Full Version: President's Questions
While surfing around the coverage of our latest "State of the Union" address, I ran across this interesting tidbit.
State of the Union Q&A
I too like the kind of vigorous debate that such a system can encourage.
Thought?
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
...and just for fun...
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Extenuating circumstances aside in both cases, just asking in terms of a general rule.
QUOTE
Philadelphia, Pa.: Once again, I'm reminded: We need to adopt Question Day. The Constitution outlines an obligation for the President to report back to Congress from time-to-time. It's time for the Leadership Accountability Amendment, which would require the President to appear before a joint session of Congress one afternoon a month and take questions in equal measure from both sides of the house. One "accountability moment" every four years -- and one that's driven by hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda -- is nowhere near sufficient for the greatest nation on Earth. Contact your representatives today!
Peter Baker: That's an interesting idea. In the run-up to the Iraq war, I was in Kuwait spending time with U.S. troops and we ended up seeing on the BBC a lot of the House of Commons sessions where Tony Blair appeared to answer questions. It produced some terrific dialogue, a really interesting and illuminating look into the debate over the war in which Blair was forced by the process to explain and defend his position and make his case in a compelling way. That's the opposite, of course, of the direction the American system has been going, with the advent of what some have called the Imperial Presidency, long before the arrival of George W. Bush on the scene.
Peter Baker: That's an interesting idea. In the run-up to the Iraq war, I was in Kuwait spending time with U.S. troops and we ended up seeing on the BBC a lot of the House of Commons sessions where Tony Blair appeared to answer questions. It produced some terrific dialogue, a really interesting and illuminating look into the debate over the war in which Blair was forced by the process to explain and defend his position and make his case in a compelling way. That's the opposite, of course, of the direction the American system has been going, with the advent of what some have called the Imperial Presidency, long before the arrival of George W. Bush on the scene.
State of the Union Q&A
I too like the kind of vigorous debate that such a system can encourage.
Thought?
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
...and just for fun...
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Extenuating circumstances aside in both cases, just asking in terms of a general rule.
QUOTE
Thought?
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
...and just for fun...
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Extenuating circumstances aside in both cases, just asking in terms of a general rule.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
...and just for fun...
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Extenuating circumstances aside in both cases, just asking in terms of a general rule.
This might have been a good idea many many years ago. It might be a workable someday in the future. But not today.
The bitter partisanship that exists today would make such an event into a three-ring circus and we'd be the laughingstock of the world.
I don't want to place all the blame on the Dems, but if you look at what they're saying and doing today it's clear that they have no plans, no ideas, no message. All they know is that they hate Bush and in the words of the front-runner for DNC Chairman, "I hate Republicans".
Its a pretty sad commentary when hatred of the opposition is all a major party has to offer.
Fixed quotes. -Amlord
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
No. The President is not accountable to the Congress. If they do not feel they have adequate contact with him, they are free to withhold funding, block his initiatives, etc. There is a clear Separation of Powers issue here.
The point that Passion brings up is also relevant. What's to keep this session from becoming a gripe-fest? Let's face it, the atmosphere in Washington stinks right now (from both sides of the aisle). This could be a real circus atmosphere, were it mandatory.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Again, why? I wish the government would do less, not more. What's the point in forcing this issue? If you are unhappy with President's communication skills, don't vote for him. Why should we force a style of management (because that is what the Presidency is, management) on a President?
A few years ago, one of my bosses wanted daily updated status reports. I spent more time writing status reports than doing work (figuratively, but you know what I mean).
For the President, such sessions would require (at least one) full time Staffer to keep everything up to date. It would require alot of "hoopla" to do such an event. It would also present security issues.
So many negatives... Sure there are positives, but do they compensate for the negatives?
No. The President is not accountable to the Congress. If they do not feel they have adequate contact with him, they are free to withhold funding, block his initiatives, etc. There is a clear Separation of Powers issue here.
The point that Passion brings up is also relevant. What's to keep this session from becoming a gripe-fest? Let's face it, the atmosphere in Washington stinks right now (from both sides of the aisle). This could be a real circus atmosphere, were it mandatory.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Again, why? I wish the government would do less, not more. What's the point in forcing this issue? If you are unhappy with President's communication skills, don't vote for him. Why should we force a style of management (because that is what the Presidency is, management) on a President?
