It was not a political tsunami, but some significant shifts occurred at President George Bush’s press conference tonight: a shift on Social Security and some notable steps away from an allied Christian Evangelical leader.
You can read the transcript of the President’s wide-ranging press conference here. It was called ostensibly to talk about Social Security, and Bush did that. But he also answered other questions to make his case at a time when polls show support for him and the Republican-controlled Congress is sagging.
The most important shifts:
ON SOCIAL SECURITY: He basically advocated means testing for Social Security. Under his latest version of his plan, Social Security would become almost a reverse progressive income tax, with those who make less getting more. As Knight-Ridder Newspapers puts it, Bush is “proposing a two-tier system that would let benefits grow faster for poor people than wealthier Americans.”
The main problem for Bush — or any President — is when he makes an assertion and it later comes out that it wasn’t inaccurate or complete — and the omission or inaccuracy helped his argument. And there may have been one instance of that tonight, according to the AP:
Bush spoke as White House officials issued written material saying the type of change he had in mind could be accomplished with a “sliding scale benefit formula.” That would mean lower payments for future retirees of middle and upper incomes than they are currently guaranteed a fact Bush himself did not mention in his 60-minute session with reporters.
This is may be mentioned by other press outlets — and Democrats — tomorrow morning and in future debates.
ON WHETHER OPPONENTS WHO OPPOSE HIS JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ARE ‘FAITHLESS’: Several times Bush distanced himself from Christian Evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus On the Family. Dobson and some others have suggested that those who oppose Bush’s judicial nominations are “faithless.” Bush basically repudiated that statement. From the transcript:
I think people are opposing my nominees because they don’t like the judicial philosophy of the people I’ve nominated. And some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That’s not my view of the proper role of a judge.
Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up-or- down vote on the floor of the Senate….
They deserve an up-or-down vote. I think, for the sake of fairness, these good people I’ve nominated should get a vote. And I’m hoping that will be the case as time goes on.Role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life or lives her life. And that’s how I’ve tried to live my life: through example.
Faith plays an important part in my life individually. But I don’t ascribe a person’s opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.
QUESTION: Do you think that’s an inappropriate statement? And what I ask is…
BUSH: No, I just don’t agree with it.
QUESTION: You don’t agree with it?
BUSH: No. I think people oppose my nominees because of judicial philosophy.
QUESTION: Sir, I asked you about what you think of…
BUSH: No, I know what you asked me.
QUESTION: … the way faith is being used in our political debates, not just in society generally.
BUSH: Well, I can only speak to myself. And I am mindful that people in political office should say to somebody, You’re not equally American if you don’t happen to agree with my view of religion. As I said, I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don’t condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion.
The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you’re equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you’re equally American if you’re a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim.
And that’s the wonderful thing about our country and that’s the way it should be.
Bush dealt with a wide variety of other topics as well such as his energy bill and made a highly spirted defense of his embattled nominee for U.S. Ambassador for the UN, John Bolton. (After seeing that we now predict that Bolton will squeak through).
One question is: why was there a press conference at all tonight? For one thing, Bush is 100 days into his clearly-turbulent second term. For another, his administration has hit rocky waters. In an instant analysis chat on his newspaper’s website, Washington Post Associate Editor Robert Kaiser, answering a question about a seemingly more aggressive press corps, pointed to this column by David Broder (you can read our post on Broder’s and John Avlon’s columns raising the possibility that Bush and the Congress have overreached by CLICKING HERE). Kaiser wrote:
No, I don’t think he made them hold a press conference, but I do think the same factors that led him to write the column led the White House to hold the news conference. Karl Rove et al are smart; they know they are in trouble now across the board. How serious is the trouble? Stay tuned.
Indeed. A slew of questions come out of tonight’s press conference, such as:
- Was the intent of this truly to address Social Security or to use a press conference forum with its grab bag of subjects as a way to slowly edge the administration a bit more towards the center?
