Has Bush ever given a real 'off the cuff' interview?

Why would he want to put himself on the spot like that?

 

you mean like presidential press conferences?

yes he has, either way. today show (matt lauer or whatever) and a few others. presidents normally don't do those sorts of things; that's what they do after they leave office and need to hock their books or speaking tours - sit down with press to keep their name in the news.

 

He doesn't do to many but certainly he has opened himself up to the press.

I think Bush is good and disciplined at "staying on message". I don't agree with him but he is consistent at responding to questions in ways that reflect his thinking.

He had a slip up not to long ago ....about the immigration issue before it was voted down in Congress....wherein he responded to a question about his bill using the term amnesty.....which he avoided like the plague. The White House quickly amended his wordage through the press office.

He primarily stays very disciplined in his responses even while opening himself up in a few such press interactions.

 

It has nothing to do with what he wants; one-on-one interviews with no script or aid is a staple in most real democracies, such as Canada.

 

No, he doesn't have a way with words. An interview would destroy his career

 

I'd say no, unless he has it all scripted he's a stupid moronic bumbling fool, and even with a script he is a stupid moronic bumbling fool. I doubt that he could even count to ten without using both hands.

 

America is a democracy???

 

Nope

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10)."

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

 

It's not a Republic either. Under Republic, we would have separation of powers between the three branches of the government