A few years ago, one of my bosses wanted daily updated status reports. I spent more time writing status reports than doing work (figuratively, but you know what I mean).
For the President, such sessions would require (at least one) full time Staffer to keep everything up to date. It would require alot of "hoopla" to do such an event. It would also present security issues.
So many negatives... Sure there are positives, but do they compensate for the negatives?
QUOTE(Amlord)
No. The President is not accountable to the Congress. If they do not feel they have adequate contact with him, they are free to withhold funding, block his initiatives, etc. There is a clear Separation of Powers issue here.
This doesn't seem like a terribly effective way to get things done to me. If congress don't like what the president is doing, they should block initiatives and withhold funding instead of discussing and debating the matter? I agree that there is a separation of powers issue here, but ideally we want congress working with the president to create a more perfect union (or at least that's the idea). Instead of congress just blocking the presidents ideas and making everything take much longer, why don't the two branches just talk? Maybe I'm being to much of an idealist here.
I think that although monthly reports might be a bit much, a quarterly discussion should be held between congress and the president. Why shouldn't the president have to back up his ideas? Why is he above debating how to go about his goals and hopes for the US? I think he could make time to do this and I think it could end up helping.
Although if the dems just sit there and hate on him and the reps just sit there and lap up everything he says we're not going to get anywhere, but perhaps this is an idea that should be employed.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
I say yes, what better way to see what kind of president we have than to see how well he reacts under pressure. Not only that, but we'll get to see how much he really knows about the state of affairs.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
I don't think so, this seems like a less helpful addition than the congress debate idea. I personally think there would be a lot of "fluff" or propaganda coming out in these press conferences.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 3 2005, 11:04 AM)
No. The President is not accountable to the Congress. If they do not feel they have adequate contact with him, they are free to withhold funding, block his initiatives, etc. There is a clear Separation of Powers issue here.
I disagree that this would in any way violate Separation of Powers. He will have the same power he always had.
He's already obligated by the constitution to update the Congress of the "State of the Union"... I don't see how that takes from his power at all.
Not having to answer questions is not a power, it's a problem.
This will give Congress no extra power to block his decisions, it will just make sure that the representatives of the people have the right to get his take on them.
QUOTE(Amlord)
The point that Passion brings up is also relevant. What's to keep this session from becoming a gripe-fest? Let's face it, the atmosphere in Washington stinks right now (from both sides of the aisle). This could be a real circus atmosphere, were it mandatory.
Those problems can be worked out with proper moderation. Partisanship is hardly unique to the US. Tony Blair certainly has his problems with opposition (I remember it looked like a good bet he'd be losing his job) and yet the tone can certainly be civil enough.
I am aware that Blair is accountable to Parliament in an entirely different fashion, I was just using that as a counter-example to the civility issue.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Again, why? I wish the government would do less, not more. What's the point in forcing this issue? If you are unhappy with President's communication skills, don't vote for him. Why should we force a style of management (because that is what the Presidency is, management) on a President?
We already do with a number of other regulations, because it has been determined that it is a better management style. He's already forced to have cabinet members approved, this should be a far less eventful process.
QUOTE
A few years ago, one of my bosses wanted daily updated status reports. I spent more time writing status reports than doing work (figuratively, but you know what I mean).
My engineering professor wants reports every other week on my progress towards my projects and I don't blame him. Perhaps the problem is the time period rather than the idea.
This should be monthly or so...
QUOTE
For the President, such sessions would require (at least one) full time Staffer to keep everything up to date. It would require alot of "hoopla" to do such an event. It would also present security issues.
Paying for one Staffer is hardly a challenge. It would create hoopla until it's routine and I don't see overwhelming security issues. Its not like it's open to public viewing, same old, same old in terms of presidential security.
QUOTE(Amlord)
So many negatives... Sure there are positives, but do they compensate for the negatives?
I see only tiny negatives and enormous positives in terms of governmental transparency. They more that compensate for the expense of one or two staffers and a bit of discomfort for the most important job in the country.
