"Irish Independent" THE White House has lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman's interview with US President George Bush.
And it is believed the President's staff have now withdrawn from an exclusive interview which was to have been given to RTE this morning by First Lady Laura Bush.
It is understood that both RTE and the Department of Foreign Affairs were aware of the exclusive arrangement, scheduled for 11am today. However, when RTE put Ms Coleman's name forward as interviewer, they were told Mrs Bush would no longer be available.
The Irish Independent learned last night that the White House told Ms Coleman that she interrupted the president unnecessarily and was disrespectful.
She also received a call from the White House in which she was admonished for her tone.
And it emerged last night that presidential staff suggested to Ms Coleman as she went into the interview that she ask him a question on the outfit that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wore to the G8 summit.
I know, a journalist actually asking bush a hard question. Unheard of in this administration. I can see why he got angry about it. After all, nobody is allowed to question his immoral administration; he is a war president!
He doesn't interview very well. The reporter was very agressive and he was ill prepared for such a confrontation. She wasn't particularly respectful, but he was equally cagey and didn't answer questions directly. This seems to be an important trait in modern politicians; it is not something that I care for.
Both Rice and Powell interview significantly better than Bush does.
He wasn't prepared for it because the jornalist was given a list of softball questions to ask him in advance so he could spew out all the talking points that cheney fed to him. Instead she decided to hardball him. It just shows you what a terrible leader the man is. He is completely unable to think on his feet. That's why he sat on his ass for 9 minutes wiping drool off his chin after he was told the world trade center had been attacked.
kyoukan wrote:He wasn't prepared for it because the jornalist was given a list of softball questions to ask him in advance so he could spew out all the talking points that cheney fed to him. Instead she decided to hardball him. It just shows you what a terrible leader the man is. He is completely unable to think on his feet. That's why he sat on his ass for 9 minutes wiping drool off his chin after he was told the world trade center had been attacked.
While I share your loathing for Bush, it isn't completely fair to judge his ability to govern by his shortcomings as a speaker or his inability to interview well. God knows I wouldn't hire anyone who interviewed as poorly as he does!
anyone not intelligent enough to conduct a simple interview properly doesn't deserve to be a town councilman, much less president of the united states. the only thing you need to conduct yourself in an interview is enough brainpower to react to a topic of conversation you may not have been warned about in advance, and maybe a tiny ounce of charisma. I don't expect every politician to be JFK when he has a mic pinned to his lapel, but sitting there going "uhhh umm uhh" and repeatedly mispronouncing even common english words (as well as making up new words) is completely unacceptable and a tell tale sign of a man of very below average intelligence.
I watched the interview and thought his tantrum was silly and shameful. You notice every question he dodged and twisted into a talking point. The only thing missing was him plugging his ears and going "la la la la la!"
I will give Bush one thing, there is no reason for a President to have to be a good public speaker, it merely increases their chance of election.
Prior to television many of our Presidents were of the stature, communication skills and level of PR skills that they would not have stood a chance in the modern era. Hell Jackson was a drunken redneck.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
there is a difference between being unintelligent and not being a good pubic speaker. bush is unintelligent. dole is a bad public speaker. gore is a terrible public speaker. both of them have underpants that would make a better president than the current one. bush's lack of intelligence has nothing to do with being a poor public speaker. well, his almost complete inability to form a thought is probably why he isn't a good public speaker. I actually think bush can be fairly charismatic when he isn't parroting whatever his trainers have drilled into his skull at a pre-scripted interview or press conference. he's just not a smart person.
there are a lot of canny politicians who are not very good public speakers. nobody calls them dumbasses for it. people call bush a dumbass because that is what he is; a dumbass. he's either scraped by or failed utterly in everything he's ever attempted in life up to and including being a president who isn't a total buffoon.
i totally disagree that being a good public speaker isn't important for a president.
a tremendous part of your job is representing your policies to the voting public as well as to leaders of other nations.
I frankly expect a higher level of performance from middle tier management than he routinely exhibits under durress.
I mean if he can't speak coherently when pressed by some journalist from Ireland in an interview that his electorate won't even see, then how can he have the mettle to handle the demands of his position?
the good news for persons with my view is that most indicators are trending against Bush right now, and have been consistently for months.
Voronwë wrote:i totally disagree that being a good public speaker isn't important for a president.
a tremendous part of your job is representing your policies to the voting public as well as to leaders of other nations.
I frankly expect a higher level of performance from middle tier management than he routinely exhibits under durress.
I mean if he can't speak coherently when pressed by some journalist from Ireland in an interview that his electorate won't even see, then how can he have the mettle to handle the demands of his position?
the good news for persons with my view is that most indicators are trending against Bush right now, and have been consistently for months.
