By Jeremy Moore
President Bush has, in a manner of speaking, declared
war on the national media. White House Communications
Director Dan Bartlett said that Team Bush would start
focusing on regional outlets instead. "We believe
local media and regional broadcasters are more
interested in letting viewers or readers see or hear
what the president has to say," Bartlett said. "It's
less analytical and more reporting."
"We're making progress-I don't care what you read
about," Bush told a group of supporters at a Kentucky
fundraiser. "We're making good progress in Iraq.
Sometimes it's hard to tell it when you listen to the
filter," Bush had said a week earlier. "I'm mindful of
the filter through which some news travels, and
somehow you just got to go over the heads of the
filter and speak directly to the people."
Bush's new "give em hell" media strategy is part of a
multi-pronged public relations effort to turn the tide
of public opinion on the Iraq rebuilding. Major White
House foreign policy players have been dispatched
throughout the country to make speeches about progress
in health care, education, infrastructure and human
rights to contrast with the daily media diet of
suicide bombings and casualties.
And it's about time.
Since Bush walked the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln
in a flight suit six months ago, an event that has
proven to be somewhat embarrassing, he has been
suffering from a rhetoric deficit on Iraq. As his
critics grow louder, Bush responds with recycled
platitudes from his post-September 11 glory that lose
impact from overuse.
His public supporters try to bolster his image by
pointing to how resolute he is in the face of
criticism, which is certainly no small matter, but
Bush owes those who support the war some rhetoric and
some good news.
A new poll by the Washington Post-ABC News group found
that the effort has already stabilized Bush's approval
rating at 53 percent. That's down from an April 9 high
of 77 percent, but it is statistically unchanged from
the previous month, suggesting that the long slide in
approval has ended.
But Bush still has a long way to go.
The same poll showed that 54 percent of Americans
believe the Bush administration does not have a clear
plan for handling the situation in Iraq, 59 percent
believe the casualty level has become unacceptable,
and 44 percent no longer believe the Iraq war is worth
fighting-up from 37 percent last month. That may be
because Americans have disconnected Iraq from the war
on terrorism where he earns 67 percent approval
compared to 50 percent support for Iraq.
Although Bush's diplomatic team won an important
victory this week by finally persuading France,
Germany, Russia and Pakistan to join a unanimous
Security Council endorsement, the same four nations
said they would not actually be contributing any
troops or money.
Even though Bush lobbied personally for his $87
billion Iraq spending package, the Senate insisted, in
a 51 to 47 vote, that at least $10 billion be
appropriated as a loan. Even the normally disciplined
House of Representatives cut $1.7 billion outright
after garbage trucks, zip codes, and one-month
business courses became politically impossible to
support.
The two spending bills now go into a conference
negotiation, but while Bush may yet prevail in
reality, his opponents clearly won the image war.
"I don't want to give in to a great lie. You can't buy
your way out of this problem," said Senator Lindsey
Graham (R-South Carolina). "You can't take $10 billion
of taxpayer money, [while] people are losing their
jobs, to buy your way out of a great lie. It would be
terrible if the people of this country who have
sacrificed so much wound up not getting a dime back."
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) sounded a similar
note on health care. "This administration has a sense
of urgency in Iraq that I don't see here at home. We
see hospitals closing and the number of uninsured
going up, and yet we don't see any sense of urgency
from this administration," Stabenow said.
With Bush's response almost non-existent, Americans
bought the Senators' arguments and 57 percent opposed
the aid package, according to a recent Gallup poll.
Unsurprisingly, Bush's silence has jeopardized his
reelection. The Washington Post-ABC News poll found
that given the choice between Bush and an unnamed
Democrat, voters chose the latter 47 to 46 percent.
That is, of course, within the three-percent margin of
error, and no actual candidate polls above 17 percent,
but it suggests real frustration. Once the noise of a
nine-candidate field subsides, Bush's political
advisers would do well to plan for a close election.
Some of this negativity can certainly be blamed on the
media. While all deaths are important because every
life is precious, certain deaths do not merit news. A
death on one of the rides at Disneyland merits
saturation coverage. A death in an Iraq war zone
should not, but saturation coverage is what we are
getting.
Still, Bush should do better. As president, his every
word is newsworthy, and he needs to start showing less
silent resolve and more rhetorical leadership because
the consequences of not speaking will be far greater
than his own reelection.
Eventually professional historians will chronicle the
Iraq war, and they will have to choose a story. Will
it be the story of a powerful nation liberating a
powerless people from rape, torture and fear? Or will
it be the story of an inexperienced president leading
his nation on a myopic crusade?
When Bush led the country to war he told us that
Hussein was a tyrant, that his weapons of mass
destruction were enough of a threat to require a
preemptive strike, that such a strike was a pivotal
part of the war on terrorism, and that the United
Nations could not live up to that responsibility.
If all of that is still true, then Bush needs to begin
saying so.
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
