I finally got around to watching Bush on Meet the Press last night. (Thank god for TIVO.) And my impressions were similar to those written in the press. Despite the criticism of most Democrats (and I fully expected to agree) I thought Russert did a pretty good job -- Bush was giving ridiculously long and non-responsive speeches in response to some questions and Russert clearly was trying to step in with a follow up and Bush repeatedly cut him off, either holding up an index finger or saying "Can I finish?" Russert backed off, more than he did with Dean or others, and I think that probably had to do with the environment more than anything. Being in the Oval Office is a lot different than in a set in D.C. I fault Russert for that, but don't blame him.

Bush's problem in these settings is that he is clearly trying to remember all of the set responses he's worked on in practice sessions and is trying to get them out, without any sense of an articulate message or point. He rambles without any clear direction.

But I think the most striking thing to me was how this is a man who does not like to admit he's wrong. He's changed his justification for war in Iraq and simply will not admit he was wrong in his statements before the war. He will not admit that he's backtracked on opposing nation building, when he's clearly done so. I'm reminded of the quote by Howard Dean, I believe, that when the Bush Administration develops a theory based on facts, and the facts turn out not to be true, the Administration keeps the theory and discards the facts. I thought Bush's most telling quote was this:

I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate ? I won't change my philosophy or my point of view.

This confirmed for me the sort of bullish arrogance about Bush that prevents him from reaccessing things he's done or decided. The tax cut, for example. He said in 1999 that he would a tax cut of X size, and two years later, regardless of the economic conditions, by gum he's going to have a tax cut of X size. I think this attitude also contributes to his utter lack of intellectual curiousity. Ultimately, I think it could be damaging to him in the public's eye, particularly in relation to the economy. Bush appears to taken to heart the comments that people admire him because he sticks to his beliefs and follows them. So now he's decided to stick to them no matter what.

There were also some great, hapless, hopeless moments too, as only Bush Presidents can do. They don't show up well in the transcript, because it's all in the verbal hestitation and use of placekeeping words. One of my favorites was when Bush was searching for words to describe al-Hakim and eventually settles on saying that he's "a Shiia fellow." Or when Russert asks Bush if the war in Iraq was "a war or choice or a war of necessity,"and Bush clearly has no idea what to say (surprisingly, because this is a question he certainly should have been ready for), so he decides to fall back on the ol' technique of editorializing on the question and then asking the questioner to explain the question while he thinks of his response:

I think that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity.

But the best, and maybe most telling, moment was when Bush is talking about how his administration is dealing with entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and then says:

We?re dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill. It's going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate's is about 370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that but over $300 billion. And as you know, the budget I propose is about $256 billion.

So the highway bill is an entitlement program, huh? When do I get my share?



- posted by Joshua @ 10:44 AM