that's exactly the point. if it doesn't make a difference, why don't they do what the commission specifically asked for: testify seperately, like everybody else. why does bush need company? is he that dumb? does he know that little? will he get scared and flustered? what? the burden of explanation lies on the people making the exception, i'd love to hear why bush needs special treatment.
Certain questions are designed to elicit only harm; they are formulated not with the facade purpose of gaining useful information but rather to trap the answerer in a no-win. "Do you still beat your wife?" is an obvious example. The hidden premise contained in it is that one has at some point beaten his wife. The answer, whether it be yes or no, still indicts. The so-called "reporter" from Time Magazine who last night asked the country's alpha male, "What mistakes have you made in your presidency?" was, as AAA correctly points out, disrespectful. It appears on the surface to pose as a valid question, but drops the context of what an alpha male is--who the man answering the question is, his role in the public eye (like him or not), and the psychology behind having gotten to where he is today and needs to remain (arguably if only for the next 8 months). The reporter either doesn't understand this dynamic; or, is only interested in generating controversy to sell; or, has his own political bias which he places above his ostensive role. He'd never admit the last two to his readership. The first, however, can be demonstrated to him first-hand if it were possible to assemble his children, wife, relatives, close friends AND enemies AND the local Department of Child Social Services around him, then ask him to relate in detail what mistakes he's made in raising his children, including his biggest ones. I'm not saying the contexts are identical, I'm saying that anyone here could introspect on such a process and, with some honesty, see that he or she would naturally hesitate with answering quicky, too. People who have actually been in leadership positions and who have to make decisions in real-time (and that includes traders who lead their own bank accounts), know the difference between trading the hard right edge and second guessing eight hours later. Some have valid reasons to dislike this administration's policies (as I do) and some have valid reasons to like them (as I do). A few are true-believers of the Left and Right and will never give an inch. But like trading, picking nits (focusing on inessentials) is really the sole purview of the uninformed and biased (no matter how articulate and emotional they appear). Alpha males lead. Whether you agree with their direction, that's what they do. They don't do well answering bombshells whose only purpose is to undermine their leadership. I don't imagine safety-first, consensus-driven soccer moms from Connecticut would ever understand that in a way that allows them to account for it. But it's true nonetheless. In November, I suspect a significant majority of American voters are going to vote for a man who, when asked a question which is designed clearly and only to embarrass him on live TV, stumbles and honestly says with as much class as he can that he'd wish he'd have seen that one in writing beforehand, than one who cooly and confidently looks straight into a camera and with as much charisma as he can muster lies, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," or who behind closed doors tells a questioner, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." Right or wrong, like it or not, and whether or not you think you know how I intend to vote in November, I believe that is how the majority of Americans still come at life. And something that many intellectuals on the Left continually dismiss.
It is disrespectful to ask a president what mistakes he has made? How so? Every reasonable person I have ever met is fully in touch with their mistakes. They are reflective in nature. The evaluate their failures as not to repeat them. If Bush is too stupid to see where he fucked up, how can you have confidence he won't make the exact same mistake next time? It is by our mistakes, and admission of them, that we learn, grow, and change for the better. It takes a strong man to admit he made a mistake, it takes a weak man to avoid the question, or never evaluate his choices in the light of new information. Bush doesn't FEEL he made a mistake, because he FELT it was right to take out Saddam, no matter what the consequences. This type of decision making, on the basis of feelings, which are never wrong, is the danger we face in a man like Bush. Bush is self-righteous by nature, and that is a very dangerous thing. Saddam was self-righteous too, as well as most dictators this world has ever seen. I don't want a self-righteous emotionally driven president, we don't need a Captain Queeg at the helm.
rgelite, Very well put. However, I don't think it's asking the impossible for a professional politican to be able to deflect such heckling. That question is like the classic job interview question:" What is your biggest weakness?" answer: "I tend to work too hard."
a good trader knows when to cut he loses short ( he has his stops in place ) ..basically knows what he is getting into before that trade and knows how much he wants to risk to get the reward at the end of the rainbow.....then thru good discipline, money management he tries to make more than whats at risk... BUSH hardly seems to be doing any of this.....you see Mavman words mean absolutely nothing in reality ( in the world of politics and double talk it may mean the world ) ...in reality actions actions actions speak volumes over words.. He went into IRAQ...wrong instrument to trade He went in with 150k soldiers ...undercapitalized .peace
I was thinking more of guys like Ben Bradlee. Do you honestly think that the press treats Bush, or say Reagan or Nixon, the way they treated JFK? I expect the press to be biased, I just wish they would at least make an attempt to hide it.
Yeah but that's what Bush is doing. Speaking through actions not words. Come on, even I will admit, Bush has never been the master of speech. He has not won any national orator championships. Bush is man of action, he says he going to do something, dammit, he is going to do it. Quite the opposite of Clinton I might add. Clinton was a great speaker, maybe the best since Jack Kennedy, but no follow through. His words didn't mean anything, they just sounded good. I rather have a President that sounds silly and has a funny accent but delivers on his words then a man that sounds great but is just for show. I guess different strokes for different folks.
Would you say that JFK represented the establishment, in the same way that Nixon, Reagan, or Bush does? The press is supposed to be liberal, in the sense that it exposes the establishment, big business, and power hungry leaders. Without a vigalent press constantly revealing the actions of the establishment, how will the electorate know what men like Nixon are up to? You think government, corporate America, and the likes of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and company are going to reveal how they are selling us down the river in favor of corporate profits?
But what has he really delivered...besides dead americans, dead Iraqis and billions in diverted funds from terrorism ( rebuilding iraq after leveling it isnt money well spent )..