Charlie Rose did a good and subtle job "getting the story" with the President, I thought. (Someone should seriously ask Charlie to give a call to Joe Clark and either get him or a referral to fix/finish that horrific C-Rose website.)
The shift to the emphasis on the facts-on-the-ground in the context of a strategy is welcome. Bush actually does well conversationally in that framework. I couldn't help but think how differently this effort might have gone if he had followed this pattern from the beginning, dumping the Rumsfeld-Cheney view of classifying everything that was "really" going on and then asking the public for support with statments that amounted to, "trust me, it's going pretty well" (and, 'I'm not going to give you "all my sixes"'). In other words, if Bush had dumped the bankrupt Rumsfeld-Cheney penchant for the (blame free?) corporate "management by objective" and shifted, instead, to management of process, to application and openness.
Even so, I don't trust any of them any longer. If I could get off their ship, I would. Their leadership is forfeit, no matter how much they keep trying to use the Presidential Voice.
THE TRUTH BEHIND 'IMMIGRATION' AND NOT A WORD ABOUT "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"
For instance, I didn't find much "moral value" in the President's selection of immigration reform as his priority. Why? Well, as I remarked here:
The GOP is very vulnerable on immigration [Pew attitude survey], with nearly 2/3 of the country opposed to "conservative" views. On the other hand, the GOP Presidential hopefuls may get political cover from the current Congress and Bush in the form of legislation, and may be able to avoid having to have campaign positions on the issue.
Why doesn't POTUS offer leadership on getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT)? He doesn't have to face the electorate again. They've earned a chance all over again to serve openly, Mr. President (and you too, Laura Bush).
