.

There was one woman that he had to cut off though. She was going on and on about what a great decision he made to free 27 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. She said she had two female relatives in the new Iraqi parliment. She continued to effuse praise on the President and after a couple of efforts to get her to ask a question, he finally had to cut her off and kind of make a question out of what she had said. He told her that his advice to her two relatives was that they should work hard to form a government that respects the rights of minorities and that is acceptable to Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike. She started to go on about how her husband was a Sunni, some other relative was a Christian and she was a Kurd when the President had to cheerfully cut her off and move on to the next question.
Tough question, huh?

:p

[patteeu]

Yes, I'm sure it's disappointing to his critics that Bush didn't have to engage in any physical confrontations with his questioners, but I'm not sure there is much difference between this appearance and what we could expect from any other President. Of course there is going to be a screening process. What's the big deal?

[jAZ]

Yes, I'm sure it's disappointing to his critics that Bush didn't have to engage in any physical confrontations with his questioners, but I'm not sure there is much difference between this appearance and what we could expect from any other President. Of course there is going to be a screening process. What's the big deal?
Nothing, really. It's just disheartening when the guy keeps Dems out of his campaign stops. And it doesn't reflect well on him that he refuses to allow himself to be challenged on issues.

Do the handlers of other politicians manager their guys the same way? To some extent. I don't think we've ever seen a candidate/leader like Bush who explicitly excludes citizens from his publicly financed events like he did in Colorado in 2004.

This is more of the same, IMO.

God forbid someone ask him a tough question. That's all.

[patteeu]

Nothing, really. It's just disheartening when the guy keeps Dems out of his campaign stops. And it doesn't reflect well on him that he refuses to allow himself to be challenged on issues.

Do the handlers of other politicians manager their guys the same way? To some extent. I don't think we've ever seen a candidate/leader like Bush who explicitly excludes citizens from his publicly financed events like he did in Colorado in 2004.

This is more of the same, IMO.

God forbid someone ask him a tough question. That's all.

Why do democrats want to get into his campaign stops? Because they want to disrupt not because they come with open minds looking for a reason to vote for the guy. By limiting his audience, he's effectively writing some votes off. I don't see how you can hold that against the guy. If people don't think they are getting enough insight into him and his positions, they just shouldn't vote for him. What you want, it seems to me, is the opportunity for someone to embarass him. It's not about an exchange of ideas, it's just as much about political gamesmanship as the Bush campaign's screening process is.

[Saulbadguy]

.

[Saulbadguy]

both of you guys are obviously completely biased by your avatar and sig lines...so why don't you just quit now.

it was a pretty good speech though and had some humor.
sup, dr00d.

[jAZ]

Why do democrats want to get into his campaign stops? Because they want to disrupt not because they come with open minds looking for a reason to vote for the guy. By limiting his audience, he's effectively writing some votes off. I don't see how you can hold that against the guy. If people don't think they are getting enough insight into him and his positions, they just shouldn't vote for him. What you want, it seems to me, is the opportunity for someone to embarass him. It's not about an exchange of ideas, it's just as much about political gamesmanship as the Bush campaign's screening process is.
Bush is now in the business of though police? I don't care what he fears they will disrupt. They have a right to be there. It's a disgrace that someone is trying to justify such behavior.

If they disrupt it, then kick them out. That's how our world works.

Innocent until "proven" guilty.

[patteeu]

Bush is now in the business of though police? I don't care what he fears they will disrupt. They have a right to be there. It's a disgrace that someone is trying to justify such behavior.

If they disrupt it, then kick them out. That's how our world works.

Innocent until "proven" guilty.

Where do you come up with this "right to be there?" Bush has a right to run his campaign or make his appearances in the fashion that he desires. He isn't obligated to speak to anyone. His critics don't have a right to shape his message or dictate how he uses the bully pulpit. That's ridiculous.

The owners of the venue have a right to exclude or include people as they see fit (except for constitutionally prohibited discrimination of suspect classes and the like), but when they negotiate a deal to have Bush speak there, he is entitled to extract commitments from them.

[jAZ]

Where do you come up with this "right to be there?" Bush has a right to run his campaign or make his appearances in the fashion that he desires. He isn't obligated to speak to anyone. His critics don't have a right to shape his message or dictate how he uses the bully pulpit. That's ridiculous.

The owners of the venue have a right to exclude or include people as they see fit (except for constitutionally prohibited discrimination of suspect classes and the like), but when they negotiate a deal to have Bush speak there, he is entitled to extract commitments from them.
I made a mistake, and in fact inaccurately downplayed the issue. The three were in fact kicked out of a Social Security Townhall event that Bush hosted to "discuss social security" with the public. The 3 people had been given authorization to attend by obtaining official tickets from their local state Representative. They were dressed in business suits and did nothing to draw attention to themselves.

