All Blog Posts from Public Eye
Read all 'Bush' posts in Public Eye
September 17, 2007 12:16 PM
Bush < Cheap Trick
In his continuous quest to avoid the mainstream media filter, President Bush sat down last week with 10 influential military bloggers last Friday to discuss the war in Iraq and his decision to implement General Petraeus' suggestions. According to the Washington Post's report of the session:
[T]he hour-long meeting in the Roosevelt Room offered Bush another opportunity to break through what he sees as the filter of the traditional news media, while also reaching out to the providers of a new source of information for soldiers, their families and others who follow the conflict in Iraq closely.(Note to readers scoring at home: Bush was the first president to meet with bloggers. So if you had James K. Polk in the president/blogger pool, bad news.)
"More and more we are engaging in the new-media world, and these are influential people who have a big following," said Kevin F. Sullivan, the White House communications chief.
Bush told the group that, to his knowledge, it was the first time a president had met with bloggers for a chat at the White House, one of the participants wrote.
September 17, 2007 12:16 PM 
In his continuous quest to avoid the mainstream media filter, President Bush sat down last week with 10 influential military bloggers last Friday to discuss the war in Iraq and his decision to implement General Petraeus' suggestions. According to the Washington Post's report of the session:
Bush and the Bloggers
(AP)
[T]he hour-long meeting in the Roosevelt Room offered Bush another opportunity to break through what he sees as the filter of the traditional news media, while also reaching out to the providers of a new source of information for soldiers, their families and others who follow the conflict in Iraq closely.(Note to readers scoring at home: Bush was the first president to meet with bloggers. So if you had James K. Polk in the president/blogger pool, bad news.)
"More and more we are engaging in the new-media world, and these are influential people who have a big following," said Kevin F. Sullivan, the White House communications chief.
Bush told the group that, to his knowledge, it was the first time a president had met with bloggers for a chat at the White House, one of the participants wrote.
September 4, 2007 10:40 AM 
So …it’s the Tuesday after Labor Day, and we scrammed early last week.
Did we miss anything?
I mean, aside from Bush's surprise visit to Iraq and Katie’s Baghdad trip (more on that later) and the no-hitter and Senator Craig’s post-dated resignation – well, you may have seen us discuss it on “Reliable Sources” this past weekend – and Appalachian State and Hurricane Felix and that new book on President Bush, not to mention Jerry Lewis going all Andrew “Dice” Clay on his telethon.
Yeah, we mean aside from those things.
What'd We Miss?
(AP)
Did we miss anything?
I mean, aside from Bush's surprise visit to Iraq and Katie’s Baghdad trip (more on that later) and the no-hitter and Senator Craig’s post-dated resignation – well, you may have seen us discuss it on “Reliable Sources” this past weekend – and Appalachian State and Hurricane Felix and that new book on President Bush, not to mention Jerry Lewis going all Andrew “Dice” Clay on his telethon.
Yeah, we mean aside from those things.
August 27, 2007 4:49 PM 
CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller missed a Bush press conference earlier this month. In this dispatch he shares/vents other frustrations about the logistics of covering President Bush this past summer.
It costs CBS News a fortune to cover the President – especially when he travels. And it sure looks like it didn’t get its money’s worth this month.
Three times in recent weeks, those of us who were covering the President’s trips to Kennebunkport, Maine; Crawford, Texas; and today to Bellevue, Washington were totally out of position for the big stories of the day.
On the morning of Thursday, August 9, members of the traveling press were on the press plane en route to Maine – just as Pres. Bush was holding a formal news conference back at the White House.
We had returned to Washington three days later, but were airborne again Monday morning flying to Waco, Texas in advance of the President beginning a two-week stay at his ranch in Crawford.
So what happens, while we’re half-way to Central Texas? The president walks out to Marine One to announce the resignation of his senior advisor Karl Rove.
And again this morning, the President ends his two-week ranch stay and arrives at TSTC Airfield in Waco – to makes his first public statement on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Wrong Place, Wrong Time -- The Sequel
(CBS)
It costs CBS News a fortune to cover the President – especially when he travels. And it sure looks like it didn’t get its money’s worth this month.
Three times in recent weeks, those of us who were covering the President’s trips to Kennebunkport, Maine; Crawford, Texas; and today to Bellevue, Washington were totally out of position for the big stories of the day.
On the morning of Thursday, August 9, members of the traveling press were on the press plane en route to Maine – just as Pres. Bush was holding a formal news conference back at the White House.
We had returned to Washington three days later, but were airborne again Monday morning flying to Waco, Texas in advance of the President beginning a two-week stay at his ranch in Crawford.
So what happens, while we’re half-way to Central Texas? The president walks out to Marine One to announce the resignation of his senior advisor Karl Rove.
And again this morning, the President ends his two-week ranch stay and arrives at TSTC Airfield in Waco – to makes his first public statement on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
August 14, 2007 9:56 AM 
One of the accidental subplots to Karl Rove’s departure yesterday was a question directed to President Bush by CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante at Rove's farewell press event. His question was picked up by a DC media blog and generated many responses. So we asked Bill for his side of the story, which follows.
As the President and Karl Rove walked away from the lectern after their emotional announcement of Rove’s resignation, I yelled a question.
“If he’s so smart, why did you lose Congress?”
The President, as usual, didn’t answer.
That’s OK – he doesn’t have to if he doesn’t want to.
But judging by some of the reaction, you’d think I had been shouting obscenities in church!
“Unprofessional;” “Inappropriate;” “Unbecoming;” “Doesn’t show much class;” “you are a total idiot;” “Shill for the liberal Democrats.”
People who sympathize with the President – no matter who the President happens to be – always seem to think it’s impolite to yell questions. Or they argue that the question is inappropriate at the moment. That may sometimes be true, but not [this time].
Rove has been a controversial figure in this administration, the man most often credited or blamed with framing support for the war by politicizing terrorism.
There was no time to frame that question because the event this morning was a statement, not a news conference. So I asked a more direct one. I thought it unlikely that they would answer, but it’s always worth a try.
This isn’t the first time I’ve been blasted for yelling. Twenty or so years ago, I yelled a question at President Reagan as he left the Rose Garden after the annual Teacher of the Year ceremony.
One woman wrote to tell me that I was a guest in the President’s house and ought to be behave as one.
Ten years ago, I asked President Clinton a question which brought a red-faced angry response.
The point is that reporters are not here as guests. We’re here to ask questions.
Why?
Because if we were ever to agree to “behave,” we’d be walking away from our First Amendment role – and then we really would be the shills we’re so often accused of being.
Picking Bush's Brain
(CBS)
As the President and Karl Rove walked away from the lectern after their emotional announcement of Rove’s resignation, I yelled a question.
“If he’s so smart, why did you lose Congress?”
The President, as usual, didn’t answer.
That’s OK – he doesn’t have to if he doesn’t want to.
But judging by some of the reaction, you’d think I had been shouting obscenities in church!
“Unprofessional;” “Inappropriate;” “Unbecoming;” “Doesn’t show much class;” “you are a total idiot;” “Shill for the liberal Democrats.”
People who sympathize with the President – no matter who the President happens to be – always seem to think it’s impolite to yell questions. Or they argue that the question is inappropriate at the moment. That may sometimes be true, but not [this time].
Rove has been a controversial figure in this administration, the man most often credited or blamed with framing support for the war by politicizing terrorism.
There was no time to frame that question because the event this morning was a statement, not a news conference. So I asked a more direct one. I thought it unlikely that they would answer, but it’s always worth a try.
This isn’t the first time I’ve been blasted for yelling. Twenty or so years ago, I yelled a question at President Reagan as he left the Rose Garden after the annual Teacher of the Year ceremony.
One woman wrote to tell me that I was a guest in the President’s house and ought to be behave as one.
Ten years ago, I asked President Clinton a question which brought a red-faced angry response.
