MTP theory : W did well, w/ tough questions known in advance...

[DeepModem Mom]

My theory:




Russert knew he had to ask tough questions, but had no desire to damage Bush. He asked Bush tough questions, with little follow-up, and Bush answered as articulately as I've ever heard him -- because Russert provided the questons well in advance , and W had practiced for days.

[ThomWV]

1. Exactly My Assessment

He may not have gained a vote by his performance, but he didn't loose any either.

[wakfs]

2. Do we know for sure...

...that the questions were provided in advance?

If this were really true, wouldn't it be something of a media scandal? At least on the Internet?

I agree that Russert asked tough questions but did little or no follow-up, basically letting Bush's rambling answers stand unchallenged.

[rocktivity]

10. I doubt they'd admit the questions were seen in advance, Wakfs

I'm sure he had a general idea of what was going to be asked. But since MTP is normally done live, having it taped, especially in light of Bush's PR situation, automatically undermined the credibility of subject and interviewer alike.


rocknation

[DeepModem Mom]

13. No, just my gut feeling, based on W's previous unscripted...

performances. I thought he was much more articulate than usual, given his disastrous usual. Other posters are reporting that the performance is being graded pretty highly in the instant analyses.
And yes, if known, this would be a scandal, possibly bringing a discussion of the hidden Bush button Russert wore in 2000.

[Terwilliger]

3. Bush has been briefed since Monday

Like every other event where they have to trot him out in public, he gets a lot of preparation.

[unblock]

4. but the whole point was to gain votes

WHY did he seek out this interview?

he didn't have to do it, so merely squeaking by without any damage is not good for him at all.


he needed a victory here.

[snippy]

12. I agree. Turd Blossom Rove is going to be disappointed.

Bush's performance was neither extremely strong nor extremely weak. Consequently, it will have no impact on committed Bush supporters or committed Bush opponents. However, since it was not particularly impressive, it probably will not alter the current trends in the minds of the rest of the public either. Those trends are unfavorable to Bush.

A 60 minute interview with any president of the United States should be impressive. This interview was not. Bush smiled, smirked or chuckled during every answer to every question on every topic. He did not seem to be particularly well informed. He had few facts to support any of his assertions. He seemed somewhat detached and bemused. He was almost overwhelmingly unimpressive. The failure to be impressive was a failure to persuade uncommitted voters.

Since the purpose of the interview was to bolster Bush's falling numbers I think it will be seen as a disappointment in the White House. Just like the Steroids of the Union speech.

[poskonig]

5. Bush sounded like a buffoon.

Practiced for days? Certainly didn't look like it.

[onecitizen]

6. We must not have seen the same........

performance. Honestly, how could anyone think he did well? He stuttered, lied, denied, blinked and smirked his way through it. Truly, unbelievable.

[LittleApple81]

8. I agree with you. But the Face the Nation analysis points to a "success"

for Bush*. I do not understand this at all.

[asjr]

17. Bob Schiefer is

a long time Repub whore, so naturally Shrub did fine as far as he is concerned.

[Eric J in MN]

19. I thought he spoke better than usual (nt)

nt

[jean]

7. you're right. He seemed canned, prepackaged and ready for delivery

[Jack_Dawson]

9. Bush came off horribly!!!

The interview went a lot worse for * than I thought it would. He came off like the babbling buffoon and jackass he is. Conspiracy theorists I think this interview was more or less on the up and up. Then again, I only saw the last half.

[slor]

11. If that was a good interview...

then we have not just lowered our standards, we chucked those babies right off the banana boat! He was awful regardless of what the pundits said. I remember they said his most recent SOTU was good too, then when they spoke to the regular folk they revised it to the disconnected rantings that it was. Keep that in mind.

[unblock]

14. just imagine if a DEMOCRAT performed like that

i mean, really. go back to the first gore-bush debate.

if the republican had been lucid, well-informed, well-spoken, and so on; and the democrat had been vapid, slurring, speaking in false starts, giving obvious non-responses, and so on,


does ANYONE seriously believe that the they would have proclaimed the democrat the winner?



same deal with this interview. imaging a DEMOCRAT performing like shrub did. he would be RAKED OVER THE COALS right now.

liberal media my *ss.

[Merlin]

15. Folks, you have to remember: You Are Not Typical Voters!

Howard Dean is VERY impressive to a very high percentage of voters who think. But he doesn't do well among voters--even Democratic voters--generally. Why?

Because most people don't pay attention to the details. They look at the news of the world with squinted vision. They perceive only the sharpest outlines. Everything else is shadowy and vague, and subject to how the "experts" interpret the things they don't have the time, attention span or capacity to truly understand.

Bush may have turned in an uneven performance. But on the first part of the interview--the war part--he came across as an embattled leader making difficult decisions with the nation's safety foremost in mind. He even threw in that sappy stuff about vision and our obligation for feeding the hungry (p.s.: when did he ever do anything about that?)