It turns out Bush had a "black list" of people not authorized to attand the event because of political affilliations.

Not much of a "town hall" meeting, huh?

Though it was certainly paid for by the tax dollars of those 3 people.

http://9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=eee74946-0abe-421a-00c0-7b644f80aafe&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

[patteeu]

I made a mistake, and in fact inaccurately downplayed the issue. The three were in fact kicked out of a Social Security Townhall event that Bush hosted to "discuss social security" with the public. The 3 people had been given authorization to attend by obtaining official tickets from their local state Representative. They were dressed in business suits and did nothing to draw attention to themselves.

It turns out Bush had a "black list" of people not authorized to attand the event because of political affilliations.

Not much of a "town hall" meeting, huh?

Though it was certainly paid for by the tax dollars of those 3 people.

http://9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=eee74946-0abe-421a-00c0-7b644f80aafe&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

So anyway, where do you get the idea that people have a right to be there? Did they not get their money refunded or something?

[jAZ]

So anyway, where do you get the idea that people have a right to be there? Did they not get their money refunded or something?
It's a PUBLIC event, paid for by PUBLIC tax dollars and they had OFFICAL authorized tickets. They were only kicked out because they were citizens from another political party.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

[dr00d]

Welcome to the DC. You'll be catching up on the personalities around here soon enough.

I can't comment too much, other than speak in generalities since I didn't witness it myself. But based on what I've read so far, and based on his trackrecord, I'm guessing I'm correct.

And it was probably a decent speech. My comments are limited to the Q&A portion. Which is more important, IMO.

this is primarily the reason I hate politics and the two-party system in general. Both of you have your heads so far up your ass that you can't even discuss things on a professional level. Why would we ever expect to get anything accomplished in Congress or the Gov't in general with you jackasses.

[penchief]

I have to confess that it was one of his better performances. He was on top of his game. He would have convinced me if it weren't for the patented Cheneyburton distortions or omittances of fact.

However, listening to the response of the audience and to the questions/comments from the audience (regardless of the brokeback education questions), it was CLEARLY a pep rally.

I'm not trying to take anything away from one of GW's good showings but let's not make this out to be a home run in front of a non-partisan audience because it WAS NOT a non-partisan audience.

He may have taken unscripted questions but he took them from a well-scripted audience. Anyone who saw the speech and who believes otherwise is simply not being honest with themselves or the rest of us.

[patteeu]

It's a PUBLIC event, paid for by PUBLIC tax dollars and they had OFFICAL authorized tickets. They were only kicked out because they were citizens from another political party.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

It might be politically embarassing, but I don't see how this is an issue of denying people their rights. The President doesn't have to speak to anyone, why should we believe he has to speak to everyone?

[patteeu]

this is primarily the reason I hate politics and the two-party system in general. Both of you have your heads so far up your ass that you can't even discuss things on a professional level. Why would we ever expect to get anything accomplished in Congress or the Gov't in general with you jackasses.

LOL @ Mr. Professional Level

[jAZ]

It might be politically embarassing, but I don't see how this is an issue of denying people their rights. The President doesn't have to speak to anyone, why should we believe he has to speak to everyone?
I don't know the law on this, and I'm looking for an update. It's certainly "unamerican" if not illegal. My first guess would be equal protection.

Anyway here's the latest (June05) article on the story that I've been able to find.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101583.html

[patteeu]

I have to confess that it was one of his better performances.

It was good, but he's had plenty of good ones.

[jAZ]

you have your heads so far up your ass ... you jackasses.
I love the sweet smell of hypocricy in the afternoon.

I'm pretty sure you are the only one here slinging personal attacks.

Kudos.

[patteeu]

I don't know the law on this, and I'm looking for an update. It's certainly "unamerican" if not illegal. My first guess would be equal protection.

Anyway here's the latest (June05) article on the story that I've been able to find.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101583.html

Good luck with that equal protection angle. "Unamerican" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I've heard people call those who oppose the Iraq War of being unamerican.

From that article, it sounds to me like whoever identified these guys as potential rabblerousers had good instincts. I still don't see a problem.

[jAZ]

Good luck with that equal protection angle. "Unamerican" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I've heard people call those who oppose the Iraq War of being unamerican.
Yeah, those are the same people who are kicking taxpayers with tickets out of a public forum. Feel free to read my sig to more clearly understand the difference.

Dissent <> unamerican

Forcibly squashing dissent = unamerican

[patteeu]

Yeah, those are the same people who are kicking taxpayers with tickets out of a public forum. Feel free to read my sig to more clearly understand the difference.

