Posted on 05/26/2008 4:49:53 PM PDT by STARWISE
First, the White House spoke out against NBC News and its editing of Richard Engel's interview with President George Bush.
And, today, the White House takes on the New York Times editorial page for its editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill."
From the White House statement:
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.
In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.
This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children.
In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.
As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service.
First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability.
Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.
There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.
The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.
Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.
Unlike most politicians who babble and grandstand for hours and say absolutely nothing, when President Bush speaks I know exactly what he means. His communications skills don’t bother me in the least. He was right man at the right time.
Well, so do I. But he does not have to reach us. He has to reach the vast stupid masses, who are vulnerable to MSM propaganda.
In this first ever response to the MSM the White House appears to be following a leader. And who might that be? Why , your loveable Klintoons who have been attacking the media themselves.
The Clinton's attacking the media will do much more damage than we ever could.
Amen, Deb! The most attacked, fearless and relentless
leader ... polls, media, lib attacks and mockery
mean nothing to him. Only doing the right thing.
God bless him.
I love you, President Bush, but why now? Why not after the past seven years?
If a lame duck quacks in the forest...
Thank you, DrDeb. I’m sick of all the Bush bashing on this thread. They can thank God Al Gore didn’t win.
I’ll take a President Bush with his faults than a Bill Clinton with his wonderful communication skills. Integrity counts, you know.
Well said. The foundation of George W. Bush is religious faith - all the rest comes from that.
And how, exactly, did Reagan do that? He had that opportunity, because when asked, the networks gave him air time. He had, after all, won in a landslide.
Do you honestly think that the networks would give President Bush precious primetime minutes in order for him to lay out his case on any issue to the American People? The only times they've done that were after 9/11, and at the very start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
The President has always been limited by the fact that the media doesn't like him, doesn't like his policies, and don't consider him a 'legitimate' President. They bolster their arguments with their biased polls that are Democrat and 'non-voter' heavy, which will ALWAYS show more antipathy to the President. Then they tout those as 'news' and as a justification for not giving him air time. Of course, what they DON'T publicize is that, even with those biased poll participants, the President's personal approval ratings are in the 60's, which, even at this low point in Bush's Presidency, are higher than x42 ever had.
Consider that President Reagan did not have
1) Fox News
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Sean Hannity
4) Other popular talk radio
5) the internet
6) Other alternative media that challenge or surpass the coverage of the lamestream
So your argument that Reagan had media access that Bush does not- rings a little false.
I don’t make the same money as President Bush pays his advisors to figure out way to get him in front of the American people. But I could probably figure out ways to get him access. I still contend they aren’t trying.
P.S.....GWB's approval rating is currently at 31%, not in the 60's as you stated. He apparently accepts this scary rating with his usual whimpish passivity as evinced by the fact he has mounted little to no aggressive PR campaigns on pertinent domestic issues that are turning the populace off on both his presidency and the Republican Party.
He's already used up most of the chits given to him for his stand on Iraq, IMO. He could turn a lot of this around in short order if he had the will and an inspired, talented PR staff. I think he's just putting in his time till he can go back to clearing brush. The future of his Party does not seem to be a priority with him, I'm afraid.
Leni
On any of those networks or talk shows, he’d be preaching to the choir. It’s not we who need to hear what he has to say; it’s the audiences of the other networks.
It's worse than that..!
The Reuters/Zogby poll last week found Bush's approval rating had fallen 4 percentage points to 23 percent, a record low for pollster John Zogby.
He apparently accepts this scary rating with his usual whimpish passivity as evinced by the fact he has mounted little to no aggressive PR campaigns on pertinent domestic issues that are turning the populace off on both his presidency and the Republican Party.
Agreed. Any body can see that. And since he won't address it...it is why we suspect that this IS his plan.
FYI: I rarely post on the BDS/Paulite infected threads at FR; HOWEVER, I do post ACCURATE and uplifting information about our President every night on the DOSE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2022247/posts
WHEN YOU’VE READ OR HEARD FOR THE ONE BILLIONTH TIME THAT PRESIDENT BUSH IS “UNPOPULAR” AND/OR “RADIOACTIVE” (FOR REPUBLICANS) JUST REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING FACTOIDS:
Factoid #1:
According to RealClearPolitics (RCP), the President’s net job approval rating is 22 points HIGHER than that of the Democrat-controlled Congress — a fact the MSM choses to ignore. [FYI: Zogby destroyed his credibility years ago; his polling results are NOT included in polling averages produced by organizations like RCP!]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Factoid #2:
According to the new BattleGround Poll (May 19), the President remains PERSONALLY POPULAR:
“. . . like Ronald Reagan before him, voters seem able to disapprove of the President’s job performance (32%approve/63%disapprove // 41%favorable/58%unfavorable) and still approve of him as a person. When respondents are asked for their impression of George W. Bush as a person, 56% approve and just 36% disapprove. This feeling about the President personally is so pervasive that even 25% of Democrats approve of him personally.
Hispanic voters follow this same trend, while African Americans and young people do not.
This is an important distinction for Democrat candidates to the degree they plan to run against Bush this cycle. Not only is Bush not on the ballot, but the voters make a clear distinction between the man and his policies.
It is important to note that history tends to judge past President’s not so much on their success or failure in policy areas, but on the moral character of the individual. Former President Carter is perhaps our best living example. History will probably be kinder to President Bush. In focus groups throughout the country, voters continue to tell us that they view the President as a principled, honest and determined leader.”
http://www.tarrance.com/11633-GOP-analysis.pdf
I don't think so. Read those links in Dr. Deb's post
Thank you DrDeb, another great post.
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.