Is Kerry avoiding hard ball questions a week before the election?

[Kodiak]

Here's what O'Reilly and Bob Woodward think. What do you think? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136918,00.html)

[Tmy]

With the election so close, neither side wants to risk some bad soundbite popping up.

As for Kerry not talking with Oreilly, can you blame him. Thats like saying "Why wont Bush talk with Dan Rather?"

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tmy
As for Kerry not talking with Oreilly, can you blame him. Thats like saying "Why wont Bush talk with Dan Rather?"

More like "Why won't Bush talk with Michael Moore?" At least Dan Rather makes a poor pretense at neutrality.

[Michael Redman]

Bush has never given a straight answer to a meaningful question. Maybe Kerry has noticed that no one seems to mind.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
More like "Why won't Bush talk with Michael Moore?" At least Dan Rather makes a poor pretense at neutrality.

O'Reilly and Woodward both laid out the questions they wanted to ask Kerry. They seem legitimate questions to me.

[Tmy]

I was listening to the Oreilly radio show yesterday. There was an 8 year old caller who was obviously coached on what to say to Bill. He had some rather specific question that you know he didnt think up. When Bill then asked him about what reason the kid would vote for kerry the kid froze. He wasnt coached ytp have a response so he juts blurted out........"Its hard".

That totally reminded me of Bush in the debates with his "its hard work" catch all answer. HAHAHHAA, guess he wasnt coached as well either.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Bush has never given a straight answer to a meaningful question. Maybe Kerry has noticed that no one seems to mind.

Nobody is criticizing Kerry for how he's answering questions. They're criticizing him for ducking the interviews completely.

Then why doesn't Kerry show up and just avoid giving straight answers?

Has Bush ducked any mainstream broadcast journalists?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak
O'Reilly and Woodward both laid out the questions they wanted to ask Kerry. They seem legitimate questions to me.

have you ever seen Oreilly in action? Its not so much the questions, its the follow ups and misleading translation of the answers.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Has Bush ducked any mainstream broadcast journalists?

Bush is KNOWN for avoiding the press. For 4 years hes been hiding behind his press secretary.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
have you ever seen Oreilly in action? Its not so much the questions, its the follow ups and misleading translation of the answers.

Yes, but he's like that with everyone, both those on the left and the right, IMO.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bush is KNOWN for avoiding the press. For 4 years hes been hiding behind his press secretary.

So is that a "no" to answer my question?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Kodiak
Surely you recognize that the election is a beauty pageant? Both party's at this stage do not want a "wardrobe malfunction". :)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Kodiak
Surely you recognize that the election is a beauty pageant? Both party's at this stage do not want a "wardrobe malfunction". :)

Thanks so much. Now I'll be picturing their nipples for the next few days.

[Furious]

After the "global test" fiasco, I don't blame him for avoiding.

It has become Kerry's "I invented the internet." Quoted completely out of context to mean something completely different than what Kerry meant, when the original context is very clear.

Neither phrases were based in reality of what the speakers actually said, but this election is all about sound bites, not reality.

So while I personally would appreciate a Kerry interview, I can also completely understand not taking the risk six days before the election when it is a dead heat, considering the ridiculous spin machines at work in both parties.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Kodiak
So is that a "no" to answer my question?

Name the last press conference Bush gave without looking it up. I bet you can't remember it.

[Ladewig]

Kerry is avoiding hard questions? Are you saying that Kerry has started requiring all rally attendees to sign loyalty oaths? Because that's what Bush has been doing to avoid all hard questions for the past year.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Kodiak
Surely you recognize that the election is a beauty pageant? Both party's at this stage do not want a "wardrobe malfunction". :)

I agree to a point.

Let me be clear. I'm not necessarily criticizing Kerry for avoiding certain interviews. I was just wondering if JREF forum members agreed with O'Reilly's and Woodward's contention that Kerry is only agreeing to soft ball interviews.

Depending on how the election plays out, it could either be considered genius, or a tactic that might have cost him the election.



PS - Did anyone besides myself see the recent polling where support for President Bush among African-Americans has doubled from the last election (2000=9%; 2004=18%)? Does anyone have a possible explanation? Could this be a determining factor in the election?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Furious
Name the last press conference Bush gave without looking it up. I bet you can't remember it.

True, but...


