Posted on 08/24/2005 7:58:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
If it's our job, then we've failed miserably, because the troops know that the war is losing support here at home and they have enough to worry about without worrying about whether we're losing the PR war.
He doesn't need to do a fireside chat thing, I think in today's world that would be wasted effort. But like today, when he told about the soldier who was on duty election day and said what he felt about that day to the President, that kind of thing dropped into each speech would work wonders.
It IS a part of a leaders job, just ask any coach, even the military knows that morale is important. Well the morale of the country is down and something needs to be done about it.
All he really needs to do is sprinkle his speeches with a few stories. Bush is great at relating stories about the soldiers, what they say and what they've done. THAT would do wonders. Keep the rest of the speech the same, but drop something new in about what's being accomplished. Not just the number of schools, but a story about a specific school. Not just how many water plants have been built, but how it affected an entire village when they had fresh water for the first time EVER. Tell about when they took 40 terrorists in and then went to the orphanage they adopted to deliver beany babies their hometown sent over.
Part of his job is to frame the debate in this country. It is an integral part of the modern presidency.
He doesn't even have to do it himself. He could demand more of the rest of the Republican Party to defend his policies. If they don't have the spine to stand up and be counted, he should twist their arms-play political hardball with them until they grow spines.
The brave men and women in Iraq deserve to be more vigorously supported than they are, and it make me sick.
Dubya doesn't really even need the support of the people in the absence of a viable leader from the opposition. One who can offer an alternate solution to the fact that 3 billion Muslims don't like us too much. Iraq is not really a war. It is a battle in the War on Terror.
There are 2 kinds of people who don't support this war.
Those who will never support any war or Republican,
and those who think Dubya is not being aggressive enough in eradicating Islam off the face of the Earth.
Most Americans expect the war will be fought somewhere to the right of surrender and to the left of nuclear. I doubt most messages of reassurance that Iraq is progressing nicely will sway public opinion from the current view. Only actions will change things now.
In the year 1968 we lost 14 thousand soldiers in Vietnam, yet in November of 68 the voters voted for the guy who said he was going to keep fighting the war. If Iraq was really going poorly the American people would demand more troops and fewer rats than they do today.
The polls today will mean very little on the day we pull out of Iraq. After legendary stories of American bravery and heroics are replaced with Iraqi heroes who fought for their freedom and won. The polls today will mean very little when Osama is found.
It is my personal opinion that Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be our military fronts in the liberation of Iran. Not tomorrow, but sooner rather than later.
A little mandated, shared sacrifice would go a long way.
I still believe that 3 years of mandatory military or public service would heal alot of what ails this country.
I think Bush does need to talk to the public more often.He is hammered on a daily basis by the media .He really needs to go directly to the people,and set the record straight.
If he wants to win over the public,and he is a winner,he has to change his tactics.
Probably because Bush understands something the Media talking heads don't. He is President until Jan 2009. The other thing is the Pres does not have any proxies. All the people who SHOULD be making these points on Iraq are so busy sitting around screaming "why doesn't Bush do something". The reason Clinton was so good at PR was he had all these loyal proxies who would fan out to all the radio and talk shows and repeat, repeat, repeat his points. Bush, however, cannot expect ANY loyalty from anyone. IF they are not actively UNDERCUTTING Bush (Hagel,Luger,McCain et al.) they are out there (Frum, Limbaugh et al) whining "Why doesn't Bush do this, why doesn't Bush do that".
When did the Conservative movement turn into a such a bunch of whiners?
Probably because Bush understands something the Media talking heads don't. He is President until Jan 2009. The other thing is the Pres does not have any proxies. All the people who SHOULD be making these points on Iraq are so busy sitting around screaming "why doesn't Bush do something". The reason Clinton was so good at PR was he had all these loyal proxies who would fan out to all the radio and talk shows and repeat, repeat, repeat his points. Bush, however, cannot expect ANY loyalty from anyone. IF they are not actively UNDERCUTTING Bush (Hagel,Luger,McCain et al.) they are out there (Frum, Limbaugh et al) whining "Why doesn't Bush do this, why doesn't Bush do that".
