The President Holds a Press Conference
On July 15, 2008 The President held a press conference.
That in itself is newsworthy. The last one he held was on April 29. This one was much like the last one. He entered the arena with characteristic swagger and was jolly as jolly can be. As soon as he started talking it is clear he has spent the interim on some far off planet..
He apparently prides himself on a disconnection to reality. Way back in February he was asked what advice would he give to people facing the prospect of $4 gallon gasoline. His response, “Wait a minute. What did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gas?” and when told that’s what people in the know were saying, he revealed. “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.” Fast forward to the July press conference, when reminded of his earlier statement, he briskly cut off the reporter with ”I’m aware of it now” as if that exculpated him.
I do believe that while we have drastically lowered our expectations and our standards to a point where all we want in our president is that HE believe marriage is restricted to one man and one woman (at any one time that is), dress well and wear a lapel pin with the American flag on it. It may be, as we view the two that survived the grueling primary campaigns, that those eliminated in the primary process were dismissed by the electorate because they were over qualified for the office. But even accepting this diminished view of the presidency would it be too much to expect that the president not be the last to know the price of gas at the pump.
When viewed as a whole, the 42 minute press conference was the very model of exculpation. While acknowledging many times and in many ways things were bad, difficult, hard, tough. sour and worrisome for a lot of Americans, he steadfastly took no responsibility for any of the hardships. Nor was he willing to use the word recession. The difficulties he insisted were in spite of his efforts not because of them.
Despite the various terms he used to indicate uncertainty, he insisted the economy was sound and what’s more, the market was turning things around. He gave as evidence that since prices have soared, people are driving less. With that logic he could credit the market for treating obesity because with the rise in food costs people are eating less. And come to think of it very few fat people starve to death. The only problem with that line of thinking (well, lets be generous) people have been driving less for quite some time now - beginning when gas broke the $3 barrier - and that didn’t bring the prices down.
Now into his last half year of his administration President Bush has not taken the blame for anything he has attempted or did. All that has gone wrong is someone else’s fault. Since 2007 and the Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, he has largely saddled the Congress with blame.
And here is one of the rare times that I agree with the president. The Congress is to blame. In a system designed by our forefathers, the founders, who wanted to insure that government they created would not resemble the one they fought to be free from, built into the constitution a balancing of powers, a system of checks and balances. Congress should be blamed for not doing their job of checking and balancing. Congress is to blame for letting this president get away with flagrant abuses of power. The Congress gave him what he wanted and when he wanted more they gave him that too. The Speaker of the House took off the table impeachment. Impeachment is not something a Speaker can take off the table. If members of the Congress raise it and provide serious argument for it, it deserves the kind of hearings that brought down Richard Nixon. The charges made against President Bush are at least as serious as those that brought against President Nixon. The seriousness of Nixon's transgressions only came to light in the course of the hearings. Instead of a hearing, the charges have languished in the Judiciary Committee and never got the consideration they deserved.
The constitution is not a weighty document. It is a manual for limiting abuse of power. Impeachment was put into it precisely because it was understood, or feared, that there would be executives or judges or other government officials that abused power or otherwise engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment does not remove a president. Impeachment is an indictment, a reason to believe that there has been skullduggery. The senate has the responsibility to establish guilt or innocence. And it takes a two-thirds vote of senators present to remove anyone who has been impeached. In the course of our history only two presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson, right after the civil war, and Bill Clinton. Neither was removed from office, although Johnson survived by one vote. If Bill Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex with a consenting adult (adult in this instance is meeting an age requirement, says nothing about maturity) it certainly should be also applied to someone who has been screwing an entire country and this time with the consent of Congress.
It wasn’t a particularly interesting press conference. Nothing was said that had not been said many times before. What continues to amaze is the timidity of the press corps. A couple of years ago, Stephen Cobert at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner made fun of the president and also satirized the press with comments like this:
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary
announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em
through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking
around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the
administration. You know -- fiction!
He was far too kind and far too gentle.
As this president shreds what remains of a very endangered democracy, the press corps, or more accurately the press corpse, is as complicitous as the president and there is no true exculpation for either the president or the people who do a miserable job of reporting what he does.
That in itself is newsworthy. The last one he held was on April 29. This one was much like the last one. He entered the arena with characteristic swagger and was jolly as jolly can be. As soon as he started talking it is clear he has spent the interim on some far off planet..
He apparently prides himself on a disconnection to reality. Way back in February he was asked what advice would he give to people facing the prospect of $4 gallon gasoline. His response, “Wait a minute. What did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gas?” and when told that’s what people in the know were saying, he revealed. “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.” Fast forward to the July press conference, when reminded of his earlier statement, he briskly cut off the reporter with ”I’m aware of it now” as if that exculpated him.
