Funniest 15 Minutes On C-SPAN Ever

[RedScare]

Using your math Red, I only listen to ONE Bush speech a year. How many have you heard this year ?

That's one more than I've listened to, Hoss.

I haven't been able to listen to Bush's simplistic style in over 5 years. It's not so much the content...I read your conservative take on things and respond often. It is that manner that sounds like he is talking to middle schoolers. I can only read the recaps, can't listen to him speak.

[TJones]

That's one more than I've listened to, Hoss.

I haven't been able to listen to Bush's simplistic style in over 5 years. It's not so much the content...I read your conservative take on things and respond often. It is that manner that sounds like he is talking to middle schoolers. I can only read the recaps, can't listen to him speak.

Ah HA ! Tell the truth, you are afraid that his melodic speech will put you into a trance, and you will be forced to come to the Jedi side, ADMIT IT !

I think he sometimes has trouble remembering parts of his speeches, he then tries to improvise what he says, and he just gets into trouble trying to articulate what it is he wants to say. I think it just goes to show that he is no "slick politican", he is just trying his best to do a very hard job. The fact that he can stand up there and poke fun at himself, and that Colbert is still around to be seen, should prove to you in someway that he ain't such a bad guy.

[RedScare]

Ah HA ! Tell the truth, you are afraid that his melodic speech will put you into a trance, and you will be forced to come to the Jedi side, ADMIT IT !

Umm...no, I'm more concerned that I'd commit suicide.

[KinkaidAlum]

Semantics.

It's a funny word.

As for watching PBS for news, you should try it. Jim Lehrer and the 1 hour Nightly News show beats any of the other commercial networks for one simple reason; they avoid soundbites. (and commercials)

I started watching The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour in high school when I worked at the local PBS station out at UH.

www.pbs.org/newshour

[TheNiche]

I haven't been able to listen to Bush's simplistic style in over 5 years. It's not so much the content...I read your conservative take on things and respond often. It is that manner that sounds like he is talking to middle schoolers. I can only read the recaps, can't listen to him speak.

There's a reason that he sounds like he's speaking to middle schoolers. Part of the thing about press conferences is that they tend to have members of the press as the audience.

Have you ever listened to some of the simplistic and repetitive questions that Bush gets? There's rarely any attention to the rationale behind decisions; rather, they seem to want a very general quote that doesn't really provide any depth, but manages to fill the news hole just so.

Besides, have any of you ever dealt with the press. I've been quoted in a couple articles before, and each had an error. One was small and inconsequential and one was a single-word error that gave the whole sentence a different flavor...also the background information that I'd provided was oversimplified and misrepresented by the reporter. My mistake was to try and give them too much raw data; I should have boiled it down to a couple of bottom-line statements. I strongly suspect that politicians are generally unwilling to give out too much information of consequence because there's too great a risk of misrepresentation of complex issues.

I actually kind of like it on the rare occaision that the press corps will throw the Pres. a curve ball. It gets him off of his rehearsed verbage and makes him improvise...and I've got to hand it to him, when there's not a script, he tends to come across much more 'human' and generally affable.

[Jeebus]

You know, I voted for Bush - but that doesn't mean I have to go making up stuff about the press just so he'll look better. G.W. is one of the worst public speakers I've ever heard. It doesn't matter what the press asks him - he still bumbles & stumbles all over himself just trying to spit anything of an answer out.

I was so embarrassed right after the last bombings in London, when Bush must have used the word "resolve" at least 200 times in 2 days. Depressing almost.

[RedScare]

I actually kind of like it on the rare occaision that the press corps will throw the Pres. a curve ball. It gets him off of his rehearsed verbage and makes him improvise...and I've got to hand it to him, when there's not a script, he tends to come across much more 'human' and generally affable.

The two most annoying times to listen to Bush occur when the press is not at fault. One is his scripted speeches at controlled events. The other is the example you mentioned above.

I used to be quoted in Fort Worth on a regular basis when I was an ADA up there. What I found is something that the Bush Administration does the exact opposite. While many of the prosecutors hid from the press, I talked to them. They have a job to do...write a story. When I was helpful, they always showed me in the best light, even letting me change a quote if it came out wrong. Those who made it tough for the reporter to get a quote, took their chances. Knowing my boss, the DA, read the paper, I found it in my interest to get the story right. The Bush people, as has been well chronicled, do not make it easy to write a story.

[TheNiche]

The Bush people, as has been well chronicled, do not make it easy to write a story.

I too have a professional interest in being quoted accurately...I contributed to one article when I was about to change jobs and wanted to have a professional quotation in the Chronicle as a selling point for myself. In the other case, it was purely to promote my current company. I took pains to provide as much information as possible, understanding as you do, that the press is your best friend. I'm still called on for quotes now and then, but I generally refer the reporter in question to the Pres. of my firm or to friends within the industry...let them be misquoted and think that I've done them a favor. Oftentimes even the good will of the reporter is simply not enough to prevent mistakes.

Btw, the Social Security reform issue was released in extraordinarily-great detail. It was still grossly fudged in many papers, and certainly on the TV networks.

[TJones]

Semantics.

It's a funny word.

