We all know that bush's numbers are tanking...and, as Martha Stewart (no, I'm not an avid watcher, but I've heard her say this enough to want to quote her) says, "It's a good thing."
One question, aside from Helen Thomas' one, that I really enjoyed is below. Instead of asking about bush's plummeting poll numbers (surely, there will be a slight bounce after yesterday and today are spun by the media to show how 'connected' asshole is to Americans), one reporter asked about a specific voter who voted for bush but also said he was 'losing' her.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to ask you for your reaction on the latest insurgent attacks in Baghdad: 17 police officers killed and a bunch of insurgents freed.
I spent a fair amount of time in front of that hotel in Cleveland yesterday talking to people about the war ... And one woman who said she voted for you said, "You know what? He's losing me. He's been there too long. He's losing me." What do you say to her?
"He's losing me." Not once, but twice...oh, the rhetorical beauty of repetition...
More on the flip...
bush's initial response: Blow the bitch off...
BUSH: I say that I'm talking realistically to people.
...Does he not think that woman was talking realistically? She said she supported him, but that her support was waning. She's his base...she's only one brick, but as they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Of course, that's not all he said...
Granted, we've grown used to long-winded answers meant to make us forget the question asked, and I believe that bush relies heavily on this strategy. But let us look at how he responds to this one question (which, as many Kossacks pointed out in the live thread, visibly irritated him).
Remember, we're only talking about one voter he's losing...but stupid as bush acts, he's also a shrewd person, and he knows the power of one opinion or example is significant (which is why he blew Tal Afar smoke up our asses for 90 minutes yesterday)...and one well framed opinion like that woman's carries a lot of weight on national television...especially when the phrase "He's losing me." is reiterated.
bush then shifts to the 'plan for victory' approach, to see if it would calm the faces in the press corps that really wanted to hear his answer to this question...but he quickly shifts to the "War on Terror" argument, which indicates that he knows he doesn't have a plan and that he can tell noone's buying his bullshit...
We have a plan for victory, and it's important we achieve that plan ... First of all, this is a global war on terror, and Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
What's a president to do? Well, let's not forget that yesterday bush denied saying Saddam called for 9-11, so he can't use the 9-11 argument again, or can he?
Mr. Zarqawi and al Qaeda, the very same people that attacked the United States, have made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can plan, plot and attack America again.
That's what they have said. That's their objective.
I think it is very important to have a president who's realistic and listens to what the enemy says.
...I guess he can. And I'm glad at least
HE HAS A PRESIDENT who is realistic and listens to what the enemy says...that's far more important than
LISTENING TO THE FRIGGIN' VOTERS...sure, listen to the enemy. How pathetic...he admits he's a reactionary president, not a responsive one.
...but what about presidential confidence?
Secondly, I am confident -- or I believe I'm optimistic -- we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory, I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. And that's important for the woman to understand.
Well, bush, I believe you're optimistic, too...overly optimistic. It's been a regular criticism by many people over the past five years...but 'believing' you're optimistic doesn't breed confidence...trust me on this one.
Okay...so this strategy isn't working, obviously...so bush goes to plan C: blame the media
Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television -- and there is bad news -- you brought it up. You said, "How do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday?" It's precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't talk about it.
(suddenly, bush realises he is in a room filled with reporters and cameras...how did this happen? Does Karl know?...maybe if he's quick, he'll be able to reassure the press that he's not talking about them...)
I'm certainly not being -- please don't take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate, and they know that.
Okay, so that part of the answer didn't pan out the way he had hoped...maybe the sanctity of life argument will work here (by this time, even bush has forgotten the original question, but he knows there is a woman involved)...
They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to.
And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win. I think most Americans understand we need to win. But they're concerned about whether or not we can win.
...we're concerned, actually, that there has been no definition for what a 'victory' would look like if/when it was achieved.
Of course...it wouldn't be an answer without an illustration of bush's poor grasp on geography
So one of the reasons I go around the country to Cleveland is to explain why I think we can win.
Finally, he has convinced himself that he's confident that he's optimistic
And so I would say, Yes, I'm optimistic about being able to achieve a victory.
...while remaining a realist...
But I'm also realistic. I fully understand the consequences of this war...
And here, he again illustrates how disconnected he is from his decisions and their consequences...
...I understand people's lives are being lost.
The passive voice whenever he mentions death...unless it's by insurgents. '...people's lives are being lost.' makes it sound like they're being misplaced. Yes, Americans and Iraqis are dying by the hundreds...every day...you fuck.
So bush decides he's answered the question long enough, and it's time to wrap it up...restate your commitment, label the enemy as evil, and then give them credit for fighting us over there so they don't have to fight us over here...right.
But I also understand the consequences of not achieving our objective by leaving too early. Iraq would become a place of instability, a place from which the enemy can plot, plan and attack.
I believe that they want to hurt us again. And, therefore, I know we need to stay on the offense against this enemy.
They've declared Iraq to be the central front. And, therefore, we've got to make sure we win that. And I believe we will.
WFT??? THEY declared Iraq to be the central front? Since when did we start letting the insurgents decide American policy? Oh, bush, you poor victim. Someone ought to find that woman in Cleveland and punch her in the gut for saying she's losing faith in you, when she should really be losing faith in the insurgents who started this whole thing...jesus fucking christ...and he considers that a powerful ending?
What saddens me most about this, now that I've slogged my way through only one of his avoidances...ahem...answers, is that the media will ignore that line...as will most Americans.
Thank you for reading, and of course, for any comments you may have.