Dissent <> unamerican

Forcibly squashing dissent = unamerican

LOL, no one is "forcibly squashing dissent." Those three could have dissented all they wanted to outside the auditorium. No one has the right to have face-time with those they want to protest.

The point of bringing up the fact that some people call Iraq dissenters unamerican was to illustrate the fact that calling someone unamerican doesn't make it so. You calling the exclusion of people expected to cause trouble from Bush speeches the same thing, is another good example.

[Reaper16]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=52738&stc=1
:Lin:

[go bowe]

LOL, no one is "forcibly squashing dissent." Those three could have dissented all they wanted to outside the auditorium. No one has the right to have face-time with those they want to protest.

The point of bringing up the fact that some people call Iraq dissenters unamerican was to illustrate the fact that calling someone unamerican doesn't make it so. You calling the exclusion of people expected to cause trouble from Bush speeches the same thing, is another good example.i guess jaz is too young to remember chicago in 1968, cops beating civil rights demonstrators, or the national guard shooting students at kent state...

those were instances of "forcibly squashing dissent"...

well, they were actually forcible attempts to squash dissent, but they didn't succeed very well...

i haven't heard of any mass beatings or shooting of protestors as of yet; does jaz know something we don't? :shrug:

[jAZ]

i guess jaz is too young to remember chicago in 1968, cops beating civil rights demonstrators, or the national guard shooting students at kent state...

those were instances of "forcibly squashing dissent"...

well, they were actually forcible attempts to squash dissent, but they didn't succeed very well...

i haven't heard of any mass beatings or shooting of protestors as of yet; does jaz know something we don't? :shrug:
I know that force doesn't only mean beating and shooting.

[patteeu]

Today's dissenters are a pussified version of the dissenters of the 60s. Where it used to take national guardsmen with itchy trigger fingers, now all that is required is a stern voice, a fake badge and a cheap earpiece to shut them up. LOL

[Boyceofsummer]

The President doesn't have to speak to anyone, why should we believe he has to speak to everyone?

now go have a parade, or something.

[banyon]

Yes, I'm sure it's disappointing to his critics that Bush didn't have to engage in any physical confrontations with his questioners, but I'm not sure there is much difference between this appearance and what we could expect from any other President. Of course there is going to be a screening process. What's the big deal?

Really? This is a new process with W. So like it or not (which I agree with jAZ that it is intrinsically un-american), the developments with screening and pre-selected questions are new. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, W is the only one to implement these sorts of rules outside of the traditional campaign. Essentially, he treats every speech as a campaign stop.

http://www.opendebates.org/news/relatedarticles/journalnews.html

The Town Hall debate was first proposed by Clinton, who thrived in Oprah-like settings. He supposedly felt our pain while the elder Bush impatiently glanced at his watch.

In the 1992 forum, questioners were selected, but they did not have to write their questions down for preapproval or screening, and the moderator had no idea what they would ask, said McKinney. They also had the opportunity to stand and ask follow-up questions.

In 1996, however, when Clinton ran against Bob Dole, subtle changes were introduced. Unlike the first Town Hall debate, citizens were instructed to remain seated. No follow-ups were allowed.

In 2000, for the first time, questions posed to son-of-Bush and Al Gore were written in advance and submitted to the moderator, who then called on the questioners.

This year, the questions will be preselected and identified as coming from either "soft" Kerry supporters or "soft" Bush supporters. If they harden, the moderator acting as proxy for the candidates can, in effect, tell them to shut up and sit down.

"I've sarcastically suggested that if we fast-forward four years from now and the candidates continue to control the forum, we simply will go to Hollywood central casting and get actors to play the roles of citizens," McKinney said. "And then we can have the two campaigns come up with the questions they wished to be asked and give those to the actors to read from the script at the appointed time."

[patteeu]

Really? This is a new process with W. So like it or not (which I agree with jAZ that it is intrinsically un-american), the developments with screening and pre-selected questions are new. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, W is the only one to implement these sorts of rules outside of the traditional campaign. Essentially, he treats every speech as a campaign stop.

http://www.opendebates.org/news/relatedarticles/journalnews.html

I'm not sure what your assertion is. Are you suggesting that the people at K-State were actors playing the part of K-state students? Or that they were asking scripted questions? Or that it was a townhall meeting style speech (which it wasn't)?

I saw nothing to indicate that these weren't legitimate K-state students asking questions that they formulated on their own. I saw no evidence that GWBush knew what questions were coming. Do you know otherwise or are you just assuming?

[jAZ]

I'm not sure what your assertion is. Are you suggesting that the people at K-State were actors playing the part of K-state students? Or that they were asking scripted questions? Or that it was a townhall meeting style speech (which it wasn't)?