Is that a "no" to answer my question? ;)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak



PS - Did anyone besides myself see the recent polling where support for President Bush among African-Americans has doubled from the last election (2000=9%; 2004=18%)? Does anyone have a possible explanation? Could this be a determining factor in the election?

I really find this hard to believe. Do yyou have a link? I think that mabye 2000 might differ cause of 3rd parties or "non of the above" options.

By the by, I dont think Oreilly is impartial. His Bush interview was soft and he was answering his questions for him.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tmy
I really find this hard to believe. Do yyou have a link? I think that mabye 2000 might differ cause of 3rd parties or "non of the above" options.

By the by, I dont think Oreilly is impartial. His Bush interview was soft and he was answering his questions for him.

To answer your question: Yes I think hes playing it safe.

Though I did hear both of them will be on a hardhitting Sportscenter.:p

[HarryKeogh]

How many press conferences (where they field reporter's questions) have GWB, Clinton and Bush Sr. held?

tried Googling, couldnt get a definitive answer.

anyway, I think this President has shielded himself pretty well from answering to the press.

I love how NYC mayors have a weekly radio show where they answer phone caller's questions. Wish Presidents could answer questions from reporters on a regular basis.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Furious
After the "global test" fiasco, I don't blame him for avoiding.

It has become Kerry's "I invented the internet." Quoted completely out of context to mean something completely different than what Kerry meant, when the original context is very clear.

I think the quote more apt for drawing a parallel with what Gore had said would be Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Bush and company have spun this into being a tawdry political trick and over the past few months have invoked it repeatedly at their campaign rallies to the great joy of the crowds in attendance. The fact is that what Kerry said is true; there were two appropriations bills financing the $87 billion differently. He voted for the first one, which rolled some of the higher bracket tax cuts back in order to pay the expenses, but that never got through. Then the alternative bill came on the table. He felt the second one was fiscally irresponsible, so, knowing its overwhelming support was going to let it go through anyway, he voted against it in protest. End of story. Nothing ignoble or manipulative about it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
I really find this hard to believe. Do yyou have a link? I think that mabye 2000 might differ cause of 3rd parties or "non of the above" options.

By the by, I dont think Oreilly is impartial. His Bush interview was soft and he was answering his questions for him.

How DARE you doubt me, Tmy?!? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6284463/) ;) :p

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Nobody is criticizing Kerry for how he's answering questions. They're criticizing him for ducking the interviews completely.

Then why doesn't Kerry show up and just avoid giving straight answers?

Has Bush ducked any mainstream broadcast journalists? Yes. All of them. He's failed to attend regular press conferences as a President should be obliged to do.

[BPSCG]

On the one hand, I don't blame Kerry for not wanting to talk with O'Reilly. Unless O'Reilly's changed his style since I last watched him, he constantly interrupts, cuts off answers so he can launch into his own view of the world as it should be, and occasionally tells his guests to "shut up." It's "gotcha" journalism, designed to make the people he likes look good and the ones he doesn't, to look ridiculous. To be sure, some of the cretins he has on deserve to be made to look ridiculous. But that's not how you treat a serious candidate for the presidency.

Bob Woodward is not that kind of reporter (actually, I don't know if it's fair to call O'Reilly a reporter rather than a pundit). Kerry should have taken the interview. Here's why: Woodward's questions certainly weren't softballs (here they are) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919-2004Oct22?language=printer), but they were hardly of the "gotcha" variety.
Most of them invited Kerry to show how he would be a different president from Bush. This was his golden opportunity to say something beyond "I would have done almost everything completely different", since the questions presumed that; Woodward asks what in particular he would have done different. Why doesn't Kerry want to lay out the distinctions between him and Bush? They would have been presented in the Washington Post, a respected, widely read forum.
The answers would have been available for all to read for a long time, free of charge (I understand his replies to a similar interview with the New York Times is now only pay-per-view). They were submitted to him in writing. He could have taken several days to answer - or have his staff write up the answers for his review ("make damn sure the word "global" isn't in there or you're fired").If he'd let Woodward interview him, maybe, just maybe, we'd know how he'd be a different president from Bush. He didn't, so now the electorate - you and me - are reduced to guessing where his heart really lies on the issues, by picking which of his all-over-the-map statements suit us best.

Duck an O'Reilly interview? Absolutely the right thing to do.

