Not Exactly Must-See TV

But as David Bauder writes for the Associated Press, the network executives ultimately lost their patience.

"Three of the nation's four biggest broadcasters gave the president a quick hook, however, by cutting away to entertainment programming before his session was finished....

"Shortly before 9 p.m., both CBS and NBC shifted away from Bush for analysis as the next-to-last question of the news conference was being asked. The networks ignored the last two questions and were airing 'Survivor' and 'The Apprentice' before the president finished talking.

"Fox anchor Shepard Smith abruptly cut into Bush's answer of the final question to shift away to Paris Hilton and 'The Simple Life: Interns.'. . . .

"Although networks generally cover presidents' speeches and news conferences when requested, there is precedent for turning them down if there's no national emergency or if the request comes during a political campaign, said Martha Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University in Baltimore."

Following Up

In his first press conference after the 2004 election, an obviously pumped-up Bush instituted a "no follow-ups" rule. And a seemingly cowed press corps didn't object.

Last night, with Bush's approval ratings at an all time low, an apparently emboldened press corps followed up over and over again.

Right off the mark, Terence Hunt of the Associated Press followed up his own question about Bush's polling numbers and inability to get traction on his agenda. When Bush initially didn't touch on the issue of poll numbers, Hunt asked again.

Then David Gregory of NBC got into a bit of a back-and-forth with Bush, insisting on a response to his question on the role of faith in political debates.

When John Roberts of CBS asked if Bush was trying to suggest a relationship between passage of the energy bill and gas prices, Bush rambled on for a while, then tried to punt to Terry Moran of ABC News. But Roberts jumped right back in, trying to get Bush to clarify.

Then when it was Moran's turn, he asked about a new report that terrorist attacks are at an all time high. When Bush used that question to talk about how his strategy is "to stay on the offense," Moran followed up with the most aggressive question of the night: "So in the near-term you think there will be more attacks and more people dying?"

"I can't predict that," replied Bush, somewhat flummoxed.

By the time it got to David Sanger of the New York Times, whose question was about whether Bush could commit to withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq within a year, Bush had given up his resistance to follow ups. In fact, he invited one.

"Go ahead; I can see you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of your tongue," he said.

Bill Sammon of the Washington Times followed up on a question by Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times about who is responsible for all the partisan rancor in Washington.

And Olivier Knox of AFP followed up on a question from Michael Fletcher of The Washington Post, who had asked about Bush's policy towards North Korea.

"I want to make sure I understand your answer to Mike about North Korea," Knox said. "Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to the U.N. for sanctions, nor take military action unless you have the agreement of all the other partners abroad?"

Bush's intriguing reply: "No, I didn't speak about military -- I'm speaking about diplomatically."

So did it work? Did all the follow-ups force Bush to confront issues he danced around the first time he was asked?

Not a whole lot, no. But a little. It's progress.

Trust Fund Watch

This was the first time a lot of people actually heard Bush's dualistic approach to Treasury Bonds with their own ears. (I've been writing about it for a while.)

On the one hand, Bush last night disparaged the value of Treasury bonds when held by the Social Security Trust Fund, saying, "all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs."

On the other hand, he excitedly announced that one investment option for his proposed private accounts should "consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government."

Judging from my e-mails, hearing this first-hand hit some nerves. "Dear God, is anyone paying attention? Why didn't one of those so-called journalists call him on this?!" reader John Nowicki e-mailed me.

Kaiser's View

Robert G. Kaiser , associate editor of The Washington Post, fielded questions Live Online right after the speech last night. Among them:

"Des Moines, Iowa: Mr. Kaiser, The President stuck with some of the same talking point lines he has for the last 60 days on Social Security. Does the White House believe people just haven't heard them yet?

"Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. I had the same reaction exactly. I'd guess that the president likes those lines he keeps using. He may be baffled about why they haven't worked yet, but he obviously isn't prepared to give them up yet.

"Our polls keep showing that support for his position not only isn't growing, it is steadily declining. This pitch is not working.

"That said, the president's not-entirely-clear revisions of his position tonight will at least alter the discussion for a while. But my conversations with politicians here in Washington have convinced me that there is simply no chance that a reform such as Bush has been pushing will be adopted in this congress."

And:

"Washington, D.C.: Did you notice a more aggressive press corps than in the past? Do they 'smell blood in the water?' And did the president seem to be intimidating them in the way he called their names? He strikes me as a bit of a bully; are the journalists less cowed today than in the past?

"Robert G. Kaiser: It's hard for me to make comparisons to past performances, but I thought the reporters did a good job tonight.

"And yes, I think the mood has changed. David Broder 's column this morning was a powerful indicator of that. . . . David is the dean of commentators in Washington, and when he writes a column like this, it makes a big difference."

Saturday Night Follies

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post: "The Secret Service has requested racial information on journalists and guests scheduled to attend a reception tomorrow night with President Bush.

"White House reporters said they were offended that after furnishing the customary information -- name, date of birth and Social Security number -- they were also asked for the race of each person expected to attend the small reception scheduled before the White House Correspondents' Association's annual dinner.

"The Secret Service said that it has been routine for many years to request such information of people who will be near the president, and that the information allows for quicker and more accurate searches of criminal databases. The policy has not been applied universally, however."

And Page Six of the New York Post reports: "Disgraced former White House reporter/male escort Jeff Gannon can't believe no one has invited him to tomorrow's White House Correspondents Dinner. 'It seems to me to be odd to exclude the one person who has brought more attention to the White House press corps than anyone else in years,' Gannon tells Page Six's Jared Paul Stern."

I'll be there, though. You can look for me at Table 242.

What He Said vs. What He Meant.