not too close, please

By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 23, 2008

President Bush semaphored his support of yesterday's marchers on the Mall.

At a noon rally, President Bush spoke to the crowds via a telephone hookup from the White House, in what has become an annual greeting.

Can somebody explain this to me? Why is it that, in the final year of his second term, a pro-life president can't address the March for Life in person but still needs the distance provided by the phone?

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 7 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Jan. 25, 2008 7:32 PM ET USA

    Security was too difficult? The President just returned from an extensive trip through the Middle East! He didn't attend for the same reason that Reagan didn't. These are politicos trying to hold a party together that is torn on the issue. Laura, like Nancy, may well also have said no. She yearns for a First Husband, one day, to host parties at the White House. That may come sooner that we wish.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 24, 2008 11:10 AM ET USA

    Perhaps it was for the convenience of the marchers that he did not go during any year. If he did go live, then the logistics for security would be horrendous.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 24, 2008 10:56 AM ET USA

    It was worse than just a phone, really. It was a taped speech, given earlier in the day to a small group of people gathered at the White House. At least there seem to be serious security reasons for him to speak over the phone rather than in person--getting every participant in the March through metal detectors would be a serious hassle. This year he couldn't even manage that much.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 23, 2008 10:04 PM ET USA

    If I remember correctly Ronald Reagan never attended one of these marches either. Nancy wouldn't allow it.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 23, 2008 9:17 PM ET USA

    President Bush, like many politicians locally and in Washington, panders to the pro-life movement but he neither walks the walk nor talks the talk.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 23, 2008 8:01 PM ET USA

    My guess is that the pro-death people have convinced the Secret Service that all the pro-life marchers are Eric Rudolph wannabees. So the Secret Service Presidential Protective Detail will not let him make an in person appearance on the grounds he would be shot by pro-life "terrorists". It is not like abortionists have a reputation for telling the truth. Calling evil good and (the) good evil is pro-abortion's specialty.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 23, 2008 10:27 AM ET USA

    His speech was a token gesture to the pro-lifers who supported him in both of his elections. He absolutely should have attended the March and delivered the speech in person. ***Not making excuses*** but the only explanation I can possibly come up with is that he wants to keep his distance until he nominates one more justice to the SCOTUS. I'm sorely disappointed in Bush for a number of reasons. The only candidate I will support now is Ron Paul.