True, most Americans will not believe much of what he said about the economy, because it seemed so far removed from reality and so self serving. But they believed him on the war, at least enough to give him a pass on it.

Lesson Learned from MTP
The vulnerable aspect of this admin is the economy and Bush's fiscal policy. We must hammer that mercilessly. The deficits are now seen universally as indulgent evils. The upper income tax cuts are solid weapons against him. The mismanagement of the economy is something that will wear down his base as well, which is already fuming about it, and cause many of them to sit on their hands.

[ant]

16. not necessary

I think it's safe to assume W knew the questions in advance not because anyone gave them to him but because his team would have to be completely stupid to not be able to guess what they'd be. How hard would it have been to guess that there would be questions on Iraq, the Kay stuff, AWOL, and the economy? Any prominent news story of the recent past was likely to come up in a question, and W was prepared for that.

I was disappointed with the lack of follow up, though. At one point W mentioned Iraq's connection to terrorism, and Russert didn't call him on it. Also, when W kept pushing the idea that people shouldn't knock the national guard I wish Russert had said, "well, no one is knocking the guard, just questioning whether or not you showed up."

I'm also disappointed because W seems to have done fairly well, but maybe that's a result of my lowered expectations. This was not the same man who campaigned in 2000. He was a disaster in the debates back then, but he's definitely getting better with the public appearances. I hate to admit it, but that's what I saw.

[DeepModem Mom]

21. My opinion of W's knowledge, and ability to speak...

coherently when unscripted, is so low that I came away from the interview convinced that he had the questions in advance, as asked, and in order. And, Russert asked no follow-ups, based on Bush's answers.

[bacchant]

18. Obviously a squirming liar

Obvious to some anyway; the people who support this fool saw a completely different interview than I did. I guarantee they saw a wise and brave leader with a great vision for the future. A man both strong and humble, a truthful man...
Basically, many Americans don't possess the tools to see this talking pant-load for what he is, they will simply refuse to go there. It's bizarre to think that so many of our countrymen will do everything in their power to re-elect the most corrupt and dangerous administration EVER. The Grand Experiment may have resulted in creating the goofiest place on the planet.

[TankLV]

20. A differing viewpoint:

"Russert knew he had to ask tough questions, but had no desire to damage Bush." - true enough.

"He asked Bush tough questions" - not tough, but not exactly softball.

"with little follow-up" - true, unfortunately, but not unexpected.

"Bush answered as articulately as I've ever heard him" - not at all!

He looked weak, was stunned while trying to think up excuses like the kid in the principal's office caught throwing rocks at a school bus. This was the worst "performance" I've ever seen of him. Looked like he was on drugs, drunk, insane - like the worst since Nixon.

"because Russert provided the questons well in advance , and W had practiced for days" - true enough,unfortunately - which is amazingly even worse, considering how bad bunkerboy's performance looked.

[tableturner]

22. Anyone could see he lied and evaded.....

Oh come on, anyone, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent, knows the facts and the questions at hand by now. And anyone, after having heard the questions and answers, knows he outright lied at least a moderate number of times and he evaded throughout the hour. Most people are not so stupid, when a specific question is asked and then the response is a rambling statement not addressing the question, that they are unable to realize that he did not in fact address the nexis of the question. Being able to do that only requires a listener to remember the question for the 30 or 60 seconds that Bush gives his obfuscatory non-answer. It was too too obvious for people not to have been able to ascertain that.

And there is a time bomb awaiting either defusion or explosion that will go a long way toward assessing Bush's performance in the interview and whether he was helped or hurt by it. I am referring to his plainly stated pledge to release his pay stubs and tax records to prove his Natiional Guard service. While some parts of the answer on the AWOL issue were not so plain, the component where he promised to release those records WAS plain. He outright said he would do so and no matter what he and his people say later, if he does not do so, and I mean if he avoids specifically and openly releasing those pay records and tax returns, there will be no way to spin out of it. Either Bush knows something we don't, or he has been cornered and has made a huge mistake. However, it was inevitable. There is no way, with the renewed wide debate, that the specific questions that Russert asked could have been avoided at some later point. Either his pay records and tax returns show that he served during the time in question or he is nailed!

Edited to add this:

They will never admit it, but even Republicans know he lied a moderate number of times and evaded throughout the interview. Again, they will just never admit it.

[ecstatic]

23. Bush benefits from low expectations

For that reason, this interview will be considered a huge success. I didn't watch the full interview but I saw clips of it on Washington Journal. He was able to answer the questions in complete sentences, using real words. That my friends, is a huge victory for GWB.

[meg]

24. I disagree about him sounding articulate

I thought he came off very badly in the opening answer. He sounded tentative, he wandered, he sounded like a 7 year-old.