Bush to speak tonight

[crawjo]

Can someone explain to me why the three major networks are not going to cover the President's speech tonight? Bush's speech is supposedly going to lay out a concrete proposal for how the U.S. is going to transfer power in Iraq, and yet NBC is going to stick with "Fear Factor"? Ratings be damned. This is an incredibly important moment, and it is during an election year, and I think the public needs to hear from the President himself what his plan is. Or would the networks prefer to pretend that there isn't a war going on?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Bush's speech is supposedly going to lay out a concrete proposal for how the U.S. is going to transfer power in Iraq, and yet NBC is going to stick with "Fear Factor"?

I would be very surpised if he is gonna say anything more concrete than what we already know.

If he is true to form, there will be nothing new, nothing of substance, and nothing that hasn't been written for him and approved by his coterie of neocons.

This is part of an increasingly desperate damage control effort by a slipping Bush regime. Notice, too, how carefully the site and audience have been chosen. This is a guy who dares not speak in a situation that hasn't been controlled by his handlers.

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Bush's speech is supposedly going to lay out a concrete proposal for how the U.S. is going to transfer power in Iraq, and yet NBC is going to stick with "Fear Factor"?

There's a difference?

Originally Posted by crawjo

Can someone explain to me why the three major networks are not going to cover the President's speech tonight? Bush's speech is supposedly going to lay out a concrete proposal for how the U.S. is going to transfer power in Iraq...This is an incredibly important moment, and it is during an election year, and I think the public needs to hear from the President himself what his plan is. Or would the networks prefer to pretend that there isn't a war going on?

"Supposedly" is a key word here, crawjo. I disagree with your assessment: This is not in any way an important moment, because it will not address the facts. It will be another spin, another series of clichés and denials. Do you really think Bush finally has a plan? And who do you think does the lion's share of pretending--Bush or the networks?

The networks are merely being realistic. When has Bush ever read an important speech? When has he ever read one that wasn't laced with lies and half-truths? This is a thinly disguised campaign speech and I think the network are right to not carry it. I bet Fox will, however.

[Paul B]

What Chris said.

Why should the networks bother with Bush? He has done nothing but hinder journalists ever since he took office, and has almost never spoken openly to journalists (as Chris notes, his handlers are always in control; of course with a moron like Bush, I can see why). So now all of a sudden the media are supposed to be at his beck and call? Spare me. Nothing of substance will be said tonight, but I'm sure we'll hear the words "democracy" and "freedom" constantly. After all, both are going to flourish in the Middle East (except for Palestine), after "evildoers" have been vanquished.

Or would the networks prefer to pretend that there isn't a war going on?

Gee, half the time Bush himself seems to pretend there isn't a war going on. Hell, he's always on vacation at his ranch.

Bye-ya.

[BFrank]

Hard to take him too seriously when he spent the past few days mountain biking (and falling) on his ranch and jetting around the country trying to catch up with his graduating twins.

Meanwhile, the wheels are coming off of the Iraq adventure and everyone from Gen. Zinni to Sen. Richard Lugar are questioning the fundamentals of the whole "project". Is anybody home?

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Can someone explain to me why the three major networks are not going to cover the President's speech tonight?

I wouldn't assume that they're not going to cover the speech. Rather, I'd assume that the various media sites and TV listings sites couldn't be bothered to do an update online to announce that they're going to cover the speech.

I went looking this morning, and at least one of the three major networks is going to cover the speech, at 8 p.m. ET. Unfortunately, I forget which one. I'll look again in a little while.

Edit: Hmm. I guess what I saw was an offer of a "live video feed" at one of the networks' websites. I'm looking around now--but whether I see anything or not, I'd guess that at least one of the big three will cover the speech.

I wouldn't assume that they're not going to cover the speech. Rather, I'd assume that the various media sites and TV listings sites couldn't be bothered to do an update online to announce that they're going to cover the speech. - Rita

Crawjo, nobody here hates it worse than I do when Rita's right. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that this is the case.

