Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush and the Media ("New tone" will cause 43 to lose)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/printlc20031001.shtml ^ | 10/1/03 | Linda Chavez

Posted on 10/01/2003 7:49:18 AM PDT by GulliverSwift

Linda Chavez (back to web version) | Send

October 1, 2003

Democrats are salivating at the prospect they may be able to cut short another Bush presidency. "He's got the same gene pool as his father," Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) recently smirked to the Washington Post. Although it's a little premature for the Democrats to be ordering tuxes and gowns for their Inaugural Ball, President Bush may be in more trouble than his advisors are willing to concede. Like his father, George W. Bush faces a mostly hostile press, out to prove that the economy is in the toilet and the U.S. military victory in Iraq is irrelevant. It's as if liberal editors and producers are simply recycling stories from 12 years ago.

In the 1992 election, the Democrats used the media to convince Americans that the first President Bush was presiding over "the worst economy since the Great Depression" -- a phrase then vice presidential candidate Al Gore coined to describe the short, relatively mild recession that lasted from July 1990 until March 1991. Although the recession was officially over long before the 1992 presidential campaign officially kicked off, news stories continued to describe a "Bush recession" right up until Election Day. Whatever credit Americans gave the first President Bush for winning the Gulf War couldn't overcome the antagonism created by the impression that he had single-handedly ruined the economy.

Today, the Democrats are invoking the Great Depression once again, this time to compare George W. Bush's presidency with that of Herbert Hoover's as only the second time in modern history a president has "lost" more American jobs than he "created." Never mind that presidents don't create jobs in the first place, except for those in the federal government.

Turn on the evening news or glance at the headlines of your local paper, and you'll learn that the current economic growth rate -- a healthy 3.3 percent last quarter -- represents a "jobless recovery." You won't hear much about the big improvements in productivity rates over the last couple of years, which are largely responsible for an economy that could grow at a decent rate but still not create thousands of new jobs. But you will hear lots of stories about the quagmire in Iraq and the Bush administration's "failure" to plan better for rebuilding the country and securing the peace.

But harping about bias in the media won't win the president re-election. If he wants to win, George W. Bush should take a page from Bill Clinton's playbook. Clinton didn't let the media control the message in 1996 -- he used a substantial political war chest to dominate the airwaves with paid advertising 16 months before the Republicans had even picked their nominee to run against him.

Clinton targeted states where he might be vulnerable and set about creating an image for himself and his administration as patriotic, law-and-order Democrats, tough on welfare cheats. And his ads were masterful -- with American flags billowing in the background, Clinton took credit for welfare reform, even though he had done little to push the idea while the Democrats controlled the Congress. It wasn't until the Republicans took over that Congress finally passed genuine welfare reform, over the objections of many in the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party.

But the Bush campaign shows no inclination to follow Clinton's example. Although Republicans have huge advantages in money raised so far for the 2004 presidential election, there's no intention to run ads anytime soon. Theoretically, the president could garner free, positive news coverage just by performing his presidential duties -- but that certainly hasn't happened recently. Whenever the president or anyone else in the administration makes news these days, it's usually negative, or it's reported that way.

Unless the Bush campaign begins to counteract these stories -- and soon -- the Democrats could just get their wish. Republicans are counting on the Democrats to defeat themselves with outrageous rhetoric and far left proposals. But if the Bush campaign isn't careful, the American public won't even notice how outside the mainstream the Democrats are. They'll be too busy being mad at George W. Bush for his "jobless recovery" and his "failed" war in Iraq.

Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a TownHall.com member organization.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush; gwb2004; lindachavez; newtone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
I think Chavez is right on the money here. There's no reason to horde all that money gwb has been raising and then spend it at the last minute.

He should spend some of it now to help boost his ratings. He can't rely on the presstitutes to get the good news out from Iraq so he has to do it himself. Maybe Bush should also give a speech some time in November as sort of a report on what's going on now.

1 posted on 10/01/2003 7:49:18 AM PDT by GulliverSwift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Agree with the analysis. But that is what the Stupid party typically does with elections.
2 posted on 10/01/2003 7:50:47 AM PDT by sauropod (I love the women's movement. Especially walking behind it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Like I have said in many other posts, the RNC and Republican Party are self-inflicted wounds. 99% of their problems are of their own making, either by not-doing or doing too late, or being weak kneed with the socialist. People who continue to look at Bush through rose colored glasses had better get a real grip. It will not take much for the unwashed to vote for the socialist and we will be right back with another Klinton administration for 8 years. Right, I hate it just as much as you do, but I actually look at facts and don't just "hope" it is going to turn out all right. Bush has done a good job in some areas, and a very poor job in others. He has hurt himself a lot.
3 posted on 10/01/2003 7:52:56 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Wasn't this Daddy Bush's problem? His failure or reluctance to step into the campaign fray? If I remember correctly, George Bush's re-election push was lackluster at best.
4 posted on 10/01/2003 7:53:51 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
There are other things at work (go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992535/posts) and, contrary to Chavez, not all of them bad. I think a reasonable argument can be made that the "new tone" helped Bush win several senate seats in 02.

Regardless, it is FAR too early to start handicapping the election. A million things can, and will, happen between now and then. For one thing, both Afghanistan and Iraq are going to have constitutions, and some public removal of troops is going to occur. For another, you guys need to recall that EVERY TIME the Dems have attacked Bush, it backfires. I think there is a spiritual reason for this, but you are welcome to your own conclusions.

