Centerfield

I'm sure that the phrase "looking forward" will be repeated quite often in the weeks and months ahead....

And the Medicare Bill was in trouble, and "No Child Left Behind" was in trouble, and tax cuts where in trouble, and the "Farm Bill" was in trouble, the corporate tax reform bill was in trouble.... I think predictions of Social Security reform's eventual defeat are at least premature, at best. If there is anything this President can be counted on for, it is to shift gears in order to get legislation through Congress at any cost.

Yeah, we know Bush will do anything to get something he wants, even if the eventual bill is worthless. Have to beat those Democrats! Something will pass and most likely, something that will be bad for the country in the long run (but, of course, good for the GOP now). Sorry about my cynicism.

OK I'll be the contrarian. 1)Where is it written that the President must have x number of press conferences per year or per term? 2) Are not all press conferences political (i.e. they have a political motivation)? 3) Are we any more enlightened after a presidential press conference. I watched the NewsHour last night and their analysis of the press conference. Significant time spent on the "modification" of his Inaugural speech's allusion to using Democracy as the key measure of our foreign policy. Was anyone really surprise that a president would have a "less lofty" follow up to his/her Inaugural rhetoric? Is that news? 4)Damned if you do ("Too hasty"; "for political reasons only", "changed his story"); Damned if you don't ("President Bush has only had ____ news conferences during his administration", etc)

Finally, its clear GW doesn't do well in these sort of venues (as we saw with the debates). I would bet that one element of reluctance on the administration's part is to avoid more news stories about gaffes or mis-statements.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for GW it just seems that the coverage of the "game" (Game = President vs the press. Strategies in the game: the shouted question; the photo op, the press conference) is now getting as much coverage as the "game" itself. I doen't find this all very enlightening.

His lack of press conferences is the news. If he had them regularly there wouldn't be a debate about how many he should have.

Regular press conferences are vital. It's the same at where I work. The university has sent a notice to our health insurance provider they plan to cancel the contract at year's end, after 70 years. It affects 13000 employees and nobody's talking, not the president, not the regents, the governor, nobody. The people have a right to know and the folks in charge have an obligation to answer to the public in a public forum.

That's what they get the big bucks for.

I think that Bush understands that his Social Security "reform" agenda is already in deep trouble.

And it's a shame because today presents as good a time as any to make needed reforms, regardless of whether reforms include privatization or not. Democrats are totally unserious on the issue because they're waiting for it to develop into a "crisis".

Fixing Medicaid would go a long way to prove he not out to gut SS.
Heck, just allowing the government to negotiate for better drug prices would be a positive gesture. After all, if you've added to the crisis in one program, why should we trust your intention for SS.

Tully: Turns out that the TSP system has had a scandal.

It had some interesting political twists and turns. Like the bush administration refusing to let the board of trustees sue the contractor in question, while at the same time refusing to pursue the litigation themselves.

Then there is the little problem of Barclays. The contractor that manages some of the funds, it has just had a £748,000,000,000,000 bill presented to it. (Probably just a clerical error but kind of funny)

Link doesn't seem to work. Here is the address:
http://www.tsp.gov/curinfo/pressrel/2001Dec3_appeal.html

I have no problem with making public officials answer thier constituants in a public forum.

On that note, I'll agree that president should give regular press conferences when you show me how my barber can get access to one of those conferences. Until then I would say that the Pres. would do a better job of answering the public by attending Shriner meetings then by sitting in a room with Maureen Dowd and Wolf Blitzer.

In short, the press doesn't represent me, my opinions, my interests or the questions I would like to ask if given the chance and I resent any SELF-APPOINTED pretense that they do.

That's too rich, Bob! Got the Barclay's link? I want to know who's billing Barclay's for over $1400 TRILLION. That's only about 40-some times the total annual planetary GDP! (If it's not a clerical error it's going to be even funnier.)

Saw the TSP thing, but it's not much of a scandal as far as their money management goes. An under-bidding and fired computer contractor. Not much compared to the IRS's problems with computer contractors. The scandal is Justice's position on the legal rights of the TSP fiduciaries, which will likely get Justice slapped down pretty hard on appeal.

Tully: Here is the address.
http://business.scotsman.com/banking.cfm?id=66792005

That is delicious! Note that the $1.42 quadrillion is just the (reported) base award from the Spanish court--apparently they also want interest and attorney's fees, bringing the total award amount up to over $2 quadrillion.

Of course, since the TSP assets held by Barclay's aren't the property of Barclay's, they wouldn't be subject to seizure. (Is Spain sending another armada?)

"In short, the press doesn't represent me, my opinions, my interests or the questions I would like to ask if given the chance and I resent any SELF-APPOINTED pretense that they do."

Okay then, let's just do away with the press all together. And amend the Bill of Rights while we're at it. What we don't know won't hurt us.

