Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (37583)	2/10/2004 7:34:54 AM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

Pundits say Bush interview not his finest hour He appeared unfocused and unconvincing President Bush's unusual appearance on "Meet the Press'' -- with host Tim Russert grilling him for an hour on Iraq, his military history and the economy -- is now behind him. Or maybe not. With political analysts and observers hitting the "replay'' button, the White House must now relive the sound bites and the lackluster reviews from even some normally supportive Republicans who were left ruing the decision to put the president front and center so early in the campaign. Take the assessment by Peggy Noonan, the former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Bush's father and a strong backer of the president, who wrote Monday in the Wall Street Journal that the president had seen better moments. Bush "seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse,'' she opined. "He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event.'' And GOP strategist Mike Murphy, who advised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger most recently, predicted to the National Journal's Hotline that "the White House's big, big stumble on 'Meet the Press' will dominate the narrative this week.'' But GOP strategist Dan Schnur says that's much too tough on the president. "It's not his best format,'' Schnur said. "There's no question he's much more comfortable in front of a large, supportive audience. But he had to send a signal to the Democrats and the broader political community that he was prepared to defend himself.'' Still, even academic political analysts say the White House may have erred in letting Bush -- who excels in people-to-people, hands-on events -- sit for an antiseptic Oval Office examination that focused on the recent questions over the administration's march to war in Iraq, the president's military service record and the struggling economy. "I think they're making a tactical mistake," said U.C. Berkeley political science professor Bruce Cain. "As damage control goes, it's not clear they had a real notion of what they were doing.'' Cain said Sunday's interview -- with its repeated questions on Iraq and Bush's military service -- dramatized the biggest challenge for the president, whose force of personality and ability to cast himself as a likeable Washington outsider went a long way in 2000 to giving him the edge over the cautious, consummate politician Al Gore. "The real danger in presidential elections is if the electorate changes its opinion on Bush's character,'' Cain said. "Now he's got a situation where, when he's put out front on the intelligence, he starts to sound Clintonesque -- parsing his words ... and (his answers) were about as convincing as when Clinton was parsing the mean of 'is,' during the Monica Lewinsky scandal," Cain said. "It's morphing into a character issue,"' he said, "and once the public loses trust, you don't get it back.'' A measure of the interview's potential influence was reflected Monday as the Bush team fanned out on national shows -- and even the Internet -- to emphasize the president's talking points for his campaign agenda. White House communications director Dan Bartlett appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to defend the president's answers with regard to questions like why it will take until after the November election for a presidential commission to decide whether the intelligence that led the administration into war in Iraq was faulty. "What the president said in his interview is that we ought to give the time and attention and resources to do this right,'' Bartlett said of the intelligence commission, while dismissing Democratic critics as "those who try to use this for political purposes.'' Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas (Los Angeles County), also was on the airwaves Monday defending the president. Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire,'' the congressman persistently dismissed questions about whether Bush fulfilled his military service as a reservist in the Alabama National Guard more than 30 years ago. "It's really incredible ... the issue has been settled time and time again." Dreier said. "We need to focus forward ... it's a campaign that's about the future." But the White House responded Monday to Bush's comments Sunday that he would open his "entire file" to put an end to questions about his attendance -- or failure to complete -- his service with the Alabama National Guard. Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, has said he fulfilled his reservist duties with the Alabama unit during 1972-73 while he worked on a political campaign in that state. "Would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?,'' Russert asked Bush. "Yeah, if we still have them,'' Bush answered. Russert persisted: "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this? "Yes, absolutely,'' said Bush. "We did so in 2000, by the way." But White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Monday the military records were "an old issue ... an issue that goes back to his first campaign for governor (in Texas). Everything that was made available during the 2000 campaign is what we have,'' including "retirement point summaries'' showing that "the president fulfilled his duties.'' sfgate.com lurqer

To: lurqer who wrote (37583)	2/10/2004 10:30:45 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

Sending jobs overseas help US. Cutting down trees protect the forest. Clean air act increases pollution. Deficits are no problem. What else have I forgotten? WR

To: lurqer who wrote (37583)	2/10/2004 11:41:44 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

LOL, well if you really follow this jobs issue as I do then this Bush backpeddling is hysterical. Apparently the detailed report from this last jobs report for Jan, really laid it out straight and clear that offshoring is the culprit for job loss. Not technology, not temps, not the lag factor or anything else that conservatives have been pointing to all these months. Steven Roach wrote about it in his commentary and now it is becoming clear and there is no denying that offshoring is causing pain, maybe short term but real pain nonetheless. So, the Bush administration and their corporate crony donors can't hide behind technology anymore, they have to come up with something because people in west virginia are desperate! LOL, and their solution is "this is good for america people". I find this unraveling of the Bush team amusing. I come from technlogy automation and we (tech) haven't added significant resource improvement in years. In fact, with all this offshoring, we are actually LESS productive than we used to be in the backoffice. The difference between the 90s and now is all this cheap third world labor being thrown at every problem.