I do believe that while we have drastically lowered our expectations and our standards to a point where all we want in our president is that HE believe marriage is restricted to one man and one woman (at any one time that is), dress well and wear a lapel pin with the American flag on it. It may be, as we view the two that survived the grueling primary campaigns, that those eliminated in the primary process were dismissed by the electorate because they were over qualified for the office. But even accepting this diminished view of the presidency would it be too much to expect that the president not be the last to know the price of gas at the pump.
When viewed as a whole, the 42 minute press conference was the very model of exculpation. While acknowledging many times and in many ways things were bad, difficult, hard, tough. sour and worrisome for a lot of Americans, he steadfastly took no responsibility for any of the hardships. Nor was he willing to use the word recession. The difficulties he insisted were in spite of his efforts not because of them.
Despite the various terms he used to indicate uncertainty, he insisted the economy was sound and what’s more, the market was turning things around. He gave as evidence that since prices have soared, people are driving less. With that logic he could credit the market for treating obesity because with the rise in food costs people are eating less. And come to think of it very few fat people starve to death. The only problem with that line of thinking (well, lets be generous) people have been driving less for quite some time now - beginning when gas broke the $3 barrier - and that didn’t bring the prices down.
Now into his last half year of his administration President Bush has not taken the blame for anything he has attempted or did. All that has gone wrong is someone else’s fault. Since 2007 and the Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, he has largely saddled the Congress with blame.
And here is one of the rare times that I agree with the president. The Congress is to blame. In a system designed by our forefathers, the founders, who wanted to insure that government they created would not resemble the one they fought to be free from, built into the constitution a balancing of powers, a system of checks and balances. Congress should be blamed for not doing their job of checking and balancing. Congress is to blame for letting this president get away with flagrant abuses of power. The Congress gave him what he wanted and when he wanted more they gave him that too. The Speaker of the House took off the table impeachment. Impeachment is not something a Speaker can take off the table. If members of the Congress raise it and provide serious argument for it, it deserves the kind of hearings that brought down Richard Nixon. The charges made against President Bush are at least as serious as those that brought against President Nixon. The seriousness of Nixon's transgressions only came to light in the course of the hearings. Instead of a hearing, the charges have languished in the Judiciary Committee and never got the consideration they deserved.
The constitution is not a weighty document. It is a manual for limiting abuse of power. Impeachment was put into it precisely because it was understood, or feared, that there would be executives or judges or other government officials that abused power or otherwise engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment does not remove a president. Impeachment is an indictment, a reason to believe that there has been skullduggery. The senate has the responsibility to establish guilt or innocence. And it takes a two-thirds vote of senators present to remove anyone who has been impeached. In the course of our history only two presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson, right after the civil war, and Bill Clinton. Neither was removed from office, although Johnson survived by one vote. If Bill Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex with a consenting adult (adult in this instance is meeting an age requirement, says nothing about maturity) it certainly should be also applied to someone who has been screwing an entire country and this time with the consent of Congress.
It wasn’t a particularly interesting press conference. Nothing was said that had not been said many times before. What continues to amaze is the timidity of the press corps. A couple of years ago, Stephen Cobert at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner made fun of the president and also satirized the press with comments like this:
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary
announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em
through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking
around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the
administration. You know -- fiction!
He was far too kind and far too gentle.
As this president shreds what remains of a very endangered democracy, the press corps, or more accurately the press corpse, is as complicitous as the president and there is no true exculpation for either the president or the people who do a miserable job of reporting what he does.
Comments
Ford
I hope you are doing well. I just got home from Africa. I was there for 11 days. I attended a church convention and taught 80 Liberian teachers a few teaching methods they can use in their classrooms. I had a great time. I can't wait to go back in November.
Anyway, I know you don't like Bush, but then many people don't. Personally I don't care if anyone likes him or not, but there is one thing that I like about him, and I'm not sure it's all because of him either, but he is in office at the present time. (I know run-on sentence) What I like is we haven't been attacked since 9-11, and that I'm greatful for. I just came through Europe on the way home. Security there is tight and they are worried about a terrorist attack. Yet, from what I can tell, we American's are not. That is the only thing I like about our current president. Robb, my late husband, died in Iraq. He volunteered to go to Iraq, not because he believed we should be there, but because he believed he could help the Iraqi people. And though it was never written up in the papers, Robb took some of our own money to help an Iraqi family move to a safer area. For Robb, the mission became the people. I realize nobody likes this war, but I'm so proud that I was married to a honorable man who cared about people first and himself second.
I can only wonder what will happen with this next election. Who will get into office, and what will happen after that? There are a million senerios and a few scare the crap out of me.
OH I have a blog as well.
www.mastersergeantswife.org
click on the picture and you go to my blog.
Take care my friend,
love ya
Cait Needham