I saw nothing to indicate that these weren't legitimate K-state students asking questions that they formulated on their own. I saw no evidence that GWBush knew what questions were coming. Do you know otherwise or are you just assuming?
This isn't rocket science. I know you are working hard to find a handhold on this stuff, so you are pushing a bunch of obviously untrue things as somehow being asserted here. I love how you deliberately left out "screening" people from your little faux-list.

[patteeu]

This isn't rocket science. I know you are working hard to find a handhold on this stuff, so you are pushing a bunch of obviously untrue things as somehow being asserted here. I love how you deliberately left out "screening" people from your little faux-list.

How were these questioners screened? However it was, is it something new with the Bush administration? If so, how do we know that?

[jAZ]

How were these questioners screened? However it was, is it something new with the Bush administration? If so, how do we know that?
I wasn't there, so I have no first hand knowledge of the details, but I can imagine how it would likely work given the way it was handled in the Colorado Three incident.

Tickets, handed out by Republicans, only to Republicans they know support Bush. Again, not rocket science, especially given the fact hat we have an outline of the model above.

[patteeu]

I wasn't there, so I have no first hand knowledge of the details, but I can imagine how it would likely work given the way it was handled in the Colorado Three incident.

Tickets, handed out by Republicans, only to Republicans they know support Bush. Again, not rocket science, especially given the fact hat we have an outline of the model above.

I see. You "imagine" how it would work. Gotcha.

[gblowfish]

I read in the KC Star this AM Pat Roberts had to get Bush to change his tie for the speech. He was going to wear a KU blue tie to Manhattan. Duh! Roberts loaned him over to a purple tie at the last minute.

[Chief Henry]

Today's dissenters are a pussified version of the dissenters of the 60s. Where it used to take national guardsmen with itchy trigger fingers, now all that is required is a stern voice, a fake badge and a cheap earpiece to shut them up. LOL

:clap:

Classic Patteeu.....in other words "right on"

[Chief Henry]

I wasn't there, so I have no first hand knowledge of the details, but I can imagine how it would likely work given the way it was handled in the Colorado Three incident.

Tickets, handed out by Republicans, only to Republicans they know support Bush. Again, not rocket science, especially given the fact hat we have an outline of the model above.



...and when has Hillary Clinton last had an open Q @ A with any and all reporters?

[Adept Havelock]

...and when has Hillary Clinton last had an open Q @ A with any and all reporters?

In the tradition of the FCC's late fairness doctrine I feel compelled to ask when during the Clinton admin. were people barred from a speech merely because of a bumper sticker on their car, ala the "Colorado 3" mentioned above? :hmmm:

Exactly. It's all part and parcel of the "perpetual campaign" attitude. :harumph:

[jAZ]

I see. You "imagine" how it would work. Gotcha.
Isnt' having a brain wonderful?

[jAZ]

...and when has Hillary Clinton last had an open Q @ A with any and all reporters?
If I were a NY resident, I might be able to answer that for you.

[jAZ]

In the tradition of the FCC's fairness doctrine I feel compelled to ask when during the Clinton admin. were people barred from a speech merely because of a bumper sticker on their car, ala the "Colorado 3" mentioned above? :hmmm:

Exactly. It's all part and parcel of the "perpetual campaign" attitude. :harumph:
The fact that the Republican Party was assigned the task of organizing the event is a little disturbing given that it wasn't paid for by the GOP, but our tax dollars. It's not a partisan campaign event, it's a non-partisan policy event. And yet, only 1/2 the country is welcome.

As much as I wish it were true, he's NOT the President of only 1/2 the country.

[Adept Havelock]

The fact that the Republican Party was assigned the task of organizing the event is a little disturbing given that it wasn't paid for by the GOP, but our tax dollars. It's not a partisan campaign event, it's a non-partisan policy event. And yet, only 1/2 the country is welcome.

As much as I wish it were true, he's NOT the President of only 1/2 the country.

I don't have a problem with the Repub party organizing, as I could care less who does the grunt work. I do have a problem with barring people because they aren't good little bushiveks. The "Free speech" zones used by this admin. and the Clinton admin before them are also utter disgraces.

[mlyonsd]

I don't have a problem with the Repub party organizing, as I could care less who does the grunt work. I do have a problem with barring people because they aren't good little bushiveks. The "Free speech" zones used by this admin. and the Clinton admin before them are also utter disgraces.

But the speaker's supporters have a right to hear what they have to say from the podium instead of a bunch of wild crazy disruptive yelling. It cuts both ways.

[Adept Havelock]

But the speaker's supporters have a right to hear what they have to say from the podium instead of a bunch of wild crazy disruptive yelling. It cuts both ways.