Press conferences are just a way to get information out to the people. It's necesary for a healthy democracy, in my opinion. I'm not asking to know Top Secret intelligence here, I just want to know what the Administration's views are on certain subjects and how they plan to deal with the nation's ills. Politicians are always wrangling with the press for good slants on their ideas, but it seems Bush Administration personnel show up on Hannity & Colmes more than they hold press conferences.

The problem is most of the time I don't have a chance to fact check the answers, that's the media's job. How well they do it is debatable. I must say I don't trust Sean Hannity to vent any Republican's assertions or ask anything beyond, "How many times a day do you pray?" or "Why are the Democrats obstructing your reforms and why do they look like commies?"

Press conferences are just a way to get information out to the people...The problem is most of the time I don't have a chance to fact check the answers, that's the media's job.

I thought that was now the job of the bloggers.

Bloggers too :)

Tim,

Don't twist my words. I never said anything about censoring the press. I'm the biggest fan of the 1st Ammendment there is. This has NOTHING to do with that issue.

I just said that the press shouldn't think it has any more right to call upon the Presidents attention then my barber does.... or any other voter. The press likes to PRETEND that it represents the public but that's a fiction. Who appointed the press the representatives of the public.... answer... the Press did! That's about as democratic as Castro getting "elected" President of Cuba for the past 30 years. The Press represents the Press and thats all.

Bottom line, no one asked for my vote about whether Maureen Dowd "represents" me or not..... and until they do, any implication that she does is arrogant and fictitious. It will always draw my ire.

The press likes to think they deserve some special privalige in getting thier questions answered and thier opinions heard. I say, get in line behind my barber, Maureen.

I think a successful argument can be made that the press (and bloggers too) are our chosen representatives.

Every time you go to the Washington Post or Wallstreet Journal website, buy a magazine or watch a news show, you are voting for them to represent you at these events. Obviously not everybody can attend, so the most popular news sources are allowed in. We could strap a web cam to W's forehead and all watch how he governs first hand, but I'm pretty sure the president would object. (I know I would object to watching him during a potty break.)

ARTHUR:
I am your king!
WOMAN:
Well, I didn't vote for you.

There's something in there about "lovely muck" in there as well.

"How do you know he's the king?"

"He's the one who don't got sh*t all over him"

Yup. A weak analogy, but some relevance there. The press aren't the royalty they want to believe they are.

Cengel:

I apologize if you think I twisted your words. But your post seemed more like a rant to me.

It would have been more legit if someone said the press conference could only include Dowd, Blitzer, NPR and somebody from the Nation. I don't recall reading that.

It seems to me if you put 50 reporters in the room, all of whom have press credentials reviewed by the White House staff, then you have a pretty representative group. If your barber can get in, more power to him/her.

But hey, if you think public officials should never have to stand up before a group that represents most of the media, and by extension most of public opinion; and instead be allowed to spoon feed pablum to us through their own chosen media lackeys, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree and I think most of the men who wrote the Constitution would too.

No, Tim, you still don't understand. That's NOT what I think. I have no problem with forcing public officials to stand up before a group that is REPRESENTATIVE of the public. I would have no problem with forcing public officials to answer unscreened questions from 50 people drawn off the street at random. I'd have no problem with forcing public officials to answer questions from 50 people chosen by public ballot for the purpose of doing so. I have no problem with forcing Administration officials to testify before Congress.

The problem I have is your contention that "the Press" somehow consitutes a group that is any way representative of the public. The board of Exxon is more representative of the public then "the Press". At least as a public company I can buy stock in Exxon and have a direct vote in who sits on thier board. Last time I checked the only person who gets a vote in determining who gets the Whitehouse press credentials for the NY times was the editor of the NY times.

The Press is "representative" of the public in the same fashion that George the III's appointed Governors were representative of the people of the American colonies and I believe I know what the men who wrote the Constitution thought about that!

We live in a capitalist society. In such a society the rule is “every dollar is a vote”. When you buy a product you are voting for that product by giving them money to continue operations. If you watch Fox News you are voting for them by watching their advertising. When a news company makes millions of dollars a lot of people have “voted” for them. If you don't want Fox News to ask questions for you don't watch them. Other people like to read the Washington Post so they get to ask question also.

Ridiculous Cengel. By your standards the press has no legitimacy at all. That's just foolish. If you can't find one person that shares most of your views in a room of 50 credentialed reporters at a press conference then you must have some pretty unique (extreme?) views. As much as I dislike the MSM, in fact I have not paid much attention to the major networks for 20 years, the press is much bigger than that. And they do get in to press conferences.

"By your standards the press has no legitimacy at all."

Well at least you understand me, Tim. Yes, I think that anyone who claims to represent me who hasn't obtained my permission to do so has no legitimacy at all in making such a claim.