Duck a Woodward one? He didn't have the guts to stand up to Howard Dean, and he didn't have the guts to do an interview with a tough but fair investigative reporter. But he'll be tough with terrorists. Just trust him.

ETA: You left out the Planet X option.

[billydkid]

And Bush has not consistently avoided them? Bush talking to O'Reilly or even to Woodward is hardly hardball.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Yes. All of them. He's failed to attend regular press conferences as a President should be obliged to do.

So while the president hasn't volunteered to speak with the media, he hasn't ducked any interviews either...

[Matabiri]

I'd vote yes, but I'm not going to because Bush is as well.

If the poll was:

Yes, but so is Bush
No, and neither is Bush
Yes, but Bush isn't
No, but Bush is

then I'd vote.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BPSCG
On the one hand, I don't blame Kerry for not wanting to talk with O'Reilly. Unless O'Reilly's changed his style since I last watched him, he constantly interrupts, cuts off answers so he can launch into his own view of the world as it should be, and occasionally tells his guests to "shut up." It's "gotcha" journalism, designed to make the people he likes look good and the ones he doesn't, to look ridiculous. To be sure, some of the cretins he has on deserve to be made to look ridiculous. But that's not how you treat a serious candidate for the presidency.

Bob Woodward is not that kind of reporter (actually, I don't know if it's fair to call O'Reilly a reporter rather than a pundit). Kerry should have taken the interview. Here's why: Woodward's questions certainly weren't softballs (here they are) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919-2004Oct22?language=printer), but they were hardly of the "gotcha" variety.
Most of them invited Kerry to show how he would be a different president from Bush. This was his golden opportunity to say something beyond "I would have done almost everything completely different", since the questions presumed that; Woodward asks what in particular he would have done different. Why doesn't Kerry want to lay out the distinctions between him and Bush? They would have been presented in the Washington Post, a respected, widely read forum.
The answers would have been available for all to read for a long time, free of charge (I understand his replies to a similar interview with the New York Times is now only pay-per-view). They were submitted to him in writing. He could have taken several days to answer - or have his staff write up the answers for his review ("make damn sure the word "global" isn't in there or you're fired").If he'd let Woodward interview him, maybe, just maybe, we'd know how he'd be a different president from Bush. He didn't, so now the electorate - you and me - are reduced to guessing where his heart really lies on the issues, by picking which of his all-over-the-map statements suit us best.

Duck an O'Reilly interview? Absolutely the right thing to do.

Duck a Woodward one? He didn't have the guts to stand up to Howard Dean, and he didn't have the guts to do an interview with a tough but fair investigative reporter. But he'll be tough with terrorists. Just trust him.

ETA: You left out the Planet X option.

Excellent post...thanks.

For the record, my polls will never include a Planet X option. :nope: Never... Ever...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Matabiri
I'd vote yes, but I'm not going to because Bush is as well.

If the poll was:

Yes, but so is Bush
No, and neither is Bush
Yes, but Bush isn't
No, but Bush is

then I'd vote.

Guess what? You just did... :)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Guess what? You just did... :)

Nah, I expressed an opinion. I didn't actually press the button... ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Nah, I expressed an opinion. I didn't actually press the button... ;)

You didn't have to. Its called a "write in"...

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Kodiak
So while the president hasn't volunteered to speak with the media, he hasn't ducked any interviews either...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631501085.html?oneclick=true

quote:US President George Bush will dodge media questioning during his Australian visit, in a breach of normal protocol.

At the White House's insistence, Mr Bush will not hold any news conferences with Prime Minister John Howard and strict restrictions are being imposed on media access to the visit.

end quote

and I dug this up, unfortunately it only covers the first two years of his presidency...

In 2 years and 45 days of *Presiding*, the following Presidents had these many press conferences:

Johnson: 52
Nixon: 16
Ford: 37
Carter: 45
Reagan: 16
BUSH SR: 58
Clinton: 30
GW Bush :8

Seems he can learn a thing from his dad.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
quote:US President George Bush will dodge media questioning during his Australian visit, in a breach of normal protocol.

Bush talking his way around difficult questions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
Seems he can learn a thing from his dad.