Let's take a step back...
What exactly would the President be reporting on?
If you look at the State of the Union, it is not really a status report, it is a laundry list of things the President would like to see done.
So in these type of meetings, what would the President report on? Upcoming legislation? Since the President already needs to approach members of Congress to pen a bill and he already needs members of Congress to push bills through Congress, does he really need to report on proposed or pending legislation?
The job of the Presidency is enforcement of the laws passed by Congress. Perhaps he should report on how many busts were performed by the DEA in the past 30 days?
I believe you are glossing over the security issue. There is a big problem with having the Executive and Legislative branches in one place. Especially when it becomes routine, the danger would increase immensely.
There are also a few procedural questions here: the Constitution does not mention political Parties. Certainly the framers were cognizant of parties, but they did not enshrine the concept in the Constitution. In order to be "fair", Political Parties would need to be defined in the context of this Amendment.
Then there is moderation. How could the Amendment define an impartial moderator? "Jim Leher-like"? Look at the farce that the Presidential debates have become. They are overly moderated and no real exchange takes place. It is more like a series of mini-speeches. I foresee something similar here...a good idea which quickly loses its appeal and usefulness.
What exactly would the President be reporting on?
If you look at the State of the Union, it is not really a status report, it is a laundry list of things the President would like to see done.
So in these type of meetings, what would the President report on? Upcoming legislation? Since the President already needs to approach members of Congress to pen a bill and he already needs members of Congress to push bills through Congress, does he really need to report on proposed or pending legislation?
The job of the Presidency is enforcement of the laws passed by Congress. Perhaps he should report on how many busts were performed by the DEA in the past 30 days?
I believe you are glossing over the security issue. There is a big problem with having the Executive and Legislative branches in one place. Especially when it becomes routine, the danger would increase immensely.
There are also a few procedural questions here: the Constitution does not mention political Parties. Certainly the framers were cognizant of parties, but they did not enshrine the concept in the Constitution. In order to be "fair", Political Parties would need to be defined in the context of this Amendment.
Then there is moderation. How could the Amendment define an impartial moderator? "Jim Leher-like"? Look at the farce that the Presidential debates have become. They are overly moderated and no real exchange takes place. It is more like a series of mini-speeches. I foresee something similar here...a good idea which quickly loses its appeal and usefulness.
QUOTE
What exactly would the President be reporting on?
It's not that he's reporting on anything, it's that the legislative branch be able to ask questions directly to the president. I wouldn't think he would necessarily have to come and and say anything, just show up and be ready to answer questions about his ideas for reform and thing of that nature. If congress didn't have any questions for him, and he didn't have any for congress then that's fine, but if one of the senators or representatives has a question, then there's some dialog and discussion, hopefully leading to some understanding. These things could be scheduled for a maximum of two hours or something like that.
QUOTE
How could the Amendment define an impartial moderator?
Perhaps we could look at the English version and base if off of that. They seem to have a good system from what I've heard, although I've never actually seen Tony Blair fielding questions from Parliament. Instead of saying this would be too hard and difficult to implement, I think we should give it a try, I mean what's the worst that could happen? Bush make a fool of himself? He's been there and done that, so no harm done.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
I watch the "Prime Ministers Questions" every week, it's archived and streamed on C-SPAN. It's great entertainment for a political junkie. Those Brits can get pretty raucous at times, lots of hooting and hollering, jeering and laughing. Great fun, no question, but I don't think it's terribly productive. The questions seem less designed to elicit information and more designed to make a political point. And the answers are the same way. For example.....
"How does the Prime Minister explain the loss of 500 jobs in Londonderry when he promised to increase the number of jobs?"
:::background::: Yeah, yeah, yeah!
:::other side::: groan, groan, groan
PM: "If my learned opponent would look at HIS party's record when they were in power he would see that not only did Londonderry lose 500 jobs under their stewardship, but indeed lost 2,500 jobs!"
cheers, groans, boos, hisses, laughter.......
Like I said, great entertainment, but no real substance there. I really don't think doing the same sort of thing in the US would be terribly productive.
