Fight Back, Mr. President: Shouldn't the president defend his honor?

Last week, I suggested that the Bush administration's second-term bear market had bottomed out. Since then, we've been pummeled by polls showing Bush in continued decline. Perhaps my bullish call on Bush was a bit early. Or perhaps it was wrong. Which is it?

That's up to the Bush administration. Over the next few months, the Bush team will put this bad year behind them, and regain their footing. Or it will be a long 39 months--a very long 39 months--for Bush and his supporters.

The Miers episode did more damage than one might have expected. It raised doubts about Bush's judgment, on top of the Katrina-related doubts about White House competence, which have lingered. But Miers, and Katrina, are over. Now the task is to get Samuel Alito confirmed--using his confirmation process not just to get credit for a fine pick, but to make the case for judicial restraint and constitutionalism, and to lay the groundwork for additional winning battles on behalf of conservative appellate and (maybe) Supreme Court nominees.

The failed Social Security reform effort did real harm, too. The political capital expended, and the depressing effect of the wet-blanket-like message of imminent generational doom, undercut the credit Bush should have received for a strong economy. Now Social Security is over, and Bush can return the focus to economic growth. He can campaign on making the tax cuts permanent--and he can explore some of the broader, pro-family, pro-human-capital policy proposals suggested elsewhere in this issue by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, and by John D. Mueller.

And the administration paid a price for its virtual silence on Iraq during the spring and much of the summer. Now the administration seems to understand not just that they have to do everything they can to win in Iraq--but also that they must make, and remake, the case for the war. Do they also realize that they have to aggressively--not to say indignantly--confront the "Bush lied" charge now emanating from leaders in the Democratic party?

Last Tuesday, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate and asserted that the Bush administration had "manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." This is a serious charge; if it were true, it might well be an indictable offense. But it is, in reality, a slander. Shouldn't the president defend his honor?

After all, the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence. The administration's weak and disorganized attempts to respond to Joe Wilson's misrepresentations put the lie to the existence of any campaign to "destroy" opponents of the war. In fact, the administration has done amazingly little to confront, and discredit, attacks from antiwar Democrats. It was a shock last week when White House spokesman Scott McClellan emerged for a few moments from his defensive crouch to point out that Clinton administration officials and Senate Democrats also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Will he, and others in the administration, return to this theme? Will they call the now antiwar Democrats on their disreputable rewriting of history? Incidentally, are the Democrats ready to defend the proposition that we should have left Saddam in power? Is it okay with them if Zarqawi drives us out of Iraq? Will the administration challenge them as to what their alternative is? Will the administration take the time to put spokesmen forward, and recruit surrogates, to make the case for victory? Or do they enjoy being punching bags at the White House?

Bush has been in a similar position before. We forget how much trouble he seemed to be in early in 2004. Then Kerry was nominated, and the Bush team focused the country on the real choices before it. In the contrast, Bush did fine. Bush once again needs to fight for support for his policies and to draw a contrast between his policies and those of his opponents. If you do not defend yourself against your critics, your political standing is going to erode. Bush owes it to himself, to his supporters, to the soldiers fighting in Iraq, and to the country to fight back.

"Wish we knew the answer. 24 hour news, internet and boring days make everyone want to pile on Bush. "

The bully pulpit works when there is a serious national issue. Otherwise it just becomes a shouting match and the smear tactics and preponderance of the media will prevail. Bush can't fight 24/7 news nonsense, and I like his tactic of ignoring them as much as possible.
In fact I'd like for the republican talking heads and congressmen (other than for personal defense like Delay) to try an experiment. Refuse to go on any news show -even Fox - I'm tired of the media talk circles with just one token conservative in the bunch, and their saying they're being fair.
Make the media talk just to themselves and watch them implode even faster. They will sound ridiculous without any counterpoints from our side.They might even be forced to make some of our points for us. If Bush is going to turn the other cheek, let's all do it. I'm not afraid of the media. I don't know of any president they have ever elected.
My major disappointment has been with Bush not using his veto pen especially against CFR. Other than that I love the guy. Our country needed a guy just like him in these times.

