The right has had a lot of fun claiming that while President Clinton led based on polls, George Bush has led based on “his gut”. Anyone who’s paid attention for five seconds knows this, but the myth persists.
End it, now.
The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation’s top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president’s speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.
Bush clearly can’t be happy with public opinion tending/veering away from his message. That isn’t happening because his message hasn’t ‘gotten out’… it has ‘gotten out’ … the people just aren’t buying it. After all, Bush doesn’t have a complicated message… its not like we don’t get it.
And here, Oliver fails the reading comprehension portion of the program.
The whole argument behind conservatives calling Clinton “poll driven” was that he had no core beliefs for the most part and conducted polls not to see how his message was playing but what message to have.
Here, we see Bush, having already come up with a core belief (Stay in Iraq for a while yet), hiring an “image consultant” he thinks will help him get his message out better.
Apples and Qumquats, my friend.
The more apt comparison to this would be to Al Gore in 2000, when he was constantly bringing on advisors to “hone” his message.
Nonetheless, EG, this is not about leading by polls…
This is about figuring out how to get people ro see things your way — not about finding out what people think, and making policy accordingly.
I think the distinction between “leading by polls” and “responding to polls” is an important one. If Bush were being led by the polls, he’d be pulling out of Iraq right now, wouldn’t he?
Its too bad there was no PR campaign before the war.
Perhaps then Americans wouldn’t have confused themselves as to the 9/11 - Saddam connection, or the Al Qaeda - Saddam connection, or the stockpiles of WMD. We actually took that story about Aluminum Tubes and Nigerian Uranium more seriously than the Administration intended. ( The Rose Parade, by the way, has been postponed. )
I still wonder how all this happened? I guess the Prez wasn’t able to translate the truth of the situation into a digestible message that we Americans could process. And we got confused all on our own. A good PR is just what we need - shine a light in our darkness.
Or…Perhaps with the right PR campaign , Americans would have had the chance to deliberate over facts instead of fantasies.
Polls are what they are, a one time snapshot of how a portion of the populace feels about an issue presented to them. I see no problem having a message, and testing out the various ways to deliver the message, which is apparently what is happening in this oh so horrible instance. I would have a big problem if I thought our leaders were polling to determine what their position should be.
Evergreen : Can you cite any evidence that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam ?
You cant really hate Bush. I mean, his mom and dad and wife and kids and Karl Baby love him… But you have to be baffled by his decision…disastrous tax breaks, increased national debt. billions of dollars and nearly two thousand lives to tame a country I dont give a damn about. ANd new cuts to Veteran benefits and the end of social security…? How dumb is that ‘greatest generation?”
Every time he lectures some country it only makes them retrench. DId you know that public sympathy after 9/11for America was greater in Iran than in Kuwait a country whose stupid asses we saved!!! Liberalism was growing in Iran until he called them assholes of evil and then they all got together to really hate us all over again.
And what about Venezuela….the Bush Admin has admitted supporting two coups, a national strike and a recall attempt and Chavez turns around and joins up with Castro, Iran and CHina in a fit of pique….NOw, our future oil supply is going to Castro and China…and one of our most important oil sources gives us the finger every day. We are losing Mexico to the left, and most of S. AMerica…and why? because Bush has no clear idea of what being a statesman and a President of the most important country the world has ever seen….every time he opens his mouth, he makes things worse…the US is divided some love Bush, some hate him…but our future is hinged on our foreign relations and there is not one person in this sack of lugnuts that knows jack shit what motivates our friends and enemies.
Bush should stop praying and start thinking.
Can you cite any evidence that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam ?
JD, that’s like asking: show a connection that angels don’t exist. The correct question is ask for evidence that there is a connection.
JD, that s like asking: show a connection that angels don t exist. The correct question is ask for evidence that there is a connection.
Reminds me of Prof. Richard Hand of Bob Jones University, who wrote to South Carolinians about John McCain’s alleged fathering of illegitimate children during the primaries in 2000. He was confronted on CNN about how no evidence of this exists, and responds “That’s a universal negative. Can you prove that?” Just another handy-dandy distraction from the right-winger bag of tricks.
Oh, JD- the Sept. 11 Commission had announced there was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq… that was a while ago too… lets try and keep up with current events if you want to try and debate them.
You are absolutely 200% mind bogglingly wrong ! The 9/11 Commission Report indicated that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. They clearly pointed out that there was a long history between Saddam and Al Qaeda and terrorists.
I suppose if you just will away Saddam allowing Ansar Al-Islam to operate in the northern part of Iraq, it will make it seem like it did not happen. I suppose that the terrorist training grounds at Salman Pak were something less nefarious.
200% mind bogglingly wrong huh? Wow, thats really wrong!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Read the above snippet and fill in the blank- “no ‘collaborative relationship between Iraq and ________ “