As far as the Press Conferences are concerned, I'm not thrilled with that idea either. As Amlord (I think it was him) referenced concerning "status reports", working on such things can really take away from actually performing the task at hand. I know some people who have worked in the White House and according to them, prepping for a Presidential Press Conference is a pretty intense task. It can tie up the entire staff for days or even weeks getting information together and working on briefing papers for the President. It requires a tremendous expenditure of resources that would be better utilized actually implementing policy instead of talking about it. The White House has a daily press briefing (also available on C-SPAN) and the content of that comes directly from the President through the Press Secretary. You can bet if that Press Secretary says, "This is the White House position on this", then it reflects the President's position. I think that's sufficient.
I watch the "Prime Ministers Questions" every week, it's archived and streamed on C-SPAN. It's great entertainment for a political junkie. Those Brits can get pretty raucous at times, lots of hooting and hollering, jeering and laughing. Great fun, no question, but I don't think it's terribly productive. The questions seem less designed to elicit information and more designed to make a political point. And the answers are the same way. For example.....
"How does the Prime Minister explain the loss of 500 jobs in Londonderry when he promised to increase the number of jobs?"
:::background::: Yeah, yeah, yeah!
:::other side::: groan, groan, groan
PM: "If my learned opponent would look at HIS party's record when they were in power he would see that not only did Londonderry lose 500 jobs under their stewardship, but indeed lost 2,500 jobs!"
cheers, groans, boos, hisses, laughter.......
Like I said, great entertainment, but no real substance there. I really don't think doing the same sort of thing in the US would be terribly productive.
As far as the Press Conferences are concerned, I'm not thrilled with that idea either. As Amlord (I think it was him) referenced concerning "status reports", working on such things can really take away from actually performing the task at hand. I know some people who have worked in the White House and according to them, prepping for a Presidential Press Conference is a pretty intense task. It can tie up the entire staff for days or even weeks getting information together and working on briefing papers for the President. It requires a tremendous expenditure of resources that would be better utilized actually implementing policy instead of talking about it. The White House has a daily press briefing (also available on C-SPAN) and the content of that comes directly from the President through the Press Secretary. You can bet if that Press Secretary says, "This is the White House position on this", then it reflects the President's position. I think that's sufficient.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Feb 4 2005, 01:28 PM)
Like I said, great entertainment, but no real substance there. I really don't think doing the same sort of thing in the US would be terribly productive.
I watched quite a few sessions myself and although there is always a bit of showmanship involved (as there is whenever a politician opens his/her mouth) there are also some very substantive points raised.
A person who watched Prime Minister's questions in the lead-up to the Iraq war would be more informed than they ever could hope to be relying on the evening news.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's better than what we've got.
QUOTE
As far as the Press Conferences are concerned, I'm not thrilled with that idea either. As Amlord (I think it was him) referenced concerning "status reports", working on such things can really take away from actually performing the task at hand. I know some people who have worked in the White House and according to them, prepping for a Presidential Press Conference is a pretty intense task. It can tie up the entire staff for days or even weeks getting information together and working on briefing papers for the President. It requires a tremendous expenditure of resources that would be better utilized actually implementing policy instead of talking about it.
If the policy is correct that is...
On press conferences, I'm not talking too many. I'm just suggesting (less strongly then the congressional session idea) that there should be a minimum.
Bush seems to hide form the press, not a good attribute in a leader regardless of style. Clinton gave far more conferences. Perhaps a president should not give that many, but once every six months is a little pathetic.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
The White House has a daily press briefing (also available on C-SPAN) and the content of that comes directly from the President through the Press Secretary. You can bet if that Press Secretary says, "This is the White House position on this", then it reflects the President's position. I think that's sufficient.
...yes and the same information provided to the Press Secretary could be provided to the president, so I don't think that it would get in the way of the president's job too much. Again, other leaders seem to manage.
I've seen White House press briefing, questioning the President himself could be more useful. The Press Secretary dodges, evades, and spins every tough question because no one cares if his reputation is tarnished (I mean who even knows his name, did Scott McClellan quit?)
