[commish]

I supported the Port deal, but I do have to question how the WH handled it.

I realize they probably got somewhat blindsided by the sudden opposition, but once the firestorm started Bush and Cheney should have both been out front on this.

I usually find very little to criticize in how the WH handles things, although I do criticize or oppose some policies, but they really screwed the pooch on this one. As soon as it started, Bush should have been issued a statement on what the deal was, what was involved, and why it was a good thing. Instead they let the Democrats and the hand-wringers shape the debate.

In the end the WH has nobody to blame but themselves for the damage this has caused.

[jneesy]

you cant act like your really behind the deal, threaten a VETO (first one too boot) and the a couple of days later say "you knew nothing about the deal" and still retain credebility with the publis

the white house better hire some one that can find there a$$ with both hands.........QUICK

[Pylot]

You have it exactly right.

The Bush Administration has lousy PR talent and that is unfortunately compounded by a tin ear for public sentiment.

This is another example of the lack of leadership at the helm.

[trubluolyguy]

In the end the WH has nobody to blame but themselves for the damage this has caused.

---

Now now, the bots around here will blame everyone else.


Kind of like liberals do.

[Sally'sConcerns]

I usually find very little to criticize in how the WH handles things, although I do criticize or oppose some policies, but they really screwed the pooch on this one. As soon as it started, Bush should have been issued a statement on what the deal was, what was involved, and why it was a good thing. Instead they let the Democrats and the hand-wringers shape the debate.

My knee jerk reaction to the port deal was to say "heck no" but I refrained from posting anything until I had done my homework and could come to a conclusion based on facts rather than emotion. Once I gathered the facts, I supported the port deal and began posting my reasons why.

In all of my fact gathering I didn't hear anything from the WH other than about the veto. I don't know whether the facts were presented and not reported on or whether the WH didn't make any statements except about the President using the veto.

Either way, there wasn't enough information coming from the WH to offset the naysayers. I see that as a failure on the part of the WH.

[ilgipper]

I agree with you, and not only did they not get out front on it to explain, they chose to make threats, and call their own party members racist. While I amwith them on the issue, it was severely bungled.

[golfisnr1]

Secretary of Treasury Snow was the problem. He allowed the administration to be blind-sided. Bush really didn't know about the committee's decision. The committee wa in the treasury. Snow didn't inform him.

[pollyannaish]

I think the WH has a communication problem, no doubt about it. I think that is a completely legitimate complaint. In fact, sometimes it drives me nuts and has gone on too long.

When the press never actually listens, and the people who are supposed to be their allies jump overboard at the first sign of trouble, it makes the job of communicating hard enough. We don't need the WH to make it worse. Any suggestions about how to change the dynamic?

I do think it's time for McClellen to go, but I think the issues are deeper than that. The President can not rely on people/press/congress to do the right thing, so what's next?

[AmishDude]

The WH didn't handle it and it wasn't a "deal". DPW bought the British company. Then there was an automatic process -- secret from the president -- that approved the deal. Going back on it is terrible diplomacy.