Comments on: Who dares question the great OZ?

By: Lilypod

Lilypod — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:23:25 +0000

The irony is that Carole Coleman is so far from being a challenging reporter that I couldn’t stomach watching the interview for that reason. I knew – as was later confirmed – that her questions would be submitted in advance, and I had no interest in watching a mechanical, going-through-the-motions piece. And the Bush administration still complains… I did a double take when I saw the headlines casting Coleman in her new guise as a rottweiler reporter. Someone suggested to me that the complaint was probably a pat on the head to make her feel better.

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:08:01 +0000

Is he not worried about coming across as a bit of a langer? There was a placard to that effect on one of the demonstrations when Bush was in Ireland.

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:12:47 +0000

And to make it worse, Bush had the questions three days in advance! Coleman says so herself here, but if you can't watch the file, just read my transcript here.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:47:03 +0000

Soooo….what you are saying is Bush is a dumb-ass. Right? I agree.

By: harry

harry — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 14:13:18 +0000

Fair enough that she answered the first question. Was the second rhetorical? Didn’t sound it in the interview. Hard to tell. But he asked it, she didn’t answer it. She wasn’t being rude in trying to answer it, and wouldn’t have been being rude even in a non-interview situation. I think the people who think Bush did well in this are victims of the low expectations this President has inspired even in his supporters. BTW, just in case this seems partisan, I was publicly indifferent between Bush and Gore in 2000, and am, even now, so unenthusiastic about Kerry that I have no desire to use this appalling performance to beat Bush politically. Reagan’s defenders tended to recognise his deficiencies, and were ok about doing so because they believed he had compensating virtues.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:21:46 +0000

Lots of scroll-past here. Herrings, herrings everywhere. There’s gotta be an award for giles somewhere. Complaining to the Irish government is silly in a somewhat sinister way. Boo-hoo, George Bush. You poor thing. Are they being mean to you? One of Bush’s strength is his appeal to wilfully stupid people, some of whom are represented above. Democrats have been instructed not to call Bush stupid, since that helps him. Citizens of nations with different voting patterns may not understand this.

By: Mr Ripley

Mr Ripley — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:14:12 +0000

Juan Williams is a liberal Democrat?

By: hairy

hairy — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:47:00 +0000

harry – “he asks her two questions, doesn’t let her answer, complains about her not letting him answer, and says that she should ask the questions and he should provide the answers. If someone did that to me I’d think they were an idiot, extremely rude, and not worth talking to.” Nonsense. In your favorite bit: he asks her a question; she answers; he asks a rhetorical question; he starts to answer it; she interrupts. The idiot may be that guy you see in the mirror foaming at the mouth.

By: grubstreet

grubstreet — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:10:39 +0000

Whether you think Bush did well or badly, and whether you think the reporter behaved professionally or not, it is still ridiculous to whing to the Irish embassy about it.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:42:11 +0000

Based on BJC’s post, I’ll listen/watch the BC interview and the Bush interview. I’m listening to Bill Clinton’s interview right now. I’m two minutes in and Juan Williams (a liberal Democrat) hasn’t interrupted once… 2 and a half. No int. 3 minutes. No interruptions. 3 and a half…. 4… nuthin’ (unless you count Juan Williams finishing Bill Clinton’s thought in a supportive way.) 4 and a half…. 5….6…. (by the way, Clinton has spoken for minutes at a time without interruption so far)….7…8…(Again, Juan only sort of “interrupts” for two seconds to support what Clinton is saying)…9…10 Okay, there’s ten minutes of Clinton’s interview. Two very, very, very short interjections by Juan Williams, both of which support or encapsulate what Clinton is saying at the moment in a very friendly way. Time for Bush’s tape: 15:30 16…17…17.5…first interruption (disagreeing)…18…2nd interruption (disagreeing)…18.5…19…3rd interruption (disagreeing)…19.5…20…20.5…21…4th interruption (disagreeing)…21.5…22…5th interruption (I dunno whether it was hostile or not)…22.5…23…23.5…24…24.5…25 6th interruption (disagreeing)…25.5…6th interruption (disagreeing)… So even if I don’t count the last minute of the Bush interview, he got interrupted 4 times, all disagreeing. In BC’s first ten minutes, he gets two interruptions, both of which summarize his thought in a sympathetic manner. Maybe Juan Williams got a lot ruder in that second 12 minutes, but chances are Bush got a tougher interview than BC. That’s cool, because Bush is a sitting President who made some controversial decisions, but let’s not kid ourselves. Bush actually handled a tough interview pretty well. But it is very pansyish to go whining to the Embassy about the interviewer. This is what I dislike about a lot of Bush-bashers. They are so blinded that they make a ton of unreasonable assertions based on their biases, when they could make an excellent case based on facts.

By: harry

harry — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:21:03 +0000

Half way through the interview she got the message and stopped interupting him. At which point he starts to meander aimlessly, like an undergrad who hasn’t done the reading, but isn’t smart enough to get away without doing it. I agree, she asked some bad questions. That, and not the interupting was her main problem, apart from the fact that she seemed to be interviewing a dolt.

By: jack pugh

jack pugh — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:19:47 +0000

After reading the transcript I’m more than ever convinced that Bush is the best illustration i’ve yet seen or heard of Jean Baudrillard’s comment that “We are everywhere already living in an aesthetic hallucination of reality.”

By: Robert Nagle

Robert Nagle — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:53:40 +0000

At the risk of causing a ruckus, I listened to the interview, and I have to say I’m inclined to agree that the interviewer didn’t treat Bush fairly. First, let me mention that I am an ardent democrat and think Bush is a goof. It’s pretty easy for interviewers to “score points” by interrupting politicians and control the conversation completely. But politicians often have to articulate nuanced policy positions, and if they are constantly interrupted, it’s almost impossible to articulate anything. The interviewer could have easily waited for Bush to finish making his point before asking the hostile question. Instead she chose to interrupt his line of thought at several points, which basically prevented Bush from getting any thought across. A politician shouldn’t have to worry about being unable to finish his thought. It’s unrealistic to expect a politician to answer a difficult controversial question without having time to do so. Yes, there are limits. But we don’t want our politicians to rely only on soundbites out of some fear that some uppity press person will try to cut him off.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:24:06 +0000

Negatives? Does the Bush camp even suffer any negatives at all? They politically survived 9/11, the (non) investigation, two wars, a 900% defense budget increase, intelligence screwups, and a torture scandal, amongst other things. What’s the harm a pathetic complaint for a pathetic failure to deal with totally normal and even dull questions from an interviewer to do to Bush’s image that Abu Ghraib and the WMD fiasco itself didn’t? Clearly massive display of arrogance and unaccountability is the winning recipe here. Oh, America… good luck…

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:06:45 +0000

Umm, if Bush did so well why did he go whining to the Irish governemnt “the mean lady asked too tough questions”? Perhaps one should remove their Bush colored glasses?