The President himself would have to keep a more honest image, which may require the occasional moment of honesty.
I think calling this too complicated ignores the fact that it is managed frequently elsewhere.
Edited to Correct Bad Grammar
...and to note that apparently Blair holds a Press Conference monthly...
on top of questioning weekly.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
This would be a great idea. It would be a great idea for Democrats to get their questions to the president face-to-face, instead of just bashing him.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
No. However many he wants to hold should be the number. Maybe hold at least two.
This would be a great idea. It would be a great idea for Democrats to get their questions to the president face-to-face, instead of just bashing him.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
No. However many he wants to hold should be the number. Maybe hold at least two.
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 4 2005, 03:09 PM)
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's better than what we've got.
To elaborate on that point, I find it hard to believe that those of us who participate in this site with its specific rules on clearly defined questions for debate lack an appreciation of the value of direct questioning of the type the President receives far too rarely.
I raised the points of congressional and press questioning because I care less who ask the questions as long as they are asked. Such a system could put a damper on spin we receive from government.
I feel a system of constant public pressure on the president can help to solve one of the problems I noted in the "What is Wrong With Politics Today?" thread.
Link to Post
It seems the politically interested among the voters have to play a really slow game of whack-a-mole. We can put pressure on politicians when they are vulnerable(elections), then they descend into the dark depths of congress/the White House where the details of their positions are often obscured by the official spin.
The current press briefing are not places to get tough questions, perhaps the congress is (or could be made to be, since the voters have more control over it).
It wouldn't be the first time Prime Minister's Questions influenced US presidential practice.
QUOTE
Prime Minister's Questions were part of the inspiration behind the Anglophile Woodrow Wilson's revival of the State of the Union Address.
Prime Minister's Questions
The idea drew the President out of seclusion before...
As a Brit, I greatly enjoy Prime Minister's Question time, but remember there is a fundamental difference in governmental structure, the Prime Minister is also a Member of Parliament and is being questioned by his own colleagues in the House of Commons. In this country, the President is not a member of congress and heads one of three separate but equal branches of government. To require the Executive branch to report to the legislative branch would establish a different hierarchical relationship, so why not also require the Supreme court to report to congress on why it reached the conclusions it did?.
Much as I'd like this president to be more accountable, I think adding "dotted lines" of reporting to the countries org chart would blur the lines between the branches too much.
Much as I'd like this president to be more accountable, I think adding "dotted lines" of reporting to the countries org chart would blur the lines between the branches too much.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
I think the British tradition has evolved into a wonderful modern custom. I wish our president was subjected to more honest, candid, and direct questioning. It might even prove to be healthy for our government. Also we could find out about the quality of our representatives and we could get some free entertainment out of our government. For me it would be a win-win-win situation.
I do know that I would go so far as to say we should adopt the policy, but I would be highly in favor of it, and if I were president I would toss myself into the stew for kicks and giggles.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Again that should word. I would also like to see the executive officer of our country exposed to questioning. So were I in charge I would create a mandatory number of press conferences for the purpose of the press and the public, to be shaped not my the executive message but by the will of the people or the members of the press.
Maybe we could make it into a reality television show. The finalists stay at Camp David and they get voted off the island for whatever reasons. Heck make it all reporters and we get to toss the idiots off. But I digress.
I think the British tradition has evolved into a wonderful modern custom. I wish our president was subjected to more honest, candid, and direct questioning. It might even prove to be healthy for our government. Also we could find out about the quality of our representatives and we could get some free entertainment out of our government. For me it would be a win-win-win situation.
I do know that I would go so far as to say we should adopt the policy, but I would be highly in favor of it, and if I were president I would toss myself into the stew for kicks and giggles.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
Again that should word. I would also like to see the executive officer of our country exposed to questioning. So were I in charge I would create a mandatory number of press conferences for the purpose of the press and the public, to be shaped not my the executive message but by the will of the people or the members of the press.
Maybe we could make it into a reality television show. The finalists stay at Camp David and they get voted off the island for whatever reasons. Heck make it all reporters and we get to toss the idiots off. But I digress.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
Benefits:
-Increased awareness for the general public.
