There are no perfect candidates and there are no perfect elected officials. "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God." (St. Paul)
There is a purpose is discussing what GWB did right -- and what he did wrong. That purpose is to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Yes, George W. Bush will be treated more kindly by history than he was during his presidency.
However . . .
My impression of GWB is that he wanted to be friends -- or at least on friendly terms -- with many in the MSM. That was a mistake in judgment. Those people do not want to be his "friends." They did not and do not respect him. That meant he needed to go over their heads directly to the people. Reagan did it, and so did Bill Clinton.
The American people had no stomach for impeaching (it did happen) or convicting (didn't happen) Bill Clinton for violating federal law.
``The Obama attacks on GWB, before and after the election, are unfair and even ridiculous. However, Axelrod/Emanuel/Obama are very good at deflecting attention to President Bush. It's critical that we be equally good at counter-attacking and, in fact, beating them to the punch. The President of the U.S. has great resources in hand to influence the public and (segments of) the media.
GWB did not use them effectively. In fact, GWB often allowed himself to be used as a punching bag. Yes, the MSM is "bad," but that's a given, and if a person can't overcome it, he probably shouldn't run for a job like President.
In PR and politics, if someone throws a brick at you, then respond by throwing a boulder at him. Suggesting that George W. Bush had only a few minor flaws and was done in by "mean" Democrats and media types serves no purpose. It's historically inaccurate.
Aside from keeping the nation secure and "No Child Left Behind," he accomplished little. Prescription drug coverage will add massively to the national debt.
It's my hope that Gov. Palin will have strong people around her who will understand what the media's up to and will respond with appropriate ferocity. The "friends" she has in the media -- and she does have many -- should get preferential treatment.
Her enemies need to get the back of her hand. She needs to undermine them before they undermine her. She seems much more aware of the media's goals (to end her political career) than GWB ever was.
At the beginning of her campaign -- and later in the transition period, if she's elected -- she needs to sit down with some very tough political people. She needs to know exactly what lies ahead for her -- and how to counteract the onslaught from Dems, the media, and the amoral Hollywood culture. She needs to demolish them before they sink her candidacy and presidency.
This should not be a secret strategy. It should be transparent and one she communicates explicitly to the American peopleAs for conservative talk radio people, it was GWB's obligation to listen carefully to what they -- and their listeners -- said. Limbaugh has an audience of 14 million-plus.
It was very unwise of the President to look at them with bemusement and not much more. Conservatives never felt GWB was "one of them." He should have done more to help establish common cause. The fact that he did not veto even ONE spending bill in his first term (and most of his second term) hurt him badly with conservatives.
We should continue to salute President Bush for keeping the country safe, a major accomplishment. However, we need to understand what he did wrong so that history doesn't repeat itself with the next Republican President (if there is one).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You are right about that. One thing that she can do, even now, as she starts to travel outside Alaska during the remainder of the year, is to speak to the media outlets in the area where she attends an event. I noticed during the campaign, and again in Evansville, she gets far better treatment than in any of the national outlets, even FOX News.
I've bookmarked dozens of stories from the local areas during the campaign, and have from time to time reread them, and to this day, remain amazed at how different that reporting is than what we saw on TV or read in the various national news wires, AP, NYT etc. It was as if two different campaigns were being reported. Local reporting seemed more intent on objective journalism, almost always interviewing local participants in the rallies, local republican officials, etc, and even if the local papers had a decided liberal editorial slant, that was seldom in evidence in the reporting. There was often even favorable editorial comment in some areas. In this age of the internet, these locally written stories go national through Google Alerts, and often posted on Free Republic, Conservatives4Palin, and several other pro-Palin websites, so they actually go national which tends to at least counter some of the negative coverage generated by the large papers and networks.
Post a Comment