Or perhaps his father could haved learned something from his Dubya, especially if he wins reelection Tuesday... ;)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
Seems he can learn a thing from his dad. Most of his dad's were informal affairs - walk into the press room, take a few questions, finish up with "I gotta get back to work." Not the prime-time, pre-empt "ER" type of press conference. That's how Bush, Sr., himself never known for being a silver-tongued devil, racked up almost twice as many as Clinton.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Bush talking his way around difficult questions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html)

I don't hear him talking his way around anything. What I do see is Bush not answering the questions the way you want him to....

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Most of his dad's were informal affairs - walk into the press room, take a few questions, finish up with "I gotta get back to work." Not the prime-time, pre-empt "ER" type of press conference. That's how Bush, Sr., himself never known for being a silver-tongued devil, racked up almost twice as many as Clinton.

But that number of 8 press conferences includes his informal press conferences. Wouldnt you like to see GWB as least have an informal press conference more than once every 3 months on average?

I'd love to see a President who would answer questions on a weekly basis, some sort of Sunday morning news program (they have the time too,i'd prefer to hear or see that instead of the scripted frequent radio addresses they do). I don't think we'll ever see that and who knows, people would probably grow tired of it but it bothers me that it's so hard to get our President to field questions.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I don't hear him talking his way around anything. What I do see is Bush not answering the questions the way you want him to....

I don't really see him answering the question here, other than describing how brave he and Allawi are, as though that's going to make everything right.

Q And how do you see the handover going? The next few weeks are going to be crucial. Can democracy really flourish with the violence that's going on? A hundred Iraqis dead today, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't like death, either. I mean, you keep emphasizing the death and I don't blame you -- but all that goes to show is the nature of the enemy. These people are willing to kill innocent people. They're willing to slaughter innocent people to stop the advance of freedom. And so the free world has to make a choice: Do we cower in the face of terror, or do we lead in the face of terror?

And I'm going to lead in the face of terror. We will not let these terrorists dash the hopes and ambitions of the people of Iraq. There's some kind of attitude that says, oh, gosh, the terrorists attacked, let's let the Iraqis suffer more. We're not going to let them suffer more. We're going to work with them. And I'm most proud of this fellow, Prime Minister Allawi. He's strong and he's tough. He says to me, Mr. President, don't leave our country, help us secure our country so we can be free.

[Tmy]

Heres my question. WHO THE FU(K DO OREILLY AND WOODWARD THINK THEY ARE TO DEMAND AN AUDIENCE WH KERRY???? Talk about a couple of egomaniacs./ Im sure Bush/Kerry get 1000 interview requests a day. What makes these 2 chuckleheads so damn special.

Id much rather have Howard Stern interview the candidates.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
But that number of 8 press conferences includes his informal press conferences. Wouldnt you like to see GWB as least have an informal press conference more than once every 3 months on average?Honestly, I don't remember the last time I watched a press conference. When was the last time you learned something of any significance from one?
I'd love to see a President who would answer questions on a weekly basis, some sort of Sunday morning news program...Don't the Brits have something like that, right in Commons, where the PM has to take questions from the loyal opposition, along the lines of "Will the gentleman admit that its policy of strangling babies so that Christopher Reeve could drink their blood has been an appalling failure, and that the government should resign forthwith and be eaten by badgers?"

Help us out here, Brits, if there are any of you with so little social life that you are still tuning in to the navel-gazing commonly known the U.S. presidential election campaign.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tmy
Id much rather have Howard Stern interview the candidates. I'm not in the least surprised to hear that.

[Tmy]

Well Howards show has much bigger ratings than Oreillys. And it reaches a much broader demographic. Why shoudlnt he get the interviews???


Orielly is just a cable news version of Stern anyway........minus the sex talk.............well, minus the ON AIR sex talk.:p

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by BPSCG
[B]Don't the Brits have something like that, right in Commons, where the PM has to take questions from the loyal opposition, along the lines of "Will the gentleman admit that its policy of strangling babies so that Christopher Reeve could drink their blood has been an appalling failure, and that the government should resign forthwith and be eaten by badgers?"

Yeah, pretty much (and televised on the BBC Parliamentry channel, too!), but it's also full of appalling sycophancy from the government backbenches, along the lines of, "Would the honourable member agree that his policy of not being Tory has brought widespread happiness to the country, and my constituents in particular?"

Also, because of the way power is apportioned in the British political system and the way the Labour Party is organised, even if the PM was asked a pointed and damaging question, he could just get away with sneering and saying, "Yeah, says you!" without really damaging his position.

