Redstate

I pounded the pavement in the pouring rain to help get Bush elected. I support him in nearly everything.  But in two things I think he is dropping the ball....

1. The insecurity of the California/Arizona Mexico border.
   
   
2. His lack of PR.  I am NOT comparing him to anyone, but students of history will tell you that not only Billy Boy had good PR, but also evil leaders, like Hitler and Stalin.  Stalin was probably the most evil man that ever lived, yet his daily radio program featured letter after letter being read over the air. People supported him almoist without exception.  He understood the importance of PR in times of War.
   

My argument is from the lesser to the greater.

If an evil leader uses PR to mask evil, how much more should George Bush for a noble cause!  I assume that his advisors figure that his integrity is enough, and that is helpful for sure, but he needs to be on prime time once per week with Generals, Iraqi's, etc.

Who the heck is running his PR, anyway?

but I think the challenge is that he does poorly, IMO, in press conference question-and-answer sessions.  Clinton thrived in that environment.  At the same time, I don't think the American public has the appetite for 30-minute long prime-time speeches (where Bush excels) happening with any greater frequency than he's already doing.  Given that, I'm not sure what the answer is for solving the communicating problem.

This assumes, of course, that the problem with public perception of the Iraq War is primarily one of communication.  I think that is unclear.  On a previous thread, I wrote that Bush needs to stop telling the American people we are about to 'turn the corner', etc.  Even if it's true, which I hope to God it is, I think that the public is no longer willing to accept that assessment from the president.  I think we're probably at a point where the public wants to see results, ie. fewer deaths of Americans, fewer deaths of innocent Iraqis, the streets of Bagdhad being safe for all during the day and night.  I know these are tall orders, but I think positive movement on any one of these fronts would have a big impact on public perception of the war.  I'm just not sure more words, absent different results, will make a difference in public perception.

I agree with this analysis.

I'm in the camp of those who did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, but who believe that now that we are there we need to persevere to achieve the best possible outcome.  The consequences of leaving before Iraq is stable and at least reasonably secure would be, in both the long and short run, overwhelmingly bad.

My sense is that the biggest threat to mainstream support for the war in Iraq is people's sense, correct or not, that the President and his administration are not being candid with them about it.  IMO, if folks believe the President (a) has a good grasp of conditions, and (b) has a direction in mind and knows how to get there, and (c) will be honest with them about where things stand, they will largely give him their support.  If they sense that any of (a), (b), or (c) are missing, they will not.

So, I agree that Bush can only help himself in this matter by speaking frankly and frequently about what his intentions are, and what progress we are or are not making.

Cheers -

I couldn't agree more. This has been a blind spot in this Administration since it started. Who is running the PR? It must be Bush himself, because no PR professional would ever tell him to do what he does.

During the "rush to war" in Iraq, which took about a year, Bush would wait until the polls showed a majority against invading Iraq. Then he would go make a prime-time speech someplace, the polls would get bumped up 7 or 8 points, and Bush would return to the Oval Office, not to be seen again until the media had chipped away at his 8 points and had him back in the tank. He did this 3 or 4 times during the year leading up to the invasion.

He's still doing it. And like you, I think it's horribly ineffective and accounts for a lot of why his agenda is stalled.

Generally Bush generally appears in only very scripted events.  These generate little news and even less interest.  I suspect this is responding to a very real weakness(during the campaign he stuck to very controlled town halls and friendly media, and did very badly against Kerry in the debates).

So far the only strategy has been to announce a "major policy speech" for the media, and then use it for a sales pitch.

  Eventualy, even the laziest of journalists get tired of "cut and paste" and the on message starts to hurt instead of help.

While I agree that the President needs to be more transparent in his dealings with the American people, I am not sold that the problem is merely a PR problem.

In my opinion the Bush camp has been extremely effective in communicating a position when they have a clear path - e.g., the rationale for tax cuts.  Whether you agreed with the President or not you understood how he wanted to tackle the challenge and their plan and that resulted in leadership on the issue.  

My beef with the administration on Iraq is that its not clear to me that the administration does have a plan, Generals say one thing, the VP says another and the President seems to recycle the same talking points from time to time - very different from the way they have tackled other issues.  Meanwhile while their are signs of progress, there are also signs of lack of progress and challenges.  Without a clear plan, without clear milestones, it is very hard for me to determine which of those things to give more weight to, and I am guessing the same goes for the media (obviously the opponents are going to cherry pick no matter what).

Is it a PR issue? Yes... Does it portend bigger issues.. I don't know.  If it does portend bigger issues (and I am not saying it does, just that I don't know) don't we want to be upfront about it so that we can take action rather than trying to sweep it under the rug, damaging the administrations credibility and end up with whatever plan the opposition cooks up after they beat the Republicans over the head with the "inaction" canard?

If he'd communicated openly and honestly from the beginning, he'd be in a much better place. But the most recent poll

Survey Finds Most Support Staying in Iraq

indicates that 52% of Americans believe that he deliberately misled the nation into the Iraq war.

As the title says, most (7 out of 8) Americans also favor keeping troops there until Iraq is stable. (the Pottery Barn view, I think.) But how many of these Americans are joining the military to make this possible? What is going to give when most Americans either have to enlist or encourage a loved one to enlist to maintain that force?

