As a measure of just how far our political system has fallen, the White House has actually put out the word that President Bush is now taking unscripted questions from audiences when he makes appearances around the country:
Bush has been taking questions from audience members in recent speeches, and the White House says none has been prescreened. It's a throwback to the folksy style on the campaign trail that helped him win re-election and a departure from the heavily scripted speeches that were the norm last year.
Someone remarked the other day after I posted James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance that it would be almost unthinkable for a modern president to write such an eloquent and brilliant document. Of course, presidents today don't even write 1 minute statements on mundane items; everything is vetted and sanitized for their protection. I can't be the only one who reacts to this and thinks, "For crying out loud, have things gotten so bad that a president taking unscripted questions has become a revelation so surprising that it's worth announcing in the media?" It reminds me of those Christmas letters written by a mother trying to rationalize the one kid still living at home at 32 and saying things like, "Well, Michael hasn't really found his niche yet, but this year he did start going to adult education to get his GED."
I would also note that the fact that they claim that the questions from audiences are not "prescreened" hardly means that the president is answering tough questions from those who may not agree with him. Given the fact that the Secret Service routinely denies entry to the President's speeches to anyone who gives any hint of opposition. People with perfectly civil but anti-Bush t-shirts have been kept out of events, as have people with bumper stickers on their cars supporting the other party. In at least one case, people were kept out of a Bush speech solely because someone knew them and identied them as Democrats (that was right here in Michigan). I don't mean this at all to be a partisan statement; for all I know, the Democrats do the same thing. But the reality is that taking unscripted questions at events that are loaded with your supporters generally amounts to having people fawn over you and tell you how great you are. It's not exactly a high water mark for public discourse.
Again, this is not a partisan statement. The most recent Democratic president, Clinton, was very good at answering unscripted questions but his answers were mostly BS. He was a genius at talking a lot and saying nothing, so I'm not talking here about mere glibness. I'm talking about wanting leaders who are actually capable of making sustained, reasoned arguments that make sense. Today, that doesn't happen regardless of party even with all the speechwriters they have. We've gone from the point where the key issues of the day were debated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, brilliantly written arguments by the finest thinkers of the day, to 2 hour long dueling catchphrase contests on television. This is not progress.
- Log in to post comments
Jesus Christ Ed! Believe it or not, but not every statement that could be percieved as negative to Bushites needs to be qualified with a statement against democrats or Clinton. This post is one of your worst - it reads like it came from the washington times.
I only care that what I say is true. People with partisan commitments on both sides will object no matter what I say. Did I say anything in the post that wasn't accurate?
Bullshitting has acquired an unjustified bad reputation. There are times when it is necessary, such as when trying to accomplish a legislative agenda with an opposition that truly hates your guts, as Clinton had to do. Despite being vilified, he still did a lot. I feign that Bush couldn't possibly get anything done if he didn't have party majority in both houses - he is far too rigid in rhetorical skill.
Jimmy Carter was very intelligent and gave thoughtful, heartfelt answers to questions. He was not a bullshitter, and is proof that as a people we don't seem to want honest politicians anymore. It bodes ill for Barack Obama.
That said, I know those of us who appreciate Madison and his ilk are in the minority today.
Unfortunately, decrepitoldfool is right. The problem really lies with the voters, not with the politicians. If we keep electing bullshitters - and we do - then we're going to keep getting bullshitters. A Madison would have no chance of being elected today. And this isn't exactly a new development. As Mencken wrote in 1918:
The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. A Galileo could no more be elected President of the United States than he could be elected Pope of Rome. Both high posts are reserved for men favored by God with an extraordinary genius for swathing the bitter facts of life in bandages of soft illusion.
Remember those candidates who said if elected, they would raise taxes to pay for the things we bought on credit (or should be buying)? Where are they now?
Unfortunately, I can't find the link at the moment, but the questions Bush has been getting certainly don't sound unscripted. There were questions like "Given that revealing our surveillance techniques to terrorists compromises our ability to prevent deadly terrorist attacks, what are you going to do to prosecute those who leaked information to the press?"
Now, I don't know for sure that they are scripting the questions or whether it is just agressive filtering of who gets to ask a question. However, given that we still don't know how Gannon/Guckert managed to a press pass to the White House to lob softball questions at Bush, I think it is naive to think that they are telling the truth when they say the questions are unscripted.
Clinton neither filtered the audiences at his town meetings nor scripted the questions. Bush lives in a bubble.
The Roman Emperors kept a slave nearby to whisper in their ears, "You are only mortal" to remind them of their fallibility. Our president surrounds himself only with sycophantic worshippers who reinforce what a great job he's doing. Maybe a reminder of his fallibility would be a good thing. I'm just saying.
Say, another trip to Iraq?
When the Bush administration says something like "There is no prescreening of questions," what they really mean is something like "There is prescreening of questioners."
Well, there is BS, obfuscation and simple muddle-headed thinking. I think GWB falls into the latter:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/muddled.asp
The shock of that thought alone--unscritped questions?- leads one to wonder just what Rove could be thinking. Then something like this happens today:
"Bush was stumped during the Q&A session of his speech today by a sophomore at Kansas State:
Q: My name is Tiffany Cooper. Im a sophomore here at Kansas State and I was just wanting to get your comments about education. Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?
Bush: Education budget was cut say it again. What was cut?
Q: 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. Im wanting to know how is that supposed to help our futures?
Bush: At the federal level?
Q: Yes.
Bush: I dont think weve actually for higher education? Student loans?
Q: Yes, student loans.
Bush: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it..."
And of course it is true that indeed Cheney was required to make the tie breaking vote in the Senate that passed the bill that CUT the funding--the largest cut ever. I am guessing there won't ever be another chance at "unscripted questions" again??