President Bush wants to talk about Iraq tonight and asked to be covered on national networks. However:

NOTE: FOX has not accepted as of yet.


It appears the President of the US just doesnt carry all that much clout these days:



So, the POTUS wants to talk to the US, but maybe 'Average Joe' is more important. Even FOX could not commit.

Questions for debate:

Has the Administration blown its clout? Or are the networks just oblivious to americans wanting to hear what their President wants to say?

Do we want to hear what the President wants to say tonight? Or would we rather just go fishing?

Who is right here, the networks or the Admin? Will you tune in?

The President rarely gives televised, pre-planned speeches. I will tune in to see what he has to say.

I don't know that the issue here is that the President has lost his clout, the networks just don't see anything all that newsworthy happening in Iraq right now and so are dubious about giving the President air time without knowing what he's going to say.

Can anyone guess what Bush will say? I can't. Heaven forbid that the "Joes Strike Back" be preempted .

Are there no state owned national channels what so ever?

Do we want to hear what the President wants to say tonight? Or would we rather just go fishing?

Who is right here, the networks or the Admin? Will you tune in?

Does it matter how many people want to hear what he has to say? He is the people's representative and as such should always be able to speak to the people even if only a few of them can be bothered to listen to what he has to say.

Frankly, I have watched all his speeches, if nothing else to renew my disgust with him, but I would skip it if aired again- there is nothing this guy has to say that has ANY meaning anymore- it is just another propaganda push by a miserable failure.

The networks have judged this one right- it is simply a political ad at thier expense- even Fox realize this- I can hardly believe that- they usually are so busy licking his boots that they practically allow him to phone in his speech.

No news here- nothing to see here folks, move along.

Blown its clout? No. The administration has values that are not shared by the entertainment community. If Tom Cruise wanted to explain his views on Scientology and Michael Jackson wanted to explain why there is nothing wrong with sharing a bed with a minor, the networks would be climbing over each other to carry the "story".

The major media is telling us what "they" think is important (Average Joe) not what WE think is important.

Do we want to hear what the President has to say tonight? I do. Will I tune in? Yes.

I think that "real" issues, like the fact we are at WAR, are FAR more important than the make believe fantasy that the people in Hollywood routinely confuse with real life. Hollywood people are living in a dream world. That's why Spielberg is whining about the lack of UFO reports in recent years.

UFO Spielberg

Spielberg, TV, and the TV "news" organizations are one in the same.

For those that can't tune, just read here where John Kerry? has already told him what to say. It's not a horrible column, basically regurgitating the global approach, work with the UN, yada yada. At least he waited until the last paragraph to use the word "quagmire"

Despite the heartwarming cynicism of the quote above it appears Americans do not really care. When I went to college none of my friends cared about politics except during elections (some of them did not pay attention then). With 24/7 news stations is it necessary to broadcast it on the networks? Anyone that is truly interested will be able to watch the President tonight.

This started eroding during the Clinton administration, but it has nothing to do with who is in the office. Americans are apathetic, and have been for quite some time. It is the reason the economy is the biggest factor in elections. In general, average Americans only tune in during a crisis or when things are bad. Liberal and Conservative activists are always paying attention. When Clinton was President, the internet was full of conspiracy loony theory and now the internet is full of conspiracy loony theories about Bush. Things are never as good or as bad as they seem.

Has the Administration blown its clout? Or are the networks just oblivious to americans wanting to hear what their President wants to say?

I'm not sure what this is about, it is a really strange move by the media in my opinion. Bush gives speeches so infrequently you'd think that they'd be jumping at the chance to get him on. Furthermore, we are in the summer TV season - not exactly much worth watching on right now.

Do we want to hear what the President wants to say tonight? Or would we rather just go fishing?

We? Depends on what you mean by we I don't care what the President has to say tonight because I already know what he is going to say before he even says it. This is going to be propaganda hour. He is going to get on TV and talk about how great things are in Iraq and the progress that is being made there. Most of that will probably be true but of course he won't say anything about the escalation of violence or the fact that we still don't have any clue when we are leaving. Secondly he is going to try and combat this Downing Street Memo and try and convince everyone he didn't lie to us all.

No Thanks.

Who is right here, the networks or the Admin? Will you tune in?
Not sure what you mean by this. The administration certainly has the ability to hold nationally televised speeches any time they want to. In fact I wish Bush would do this more so people might start seeing through him. I really just don't know why the networks wouldn't carry the speech, so I'd say they are in the wrong.

Will I tune in? Nope, I have better things to do. I might read the transcripts later.


Here we go... LH the media is NOT Hollywood despite how convienent that is to your "rant" here. If you go back and re-read the first post you'll see that Fox News is included in the group that isn't airing the speech as of right now. Surely you aren't equating them with the people in Hollywood you hate?