- How will Dobson et.al. react to Bush’s statements? Will they take it as something he had to say for political cover, or sincere and, if so, clamor for him to edge away from or qualify these comments?
- How will middle class Republicans who like Social Security react to the idea of means testing?
- To what extent will Democrats now charge that Bush is in effect suggesting a cut in benefits?
- What impact will this have on the GOP’s threat to trigger the “nuclear option” and ban filibusters on judicial nominees.
If some of the comments tonight did indicate an attempt to tip-toe a bit further to the center, then it could signify something else: that there will be some kind of a deal struck between Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid that heads off the nuclear option. Polls have shown Americans are overwhelmingly against eliminating the filibuster — but, then President Bush said tonight that he doesn’t follow the polls.
Stay tuned..
BUT THIS IS JUST OUR VIEW. THERE ARE MANY OTHER VOICES. HERE’S A CROSS-SECTION:
—Orin Judd:”Bush muscles his agenda with tactical flexibility: From Social Security to Tom DeLay, he’s projected steely consistency to beat the ‘lame duck’ rap.”
—Daily Kos:”Even the CNN folks were remarking that there was precious little “newsworthy” there. If this was supposed to turn the Social Security tide after 60 days of Bamboozlepalooza ended in utter failure, I gotta say — not seeing that happening. Consider Bush’s privatization plan officially sunk, barring a major political miracle.”
—Powerline’s John Hinderaker:
President Bush can be his own best spokesman. For whatever reasons, he doesn’t like doing press conferences. But if I were advising him, I would tell him to do a press conference every thirty days. He stands head and shoulders above his Democratic rivals, intellectually, politically, and morally. What I don’t know is, was anyone watching? Some will be upset about his suggestion that Social Security could be means tested, and understandably so, since if that proposal were enacted, the people who pay the most into the Social Security program will get the least out of it. Frankly, however, I think some kind of means test is inevitable.
—Glenn Smith:”Since he first ran for governor of Texas, Bush, with a lot of help from the Rove/Reed alliance, has exploited, mobilized and thrown red meat to the extremist religious right. Tonight, Bush said out loud that he disagreed with their assertion that the blocking of his judicial nominees was an attack on people of faith. This is a wedge that ought to be widened. It ought to put Frist on the defensive, it ought to be used in states whose Republican senators are leaning toward preservation of the filibuster tradition.”
—Bloggledygook:”For once, we have a president who is willing to acknowledge that Americans in lower tax brackets are deserving of the dignity of building wealth for themselves and their loved ones and that they are entitled to keep what they have invested. Two quick impressions: The prez handled the questions with much more ease than he has done in the past, although he tended towards long winded answers.”
—James Joyner did “live” blogging as the press conference unfolded and and you can read it here. One key quote:”I thought he did a mediocre job with the opening statement but was quite good with the answers. He was quite conversational and at ease in the latter. For the most part, his answers were substantive and understandable… As I’ve said before, I think Bush has likely already lost this debate. If he has any chance, though, it’s to get the people mobilized and writing their congressmen. My guess is that didn’t happen, but tonight’s performance was as much as he could have done given his skill set and the fact that the game is almost over.”
—Norbizness:”I guess word finally got through the 3,294 layers of Presidential sycophants to indicate that nobody particularly likes this gagortion of an Administration, nor any of its policy initiatives, if the vague, defensive mumbling of complete jackasses could be said to constitute “policy.” Apparently, he wanted to touch on gas prices and an actual Social Security initiative, and the thing lasted 28 minutes. Wow. Here’s the transcript, with alterations and severe compacting, of course.”
—Kevin Drum “So what was the point? What was this press conference all about? Very peculiar.” And later he writes:”In other words, guaranteed benefits, which today are based on wage growth, would be reduced by quite a bit for everyone except the lowest wage earners. But he didn’t have the guts to actually say this, instead making it sound like no one’s future benefits would be cut. Presumably the unvarnished truth will come later, at some time when the president isn’t on primetime TV. What a coward.”