Voronwë wrote:i totally disagree that being a good public speaker isn't important for a president.
a tremendous part of your job is representing your policies to the voting public as well as to leaders of other nations.
I frankly expect a higher level of performance from middle tier management than he routinely exhibits under durress.
I mean if he can't speak coherently when pressed by some journalist from Ireland in an interview that his electorate won't even see, then how can he have the mettle to handle the demands of his position?
the good news for persons with my view is that most indicators are trending against Bush right now, and have been consistently for months.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, Voro. I was being charitable by saying that it is possible to be a good leader without interviewing well. As it happens, I do agree that he needs to be able to speak better than he does, but I wanted to avoid suggesting that it was a make or break skill. In his case, I believe that it is just another nail in the coffin.
No clue what interview some of you were listening to.
I don't agree with the White House pullign the interview. I think it was a great interview. Bush did a great job staying on track and finishing his responses despite the interviewers attempts to infuriate and push her negative message.
Also, the labeling of "tense" is yet one more example of the media bias. A very subtle word thrown in there to give listeners a pre-conceived notion.
Bush was so polite, continually telling her to relax and let him finish. I came away from this feeling a lot more comfortable in my decision to vote for Bush. His conviction, passion, and statements about keeping his religious beliefs personal, were very comforting.
I'd be amused by how completely free of independant thought Dubya displays himself to be in this, but then I'd get all depressed when I realize that pretty much all current politicians just vomit prepared speeches, and hope no newscasters deviate from the script.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
Bush looked really damn bad in this interview and the interviewer has to be one of the most aggresive reporters I have ever seen. I can see why the white house complained.
The President of the US only has to do three things -
work with Congress
garner public support
get respect from foriegn leaders
Doesn't say anything about being a good speaker. However being a good speaker is definently a plus in all those catagories.
Iron sharpens iron, as the saying goes. If you hang around people who cuss regularly, you too will acquire that habit. If you are friends with folks that treat women as objects, you too will begin to view women that way. If you associate with people who hate Bush, you too will begin to hate Bush. If you are around policy makers and speechwriters regularly, you too will begin to articulate your thoughts in similar ways.
Point being this - if the President sounds like he's giving a speech, it's simply because he gives a lot of them and it's a regular part of his environment.
The reporter has no excuse for being disrespectful to whomever holds the Presidency, regardless of personal (and obvious) bias. As example every member of Congress stands for the State of the Union address not because they agree with anything he has to say, but out of respect for the office itself. You don't get granted an interview as a guest in someone else's country and repeatedly interrupt the highest ranking official in the nation. Ask a tough question? Great, but at least have the guts to hear the answer even if it may deflate your argument.
The interview I heard was between two people of different levels - one using reason and one being ruled by emotional imagery. Bringing up that she saw pictures of 4 dead American soldiers as if it were something that just never happens! Our troops are in harm's way all over the world every day. It's just glamorized now.
Just like sex sells, so does sorrow and controversy. It's all about growing the audience and boosting advertising revenue. If you want to hate the President feel free. It's unacceptable to reciprocate the favor of granting an exclusive interview with that performance.
i dont think that it was abnormally confrontational.
George Bush pauses in his speech in a manner in which somebody talking to him might reasonably think he is finished talking. Additionally, this is a television interview, and long pauses are bad on television. so the inteviewer may be used to people with a different cadence in their spoken English, and as such often asks questions when she thinks he has stopped talking.
anyway, it would be remarkably different if he could simply articulate clearly and succintly the idea that restructuring the middle east so that open markets can exists, the middle class can flourish, and economic opportunity can be more readily available to the populace, thus reducing hte motivation for terror.
a terrific example of Bush totally dodging the question was the Israel/Palestine question, and she simply tried to get him to answer the question, which he of course did not do.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... homina homina homina... won't get fooled again.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
I had a chance to watch the video last night, and though I didn't really like some of GW's answers, I didn't think he handled her particularly poorly, nor do I think it was particularly embarassing for him. He's clearly not Clinton when it comes to answering tough questions while appearing to be completely comfortable, but I really didn't see anything remarkable.
There are enough tangible things to dislike Bush for. In this particular instance, I think his critics are being a bit pedantic.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
kyoukan wrote:there is a difference between being unintelligent and not being a good pubic speaker.
OMG FREUDIAN SLIP
So now we know where the anger comes from. She hates his policies, his cronyism, his stupidity, but seekritly lusts after his hot Texas tubesteak.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Texas Tubesteak would be a great name for a rock band.
*crashboomderail!*
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