That's when they're going to get huffy over being misled. And how will he establish his credibility--prove that he's a man of his word in these circumstances? It would be too little, too late.    

I agree. Public support has tanked when it should be solid. Some of this is too much optimism but alot is a lack a striaght talk, and, let's face it, a need for a little babying/sheparding public opinion through wartime. The American public isn't cowardly, but it is very much unused to war and the president should take notice of this fact and step up his communication, particularly when the news sounds bad.

Even if Bush himself is not the best at spinning, I think many people warm to him as a "guy". When he mispronounces things or forgets the prime minister of Farawayistan, the only ones who care are those that don't like him anyway. Bush can just speak his mind (like Rumsfeld) and forget about the critics.

He should be using whatever PR staff he has to pound out his message. If they have to work a little harder because Bush is not as "good" as Clinton or Reagan, well, that's their job. It is a sad commentary that some of the best (and honest!) PR for the war is produced by amateurs (Chrenkoff) or very small operations (Strategy Page).

But you coined a name for it, so I cede rights to the patent on "Occasional Communicator."  PR and public appearances by the President have been what is sorely lacking in his trying to build support for the war.  If he were even remotely as good at frequent, off-the-cuff remarks as he is when he makes a big speech, things might be a little bit better for him.

are you if you are the CEO at Pottery Barn... they don't make you pay for the stuff you break.  Nevertheless its part of our lexicon despite Kerry's bungling of the phrase...

consider this a warning.

Inappropriate in a post, doubly inappropriate as a subject.

using the phrase. When I googled I found this. Powell's Cautions on Iraq

According to NPR's All Things Considered, Bob Woodward's book claims that Powell took the phrase from a Thomas Friedman column.

Poor Pottery Barn. They'd better have a talk with Tom Friedman.

wouldn't Pottery Barn and any other retail outlet make you pay for things you broke deliberately? I mean, we meant to blow up their electrical grid, various government buildings, etc. If someone blew up the locked door to enter the Pottery Barn outside of business hours, they'd be forced to pay. They'd be put in jail too.

definition of profanity..

but I checked and found numerous uses of the word on the site in the exact same context that I used, including several uses by site founders, as well as use in headlines, that did not ilicit warnings (not that anyone would warn a site founder)...

I guess my question is what criteria warrants a warning? Who determines what qualifies as a warning?  Is it Carlin's seven words?  I certainly don't want to run afoul of commmunity norms... but this warning seems somewhat arbitrary.

to consider it arbitary it's your call. The rest isn't your call.

my other questions?  e.g., Who are you? I don't see you listed as founder or any reference to you in the posting rules as an arbiter of what is to be considered profanity and what is not.  Its not that I am challenging your authority, its that none of this is spelled out in the rules which I have read and which I had thought I was following.

Second, why is this word considered profane?  I doubt that it is considered profanity by the vast majority of Americans (though I doubt there is any way to confirm that).  It may not be the most polite word, and I suppose I could have chosen a different word such as "angered", but the posting rules say nothing about the use of only "polite" language - and since I don't see this as profanity, I think you can see why I am confused about the rebuke for its use.

More importantly, however, is that apparently many within this community also do not feel that this word is considered profane. The word has been used numerous times by a number other community members - why am I being singled out? I know that this isn't a proper defense, but there there is little, nay no, evidence that this word in question has actually been deemed offensive in the past on this site.

One would think that by holding myself to the same standards used by the founders of this site I would not be afoul of the profanity rule.  When they use the same language, as in this post here one questions why my use is considered offensive.

In fact, I went and searched the site for use of the contested word and found numerous examples and after looking at about 20 of them (I got bored after 20), I found not one incidence of a poster being reprimanded for their use of that word - that includes several threads where you posted one or two posts away from the post in which the questioned word was used.

So I ask again, why shouldn't I feel that this reprimand was arbitrary.

IMO PR is not relevant.  Any normal person smells PR a mile away and avoids it like the plague.  It's not only not useful, it's counterproductive.

I'll make the same comment concerning Bush that I've made concerning the Democrats.  If you want support from the mainstream of Americans, you need to (a) have a clear idea of what you mean, and (b) state it plainly.  Folks will even accept and support points of view they don't necessarily share if they feel they are presented honestly.

If Bush wants to shore up support for Iraq, the absolute last thing he should be looking to is PR.  He should get a firm grasp of conditions on the ground, make a plan, and level with the public.

Even I, as hard core a blue stater as you are likely to find here on RS, would give him the benefit of the doubt if I thought that was what he was doing.  If I smell a hint of PR, I'll give him none.

As far as I'm concerned, whether it comes from the right or left, spin equals BS.  And, I'm more than sure I'm not alone in that opinion.

And, as an aside, it would be pretty useful if Bush would do his homework on who the prime minister of Farawayistan is.  He's the President, it's his job.

Cheers -

And you're probably going to be ok.

Now for the Superpower status, and someone MAKING us pay for it, as the kids on the playground would say, "You and whose army?"

If we felt like nuking them until they glowed and shooting them in the dark, no one could "make us pay."  We don't because we aren't a nasty dictatorship, but a benevolent democracy.

And recall please, no one asked Clinton to rebuild the aspirin factory (or whatever it manufactured) when he was wagging the dog.

who was giving you a bit of advice. Take it or leave it.

I appreciate the advice.. shouldn't be an issue in following it.