You better offer the evidence of this to Fitzgerald because after two years and millions of dollars investigating exactly that, he has come to a different conclusion than you have.

It must be a bitter experience not being able to read. I was very careful in my use of words. You are not. Plame did serve as an undercover agent. She was employed by a cover firm for the CIA. I did not say she was "covert" and I did not say she was serving as a spy overseas. Words have meanings. And by the way, Fitzgerald specifically mentioned that he did not reach any conclusion as to whether she was covert or covered by the statute in question. Not coming to a conclusion and not charging someone under a statute does not equate to concluding tht she was not covert. Fitzgerald could have concluded that she was a covert agent covered by the statute and still not indicted anyone for any number of reasons. Personally I dont think she was covert and I dont think she was covered by the statute...but that is not what I said. I said Rove outed (identified) an undercover agent of the CIA.

By being a terrible communicator--I'm not talking about his style, I'm talking about his unwillingness to even try to communicate--Bush

That's true. It has nothing to do with his abilities. He is forthright and honorable, and those qualities come through when he takes command of the debate, as he did after 9/11. But he has surrounded himself with advisors who believe the best way to win is to give the RATS 70% of what they want and then make wishy-washy statements about why the other 30% is important. Maybe his father has too much influence over him. I don't know. But I blame Rove. I always have. I've never believed that Rove was the "genius" he's always been declared to be. Look at the 2004 election. Yes Bush won, and won big, but even so I believe it was much closer than it could have been and was much more of a melodramatic campaign than it should have been. Bush should have put that Pepe le'Pue away as easily as Nixon put McGovern away. Instead it was a hard fought run with Pepe getting in some good licks on our president and the "genius" Rove nearly running the campaign aground several times.

That's why I say, as much as the Plame non-story is a pack of leftist-media lies, if it actually did end up unseating Rove, I'd be glad about it.

I agree the MSM is a RAT-infested supporter of the RAT Party--I am sure "Dave S" would say so also. Nobody can deny that.

You fail to hear what we are saying because it is not refutable. The Republicans CAN control the media and get the word out better if they employed the right tactics.

1] "Sensationalism".

You know that word. The MSM his lived on sensationalism for decades. That is how they get viewers. That is how the sponsors support the media. The RATs are definitely sensational in their remarks---lying scum, but they ARE sensational. That is why they get the coverage. The Republicans are boring. They are too nice. They are too bland. Nobody listens. It is not sexy. The message does not sell.

2] "Volume" Definition #1

You know that word also. Volume as in quantity. The RATs appear everywhere. On any given news day, the RATs are appearing on ten times as many press conferences, at functions, on TV and radio, etc. The sheer volume is guaranteeing that the RATs will be seen and heard more.

3] "Volume" Definition #2

You know this word also. Volume as in decibel level. The RATs make good coverage for their passion, their outlandish statements, their screwball tactics (e.g., Reid's shutdown of the Senate), etc. The RATs are more colorful. They talk louder. They over-talk and interrupt the Republican debate opponent. They show emotion. The media likes sexy things and they find obnoxious stupidity to be one of the sexy things they like. The Republicans need to find colorful ways (in a positive manner) to be more sexy, to make waves, to cause news, to control the flow of sound bites, etc.

Summary: There are many reasons why the MSM has a bias to the RATs, and it is not all due to the fact the RATs are commies, one of the key causes. There are many things the Republicans can do to start controlling how the media covers them and to help get the GOP message out. They need some paid Madison Avenue experts on staff and make a goal to start dominating the news.

In the media wars, the RATs have trounced the Republicans. The RATs may be rats but they act like sharks. If the Republicans would fight back, they would have the media treat them more equally.

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.