Just to be a bit ornery, I see in the constitution where the protestors have the right to free speech, but where does a conservative find the constitutional basis for the audiences "right to listen"? ;)

Furthermore, what psychic powers must these event grunts posess to be able to determine who is to disagree and listen quietly, and those there to disrupt?

Innocent until proven guilty is just so damn inconvienient....kind of like free speech.

"Bar them all, God will know his own".
-Bush de Montfort.

[mlyonsd]

Just to be a bit onery, I see in the constitution where the protestors have the right to free speech, but where does a conservative find the constitutional basis for the audiences "right to listen"? ;)

All I'm saying is if you allow heckling to take place the nuts from both sides will go out of their way to disrupt every public appearance. It's stupid.

Now if you want to allow the rest of the people in the crowd take matters into their own hands to silence the heckler than I can live with it. j/k

[patteeu]

Just to be a bit ornery, I see in the constitution where the protestors have the right to free speech, but where does a conservative find the constitutional basis for the audiences "right to listen"? ;)

Furthermore, what psychic powers must these event grunts posess to be able to determine who is to disagree and listen quietly, and those there to disrupt?

Innocent until proven guilty is just so damn inconvienient....kind of like free speech.

"Bar them all, God will know his own".
-Bush de Montfort.

This has nothing to do with free speech or with "innocent until proven guilty." Do you think you could go down to your local public university and walk into an occupied classroom in order to have a loud, disruptive protest on [insert subject of your choice] just because the constitution protects your freedom of speech? Of course not. Free speech doesn't mean unlimited access to the venue of your choice.

[Adept Havelock]

Free speech doesn't mean unlimited access to the venue of your choice.

Agreed. So, do you have a problem with party hacks deciding on a whim who is or is not allowed to see a speech by the President of the United States? The "Colorado 3" are far from the only incident of this type. A simple google search will show that.

It's a shame our president is so scared of anyone disagreeing with him in a public venue for all citizens that he has to have any protestors herded away. What a wimp.

[penchief]

This has nothing to do with free speech or with "innocent until proven guilty." Do you think you could go down to your local public university and walk into an occupied classroom in order to have a loud, disruptive protest on [insert subject of your choice] just because the constitution protects your freedom of speech? Of course not. Free speech doesn't mean unlimited access to the venue of your choice.

Heckler's can be removed. Although, I did hear a Bush supporter interrupt Bush to yell something supportive, to which Bush smiled and soaked it up (another plant?). Is that equally as disruptive as someone who yells something unsupportive?

Is somebody booing something the president says the equivalent of somebody cheering something the presidents says? Free speech might suggest that it is.

[patteeu]

Agreed. So, do you have a problem with party hacks deciding on a whim who is or is not allowed to see a speech by the President of the United States? The "Colorado 3" are far from the only incident of this type. A simple google search will show that.

It's a shame our president is so scared of anyone disagreeing with him in a public venue for all citizens that he has to have any protestors herded away. What a wimp.

It's good to know about it when it goes on, but I don't really have a problem with it. I rarely assume that a politician is really facing a hostile crowd. When he/she does, it usually means they are desperate in one way or another.

FWIW, I don't personally give all that much weight in my evaluation of a politician just because he's slick and able to operate extemporaneously. All else being equal, those are relatively positive qualities, but I think there are other qualities that are more important in a leader. I'd rather have a politician who actually believes in things I agree with and who stutters and stammers when speaking in public than a politician who is owned by the polls (or who believes in things I disagree with) and who has a gift for communication.

[patteeu]

Heckler's can be removed. Although, I did hear a Bush supporter interrupt Bush to yell something supportive, to which Bush smiled and soaked it up (another plant?). Is that equally as disruptive as someone who yells something unsupportive?

Is somebody booing something the president says the equivalent of somebody cheering something the presidents says? Free speech might suggest that it is.

This has nothing to do with free speech rights.

[penchief]

This has nothing to do with free speech rights.

Well, if this administration is trying to sway public opinion by presenting it's side of the story in front of a pep rally while claimning that it is a "public" speech (which they clearly attempt to do as a matter of standard operating procedure), and they accomplish this by screening those who are allowed to attend that pep rally while at the same time employing unpatriotic "free speech zones," then it could easily be said that they are misrepresenting the debate and stifling open discourse. Especially when they open the president up to questions and they present those questioners as being non-partisan. Even moreso, when some of those questioners are so partisan that their questions not only set the president up for applause lines but, in many cases, are not questions at all but statements of support which also garner applause for the purpose of public consumption. It's so obvious that it should be embarrassing.

When taking into account this administration's sordid track record in the areas of transparency, misleading statements, propaganda, double-speak, staging press conferences, bribing the media, manipulating the press, and creating false news stories, is it any wonder that people feel that this administration does it's best to stifle honest debate and disguise their own intentions?

It may not be a blatant violation of the first amendment but it is clearly an attempt to stifle freedom of expression when that expression opposes the agenda and motives of the far right wing in this country. All things considered it surprises me that anyone who calls themself a true patriot would trust this adminstration, let alone, defend them.

[banyon]

I'm not sure what your assertion is. Are you suggesting that the people at K-State were actors playing the part of K-state students? Or that they were asking scripted questions? Or that it was a townhall meeting style speech (which it wasn't)?

I saw nothing to indicate that these weren't legitimate K-state students asking questions that they formulated on their own. I saw no evidence that GWBush knew what questions were coming. Do you know otherwise or are you just assuming?

That's an interesting trick of sophistry there, avoiding the real issue by emphasizing the etreme and then painting it as outlandish. Unfortunately, it doesn't get you anywhere.

People at K-State being actors of course is not my assertion, and to say that it is really skirts the issue. That was just the House researcher' conclusion of where this campaigning-as-moviecraft trend could wind up if unchecked. It's really at the end of a spectrum, with the other end being completely honest discourse open to anyone who wantsto participate. The other end of the spectrum probably has its drawbacks too, with security concerns and the need for at least some government secrets. But just use your eyes and your head here. W's carefully crafted TV image isn't new; every President since Kennedy has cultivated this. The trend of increasing seclusion of campaign events (and for Bush off-year policy campaign events) is growing worse. Reagan didn't keep tax paying Americans out of his campaign stops. Even when Reagan was in Berlin saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down." there was a huge crowd that was there to support him. However, with Bush, it has become standard operating procedure.

from liberal rag Fox News:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
[White House spokesperson Trent] Duffy said the White House sends advance teams to deal with logistics for any official event. These teams typically handle the screening for speakers and audience members who will be sitting with or addressing the president during the event. They also keep an eye on the crowds for possible troublemakers.

I'll post the actual questions in a subsequent post. They don't seem very controversial to me.

[banyon]

No evidence that they are screening questions? Why don't you consider the questions? Here they are:

Keep in mind that these are questions to a President who has no more elections to win.

(1)Q Mr. President, we salute what you have done, your aggressive stance on terrorism. But more than that, as you know, Kansas is a beef state. The number one industry in the state of Kansas is beef production and beef processing. A strong beef industry indicates a strong Kansas, and it affects all of us. We sincerely appreciate your efforts in regaining our markets with Japan, your aggressive stance on trade. We support that tremendously. I wonder if you would just comment on what's happened recently.

great. give us a news update from a staff writer on trade policy.

(2)Q Thank you, Mr. President. One of the things that most of our Senate delegation has worked tirelessly on is the situation in the Sudan. Sudan was, of course, slated to be the chair of the African Union next year, which is -- they have tried, much like the United Nations, to do something. Does the United States have a larger role to play in the Sudan, and the entire sub-Saharan African region?

Hey, give us a foreign policy update about a situation that probably less than 3% of Americans care about.

(3)What is your position, or would you comment on a long-term strategy with respect to the geopolitical ambitions of China and Iran?

Ok. maybe a legitimate question, although broadly worded. He gave some appropriately nonspecific platitudinal responses here.

(4)Q Hello, Mr. President. I am an American Iraqi Kurd. I would like to salute you and salute all the troops are freeing 27 million people. They are free. (Applause.)He never does get out a question.

Wow. what are the odds? An Iraqi Kurd in Manhattan, Kansas. Gee, they must be astronomical. Surely not a plant.

(5)Q Us British, were a querulous people and we know that we're one of your greatest supporters in the world, and Tony Blair, who I have the greatest respect for, is my leader. When you say, "jump," he says, "how high?" At least, that's the perception of many of the British people. And when he agrees and does your bidding, then it weakens him on the home front at home. And many people enjoy this, but some of the more vocal ones will say, he's a yes-man. Have you discussed that with him, and do you have any --

Great. talk about your good buddy Tony Blair. He's a good guy, right? Bush: He's a good guy(After about 400 words).

(6)Q I have a question less with politics and more with leadership, in general. You're in a situation where you're under a lot of flack, especially for your character. And that's something that, it seems to me, means a lot to you, as it does to many of us here. As a leader, as many of us are going to need to know here because we're going to be leaders in just a few years, what's the best way that you go about preparing yourself for attacks on your character, and how do you deal with others in those matters?

Mr. Bush, talk about what great character you have and how it hurts when all of those liberal meanies point out your mistakes.