Also note that most who are making the negative comments here(essentially damning anything the President has said BEFORE he's said it)are also many of the same folks who blasted you for having an opinion about Fat Nasty's new movie without having seen it first.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Gee, half the time Bush himself seems to pretend there isn't a war going on. Hell, he's always on vacation at his ranch. Bye-ya.

Actually, it's only 40% of the time Bush's been in office that he's been
on vacation. Officially. Stop exaggerating.

[cookie]

I will be surprised if this isn't on network television. Yes, listings are often wrong because speeches aren't scheduled at the time of publication.

I am *certainly* interested in hearing it. Even though I suspect I won't like what I'm hearing, I still feel it's my responsibility to stay informed. I imagine that if the three big networks don't air the speech, there will be many complaints.

Fortunately, I have two PBS stations from which to choose for watching "Colonial House." I'll watch the one at 9 and hope to catch Bush's 8 PM speech. I want to know not only what he says, but I wish to observe his face and body language. It's easy to dismiss as being the SOS, but I'm really curious about what the hell the administration *thinks* is going to happen up to and after June 30.

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Also note that most who are making the negative comments here(essentially damning anything the President has said BEFORE he's said it)are also many of the same folks who blasted you for having an opinion about Fat Nasty's new movie without having seen it first.

Who are you trying to kid? The guy was appointed 3 1/2 years ago and he has yet to make a speech that departs from the neocon-cum-comic book formula. He is as predictable as a sunset.

Apropos Bush clichés and predictability. How much do you want to bet that he will say (with a silly smirk) something akin to, "we live in historic times, this is a(n) historic moment? He'll give us that blather about "freedom" and those evil-doers who "hate freedom." If you have heard only three Bush readings, this one will give you déjà vu. I guarantee it.

He is as predictable as a sunset.

And Moore isn't?

[Paul B]

And Moore isn't?

One expects more out of a United States president than out of a filmmaker/gadfly/rabble-rouser, or whatever label you want to stick Moore with.

If the latter is predictable, fine. When the President continually turns complex policy issues into platitudes--as he will certainly do tonight--that's a problem.

Bye-ya.

[lynn]

Gee I'm surprised someone hasn't thrown out the liberal media card. But alas, it is the capitalistic bean counters that are holding this card deck. This is the last week of sweeps. Bush will be gone in November but the networks have to live with the numbers for years. The bottom line is a number even Bush might understand ..... well maybe not.

CNN will carry the address for sure. I don't think any of the majors are. ABC is providing a live feed for any affiliate that wants to carry it but will not preempt any regularly scheduled network programs.

I know we will ave a few "staying the course"'s in there too.

[jesus marion joseph]

Truthfully, I wouldn't watch the speech even if it were on the `major networks. Partially because I watch so little of the major networks and partially because I know it will be dissected ad nauseum tomorrow on the radio.

[bostontricky]

I'm with my fellow Mass. native here. The NY Times will have a transcript up on line, and this thread will have 80 posts by ten o'clock anyway, so I'll check in here for the analysis. Who needs the radio tomorrow?

[chuckyd4]

Originally Posted by bostontricky

this thread will have 80 posts by ten o'clock anyway, so I'll check in here for the analysis.

Good luck sifting through the posts here to find the latter.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Chris A

When has Bush ever read an important speech? When has he ever read one that wasn't laced with lies and half-truths? This is a thinly disguised campaign speech and I think the network are right to not carry it. I bet Fox will, however.

His post 9-11 speech was arguably of extreme importance, and according to the post-speech talking heads, newspapers (incl. NYT), quite effective.

[BFrank]

CBS released a poll having him at 41% approval now. Not good enough for the Nielson's I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

His post 9-11 speech was arguably of extreme importance, and according to the post-speech talking heads, newspapers (incl. NYT), quite effective.

As I recall, that was one of his silly, in-one-and-out-the-other comic book readings. A speech of "extreme importance" tends to be remembered in detail--at the very least, it deposits an enduring quote. Do you remember anything from that post 9/11 utterance?

[stonemonkts]

No, not a word.

I remember thinking that he didn't come off as buffoonish as expected. I also recall feeling a certain empathy for the folks listening who needed to hear something comforting, and that he delivered.

Personally I'm not prone to feeling anything when listening to or reading a speech. They all have a certain carnival con aspect, imo. But the events preceding his post-9/11 speech automatically made that speech important.

[crawjo]

Well, none of the three networks showed the speech. I watched it on C-Span. I thought it was one of Bush's best efforts.

It was a regurgitation, IMO. The only thing I learned was that the Rumsfeld house of torture will eventually be torn down--well, they should have done that a long time ago, and it was inevitable.

It was as bland and uneventful as anything he has read before, and with his history of smirking out empty words, I think only those born yesterday can find this performance to be of any significance.

[bluenoter]

Well, I was wrong. You'd think that a speech described in every bloody report as "primetime" would be on broadcast television. Plus, a speech of Bush's a few weeks ago that didn't get nearly as much buildup was in fact carried by all three networks.

Video of tonight's speech can be seen on the MSNBC website, here. I don't know how long it will be available there. However, C-Span should have the speech archived for a number of days.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Chris A

It was a regurgitation, IMO. The only thing I learned was that the Rumsfeld house of torture will eventually be torn down--well, they should have done that a long time ago, and it was inevitable.

It was as bland and uneventful as anything he has read before, and with his history of smirking out empty words, I think only those born yesterday can find this performance to be of any significance.

I disagree, Chris. I thought the speech offered a level of specificity we haven't seen from him before, which was encouraging to me. I also thought that the speech was unusual in that he acknowledged many of the problems we are facing right now. Like I said, I thought it was a good speech. Not a great speech, but a good speech. I was also encouraged to hear him give a specific timetable for elections ("no later than January of next year"). And I thought the speech did a good job of conveying the importance of what is happening right now. Whoever wrote the speech came up with some eloquent phrases that are still sitting in my ears.

Yeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!

Rita was wrong!!!

Sweetness, day didn't turn out so bad after all.

Originally Posted by crawjo

I disagree, Chris. I thought the speech offered a level of specificity we haven't seen from him before, which was encouraging to me. I also thought that the speech was unusual in that he acknowledged many of the problems we are facing right now. Like I said, I thought it was a good speech. Not a great speech, but a good speech. I was also encouraged to hear him give a specific timetable for elections ("no later than January of next year"). And I thought the speech did a good job of conveying the importance of what is happening right now. Whoever wrote the speech came up with some eloquent phrases that are still sitting in my ears.

So in other words, you're basically telling Chris that we can celebrate your first birthday next May 23rd?

[RBS]

Originally Posted by Chris A

"Supposedly" is a key word here, crawjo. I disagree with your assessment: This is not in any way an important moment, because it will not address the facts. It will be another spin, another series of clichés and denials. Do you really think Bush finally has a plan? And who do you think does the lion's share of pretending--Bush or the networks?

The networks are merely being realistic. When has Bush ever read an important speech? When has he ever read one that wasn't laced with lies and half-truths? This is a thinly disguised campaign speech and I think the network are right to not carry it. I bet Fox will, however.

Absolutely right on. There's a reason the networks aren't carrying it.

[frankenmeister7]

u all know how i feel about the man. he's and idiot and the networks are playing a good poker game somewhere in washington and don't have the time.

other than that, i am taping the supranos and my TV gets real hostile if i turn that man on it again. i blew a fuse last time.

i want my last picture of a dead tv to be of christophers girlfriend and her lovely made up face. not a bafoon who doesn't even zip up his fly.

i could give two double split shits about his mentality of what is going to happen to iraq next.

may he fade away into the distance of oncoming sand storms now hitting that bloody territory.

don't get me started with that trash -