schussman.com logo

And ... swing!

TBOGG has some rundown on the slow-pitch interview Bush gave to Tom Brokaw yesterday. Compare and contrast to this excerpt from a BBC interview with Tony Blair:


PAXMAN:
But is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to widen?

BLAIR:
It is acceptable for those people on lower incomes to have their incomes raised. It is unacceptable that they are not given the chances. To me, the key thing is not whether the gap between those who, between the person who earns the most in the country and the person that earns the least, whether that gap is�

PAXMAN:
So it is acceptable for gap to widen between rich and poor?

BLAIR:
It is not acceptable for poor people not to be given the chances they need in life.

PAXMAN:
That is not my question.

BLAIR:
I know it’s not your question but it’s the way I choose to answer it. If you end up going after those people who are the most wealthy in society, what you actually end up doing is in fact not even helping those at the bottom end.

PAXMAN:
So the answer to the straight question is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get wider, the answer you are saying is yes.

BLAIR:
No, it’s not what I am saying. What I am saying is that my task is�

PAXMAN:
You are not saying no.

BLAIR:
But I don’t think that is the issue�

PAXMAN:
You may not think it is the issue, but it is the question. Is it OK for the gap to get wider?

BLAIR:
It may be the question. The way I choose to answer it is to say the job of government is make sure that those at the bottom get the chances.

PAXMAN:
With respect, people see you are asked a straightforward question and they see you not answering it.

BLAIR:
Because I choose to answer it in the way that I’m answering it.

PAXMAN:
But you are not answering it.

BLAIR:
I am answering it. What I am saying is the most important thing is to level up, not level down.

PAXMAN:
Is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get bigger?

BLAIR:
What I am saying is the issue isn’t in fact whether the very richest person ends up becoming richer. The issue is whether the poorest person is given the chance that they don’t otherwise have.

PAXMAN:
I understand what you are saying. The question is about the gap.

BLAIR:
Yes, I know what your question is. I am choosing to answer it in my way rather than yours.

PAXMAN:
But you’re not answering it.

BLAIR:
I am.

PAXMAN:
You are answering another question.

Salon is carrying another excerpt from yesterday’s Bush interview, in which the president comments on the Dixie Chicks:

Of the singing Texas trio, who have been outspoken critics of the U.S.-led war, Bush said, “The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind.”

At the same time, Bush added: “They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street.”

Their feelings hurt? Chalk up one more demeaning comment about dissent. They’re getting death threats, they’re worried about the safety of their families, and they’re shocked by images of ten-year old kids being encouraged by their parents to smash their CDs. That’s no “two-way street.”

  1. I don't exactly understand the juxtaposition of the Tony Blair demogoguery and the Dixie Chix discussion, but I have comments on your reaction to the latter. The death threats will be treated accordingly, or they should be, by our judicial system. ...they’re shocked by images of ten-year old kids being encouraged by their parents to smash their CDs. So what? Shock and awe. Conservative parents have just as much right to teach their children the mannerisms of civil dissent as do Liberal parents. You can be assured that there are many more parents encouraging their children to protest war and discourage objective discourse on politics. It is a two-way street. The Dixie Chix have the right to speak their minds about President Bush and everyone else has the right to boycott their record sales and airtime.
    — marcum    Apr 30, 04:19 AM    #
  2. My comments on Tony Blair were to suggest that he doesn't get an easy pass from journalists who interview him. Would Brokaw ever get another interview if he persisted in pointing out that Bush isn't answering the question? It doesn't really bother me that people express their opposition by boycotts -- though it does bother me that uberconservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are quick to smash CDs, yet call for punishment of people who boycott advertisers on their shows. But for Bush to say that the Dixie Chicks got their "feeling hurt" ignores what's actually going on. They spoke out, and plenty of people disagree with them. Fine. That's a reasonable two-way street. But it's insulting for Bush to talk about concerns for personal safety as being about their feelings more than about the nasty responses of people who think it's unpatriotic to disagree with the President. I for one want a president who condemns that kind of intimidation, rather than demeans the targets.
    — alan    Apr 30, 10:38 AM    #
  3. I think that Ari Fleischer chose which network to have an interview with very carefully. CNN's journalists are notorious for asking questions that are questionably objective and their semantics nearly always swing to provoke reactionary responses from the interviewees. I watched the Brokaw interview and I thought Mr. Bush did a considerably good job answering questions as best he could without jeopardizing his 70% approval ratings. I also thought that Mr. Brokaw asked moderate and fair questions. It is interresting though, because Blair's ratings are dismally average, for a liberal in Great Britain, and one would predict that he would have nothing to loose in answering questions straightforward. As for the Bimbaugh, let him whine. He is not an uberconservative. Michael Savage, on the otherhand, is the biggest conservative demagogue (and I love it!) on radio. Rush is a national platform conservative, this hardly falls into the "uber" range of categorical name calling. And Rush knows that the people who listen to his talk show are not the ones who are calling for the boycott - and those people never will stop listening to Rush. The difference between Rush and the Dixie Chix is that there were Conservatives and Liberals listening to the Dixie Chix. Apparently, the Dixie Chix failed to take that into account before slamming the Pres. Rush is safe about screaming and yelling of people calling a boycott to his show because he is preaching to the choir.
    — marcum    May 1, 02:55 AM    #
Name
E-mail (will be spam-armored)
http://
Message
  Textile Help