Why Are You Asking Me?The president's don't-ask, don't-tell press conference.
Posted Monday, Dec. 20, 2004, at 6:27 PM ET
Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.
What is the purpose of a presidential press conference? Is it to allow reporters to ask the president questions? Or is it to get the president to answer them? Dodging the question is one of the most important (and most-used) weapons in a politician's arsenal, of course. In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara cited the traditional ploy of answering the question you wish you were asked, rather than the question you actually were asked. (Think of it as the reverse of Donald Rumsfeld's first rule of war: You reply to the question you might want or wish to have, not the question you have.) But President Bush, as he demonstrated during Monday's question-and-not-answer session with the White House press corps, has dispensed with that old trick. Instead, Bush, having invited reporters to ask him questions on live television, repeatedly told reporters that their questions would be better directed at someone else.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponHow long will U.S. troops be in Iraq? Ask Gens. Abizaid and Casey. What's the broad framework for Social Security reform? Ask Congress. Has the Iraq war improved the prospects for peace in the Middle East? Go ask the Palestinians. Every time he was confronted with a difficult question, Bush answered, Go ask someone else. You expect a press secretary or a Cabinet officer, to say, "I'll get back to you," or "That's above my pay grade," or "You'd have to ask the president." Well, now the president has been asked. And he told us to ask you.
"Well again, I will repeat, don't bother to ask me," Bush said in response to a question about what "tough measures" might need to be taken to establish private Social Security accounts. "Oh, you can ask me. I shouldn't—I can't tell you what to ask, it's not the holiday spirit." But I'm not going to answer, so don't waste your time: "I will negotiate at the appropriate time with the law writers, and so thank you for trying." On the question of how long American troops will remain in Iraq, Bush said, "The best people that reflect the answer to that question are people like Abizaid and Casey who are right there on the ground." On the Middle East peace process, Bush said, effectively, don't get your hopes up, but the Palestinians are the ones with the answer: "But I'm realistic about how to achieve peace, and it starts with my understanding that there will never be peace until a true democratic state emerges in the Palestinian territory. And I'm hopeful right now, because the—the Palestinians will begin to have elections. I have—well, not begin—will have elections, which is the beginning of the process toward the development of state. It is not the sign that democracy has arrived. It is the beginning of a process."
Bush did have a clear answer for one thing, in response to a question he wasn't asked. (Two things, if you include his clear admission that he won't be attending the Rose Bowl to watch his home-state Texas Longhorns.) During his introductory statement, Bush explained that Iraq will have "a fully democratic constitutional government" within a year, if the people of Iraq ratify the constitution that will be drafted by the government elected in January. Many observers have worried that the Sunnis in Iraq won't see the new constitution as legitimate (or "fully democratic") if they can't participate in the January elections. Bush dismissed those concerns: "More than 80 parties and coalitions have been formed, and more 7,000 candidates have registered for the elections."
You go to the polls with the democracy you have, not the democracy that you might wish or want to have, but the test of an "energetic" democracy isn't the number of political parties and candidates it fields for each election. That's the same logic the administration used to defend its unimpressive coalition for the Iraq invasion. OK, there aren't any Arab countries, and a lot of important Europeans are missing, but hey, look at the raw numbers! So what if we don't have the Sunnis (the French and Germans)? We have 7,000 other candidates (Costa Rica, Estonia, and don't forget Poland). It's an election of the willing. Or perhaps the able.
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Remarks from the Fray:
Clinton used to wait until the last possible moment, then triangulate between his own party and the Repubs. Reagan was the master of talking tough, but in generalities, then recognizing the right moment to cut a deal. Bush is simply acknowledging that there is a process that needs to play out on Social Security and that his role is a limited one: make the problem sound important, lay out a very broad but vague outline of what he will and won't accept, then allow others in Congress to wheel and deal within that framework. Including allowing others the opportunity to claim credit along the way. That's not narcissism, it is Capitol Hill.
Bush was foolish only in saying that out loud. A far better, and logically equivalent, answer might have been, "It is important that whatever we do for Social Security has broad public support. That's why we have a Congress, to represent the diverse points of view of voters across the country. The President's role on such an important issue is to use his bully pulpit to make the case for change, lay out a broad outline of the solution, and quietly help facilitate the discussions. That is what I intend to do."
--modicum
(To reply, click here)
…I would ask Suellentrop what makes him think that the president can keep track of every fine point of every policy initiative in his administration? Yes, the ultimate responsibility for success or failure of the policy rightly falls to the president, and as well it should. But the president delegates the actual implementation of the policy to others. Thus, those individuals are the best ones to answer specific questions about the particular policy.
The tone of Suellentrop's article suggests that the president must know every last detail about every policy initiative in his administration. The president can and should delegate authority, but he can never delegate responsibility. The buck always stops at the president's desk despite the protestation of writers who equate knowledge of intricate policy details with willingness to assume responsibility for said policies.
The president's accountability is always inextricably tied to the success or failure of his policies, a fact that is not changed by the simple direction of questions to others.
--Krytezer
(To reply, click here)
Bush didn't answer questions about how long troops will be in Iraq because he doesn't know—the war has not gone as planned, Bush is as mystified as the 3rd ID that they're being re-deployed, and our own intelligence points out that we are not winning the battle against the insurgents. Our strategy of hold elections leave behind an incompetent security apparatus after a good portion of the vote has been suppressed is, if not cut and run, is certainly cut and walk fast. Let's call it cut and skip. (or we could call it Florida). Skip blithely through the minefields of policy that might not mesh with the administrations' preconceived notions, skip sufficient force for an occupation, skip the required armor, skip the security and basic utilities you need to build a real democracy. Skip it all. Get out and declare victory before anybody notices—besides, by the time this newly destabilized theocracy's chickens comes home to roost, it will be on somebody else's watch.
…Bush needs to take the initiative in the Palestinian peace process instead of waiting to see what develops, and he had no answers for that either today. Social Security reform has no specifics other than find a way to get the government out of its obligations using the markets without raising taxes and while protecting the existing cuts. That sounds great, unless you lived through several market crashes and have spent time interviewing out of work brokers and traders and listening to those trader's recorded conversations for civil suits for 20 years.
The reason Bush gave no specifics today—indeed, the reason he avoids press conferences is his policies are largely failing or, like social security, ill defined because he hasn't bothered to think about them—he hasn't planned these things out based upon what confronts him but based upon his predispositions that, no matter how hard he tries to make them sound productive or slough off the tough questions, can't polish the turd of his policies…
--Demosthenes2
(To reply, click here)
(12/21)