WP: Missteps on Economy Worry Bush Supporters

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54446-2004Mar12?language=printer

Missteps on Economy Worry Bush Supporters


By Jonathan Weisman and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 13, 2004; Page A01


A string of glaring missteps by President Bush's economic team has raised alarm among the president's supporters that his economic policymakers may have lost the most basic ability to formulate a persuasive message or anticipate the political consequences of their actions.

In recent weeks, the White House has had to endure its chief economist's positive comments about job "outsourcing," or sending work overseas; controversial passages in the annual Economic Report of the President; questions over the legitimacy of Bush's 2005 budget; a California swing in which Bush bragged about the possible addition of two or three jobs to a 14-person business in Bakersfield and a flap over a job-creation forecast that not even the president could stand by.

(snip)

But the non-naming of Anthony F. Raimondo on Thursday as assistant commerce secretary for manufacturing and services has brought the concerns to a boil.

The long-anticipated announcement of a manufacturing czar was supposed to be a good-news day for a White House struggling with its economic message. Instead the planned, smiling photo op fizzled when it came to light that a year ago Bush's choice had opened a major plant in Beijing.

...

[bain_sidhe]

1. From the article...

Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the lobbying world of K Street say that the incidents may be minor, but they are many, each amplified by the last. And they are supplying a steady, nourishing diet for Sen. John F. Kerry

What they don't mention (and won't) is that these incidents have ALWAYS been there... they just never got reported. Read Alterman & Green's "The Book On Bush" - there's ALWAYS been just one thing after another with these guys. What's different now is that the press is covering them. Are we seeing the "Gore-ing" of Bush? Finally??

If you'll recall, once the media decided on the "narrative" with Gore, virtually every story about him hewed pretty close to that narrative - he was a "serial exaggerator," he was "stiff and wooden," he was "reinventing himself" etc... Are we seeing a "Bush is incompetent" or "a bumbler" or "Bush is out of touch" narrative developing here, or not?

And this leads to another interesting question... Is the media fixin' to take down chimpy? Sweet if they are, but scary that they have the power to do it.

[Kurovski]

2. Reporting the facts should be sufficient

in removing George from the White House.

Report them over and over and over again. I know! They can pretend his record is "the DEAN scream!"

"...nourishing diet for Kerry"...That's priceless!

[Miss Authoritiva]

3. Isn't it really once the media has been told what the narrative is?

I don't doubt that once the narrative is in place the media sticks to it -- until instructed otherwise. My question is who tells the media what the narrative is and then tells them to go with it. The synchronicity always is a marvel, isn't it.

Bush being portrayed as a stumble-bunny in the mainstream media? He must have failed to deliver for somebody, somebody bigger than the petrochemicals and defense materiel divisions of the Very Big Corporations of America -- because we know they got what they wanted. But who could it be?