There was an interview with William Hague (former leader of the opposition) recently, in which he explained his technique for getting the better of Blair in these encounters:

"I realised that he always had his notes in alphabetical order, so I just jumped about randomly from subject to subject to make him appear disorganised."

[HarryKeogh]

How about O'Reilly gets to interview Kerry and Al Franken gets to interview Bush?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Matabiri
"I realised that he always had his notes in alphabetical order, so I just jumped about randomly from subject to subject to make him appear disorganised." The story goes that when he served in the British Parliament, one of Churchill's favorite pastimes was to pretend to fall asleep during a lengthy speech. He would slowly close his eyes and begin to nod his head. Once an exasperated speaker who had fallen for the trap said "Mr. Churchill, are you asleep, sir?" Churchill replied "No, but I wish to God I were!"

If the story's not true, it should be.

[Furious]

Originally posted by BPSCG
On the one hand, I don't blame Kerry for not wanting to talk with O'Reilly. Unless O'Reilly's changed his style since I last watched him, he constantly interrupts, cuts off answers so he can launch into his own view of the world as it should be, and occasionally tells his guests to "shut up." It's "gotcha" journalism, designed to make the people he likes look good and the ones he doesn't, to look ridiculous. To be sure, some of the cretins he has on deserve to be made to look ridiculous. But that's not how you treat a serious candidate for the presidency.

Bob Woodward is not that kind of reporter (actually, I don't know if it's fair to call O'Reilly a reporter rather than a pundit). Kerry should have taken the interview. Here's why: Woodward's questions certainly weren't softballs (here they are) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919-2004Oct22?language=printer), but they were hardly of the "gotcha" variety.
Most of them invited Kerry to show how he would be a different president from Bush. This was his golden opportunity to say something beyond "I would have done almost everything completely different", since the questions presumed that; Woodward asks what in particular he would have done different. Why doesn't Kerry want to lay out the distinctions between him and Bush? They would have been presented in the Washington Post, a respected, widely read forum.
The answers would have been available for all to read for a long time, free of charge (I understand his replies to a similar interview with the New York Times is now only pay-per-view). They were submitted to him in writing. He could have taken several days to answer - or have his staff write up the answers for his review ("make damn sure the word "global" isn't in there or you're fired").If he'd let Woodward interview him, maybe, just maybe, we'd know how he'd be a different president from Bush. He didn't, so now the electorate - you and me - are reduced to guessing where his heart really lies on the issues, by picking which of his all-over-the-map statements suit us best.

Duck an O'Reilly interview? Absolutely the right thing to do.

Duck a Woodward one? He didn't have the guts to stand up to Howard Dean, and he didn't have the guts to do an interview with a tough but fair investigative reporter. But he'll be tough with terrorists. Just trust him.

ETA: You left out the Planet X option.

Agreed on O'Reilly. Everything to lose there.

For Woodward, I agree that the interview should happen.

I question the timing of this though. Woodward's interview with Bush was back in April. Negotiations with Kerry started in a June and the interview seems to have been set for the September time frame. They fell through. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136777,00.html)

Why is this an issue now two months later? O'Reilly is mentioning it?

There is a world of difference where the election is at from April to September. April gives plenty of time for digestion and settling as answers are elaborated on and difused if spun into controversy from the other side. September would be a lot harder to do.

So, while I agree Kerry should have done this back in April, I understand why he hasn't done it that close to the election after evaluating the situation in September, fresh off of the "global test" crap during the debates.

Bush has snubbed a Jon Stewart interview, and he was notoriously softball to Kerry and Jon even said he would be a "big pussy" if he were to interview Bush. I counter with "Why is Bush afraid of softball questions on a comedy show?"

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Furious
Why is this an issue now two months later? O'Reilly is mentioning it?Washington Post first raised it about a week ago. Not the interview, but the fact that Kerry had ducked it, which, presumably, happened before. I would think if Kerry had something important to say, he'd love a chance to say it just a few weeks before the election.
There is a world of difference where the election is at from April to September. April gives plenty of time for digestion and settling as answers are elaborated on and difused if spun into controversy from the other side. September would be a lot harder to do.

(...snip...)

