| Page 2 of 5 < > |
Time for a Debate
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
But Bush doesn't engage those few critical voices, he just drowns them in those talking points.
So here's my suggestion: It's time for Bush to invite dissenters not just into the room, but onto the stage with him.
How about welcoming Rep. John Murtha to the White House for a public conversation about the war? Or Sen. Russell Feingold, for a discussion of Article II? What about calling a town meeting on global warming and sharing the stage with Al Gore? Or asking Lou Dobbs up to talk immigration?
Or is Bush afraid it wouldn't go so well?
The idea of a president actually facing his critics head on sounds utterly alien today, but as I wrote in my February 8, 2005 column -- after Bush himself compared his Social Security blitz to President Clinton's -- when Clinton held his "discussions" on Social Security, he intentionally brought opponents along with him, spoke before a mixed crowd, and let himself get grilled.
Here , for instance, is the transcript of an April 7, 1998 appearance by Clinton in Kansas City. He invited Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), among others, to join him.
And while the audience was laboriously prescreened, that was so that it would not be one-sided. Members were selected by a market research company to reflect the demographic and economic characteristics of the region.
Craig Crawford wrote last month for Congressional Quarterly that Bush's "recent performances in town hall meetings with average Americans show all the signs of a tired show: formulaic scripts, weak jokes and a waning audience."
Indeed, Bush's meandering, familiar responses to most questions are so unrevelatory, and add so little to the public discourse, that it's hard to see how they're doing the White House any good.
Debate, Part II
To the extent that the Bush White House addresses its critics directly at all, it is generally either by oversimplifying their positions or creating straw-man arguments. There is no attempt at a genuine, point-by-point refutation.
Case in point, the White House communications office this morning is calling attention to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peter Wehner , the Karl Rove deputy who runs the White House's "Office of Strategery."
"Deputy Assistant To The President Peter Wehner Refutes Iraq War Critics," says the White House's "Morning Update" e-mail.