5 posted on 10/01/2003 7:54:14 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
I doubt 43 will lose. Secondly, spending money now will only leave less in the coffers when it's really needed.
Let the Dems spend their money firing shots at each other (as well as the Pres). At this point and time in the last 5 Presidencies all were at the same basic poll levels.
6 posted on 10/01/2003 7:56:13 AM PDT by theDentist (Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
If the election were to be held next month instead of 13 months from now, I as a lifelong Republican would not for GWB. There is no democrat I would consider voting for either. I would not mark that part of the ballot.
7 posted on 10/01/2003 7:57:33 AM PDT by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift; BenLurkin; Utah Girl; Alamo-Girl; doug from upland; Ragtime Cowgirl
Bush should give a half hour progress report every three weeks on the FDR theme of fireside chats only call them "FREEDOM PROGRESS ADDRESSES". The COMMIE LIB press will bury the GOP if Bush does'nt keep one step ahead of them.
8 posted on 10/01/2003 7:59:36 AM PDT by Uncle George
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
Wasn't this Daddy Bush's problem? His failure or reluctance to step into the campaign fray? If I remember correctly, George Bush's re-election push was lackluster at best.

You are exactly correct. Daddy Bush was counting on his Gulf War status to bring him thru the election and it didn't work. The economy was doing very poorly then and it seemed like he didn't care. Once you give the democreeps that kind of opening they jump in like the bacteria they are and seep into the wound and infest it. Bush is doing that right now. HE HAS TO STOP THEM but I am afraid his advisors are telling him (like they told his father) to wait until the primaries are over. In the meantime the Democreeps are starting to hypnotise the American people. Bush cannot wait until the primaries he has to begin his campaigning right now!

9 posted on 10/01/2003 8:00:10 AM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Bingo! Linda Chavez knows her stuff. She has pinpointed exactly the problem. Repubs are counting on the Democrats to defeat themselves. Not a good strategy IMO.
10 posted on 10/01/2003 8:01:11 AM PDT by bluebunny (Formerly known as lemondropkid56)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
I as a lifelong Republican would not for GWB.

And what would be - what's the word I'm looking for? - stupid.

11 posted on 10/01/2003 8:04:54 AM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
I hope you are right here. Why spend money now on minor matters. Wait until next year and spend the huge amount that has been raised and steamroll the nutcase party.
12 posted on 10/01/2003 8:05:19 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
"At this point and time in the last 5 Presidencies all were at the same basic poll levels."

That is no reason to assume the next outcome will be the same (on average) as those 5 previous elections. It's far too dangerous trying to drive forward while looking in the rear view mirror - the last 5 turns were left, therefor the next turn must be left. We should learn from the past without becoming too sure of it's predictive value of the future.
13 posted on 10/01/2003 8:05:39 AM PDT by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
He should spend some of it now to help boost his ratings.

Which would immediately be seized upon as proof that Bush is vulnerable. I think he's smart to maintain the course. Those folks at the White House will know long before you and I if things are really starting to get worrisome.

14 posted on 10/01/2003 8:06:20 AM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Is that reply considered debate over at redneck headquarters?
15 posted on 10/01/2003 8:08:06 AM PDT by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Anyone notice what's missing from this analysis? As a matter of fact it's ALWAYS missing from these analysis.

Who's going to be the Ross Perot that siphones off 20 million votes from the Republicans?

16 posted on 10/01/2003 8:13:20 AM PDT by w_over_w (Some people grin and bear it while others smile and do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Debate might involve including a reason as to why a "lifelong Republican" [wink] wouldn't vote for President Bush's re-election.

And I don't mean some whiny, one-issue bellyaching. I mean a thoughtful review of what's occurred the past three years, and what's ahead. Have I lost you yet?

17 posted on 10/01/2003 8:13:41 AM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Let's face it. Republicans never attack and change the subject, or change the premise by which the attack is based. This is something the Democrats are always totally focused and experts at. BECAUSE THEY DO IT CONSTANTLY!

The Republicans always want to conduct themselves as 'principled' people, something which the Democrats are not, and don't claim to be. As such, the Republicans only 'hit' (maybe) if they are first hit. Problem is, they only hit back when it's too late, or not at all.
18 posted on 10/01/2003 8:14:30 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
He doesn't have to spend money on ads. He needs to go over the press and speak directly to the public. He and his top-level officials could have more frequent press conferences to get their message out. The press could spin afterwards but they could not spin their actual words and people could make up their own minds. Right now, the press is spinning and filling in the void because you really don't hear from this administration that much. He could send his aides out to discuss the issues directly with the people more often. There are lots of things to do beside ads.
19 posted on 10/01/2003 8:14:43 AM PDT by bluebunny (Formerly known as lemondropkid56)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; PhiKapMom
The RATS are controlling the agenda and the media are being their usual lap-dogs. What is it going to take for the White House to wake up and battle the "enemy"? They have to go on the offensive, and not wait too long to do so. I get regular updates from GeorgeWBush.com, but they're preaching to the choir, IMO. When is the Bush camp going to start countering the liberal press onslaught? He has a considerable campaign war chest, when is he going to start to use it? Waiting too long to go to get into the battle may make it too late for him, and our country's future.
20 posted on 10/01/2003 8:17:42 AM PDT by CedarDave (I'm a recovering environmentalist - does anyone know of a 12-step program I can join?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson