Bush and the Media ("New tone" will cause 43 to lose)

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.

"And as you have said, wait until there is one candidate."

I'd LOVE to take credit.. but actually.. the President said it on the Brit Hume interview. We were starting to gripe like others about him answering all his critics. That interview changed our minds.

HOWEVER, We do feel Republicans NEED to be speaking out more to his critics and to critics on the Iraq war. Which they seem to be doing a little bit more here recently!

People and terrorist (who aren't really people) constantly underestimate this President. I say he will surprise his foes. We have never waivered in our support of him. Never. He has never let us down.

Nonsense. Let's tally up a few of the many ways he's let us down, shall we?

- Caved in on school vouchers. Big Stupid Government "education" spending, authored by Fat Drunk Teddy, continues.

- Caved in to special steel interests; signed steel tariff bill. All US citizens pay more, unnecessarily, for steel.

- Caved in to the Welfare Farmers. Big farm subsidies continue.

- Caved in to the 'Rats on "election reform". Signs direct assault on the First Amendment. What a dumbass.

- Demands at least $87 Billion more taxpayer dollars for Iraq. Not a peep about cutting any of the other horsesh&% that Big Stupid Republican Government squanders our money on. No, he just wants to pile another $87 Billion in debt on our backs.

- Sits back, vetoes NOTHING, and ensures the biggest Big Stupid Government budget, and the biggest deficits, in the history of the Universe.

And you want us to support this guy? Not bloody likely. If I wanted this crap, I'd vote for 'Rats, not somebody pretending to be something else.

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.

No, Bush 41's problem was that he didn't understand the way Clinton worked until it was too late

I have no doubt that Bush 43 has paid a lot of attention to the way the Clinton goon squad works.

This is America.. you are welcome to YOUR opinion. So go vote for a Democrat and see what that will get you.

I'll stick with the BEST President we've had in a LONG time, thank you. BTW, if you're around in another five years and we are fortunate enough to have his leadership and that of his administration, I be sure to PING you to say I TOLD YA SO!!

Considering all he has endured and this nation has endured since he took office, I'd say we have survived it all exceptionally well.

UNbelievable. I can't believe people like you exist! But like I said.. you have a right to be ignorant.. um.. to think like you do!!

A Republican was elected, and the party held the Congress as well. Do you see any of them even talking about reducing the burden of Big Stupid Government?

Hell no! All we hear about is how Big Stupid Republican Government is so much better than Big Stupid DemocRat Government.

I won't be fooled by this crap from cheap politicians seeking more power and more of our money. I won't sell out my principles because "the other ones are worse". Perhaps you will; lots of people seem eager to sell out to a different variety of tyranny.

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.