(7)Q Mr. President, thank you for being here. I served under your father, he was my Commander-in-Chief in Desert Storm. And it was with great interest that I followed your campaign; my husband and I both are great fans of yours. I thank you for making the hard decisions, for making -- not listening to the critics and keeping your campaign promise.
And I've been following the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito. And I certainly hope he's confirmed.

Mr. Bush, great job on the Alito nomination. Abortion sure sucks, huh?

(8)My question is about Social Security.
THE PRESIDENT: Social Security?
Q Yes. (Inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: I couldn't hear the question, so I'll put the words in your mouth. (Laughter.) I guess you asked is the system going to be viable when you get -- yes? No. (Laughter and applause.)

Ok. now he answered the question he wanted to answer. And he does, without mentioning the overall budget deficit, somehow.

(9)Q Hi, I just want to get your comments about education. Recently, $12.7 billion was cut from education, and I was just wondering how that's supposed to help our futures? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Education budget was cut -- say it again. What was cut?
Q Twelve point seven billion dollars was cut from education, and I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our --
THE PRESIDENT: At the federal level?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that -- I don't think we've actually -- for higher education? Student loans?
Q Yes, student loans.

Okay 1 toughie. Of course he is confused and bewildered by the question. That staffer will likely get fired who let that question through.

(11)Q Again, I just wanted to thank you for coming. Your speech was very good. I'm a big admirer of your wife. I know that you said that your role as a President was as a decision-maker, and I would like you to comment, please, on how your wife contributes to your decision-making process, and how you confide in her. Thank you.[/i]

Don't you just love your wife? Cause I sure do.

(12)Q W is for Wisconsin. You're a rancher. A lot of us here in Kansas are ranchers. I was just wanting to get your opinion on "Brokeback Mountain," if you've seen it yet? (Laughter.) You would love it. You should check it out.

WTF? I guess as long as the President doesn't haveto answer anything serious.

(13)Q Mr. President, I have a question about the nuclear weapons the United States is keeping. It's around 3,000 nuclear weapons, so I want to know your opinion when you are going to destroy them?

He avoids this question. ?

(14)Q Mr. President -- (speaking Spanish.) I know that the relationship between United States and Venezuela is no good. That's not my problem. My problem is -- or the question I have for you is what are you doing in the borders? We try to secure the United States for terrorism, I know. So we're trying to secure the borders, but, as well, some of us of who are Hispanics and professional sometimes are denied the opportunity to work and advance in the workplace because we are minorities.

Mr. President, show off your Spanish and tell us about your guestworker program.

So, to summarize, nearly all hanging breaking-ball softballs. The one question about student loans looked like a gaffe.
Had he had an unscreened Q & A, he might've gotten questions about (1) WTF is going on in Iraq? (2) Why are wages stagnant and corporations contnually outsource, (3) Why are you spying on us? (4) Why is there no effort on this administration's part to get America on the road to energy independence? How do I know that these questions would be asked? I don't, there might be tougher questions. These are just consistently the biggest issues on Americans' minds when polled. The fact that none of these questions came up in a speech titled "Remarks on the Global War on Terror". Is really a farce.

If it does continue to become less and less authentic, then yes, I agree with the previous author I quoted. They might as well be actors.

[patteeu]

Well, if this administration is trying to sway public opinion by presenting it's side of the story in front of a pep rally while claimning that it is a "public" speech (which they clearly attempt to do as a matter of standard operating procedure), and they accomplish this by screening those who are allowed to attend that pep rally while at the same time employing unpatriotic "free speech zones," then it could easily be said that they are misrepresenting the debate and stifling open discourse. Especially when they open the president up to questions and they present those questioners as being non-partisan. Even moreso, when some of those questioners are so partisan that their questions not only set the president up for applause lines but, in many cases, are not questions at all but statements of support which also garner applause for the purpose of public consumption. It's so obvious that it should be embarrassing.

When taking into account this administration's sordid track record in the areas of transparency, misleading statements, propaganda, double-speak, staging press conferences, bribing the media, manipulating the press, and creating false news stories, is it any wonder that people feel that this administration does it's best to stifle honest debate and disguise their own intentions?

It may not be a blatant violation of the first amendment but it is clearly an attempt to stifle freedom of expression when that expression opposes the agenda and motives of the far right wing in this country. All things considered it surprises me that anyone who calls themself a true patriot would trust this adminstration, let alone, defend them.

I'm not a fan of free speech zones, but I see nothing wrong with limiting the attendance at speeches.

[patteeu]

That's an interesting trick of sophistry there, avoiding the real issue by emphasizing the etreme and then painting it as outlandish. Unfortunately, it doesn't get you anywhere.

People at K-State being actors of course is not my assertion, and to say that it is really skirts the issue. That was just the House researcher' conclusion of where this campaigning-as-moviecraft trend could wind up if unchecked. It's really at the end of a spectrum, with the other end being completely honest discourse open to anyone who wantsto participate. The other end of the spectrum probably has its drawbacks too, with security concerns and the need for at least some government secrets. But just use your eyes and your head here. W's carefully crafted TV image isn't new; every President since Kennedy has cultivated this. The trend of increasing seclusion of campaign events (and for Bush off-year policy campaign events) is growing worse. Reagan didn't keep tax paying Americans out of his campaign stops. Even when Reagan was in Berlin saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down." there was a huge crowd that was there to support him. However, with Bush, it has become standard operating procedure.

So, again, what is your assertion? I won't commit any more sophistry trying to guess if you will simply lay it out for me.

from liberal rag Fox News:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
[White House spokesperson Trent] Duffy said the White House sends advance teams to deal with logistics for any official event. These teams typically handle the screening for speakers and audience members who will be sitting with or addressing the president during the event. They also keep an eye on the crowds for possible troublemakers.

I'll post the actual questions in a subsequent post. They don't seem very controversial to me.

Also from your Fox article:

John Fortier, a political analyst with the American Enterprise Institute (search), said he's heard complaints about ticket-holder screening and "stacking the deck" in favor of filling meetings with the president's supporters, but none of it is new.

Past presidents have often packed houses with supporters, especially when they are on campaigns to advance new policy initiatives.

[patteeu]

No evidence that they are screening questions? Why don't you consider the questions? Here they are:

Keep in mind that these are questions to a President who has no more elections to win.
...

So, to summarize, nearly all hanging breaking-ball softballs. The one question about student loans looked like a gaffe.
Had he had an unscreened Q & A, he might've gotten questions about (1) WTF is going on in Iraq? (2) Why are wages stagnant and corporations contnually outsource, (3) Why are you spying on us? (4) Why is there no effort on this administration's part to get America on the road to energy independence? How do I know that these questions would be asked? I don't, there might be tougher questions. These are just consistently the biggest issues on Americans' minds when polled. The fact that none of these questions came up in a speech titled "Remarks on the Global War on Terror". Is really a farce.

If it does continue to become less and less authentic, then yes, I agree with the previous author I quoted. They might as well be actors.

It's not surprising that if they make an effort to keep antagonistic people out they will end up getting less antagonistic questions. I think it's very unlikely that he knew these questions in advance and I don't think the questions themselves sound like they were planted. If they were screened to make sure they weren't completely idiotic (e.g. boxers or briefs?) then I have no problem with it, but the Brokeback Mountain question makes even that seem unlikely. I see nothing wrong with the questions or the friendly nature of the audience. The solution is to be cynical enough that you don't fool yourself into believing that these things aren't PR events. You don't seem to have a problem in that regard.

[Saulbadguy]

I know a kurd who lives in Manhattan.

[trndobrd]

This isn't rocket science. I know you are working hard to find a handhold on this stuff, so you are pushing a bunch of obviously untrue things as somehow being asserted here. I love how you deliberately left out "screening" people from your little faux-list.


Not that you would let the truth get in the way of your assumptions and generalities that you normally try to sell off as fact, but the 600 Soldiers were one Ft. Riley unit recently returned from Iraq. They were not pre-screened. The 6000 student tickets were handed out on a first come-first served basis. These 6000 student tickets made up the vast majority of those seated.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/012206/kan_bush.shtml

[Clint in Wichita]

ROFL

It was actually newsworthy that Bush "took unscreened questions". Wow! Really?!

Friggin' amazing.

[banyon]

So, again, what is your assertion? I won't commit any more sophistry trying to guess if you will simply lay it out for me.
Also from your Fox article:

I knew you'd quote that part of the article. :) I'm just saying that it's getting worse, not that it's unprecedented. It think it's a reasonable concern.

[banyon]

I know a kurd who lives in Manhattan.

was it the same guy?

[patteeu]

I knew you'd quote that part of the article. :) I'm just saying that it's getting worse, not that it's unprecedented. It think it's a reasonable concern.

OK, well in that case, I agree that it is moving in that direction. PR techniques and stagecraft are bound to continue to become more sophisticated and more effective. I'm not so sure it bothers me much though. The people I hold responsible are the journalists who cover these events. They are the ones who should expose any fakery that is taking place, IMO. If a candidate wants to have his speech writers write all of the "impromptu" questions that audience members ask, that's fine by me, but I want the newspaper reporter or the TV anchorman to point that out. If a president stages something (e.g. Clinton and his rock cross on the beach at Normandy or Bush 41 with his crack rock confiscated across the street from the White House), journalists should be able to smell it out and report it as such.

[Boyceofsummer]

Anybody catch it?? He was cracking jokes left and right....etc etc