The point is that reporters are not here as guests. We’re here to ask questions.
Why?
Because if we were ever to agree to “behave,” we’d be walking away from our First Amendment role – and then we really would be the shills we’re so often accused of being.
July 31, 2007 12:10 PM 
As I noted back in May, I’ve always found the way that the media has covered the Bush daughters depressing.
Barbara and Jenna Bush, after all, were college students who acted like…college students. And for that they were portrayed as drunken, irresponsible louts by reporters, many of whom surely engaged in far more egregious behavior in their undergraduate days. (Time Magazine's Joe Klein, for example, described himself as a college "stoner" on MSNBC yesterday.)
The press corps never seemed to allow for the fact that the Bush daughters were public figures by virtue of circumstance, not choice. And more often than not, media outlets opted for cheap shots when they might have, considering the circumstances, shown restraint.
Chelsea Clinton, unlike the Bush daughters, always seemed to understand what her parents had gotten her into. She recognized that she could not live the life of a typical college student without risking an avalanche of unfair criticism. And so she avoided situations where she might be photographed with a telltale glint in her eye or too-wide smile on her face. Even as a teenager, Clinton was a politician; with an eager press corps waiting to pounce, she knew she had to be.
I mention that because of a New York Times story today on the possibility of Clinton, once again, becoming first daughter.
It seems that the instincts she honed the first time around have not left her; as Jodi Kantor writes, “Ms. Clinton seems acutely aware that others are always observing her; classmates at Stanford noticed that she was always in full makeup, as if she expected to be photographed at any moment.”
Politicians, Lock Up Your Daughters
(CBS)
Barbara and Jenna Bush, after all, were college students who acted like…college students. And for that they were portrayed as drunken, irresponsible louts by reporters, many of whom surely engaged in far more egregious behavior in their undergraduate days. (Time Magazine's Joe Klein, for example, described himself as a college "stoner" on MSNBC yesterday.)
The press corps never seemed to allow for the fact that the Bush daughters were public figures by virtue of circumstance, not choice. And more often than not, media outlets opted for cheap shots when they might have, considering the circumstances, shown restraint.
Chelsea Clinton, unlike the Bush daughters, always seemed to understand what her parents had gotten her into. She recognized that she could not live the life of a typical college student without risking an avalanche of unfair criticism. And so she avoided situations where she might be photographed with a telltale glint in her eye or too-wide smile on her face. Even as a teenager, Clinton was a politician; with an eager press corps waiting to pounce, she knew she had to be.
I mention that because of a New York Times story today on the possibility of Clinton, once again, becoming first daughter.
It seems that the instincts she honed the first time around have not left her; as Jodi Kantor writes, “Ms. Clinton seems acutely aware that others are always observing her; classmates at Stanford noticed that she was always in full makeup, as if she expected to be photographed at any moment.”
July 11, 2007 2:45 PM 
First, "Dewey Defeats Truman," and now this. Who knew that over 50 years after his Presidency, Harry Truman would be a battleground unto himself?
The late David Halberstam – who died in a car accident in April of this year – decided to play referee and clear up the misconceptions over Truman’s legacy in his final essay for Vanity Fair.
Back in February, Newsweek magazine took a look at President Bush’s fascination with the former president.
Who's Heir To Truman?
(CBS/AP)
The late David Halberstam – who died in a car accident in April of this year – decided to play referee and clear up the misconceptions over Truman’s legacy in his final essay for Vanity Fair.
Back in February, Newsweek magazine took a look at President Bush’s fascination with the former president.
An avid reader of history and presidential biographies, President George W. Bush after 9/11 felt a kinship with war leaders, including Britain's Winston Churchill. In the last year or so, as Bush's approval ratings have tumbled and the Iraq quagmire has deepened, the president has increasingly invoked Truman. His aides say that Bush wants to be remembered for creating a new and effective framework for fighting the war on terror, just as Truman did for the cold war.