Bush has snubbed a Jon Stewart interview, and he was notoriously softball to Kerry and Jon even said he would be a "big pussy" if he were to interview Bush. I counter with "Why is Bush afraid of softball questions on a comedy show?" So Bush does a tough interview with Woodward in April, Kerry ducks one from June to September, but talks to John Freakin' Stewart and you're wondering what the problem is with Bush? Tell me you're not serious.

C'mon. If Kerry is afraid to answer tough but fair questions that were handed to him months ago, because his opponents might use his answers for their own purposes, then he desperately needs a spine transplant.

[Furious]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Washington Post first raised it about a week ago. Not the interview, but the fact that Kerry had ducked it, which, presumably, happened before. I would think if Kerry had something important to say, he'd love a chance to say it just a few weeks before the election.
So Bush does a tough interview with Woodward in April, Kerry ducks one from June to September, but talks to [b]John Freakin' Stewart and you're wondering what the problem is with Bush? Tell me you're not serious.

C'mon. If Kerry is afraid to answer tough but fair questions that were handed to him months ago, because his opponents might use his answers for their own purposes, then he desperately needs a spine transplant.

A week ago is still not September.

In the context of spin machines of the last six months (both sides mind you), both candidates have turned it into a beauty contest over substance.

My point is the substance train left a long time ago and it is not coming back one week before the election for either candidate.

And yes, I'd love a Jon Stewart Bush interview. Says a lot to me that someone can laugh about himself during the swimsuit competition. :p

[Tmy]

Originally posted by BPSCG
[i].

C'mon. If Kerry is afraid to answer tough but fair questions that were handed to him months ago, because his opponents might use his answers for their own purposes, then he desperately needs a spine transplant.

Is Bush doing any 11th hour interviews?? You imply that Kerry is not keeping pace with him.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is Bush doing any 11th hour interviews?? You imply that Kerry is not keeping pace with him.

Bush, of course, has the excuse that he's supposed to be governing the country in between election speeches.

Wait a minute, who is governing the US right now? Rumsfeld?

[Furious]

C'mon. If Kerry is afraid to answer tough but fair questions that were handed to him months ago, because his opponents might use his answers for their own purposes, then he desperately needs a spine transplant.

Also, I'd like to point out that I think you (and Kodiak) are cherry-picking Woodward on this in sort of a "who has had it rougher on the campaign trail" type of thing. My Jon Stewart reference was mostly to point out the relative absurdity in stating that since one candidate did an interview with a specific person, the other should be bound to do the interview as well.

The quote from BPSCG above presumes that Kerry has not answered any hardball questions, which isn't true since a few did come up during the debates (and were admittedly artfully dodged by both candidates then).


While I agree in principle with Kodiak and BPSCG that it would be nice if candidates got a spine about their views, I think they are overblowing one interview rejection into a pattern specific to Kerry.

I don't buy that as the case, given Bush's lack of press conferences, coolness to the 9/11 commission (and not saying anything for the public record in it, just behind locked door crap), loalty oaths during party rallies and lack of a "hardball" interview since April.

Kerry hasn't been better, I just don't think he's any worse for declining the interview.

[Dorian Gray]

Why are conservatives bitching about Kerry not appearing on O'Reilly's show when Bush hasn't appeared on Letterman, Daily Show, in Rolling Stone, etc.? Why is he avoiding hard questions? Huh? Huh?:rolleyes:

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Has Bush ducked any mainstream broadcast journalists? A better question is, has Bush made himself available at all to the press in the last 4 years? Not very often. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16131-2004Oct7.html) Choice quotes: Bush has held 15 solo news conferences since taking office. At the same point in their presidencies, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University in Maryland, Bill Clinton had held 42; George H.W. Bush, 83; Ronald Reagan, 26; Jimmy Carter, 59; Gerald R. Ford, 39; Richard M. Nixon, 29; Lyndon B. Johnson, 88; John F. Kennedy, 65; and Dwight D. Eisenhower, 94.I won't even get into the obviousness of trying to parallel Kerry meeting with O'Reilly = Bush meeting with Michael Moore.

It's no wonder the guy can't hold his own in a debate. He's not used to being asked questions about stuff he really isn't familiar with -- like his job.

[Ladewig]

O'Reilly? Kerry should talk to a man who not only makes up statistics on the fly but makes up sources to support these fictious statistics (e.g. The Paris Business Review shows my French boycott worked).

