Posted on 01/20/2010 5:15:01 PM PST by ColdOne
Who knew that George W. Bush had such powers over the natural world? According to some pundits, Hurricane Katrina was Bush’s fault, as was the tsunami in Indonesia and now – if you believe James Ridgeway in Mother Jones – that Bush’s policy is responsible for the devastating effects of the 7.5 earthquake that decimated the poor country of Haiti.
But during the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, we could depend on such ridiculous musings as Mr. Ridgeway displayed. I haven’t done enough research to determine if Bush was the most reviled president in our nation’s history – that might well have been Abraham Lincoln
(Excerpt) Read more at bigjournalism.com ...
Same problem his father had. They felt it was below their dignity to get down in the trenches and fight. In one case it gave us Clinton and in the next case it gave us Obama.
Because it wasn't a battle he could have won. The press holds all the cards in that game.
There’s an old saying about not picking a fight with people why buy ink by the barrel.
Unfortunately I think the only effective way to fight back against the media is in journalism schools.
Imagine if Obama had to endure the same sort of hostile, mean-spirited coverage from the MSM that GWB was subject to during almost his entire time in office. Obama would have a nervous breakdown in under a week.
I was against a lot of what Dubya did but I respected him as I do now....he’ll go down in history as a great president and mark my words, increasing numbers of people are realizing that he was a LEADER and a selfless one at that...compare him to the zero...
Yes.
Why didn’t the GOP help defend him???
I don’t buy that argument at all. It’s like saying the 2009 Super Bowl loser gives you the 2010 Super Bowl winner.
The man spent his time trying to solve problems.
I did not agree with his domestic spending and expansion of government but he was right not to try to fight the endless slander.
Both allowed the media to define their presidencies as failed presidencies without fighting back. Neither was a bad president. Parties with failed presidencies do not win elections.
No, they don’t.
Where the press makes huge errors of fact, it is quite easy to take them apart.
Moreover, the fastest way to get under their skin it to make it personal. You go after the clown in the byline. You ridicule him or her for their ignorance. And when you start, you make sure you have in your possession several more instances of factual errors by the same author going back in time.
When people say “the press” - they make the contest lopsided right there. By saying “the press,” you make it “Bush vs. some institution.”
Now, make it “Bush vs. Larry the Lar, as written in the NYT” and suddenly it is something these clowns can understand.
And look as petty and thin-skinned as Obama does? It’s a not win battle.
That's pretty much of a tautology.
I guess Dubya blew that third term...
Presidents usually only have one or two really good political advisers. Thing is, there really isn’t such a thing as a “generic” political adviser: political advisers tend to be specialists in discrete areas.
Reagan had Roger Ailes, who was a message and media guy.
Bush Sr. had Lee Atwater, who was message and tactics (imho Bush would have won against Clinton in 1992 if Atwater hadn’t died).
Clinton had a whole slew - Carville, Begala (both “informally” and Stephie in the first term, all message guys. For the second term he had Mike McCurry who as press secretary was a message guy. Then throw in a complete cutthroat like Harold Ickes ...
Dub’ya? Karl Rove, who came out of direct mail and was a numbers guy - an egghead. Karen Hughes was message, but she bolted early, then came back in a minimized role (DoS). Ari Fleischer was decent, but he left early too. Rove could crunch the numbers, but Bush simply didn’t have the deep messaging expertise with a moron like Scott McClellan. Dana Perino was pretty good, not great, could have held her own if she’d followed Fleischer. But she didn’t, and by the time she got the job the damage had been done and the situation was irrecoverable.
Obama? Axelrod. ‘nuff said.
I often wondered why President Bush didn’t defend and command the national debate. The left had the public field to themselves and created many falsehoods that are now accepted as truth.
Why stop there?
Why didn’t he close down ACORN?
Why didn’t he jail Sandy Burglar, the man who stole secret papers
and many more that I cant remember
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.