When did the Conservative movement turn into a such a bunch of whiners?
Probably because Bush understands something the Media talking heads don't. He is President until Jan 2009. The other thing is the Pres does not have any proxies. All the people who SHOULD be making these points on Iraq are so busy sitting around screaming "why doesn't Bush do something". The reason Clinton was so good at PR was he had all these loyal proxies who would fan out to all the radio and talk shows and repeat, repeat, repeat his points. Bush, however, cannot expect ANY loyalty from anyone. IF they are not actively UNDERCUTTING Bush (Hagel,Luger,McCain et al.) they are out there (Frum, Limbaugh et al) whining "Why doesn't Bush do this, why doesn't Bush do that".
When did the Conservative movement turn into a such a bunch of whiners?
Nonsense. The reason the Anti-war nuts are not gaining any traction is the average voter understands this is a volunteer force. Make it a conscript force and wackos like Sheehan gain a lot of PR ground cause we are "forcing" people to fight. The other reason we want an all volunteer force is it makes our average soldier the equivalent of other people's elites. Out people have all ready made the commitment to be there when the crap hits the fan. Forcing people to go is never as effective as having people who WANT to be there.
(Don't make me puke.)
-Dan
-Dan
If Bush's staff is not doing a good enough job, then it is his responsibility as a leader, not to do their job, but to make sure it gets done.
Leadership is more than one thing.
Leadership is having a vision and doing what is necessary to make it happen, regardless of the polls. In this regard Bush is doing GREAT. I believe he has good vision (on most issues) and does not change his course because of the polls. In this way he is the opposite of Clinton.
But leadership is also leading people, and bringing them along with you. It is in this area that the administration is really lacking. And it is a shame because I think they can all do better.
I see your point, but you'd better start hoping that the WOT is decisively won by January 19, 2009.
Neither Bush or Cheney or Rice are doing their job of articulating just what is at stake in the WOT.
Good points. Thanks for sharing.
I think Reagan would do those things, and as much as my admiration for GWB has grown, I think I'll take my wish that he was more like the Gipper to my grave.
Except that Reagan did not have such an insanely biased MSM as we do today, nor a moonbatish oppostion party as we have today.
Here's a study I found:
Study: Press Praised Reagan Only After Death
WASHINGTON, DC-The glowing television coverage of Ronald Reagan’s death contrasted sharply with the negative press he received during his two terms in office, according to data compiled by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found that the Reagan White House received the harshest first-year coverage of any in the past 24 years.
MAJOR FINDINGS:
Reagan’s Rocky Road: Sources on the network evening news were heavily critical of Ronald Reagan throughout his presidency. 85% of assessments of Reagan during Campaign 1980 were negative; 64% of evaluations during his administration’s first year were negative; in Campaign 1984, 91% of his coverage was negative. Even after Election Day 1988—as a “lame duck” president—65% of all evaluations were critical of Reagan.
Worst Among Equals: No incoming administration since Reagan’s has been criticized so heavily as much on the network newscasts. 64% of the evaluations in 1981 were negative, compared to 45% for George H. W. Bush, 62% for Bill Clinton and 61% for George W. Bush.
Taking Issue: During Reagan’s first year, his policies were panned by both the network news and prestige press (New York Times, Washington Post):
ECONOMY: 65% of network news evaluations of the economy were negative, as were 66% in the Times and Post. ARMS CONTROL: Reagan’s policies were criticized 69% of the time on-air and 73% of the time in print. SOVIET RELATIONS: 67% of network news evaluations were negative, as were 89% in the two newspapers studied.
Rooting For Rivals: In 1984, 56% of evaluations of Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale were positive, while 91% of Reagan’s coverage was negative. During their summits in 1987 and 1988, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev received far more positive coverage than Reagan. (1987: Reagan 47% positive evaluations, Gorbachev 79% positive; 1988: Reagan 46% positive, Gorbachev 76% positive)
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.