Of course I am. Fox is no different than NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. They are an "entertainment" network. Sure they have a news division, but it's the tail of the dog, not the head. All the liberal noise about the "right wing fox news" is just that.... noise.

The fox network is made up of the same class of people that dominate the other networks. It's entertainment. Unless you think "American Idol", "Joe Millionaire", "The Simple Life (Paris Hilton)", and "The Simpsons" are "news".

I think the networks have it right. The White House has already telegraphed that there will be no major policy announcements, its a pep rally in front of a hand-picked and adoring military audience. Its only intended purpose is to improve the President's approval rating on Iraq. Why should they pay for that?, and we're not talking trivial bucks either. That said, I suspect that PBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. will cover it so the only people who will not be able to see it are those that rely on over-the-air TV rather than cable or satellite, and thats not many these days.

That's the Fox television network, not Fox News. Of course Fox News and the other cable news outlets will cover it - the question is whether we miss 'trading spouses' and 'house' not whether we miss the Bill and Greta O'Hannity 'goes to aruba' special.

And you distinguish noise from truth how? So how is it that if a “liberal” says Fox News is right wing, it’s noise. But if the “right wing” says main stream media is liberal it’s the truth?

Being a conservative Republican surely you can understand the major networks keeping an eye on the bottom line, they’ve been loosing revenue for years now. I’ll agree with many who have already stated this will probably be an hour long pep rally (I’m not aware of any major developments, Iraq, economy, social security). I’m sure the networks see the vast majority turning the dials so they probably can’t afford to take a chance of loosing prime time advertising dollars.

Still, I’d be more than slightly disappointed if the major networks didn’t show his speech, but it’s their decision, it’s their company, and it’s their profits. The corporate bottom line: It’s the American Way.

I won’t be fishing, probably golfing. And quite frankly I can’t stand to watch this president speak in person so I’ll read a transcript tomorrow.

Has the Administration blown its clout? Or are the networks just oblivious to americans wanting to hear what their President wants to say?

Do we want to hear what the President wants to say tonight? Or would we rather just go fishing?

Who is right here, the networks or the Admin? Will you tune in?




ABC has announced they will carry the speech, not sure about CBS. However, in the case of Fox and NBC, keep in mind they have cable news channels who will most definitely be carrying the speech. Frankly, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for them to carry on both their cable news and regular broadcast channels.

I plan to watch it, probably on C-SPAN so I won't have a bunch of talking heads telling me what Bush is saying.

Well, now there is really no need to watch. The AP has already written an article about the speech - in the past tense. Bush - Bloodshed in Iraq is "worth it"

I'd like to think that the networks are wrong in thinking that Americans would rather watch a Scrubs re-run than their President, so I think they're oblivious to what Americans want to hear. I'd hate to think that the networks are right, but I could be wrong.

Well, I think we want to tune it, but I can guess what the President is going to say..."Blah blah blah, we're winning, blah, insurgency is in death throws, blah, our troops moral is great blah, Good night and God Bless America." But I would rather here that from his mouth than see some crapy NBC sitcom.


I'm easily tuning in, I'm very interested to see what Bush has to say, and if he'll surprise me and say something other than what I paraphrased above.

CP

You can't??? For crying out loud, Amlord, even I can predict this one, and I'm certainly no mind reader. Ready?

"Thank you all very much. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for inviting me to join you.

The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. And we are sacrificing our own sons and daughters to hand Iraq democracy on a platter.

The enemy we face in Iraq are terrorists. Terrorists who espouse the same ideology as those responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. See, even after all this time I can continue to link Iraq and 9/11 in a speech, and not get called a liar to my face. fortunately, having a captive audience of "true believers" with signed loyalty oaths helps that.

But securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. We are fighting the terrorists over there, because when we do, they forget where they put their passports, and won't be fighting us on our shores.

Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice. A darned good thing they are too, or we'd be losing even more troops there daily.

This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Ok, we're almost alone - thank God Tony Blair was re-elected.

With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you, sitting at home eating popcorn while you watch me, is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. But really, can we get a few more of you to enlist? We're running low on troops. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld can't agree on whether we'll be done by 2009 or 2017, because of the uncertainty of enlistment.

Thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America."

I don't know, but I think I captured it pretty well, don't you?

The only reason that Bush is giving this speech, is to help bolster his poll numbers, which are falling faster than a plane that's run out of gas. There is certainly nothing new to report. The same problems continue, and the only way to try and get some approval numbers back up, is to try and tell us we're fighting there so the terrorists won't come here, and that building a democracy is hard work. More fear mongering and flag waving.