Detriments:
-It would be one sided. The Democrats would be able to bash the Republicans (Bush being the primary Republican figurehead), but who would bash the democrats.
Improvisations:
-Allow the questioner to re-ask (Not being allowed to re-ask more then three times though) his question if the President sidesteps it. This could of course be abused, but if abused it will make the questioner look bad.
-Make the Democrats choose someone to represent them. This person would then be questioned in the same manner as the president.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
I think the media already has to much control over what we know. Why not use a general assembly of citizens instead (Citizens all over the country could sign up, and a few would be randomly chosen to attent the assembly).
What we really need is something like the presidential debates again. I think the largest roadblock to public awareness, is that the general public is far to gullible. Inane arguments seemed to take up 60% of the light in 2004. Of course getting into that will lead me off topic. Anyway, theres my contribution.
Benefits:
-Increased awareness for the general public.
Detriments:
-It would be one sided. The Democrats would be able to bash the Republicans (Bush being the primary Republican figurehead), but who would bash the democrats.
Improvisations:
-Allow the questioner to re-ask (Not being allowed to re-ask more then three times though) his question if the President sidesteps it. This could of course be abused, but if abused it will make the questioner look bad.
-Make the Democrats choose someone to represent them. This person would then be questioned in the same manner as the president.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
I think the media already has to much control over what we know. Why not use a general assembly of citizens instead (Citizens all over the country could sign up, and a few would be randomly chosen to attent the assembly).
What we really need is something like the presidential debates again. I think the largest roadblock to public awareness, is that the general public is far to gullible. Inane arguments seemed to take up 60% of the light in 2004. Of course getting into that will lead me off topic. Anyway, theres my contribution.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
I think this is a good idea, but agree that this does tilt power toward Congress.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
This I totally agree with. I think any group of media that can show a viewership of a certain number should be able to participate in an unfetterd question session. The President would not be able to select his questioners.
The main reason I think this should be mandatory is because this administration lies like noones business. Just today the budget analyst for the White House said the Rich actually were hurt by the tax cuts because they now pay a higher percent of the taxes!!! What LIES!
Without public scrutiny, the media has refused to step up to the plate in attacking these lies for fear of retribution. Having mandatory access by citizens/press to the president guarantees that a lying tyrant will have a harder time ruling with lies and manipulation.
I think we should make it law. I don't think a President, who is a PUBLIC SERVANT, should be sheltered from public scrutiny by avoiding questions. Bush has avoided any direct questioning for all but a few occasions in FOUR YEARS. This is totally unacceptable.
I think this is a good idea, but agree that this does tilt power toward Congress.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
This I totally agree with. I think any group of media that can show a viewership of a certain number should be able to participate in an unfetterd question session. The President would not be able to select his questioners.
The main reason I think this should be mandatory is because this administration lies like noones business. Just today the budget analyst for the White House said the Rich actually were hurt by the tax cuts because they now pay a higher percent of the taxes!!! What LIES!
Without public scrutiny, the media has refused to step up to the plate in attacking these lies for fear of retribution. Having mandatory access by citizens/press to the president guarantees that a lying tyrant will have a harder time ruling with lies and manipulation.
I think we should make it law. I don't think a President, who is a PUBLIC SERVANT, should be sheltered from public scrutiny by avoiding questions. Bush has avoided any direct questioning for all but a few occasions in FOUR YEARS. This is totally unacceptable.
Should the President be mandated to attend a televised session in which he answers questions from the Congress/Senate?
Hmm. Not sure. As has been mentioned, the analogy of Prime Minister's Questions is relevant, but not such a fantastic example (too much grandstanding and pantomime and not many tough questions anyway), and besides which has some wide-ranging constitutional implcations in the US system that it doesn't have here.
That said, the weekly chaos of PM's questions may not work too well (except as theatre/entertainment?), but many of the ministerial question sessions, following the same format but being lower profile, do occasionally uncover relevant information.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
From what I've seen of the relationship of the president with the media (not just this one, but almost all recent office-holders), press conferences are the only forum in which the administration does not have overall control, and where interviewers are healthily non-deferential. Yet they are all-too-brief, and it's hard for any one hack to pin anyone down, since the holder of the conference has to be seen to take questions from more than one journo - often a convenient reason not to answer a question fully (or at all).
And in the kind of in-depth, one-on-one interviews with specialist interviewers (i.e. journalists who make thier livings doing it, who seem comparatively rare in the USA anyway) that might permit fuller explorations of one or two issues instead of skimming over several, it too often happens that the fear of offending the President, or other senior political office-holder, and maybe not being able to secure another interview with them again, leads to way too much deference.
And anyway, the current president seems even more averse to such interviews than his recent predecessors.
So rather than more, and compulsory, press conferences, I'd say you need more & compulsory longer one-on-one interviews, where no editorial briefing of the interviewee is permitted (i.e. the President doesn't know what he'll be asked and isn't allowed any kind of help from his aides in answering the questions)*.
Better still, we have a BBC show here called Question Time which travels the country (and even nips across to the USA and Europe a couple of times per year - it came from Florida the night before the last election there) and puts a panel of politicians in front of an invited public audience. Sure the politicians try to put forth their current patter and buzz phrases, but invariably the audience or moderator will find chinks in their armour. They either stray off-message and come across as engaged and passionate human beings, or stick to it relentlessly and come across as soulless automata that nobody respects**
*Even Tony Blair is noticably averse to meeting some of our more reknowned interviewers such as John Humphrys or Jeremy Paxman - he's seen what they've been able to do to other politicos and wants to appear to stay in control, so he avoids them and goes on lifestyle shows not know for their penetration instead. His most recent in-depth interview was with a teen's TV presenter, ostensibly to "connect with youth". You could practically see the stars in her eyes. The only interesting part of the whole programme was when TB was sat in a studio with members of the "youth" public, who actually asked him some tough questions on policy and principle. Different from Pres. Bush, Blair CAN do this sort of thing on the fly, though he clearly doesn't enjoy it as much as some others do.
**Famously our current leader of the opposition Michael Howerd, who was Home Secretary under the last Tory government, was asked if he threatened to over-rule a decision taken by the head of the Prison Service after that person had resigned. He evaded the question by sayig something like
"I did not over-rule him blah blah blah", so the inteviewer (Jeremy Paxman) asked him again
"Did you threaten to overrule him?". Again, evasion.
"Did you threaten to overrule him?. Evasion.
And so on. Jeremy Paxman asked the same question fourteen times, the exchange clearly becoming a battle of wills.
Afterwards, Paxman said that they were nearing the end of the show, and that they were about a minute or two ahead of time, so he had nothing rehearsed to fill the end of the programme. Rather than mumble aimlessly taking two minutes to say goodnight, he thought it might be interesting to spend the time pinning down Howerd. After the first few evasions, he started to get annoyed, so he just kept asking. The producers were telling him in his earpiece to carry on, as they had nothing else to add, plus it was good tv.
This interview has now become something of a running joke - the archetypal oily evasive political reptile everyone loves to hate. Whenever anyone wants to undermine Howerd's credibility - as leader of the Opposition, he hopes to become Prime Minister at this year's General Election. All anyone needs to do to make him a laughing stock is just play this interview, or even just ask him "did you threaten to overrule him?". (I've heard him heckled in just this way, and the guy just can't deal with it - it's hilarious! He obviously yearns to be taken seriously, and the one person who has made him a joke is himself.)
Something of a tangent, but I thouht it was worthwile reminding British readers who are disenchanted with Blair quite who their disenchantment is most likely to let in if they act on it any time soon.
Hmm. Not sure. As has been mentioned, the analogy of Prime Minister's Questions is relevant, but not such a fantastic example (too much grandstanding and pantomime and not many tough questions anyway), and besides which has some wide-ranging constitutional implcations in the US system that it doesn't have here.
That said, the weekly chaos of PM's questions may not work too well (except as theatre/entertainment?), but many of the ministerial question sessions, following the same format but being lower profile, do occasionally uncover relevant information.
Should the president be required to hold a minimum number of press conferences?