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Furious
The quote from BPSCG above presumes that Kerry has not answered any hardball questions, which isn't true since a few did come up during the debates (and were admittedly artfully dodged by both candidates then).The debates hardly qualify as "hardball," considering the amount of preparation both candidates underwent to prep for them. Additionally, the simplest trick in the world in a debate is to turn a question you don't like into one you do:

"Please explain this videotape showing you strangling Mother Theresa with piano wire."

"I've long stated that this administration has done an inadequate job protecting our citizens from violence in the streets. When I'm elected president..." and we're off to the races.

Remember Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" kerfuffle? During the 1988 campaign, I think, he allegedly referred to New York City as "Hymietown." Big to-do. He had an interview with Barbara Walters a week or so later, and she asked him about it; had he called New York "Hymietown"? Jackson replied, "There are a lot of issues I want to address during my campaign..." and she cut him off, with, "Let's address this one right now..."

He wriggled off the hook somehow.

Anyway, what Woodward was offering Kerry was the equivalent of a take-home exam, after he had personally grilled Bush for over three hours. This goes back to June, and Woodward evidently gave up in September. Now you're saying, "Well, it's so close to the election, of course Kerry shouldn't answer the questions." Where I come from, that's called "running out the clock." Kerry decided to run out the clock instead of accepting a take-home exam. This wouldn't be such a big deal if anyone - and I mean anyone - had the foggiest idea how Kerry would differ from Bush as commander-in-chief. But we don't because as a United States Senator, Kerry has mastered the art of talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

And you're all agitated because Bush isn't doing enough press conferences.

[Dorian Gray]

Yes. We are agitated that Bush has given fewer press conferences than the previous 7 because, in my opinion, he has a lot to hide. Questions don't provide enough room for repeating rhetoric convincingly, plus there's that pesky opposing viewpoint problem. No loyalty oaths in a press conference!

Bush is the POTUS. He should give press conferences. No one cares about a senator giving press conferences unless he is in a scandal or running for president.

YOU seem to be extremely caught up on Kerry snubbing Woodward. That's one thing. Count it - one. Setting aside press conferences, Bush hasn't done The Daily Show, or Letterman, or done an interview with Rolling Stone. He's done the poofy Dr. Phil - and so has Kerry. He's done O'Reilly and Hannity - "hard work"?
Most recently, he did Sawyer, and since she isn't a shill, he screwed up with his base by flip-flopping on gay marriage. Constitutional amendment at the RNC - civil union and states' rights with Sawyer. See how hard it is for him when he can't just spew the same old crap to a loyal audience.

Not to mention, look at the first debate. Sheesh.

So keep on plugging your singularity, and completely ignore precedent and your hypocrisy.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I think the quote more apt for drawing a parallel with what Gore had said would be Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Bush and company have spun this into being a tawdry political trick and over the past few months have invoked it repeatedly at their campaign rallies to the great joy of the crowds in attendance. The fact is that what Kerry said is true; there were two appropriations bills financing the $87 billion differently. He voted for the first one, which rolled some of the higher bracket tax cuts back in order to pay the expenses, but that never got through. Then the alternative bill came on the table. He felt the second one was fiscally irresponsible, so, knowing its overwhelming support was going to let it go through anyway, he voted against it in protest. End of story. Nothing ignoble or manipulative about it.
Agreed. But then why has Kerry been so inept at portraying this simple explanation?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Kodiak
So while the president hasn't volunteered to speak with the media, he hasn't ducked any interviews either...
You have inside info on all the political machinations that are involved when deciding whether to grant an interview? Do you know that he did not decline an interview with the "Anytown Tattler" which is reputed to have a liberal bias? Didn't think so.

Your assertion does not stand the test of evidence.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
How about O'Reilly gets to interview Kerry and Al Franken gets to interview Bush?

If Al Franken gets Bush, then Coulter should get Kerry, not O'Reilly... :D

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Kodiak
If Al Franken gets Bush, then Coulter should get Kerry, not O'Reilly... :D Ooh, thanks for reminding me about Ann. I thought sure she'd find something to say about Moe and Shemp trying to pie her earlier this week. Seems I was wrong. First time since 1995, unless I'm very much mistaken. :D

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Kodiak
If Al Franken gets Bush, then Coulter should get Kerry, not O'Reilly... :D

works for me!

but since the universe used up its one miracle this year (bosox) I guess we shouldnt hold our breath waiting for it to happen.

[zakur]

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.117.gif