2 edits
Obama faces down abortion heckles.
President Barack Obama has been briefly heckled as he addressed students at one of the largest Catholic universities in the US amid a row over abortion rights.
The story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8054650.stm
This sort of thing didn't happen much during the G.W.Bush years. His people vetted Town Hall audiences, they screened vehicles arriving in the parking lots for 'incorrect' bumper stickers, escorted potential-hecklers from auditoriums before they heckled, they created "free speech zones" a few blocks away from presidential venues, they read the good bits of newspaper articles to him, and they made sure he made lots of keynote speeches in front of military personel who were - oddly - behind him, facing the camera just like him, as he spoke.
And the U.S. did not suffer another terrorist attack inside the U.S. after 9/11.
Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?
Originally posted by FMFThe only success I am aware of is that Bush ducked a shoe thrown at him. If you don't count taking our liberty away.
[b]Obama faces down abortion heckles.
President Barack Obama has been briefly heckled as he addressed students at one of the largest Catholic universities in the US amid a row over abortion rights.
The story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8054650.stm
This sort of thing didn't happen much during the G.W.Bush years. His people v ...[text shortened]... after 9/11.
Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFbush got heckled alot,protest, etc.even had a shoe thrown at him.there is no difference hear in the way they are dealt w/ before and after. this is secret service security stuff. non-partisan,they just protect the pres. desenters are gonna get in no matter what,w/any pres. then they are removed. i recall a whole bunch of that going on during bushes years.
[b]Obama faces down abortion heckles.
President Barack Obama has been briefly heckled as he addressed students at one of the largest Catholic universities in the US amid a row over abortion rights.
The story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8054650.stm
This sort of thing didn't happen much during the G.W.Bush years. His people v ...[text shortened]... after 9/11.
Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOh don't be such a big wet blouse. Read my OP again. "And the U.S. did not suffer another terrorist attack inside the U.S. after 9/11. Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?" Crystal clear. As is the deadpan irony.
As defined by his supporters.
Originally posted by Scriabin
yet you continue to use the term "success" without reference to that context, as in the post following your response.
can you be more clear about the point you wish to debate?
Why are you always so completely blindsided when someone has his or her tongue in cheek? 🙄
Did Bush's low-low-press-conference-count approach to PR serve him well in the final analysis or is Obama's willingness to set foot outside the heckle-free bubble a better way to confront and shape reality?
Originally posted by FMFim just saying i remember seeing it several times over the 8 yr period.mind you,i am not a bush fan nor republican.not a obama fan either but thats besides the point. i remember it w/ clinton, bush sr.,all the way back to nixon. i seen these things on camera,obviously. is there archival footage of it some where? I dont know,i assume so.
Why then were they almost never captured on camera?
The shoe incident happened in Iraq.
Originally posted by FMFhes really not stepping outside a heckle free bubble. "they" keep it all heckle free as possible for all presidents . But ones are gonna slip through. Even would be asassins slip through.
Oh don't be such a big wet blouse. Read my OP again. "And the U.S. did not suffer another terrorist attack inside the U.S. after 9/11. Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?" Crystal clear. As is the deadpan irony.
Why are you always so completely blindsided when someone has his or her tongue in cheek? 🙄
Did Bush's lo ...[text shortened]... ess to set foot outside the heckle-free bubble a better way to confront and shape reality?
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonExactly. It's beside the point.
i am not a bush fan nor republican.not a obama fan either but thats besides the point
The degree to which Bush was insulated from exposure to those who disagreed with him or those who sought to ask him difficult or detailed questions, was famously unprecedented - at least in terms of the last 20 or 30 years of American presidencies.
It was a deliberate political choice. His successor seems to be making a different one.
How do they compare in terms of stage managing a presidency?
Originally posted by FMFno thats not true at all concerning insulating him from people asking him difficult questions.There has never been a president in my lifetime who has had a love affair w/the media as does obama. he gets asked NO difficult questions and can do no wrong. I watch him day in and day out. All of Bushs press conferences the press would not even stand when he walked into the room unlike Obama. The press rode Bush and were tough on him.they wouldnt even televise him alot of times. Obama is on TV every day giving a speech, on numerous channels. You show me A clip where Obama was asked a tough question. He is well insulated.
Exactly. It's beside the point.
The degree to which Bush was insulated from exposure to those who disagreed with him or those who sought to ask him difficult or detailed questions, was famously unprecedented - at least in terms of the last 20 or 30 years of American presidencies.
It was a deliberate political choice. His successor seems to be making a different one.
How do they compare in terms of stage managing a presidency?
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhether you are deliberately missing the point or you just do not get it, I don't really know. I am not talking about whether the questions are difficult, I am talking about exposure to the possibility that people who disagree with the president are physically present, let alone get the chance to question him (or heckle him for that matter).
The press rode Bush and were tough on him.they wouldnt even televise him alot of times. Obama is on TV every day giving a speech, on numerous channels. You show me A clip where Obama was asked a tough question. He is well insulated.
How many times did G.W.Bush hold a genuine The-President-will-take-questions-now press conference during his first 100 days? What about the whole eight years? And then take a look at Obama, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter. Did the degree of insulation Bush II clearly engineered for himself serve him well, or is the Obama approach ultimately going to win out?
Take the example in the BBC news item in the OP. Obama - for whom, like you, I hold no candle - went to some campus, got the adulation, scooped up his trinket 'degree', read out his spake, got heckled, survived it, made his point, appeared to ride the tiny dose of 'reality' well. Do you remember Bush ever "handling" hecklers? Would Bush have come across better if he had allowed himself to be exposed to just a modicum of raucous dissent once in a while?
There were no such things as "free speech zones" two or three blocks away from a place the president was visiting, prior to Bush II. Presidents may have gone in and out of back doors from time to time. Or changed their schedules at the last minute. But there was nothing Orwellian about avoiding trouble in these ways. On the other hand, "Free speech zones" are part of Bush II's legacy, like it or not.