From what I've seen of the relationship of the president with the media (not just this one, but almost all recent office-holders), press conferences are the only forum in which the administration does not have overall control, and where interviewers are healthily non-deferential. Yet they are all-too-brief, and it's hard for any one hack to pin anyone down, since the holder of the conference has to be seen to take questions from more than one journo - often a convenient reason not to answer a question fully (or at all).
And in the kind of in-depth, one-on-one interviews with specialist interviewers (i.e. journalists who make thier livings doing it, who seem comparatively rare in the USA anyway) that might permit fuller explorations of one or two issues instead of skimming over several, it too often happens that the fear of offending the President, or other senior political office-holder, and maybe not being able to secure another interview with them again, leads to way too much deference.
And anyway, the current president seems even more averse to such interviews than his recent predecessors.
So rather than more, and compulsory, press conferences, I'd say you need more & compulsory longer one-on-one interviews, where no editorial briefing of the interviewee is permitted (i.e. the President doesn't know what he'll be asked and isn't allowed any kind of help from his aides in answering the questions)*.
Better still, we have a BBC show here called Question Time which travels the country (and even nips across to the USA and Europe a couple of times per year - it came from Florida the night before the last election there) and puts a panel of politicians in front of an invited public audience. Sure the politicians try to put forth their current patter and buzz phrases, but invariably the audience or moderator will find chinks in their armour. They either stray off-message and come across as engaged and passionate human beings, or stick to it relentlessly and come across as soulless automata that nobody respects**
*Even Tony Blair is noticably averse to meeting some of our more reknowned interviewers such as John Humphrys or Jeremy Paxman - he's seen what they've been able to do to other politicos and wants to appear to stay in control, so he avoids them and goes on lifestyle shows not know for their penetration instead. His most recent in-depth interview was with a teen's TV presenter, ostensibly to "connect with youth". You could practically see the stars in her eyes. The only interesting part of the whole programme was when TB was sat in a studio with members of the "youth" public, who actually asked him some tough questions on policy and principle. Different from Pres. Bush, Blair CAN do this sort of thing on the fly, though he clearly doesn't enjoy it as much as some others do.
**Famously our current leader of the opposition Michael Howerd, who was Home Secretary under the last Tory government, was asked if he threatened to over-rule a decision taken by the head of the Prison Service after that person had resigned. He evaded the question by sayig something like
"I did not over-rule him blah blah blah", so the inteviewer (Jeremy Paxman) asked him again
"Did you threaten to overrule him?". Again, evasion.
"Did you threaten to overrule him?. Evasion.
And so on. Jeremy Paxman asked the same question fourteen times, the exchange clearly becoming a battle of wills.
Afterwards, Paxman said that they were nearing the end of the show, and that they were about a minute or two ahead of time, so he had nothing rehearsed to fill the end of the programme. Rather than mumble aimlessly taking two minutes to say goodnight, he thought it might be interesting to spend the time pinning down Howerd. After the first few evasions, he started to get annoyed, so he just kept asking. The producers were telling him in his earpiece to carry on, as they had nothing else to add, plus it was good tv.
This interview has now become something of a running joke - the archetypal oily evasive political reptile everyone loves to hate. Whenever anyone wants to undermine Howerd's credibility - as leader of the Opposition, he hopes to become Prime Minister at this year's General Election. All anyone needs to do to make him a laughing stock is just play this interview, or even just ask him "did you threaten to overrule him?". (I've heard him heckled in just this way, and the guy just can't deal with it - it's hilarious! He obviously yearns to be taken seriously, and the one person who has made him a joke is himself.)
Something of a tangent, but I thouht it was worthwile reminding British readers who are disenchanted with Blair quite who their disenchantment is most likely to let in if they act on it any time soon.
Is it sensible to assume that Mr Bush could stand up to meaningful questioning on a monthly/Quarterly basis? From the evidence iv seen id have to say NO! and for that reason only id have to its not a good idea to try.
I'm sure hes not quite as slow as many would like to believe but surely the country would just panic if constantly reminded of the low intelligence of the man they had elected?
I'm sure hes not quite as slow as many would like to believe but surely the country would just panic if constantly reminded of the low intelligence of the man they had elected?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.