—Josh Marshall:”There was so much bamboozling going on tonight in that press conference that it was easy to miss one essential contradiction in the president’s argument. You don’t have to worry about private accounts, he said, because if you want you can fill your account with US Treasury bonds which have no risk at all. They’re backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. But he says that the very same Treasury notes, when they’re in the Trust Fund, are just worthless IOUs.”
—Arguing With Signposts blasts the kinds of questions reporters asked:”I think I’m going to scream if I hear another White House reporter ask a question that contains the answer.”
—Steve Soto wonders why this press conference was called at all:”All in all, he answered one of the Social Security questions OK, and the rest of the show was at times hard to watch. He did seem to get peeved at reporters at times, and it turned out that NBD dumped him at the end for “The Apprentice”, as did CBS and Fox. That’s when you know that you’re a lame duck.”
—Andrew Sullivan has an info-packed take. He liked what he saw. A small taste of what he says:
The president’s press conference last night was, I think, perhaps his best ever. He was confident, in command of the facts, moderate in his views, engaging and appealing. It was much better than anything we’ve seen in a very long time; and it makes me wonder why his handlers keep him in such hermetically-sealed partisan settings. He’s better than that; and it seems to me he keeps getting better in these contexts. …I doubt it will shift the public mood, which is souring on the Republican hegemony. But it certainly reassured me that he is trying to tack away from the extreme right. Whether he can keep riding the tiger of religious zeal, while not falling off, remains to be seen. But in this press conference he struck me as a conservative of doubt more than one of fundamentalist faith.
—Crooks and Liars:”Did Bush actually say anything in the Press Conference? I know I heard the 2041 Social Security goes broke lie…The Religious Right Elite definitely took a hit, as the Preznit distanced himself from Justice Sunday, not agreeing that his nominees are being held up because of their faith.”
–Some “notes” from Matt Sheffield’s great new blog include these:
“ABC is testing the live anchoring skills of Elizabeth Vargas by continuing into the 9:00 hour. NBC rotates to “Apprentice,” CBS to “Survivor.” UPDATE: Is it just me or is George Stephanopolous starting to look more like Terry Moran?”
—Pandagon’s Jesse Taylor:”I watched Bush’s press conference on TV with the sound off and closed caption on, which was a lot like watching softcore porn and reading the script alongside it. Bush’s Social Security plan is, predictably, private accounts with a mix of benefit adjustments which Nathan Newman outlines here – it’s essentially a way of grandfathering the system out. The politically costly voters (the elderly) get their money, the younger, less involved voters get slowly screwed, and the system eventually turns into poverty sustenance.”
—Talent Show:
The best attack the Republicans have had against the Democrats lately1 is that they “don’t have a plan”. Well, now that the President has changed course and publicly stated that the goal of his Social Security plan is to prevent people from “retir[ing] into poverty”, he’s steering the GOP into some very unfriendly waters…..The right-wing has spent decades pushing the notion that the poor should be on the recieving end of any condescending talk of “tough love” or “responsibilty”. Do they honestly expect mainstream conservatives to flip-flop on this?? I know conservatives wanna kill Social Security, but I doubt they wanna do it this bad.
—Michelle Malkin:”Bush’s indexing plan is moderate and reasonable. Unfortunately, the combination of Democrats’ demagoguery and the MSM’s relentlessly negative coverage may bring the plan down before it even gets off the ground.”
—Jeff Jarvis in a must-read post titled “Can You Jump Back Over The Shark?” writes, in part:
Of course, the cynical view is that he gets to come off as more moderate — on prime-time TV, at least — and lets others suck–up to the religous right for him. Another cynical view is that the polls indicate that DeLay, Frist, et al went too far and so Bush is reacting to that (but if he were just listening to the polls, he wouldn’t have been pushing Social Security so hard). But..I’ll say I think he is more moderate on religion… He gives this speech to pull back from the right-wing religious shark-jumpers. We can only hope that this is a recognition that they went too far and Bush used this opportunity to say so, to pull back to the middle.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.