As for watching PBS for news, you should try it. Jim Lehrer and the 1 hour Nightly News show beats any of the other commercial networks for one simple reason; they avoid soundbites. (and commercials)

I started watching The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour in high school when I worked at the local PBS station out at UH.

www.pbs.org/newshour

Kinkaid, I generally use the web to get the REAL news. I may very well try your suggestion, you never know. How watered down do you think the BBC news is ? I usually find them to tell what is really going on in the rest of the world, I don't trust the networks much anymore, they have all become way too political.

[nmainguy]

Btw, the Social Security reform issue was released in extraordinarily-great detail.

Which is why it failed so miserably. The public hated it, they told their reps and Bush got sacked.

[TheNiche]

Which is why it failed so miserably. The public hated it, they told their reps and Bush got sacked.

The problem seemed to be that too many people were misinformed about the issue and were up in arms because of it. What I liked about it was the option that it provided to opt-in or opt-out at the individual's discretion. Statistically, younger-folks like myself would more likely benefit from opting-in while middle-aged folks would be better off keeping what they've got. But I digress...

The point is that there was an almost overwhelming amount of information available, and a fair bit of it was numerical...makes for bad news. Showing pissed-off people is far more lucrative from a ratings standpoint, even if they're pissing off upon nothing. So that's what happened -- rather than discuss the issue, they showed senators and ill-informed elderly folks whining about it. Sen. Biden, I recall, focused on the 'bankruptcy' verbage, in an irrelevant sort of way...and got coverage.

[RedScare]

That may be how you remember it, but you are wrong. Look at the poll numbers. It initially had support, but the more people found out about it, the worse it got. The more info Bush gave out, the more it's popularity dropped, until Bush himself finally dropped it.

BTW, there was no opt out provision for me, and I'm 46.

[nmainguy]

The problem seemed to be that too many people were misinformed about the issue and were up in arms because of it. What I liked about it was the option that it provided to opt-in or opt-out at the individual's discretion. Statistically, younger-folks like myself would more likely benefit from opting-in while middle-aged folks would be better off keeping what they've got. But I digress...

The point is that there was an almost overwhelming amount of information available, and a fair bit of it was numerical...makes for bad news. Showing pissed-off people is far more lucrative from a ratings standpoint, even if they're pissing off upon nothing. So that's what happened -- rather than discuss the issue, they showed senators and ill-informed elderly folks whining about it. Sen. Biden, I recall, focused on the 'bankruptcy' verbage, in an irrelevant sort of way...and got coverage.

Many people were informed. The information provided by the White House was quite public from anywhere from their website to CBS to the NYT and Chron to PBS.

In addition, many people were concerned that Bush was attempting to break a long-standing contract with the American people that guarantees a return on what they contributed. Most people don't want to "opt-out" into a risky scheme that has no guarantee of anything when it comes their time in life to collect. Also most people don't trust Bush more and more every day. When you've lost the trust and confidence of the people, you might as well be talking to Barney.

[TheNiche]

Many people were informed. The information provided by the White House was quite public from anywhere from their website to CBS to the NYT and Chron to PBS.

In addition, many people were concerned that Bush was attempting to break a long-standing contract with the American people that guarantees a return on what they contributed. Most people don't want to "opt-out" into a risky scheme that has no guarantee of anything when it comes their time in life to collect. Also most people don't trust Bush more and more every day. When you've lost the trust and confidence of the people, you might as well be talking to Barney.

That's right. Many were informed. The media, however, have a hard time with numbers. As such, many were also poorly informed. I've got to ask you...how is it a bad idea to give people an option?

[RedScare]

That's right. Many were informed. The media, however, have a hard time with numbers. As such, many were also poorly informed. I've got to ask you...how is it a bad idea to give people an option?

Start a new thread, if you want to debate SSI. Media coverage is one thing, merits of SSI another.

[TheNiche]

That may be how you remember it, but you are wrong. Look at the poll numbers. It initially had support, but the more people found out about it, the worse it got. The more info Bush gave out, the more it's popularity dropped, until Bush himself finally dropped it.

BTW, there was no opt out provision for me, and I'm 46.

I got the sense that the way he was pushing it was having a more detrimental effect than the policy itself was. Giving speeches to venues stocked with Republicans isn't really the best approach to win support from those that don't already support you...especially when the media coverage for those events is minimal and the content in such reports is lacking.

Edit: I'd rather kill the SSI debate than start a new thread, if that's ok.

[RedScare]

I got the sense that the way he was pushing it was having a more detrimental effect than the policy itself was. Giving speeches to venues stocked with Republicans isn't really the best approach to win support from those that don't already support you...especially when the media coverage for those events is minimal and the content in such reports is lacking.

Edit: I'd rather kill the SSI debate than start a new thread, if that's ok.

I agree with you on both points.

[KinkaidAlum]

Niche-

I'd take the BBC over anything we have in the States. There seem to be less filters in international news.

The reason I like PBS, although it has been charged with being too conservative by many of the Left, is that they don't have to answer to their advertisers and they avoid soundbites. If they cover a political topic, they'll try and let the POL do most of the speaking so you don't have to worry as much about what the networks are "letting" you hear. Then, you only have to worry about how much they are lyin' and a cheatin'.