I'm with Fife and Drum. If there really is anything new to any of this, I'll read about it in tomorrows paper.

Well it's going on right now. Telecast from Fort Bragg. I think the networks should show it. I watched a little. But I don't have the combination of the interest in and stomach for this message.

I listened. It was more of the same. Still hiding behind the troops. Still trying to connect Iraq invasion to 9/11. However, he didn't echo Rummy and Cheney and their "last throes" performances. Some are still gullible and his numbers may jump a bit temporarily. However, I think the majority of the American people have finally figured out that they have been lied to repeatedly and will react accordingly.

Considering that Bush is not up for reelection again I am not sure how Americans will react. I do not expect the Democrats to pick up seats in the House considering the way the districts are currently drawn and the Senate races will not likely be decided on an issue where most Senators authorized the conflict.

Also, despite the heavy rhetoric most people that believe Bush “lied” are people that would never vote for a Republican anyway. The situation in Iraq would have get a lot worse to do considerable damage to the Republican party. The economy will have a greater effect on the next election than Iraq.

The hole in your argument, Nemov is that you seem to be suggesting that only liberals and die-hard Democrats are sick of Bush's war. There's more than a few conservatives and die-hard Republicans who feel the same way.

Congressman Walter Jones is a Republican from North Carolina, he voted for the war in Iraq, and he coined the term Freedom Fries. So he's obviously no peacenik, but he is the first Republican to break with the White House and call for a firm date to withdraw American troops from Iraq. He says he had a change of heart when he saw the devastation this war has caused to military families across the country.

Congressman Jones said in an interview last Sunday with ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he votes his conscience first, his constituents second, his party third.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/t...enation/73535_1

A red-state Republican like Jones isn't the kind to start a trend; he's following one and if more Congressmen like him were more concerned about what is good for their nation and not just their party, Bush just might have to come up with a viable exit strategy instead of just another pep talk for a sympathetic audience and the rabid true believers.

And if you don't think the war will have an impact on the Republican Party's popularity and isn't a HUGE drag on the economy, you're fooling yourself. The poll numbers aren't good with an election just over a year away and the military recruiting numbers are in the dumpster.

Send in the Bush Twins. Now.

Well, I saw snippets of it on Nightline, and then I watched Larry King who had some news guy sitting in for him, interviewing Senators Bayh and Warner.

I was busy today and had not heard that Bush was going to preach, er, speak tonight. At any rate, I could not stomach watching Bush (either!) in his bully pulpit preaching to people who can't express disagreement with him. The military is so being used in every sense of the word.

Okay, to summarize: no extra troops sent, troops that are there are there indefinitely (until "the job is done"), 9/11 (5x) and blah blah, we must stay the course, sorry about all the deaths, gotta do this for freedom, and may God continue to bless America.

For those of you who actually watched the whole thing, did I miss anything?

The troops showed about as much enthusiasm as you would expect from a group that has been told that they are going to have to continue to fight and die indefinitely because no one wants to give the terrorists/insurgents (I understand no distinction was made between these two groups) any satisfaction. HOOYAH!

Edited to add: I think the fact that Bush is a lame duck President has everything to do with the tepid response he received from the networks in carrying his speech.

Questions for debate:

Has the Administration blown its clout? Or are the networks just oblivious to Americans wanting to hear what their President wants to say?

Probably. I'm reasonably certain that he mentioned 9/11...

When it was recapped on the news at 11:00, I had my back turned, trying to solve a crossword puzzle online. It will be interesting to see tomorrow if the newspapers which I read covered his speech.

Do we want to hear what the President wants to say tonight? Or would we rather just go fishing?

There's an old joke, where the punchline is that Tonto turns and asks The Lone Ranger, "What do you mean by "We," white man? Given the choice between listening to another speech by Dubya, where the cue cards are held up for the audience to shout "Four more Beers!" or sitting by the lake fishing...

I'd have to seriously consider fishing...

I don't own any tackle.
One of the local lakes is infested with a toxic algae.
I've purchased two fishing licenses lifetime.
Even the cat won't eat fish when I cook it.
My maximum consumption of fish? I usually eat one - two pieces of fish a year at most!
I can't swim.
I get seasick easily.

I don't really want to go fishing, but it does appear to be a reasonable alternative to hearing anything which comes from this President's mouth. Is there a third option? Perhaps if I don't use any lures or bait...

Who is right here, the networks or the Admin?

I'd toss a coin, but all of the coins I have in my pocket have both heads and tails, and I would hate to grant this administration a 50% chance of being considered right, based on their track record.

Here is the "hole in your argument." I am sick of the war and I'm a conservative. I really do not like the way Bush has handled the war, and I'm a conservative. That being said that does not mean I am voting for Democrats in the next election. According to the latest poll numbers the biggest issue to Americans right now is NOT Iraq it is the economy.