July 11, 2007 9:17 AM 
"The relationship between the President and the press is a unique relationship, and it's a necessary relationship. I enjoy it. I hope you do. As I say, sometimes you don't like the decisions I make, and sometimes I don't like the way you write about the decisions. But nevertheless, it's a really important part of our process."
-- President Bush, at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new briefing room this morning, befriending the filter.
President Bush, Man of the Media
(AP)
-- President Bush, at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new briefing room this morning, befriending the filter.
May 18, 2007 1:21 PM 
A few weeks ago, we posted CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller's objections to Bill Moyers' characterization of the U.S. press corps as Bush administration lapdogs in the period leading up to the Iraq war.
Knoller's comments elicited a flurry of angry responses from our readers. Typical was this comment from "sksnedegar": "The media's job is not to publicize lies the powerful tell; that is the job of a propagandist. The media is supposed to discount and dismiss the lies in favor of the truth. When do you intend to start doing that?"
I thought of that exchange as I read about yesterday's joint press conference between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is stepping down amid low approval ratings tied to his support for the war. As Mike Allen notes, "When [Bush] and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom walked into the sunny Rose Garden just before lunchtime on Thursday, most of the foreign reporters stayed in their seats, while the White House press corps followed tradition and stood in respect."
In Britain, tradition dictates that journalists only stand for the Queen, the official head of the government. But, Allen notes, the decision not to stand yesterday was, according to "some of the scribes," "partly an anti-Bush thing."
And then there were the questions -- which Allen called "blunt, even rude" -- prompting Bush to at one point sarcastically quip "that's a lovely question" to a British reporter. As Dana Milbank notes, Bush also suggested that a BBC questioner was "like trying to do a tap dance on [Blair's] political grave, aren't you?" Blair, in his typical style, said to Bush: "You had kind of forgotten what the British media were like, hadn't you?"
It would be easy to conclude that the British press are more confrontational and challenging than their American counterparts, and, therefore, superior in the eyes of those who agree with Moyers. That may be true. But there are a few factors worth noting when weighing the differences and similarities between American reporters and their British counterparts.
The first is that, with his current approval rating hovering under 30%, Blair is probably the weakest he has been in his tenure as Prime Minister. (President Bush's approval numbers are much the same.) As we've seen in the former colonies in recent years, it's a lot easier for a reporter to challenge a leader when he has most of his country behind him.
Bush, Blair, And The British Press
(AP Photo)
Knoller's comments elicited a flurry of angry responses from our readers. Typical was this comment from "sksnedegar": "The media's job is not to publicize lies the powerful tell; that is the job of a propagandist. The media is supposed to discount and dismiss the lies in favor of the truth. When do you intend to start doing that?"
I thought of that exchange as I read about yesterday's joint press conference between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is stepping down amid low approval ratings tied to his support for the war. As Mike Allen notes, "When [Bush] and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom walked into the sunny Rose Garden just before lunchtime on Thursday, most of the foreign reporters stayed in their seats, while the White House press corps followed tradition and stood in respect."
In Britain, tradition dictates that journalists only stand for the Queen, the official head of the government. But, Allen notes, the decision not to stand yesterday was, according to "some of the scribes," "partly an anti-Bush thing."
And then there were the questions -- which Allen called "blunt, even rude" -- prompting Bush to at one point sarcastically quip "that's a lovely question" to a British reporter. As Dana Milbank notes, Bush also suggested that a BBC questioner was "like trying to do a tap dance on [Blair's] political grave, aren't you?" Blair, in his typical style, said to Bush: "You had kind of forgotten what the British media were like, hadn't you?"
It would be easy to conclude that the British press are more confrontational and challenging than their American counterparts, and, therefore, superior in the eyes of those who agree with Moyers. That may be true. But there are a few factors worth noting when weighing the differences and similarities between American reporters and their British counterparts.
The first is that, with his current approval rating hovering under 30%, Blair is probably the weakest he has been in his tenure as Prime Minister. (President Bush's approval numbers are much the same.) As we've seen in the former colonies in recent years, it's a lot easier for a reporter to challenge a leader when he has most of his country behind him.
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