I also love the fact you are quoting the same Rep. that gave us "freedom fries." Another shining example of how quickly politics can change. A lot of different things affect Poll numbers. These polls are completely meaningless at this point.

Bush has received so much criticism for the war at this point any type of moderate success in Iraq and he’ll be hailed a “great president.” Something that is totally undeserved and created by the liberal hysteria we are witnessing today.

Carlitos -- I don't understand how this could have been written prior to the actual speech???? It is written in the past tense and the time filed is 7:06 pm last nite.

Apparently Fox News disagree with you:

Hayleyanne, when the president gives a speech like this to the nation it is usually released to the press hours before he actually gives it. On ABC News at 6:30 pm they quoted his line equating 9/11 and Iraq and several others.

Oh yes, Nemov, how quickly politics can change. After 9/11 Bush's approval ratings were in the 90 percent range. Today they're half that. You may think those poll numbers "are completely meaningless" but with Congressional elections looming in 2006, they aren't warming the hearts of the Republican National Committee.

People are losing faith in this president, his policies and his party. Yeah, I quoted Representative Jones exactly because he isn't some kind of wishy-washy liberal spewing venom at Bush and cheerleading the insurgency. You can sneer at his disenchantment if you like, but Jones and his constituents can read and it probably isn't The New York Times. They know while Bush makes Iraq sound like someplace you should take the wife and kids this summer, not a day goes by without some Iraqi politician, soldier, policeman or innocent being killed.

Let's not even talk about how disgusting it is for a man who refused to put himself in harm's way to go before a crowd of soldiers and tell them he's going to put their butts on the line for his war. That's real nice.

Any and all the criticism Bush has received has been both Richly Deserved and Not Enough.

You are correct - I posted this at 4PM central time and quoted extensively in case the AP pulled it down. One of those cases where the reporter reads the releases, fills in the context and files the story before the speech even happens. So, I won't bother everyone with a 'the media are biased' even though I have issues with the AP and Jennifer Loven. I'll just say for today that 'many in the media are lazy.' Then again, they probably knew they were being fed a boilerplate speech so why watch - I dunno. Seems disingenuous to me.

Good thing Bush didn't switch the speech. That would have fixed Jennifer. She's guilty of the same thing that Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press was.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/v...achern0508.html

The reporters are LAZY. Physically AND intellectually.

How does that make you feel? to use the usual psychobabble. I guess the networks were right in that it was just a blather. Niteguy (previous post) had it all, even BETTER! He even got in the plug for recruitment in his parody speech, Niteguy must have ESP, or this admin is entirely predictable.

The Presidents need to look optimistic had the outcome of appearing like a death mask, a grimace trying to appear a smile for some silly reason, the effect was gruesome and painful. Ive never seen him try to fake it like yesterday and hes just not good at it.

He actually got teary near the end when talking about the military being the highest calling a person could give. Sheesh, it came across as pathetic and staged.

I dont think this 'adress' had the desired effect.

nighttimer, need we have a lesson in CIVICS 101??? Who exactly voted for this war??? Do you really need the voting record? We all know that the President cannot wage war alone...

The funny thing is that this war, as unpopular as it is, continually lays in the lap of GW when it comes to disdain. I can only imagine what liberal slug (like John Kerry or Howard Dean) would be the champion of this cause if it were more popular. What if public opinion were different? I can see Mr. Dean screaming at some crowd at some pro-war rally. The fact is that, with the same intelligence, that congress voted for this war. Consider public opinion on issues such as:
The Iran Contra Scandal or Beirut, both of which historians agree were means to an end. Oliver North was made out to be a traitor, when in fact he was putting his life on the line for other Americans. Funny how politics change...

Spewing rhetorical statements about GW's war record is as pertinent as me spewing about Kerry's grandeous stories about his war experiences... meaningless. There were plenty of congressmen whom had served in combat that voted for the war.

The bottom line is that, regardless of your politics, you have to concede to the fact that there are checks and balances in our gov't. You have to concede to the fact that we're in Iraq now, and there has to be something done about it.

I'm not a proponent of war, as I've seen it first hand and am forever changed because of it. That being said, I would imagine that nearly everyone on this board remembers how popular the decision to go to war was, and who all was "riding that train".... If the decisions were mine, I'm not sure what I'd have done. That being said, there's no rewind button in history and lest we not forget that hindsight is 20/20.

Finally, and most importantly in my mind, approval ratings and polls are interestingly meaningless in America today. Consider the margin of success for GW in the previous election, and consider all the polls that predicted his loss. We all know how polls are built, conducted, and tallied...