Thursday, April 03, 2008
A No-Winner
A wise sage once warned that you must be careful when picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel when choosing to take on the press. Apparently the Bush administration has its reasons for singling out the "New York Times" today for a fight. I suppose at this juncture the administration is seeking to rally the base in order to awaken Republicans from the funk they have been in since the 2006 midterms.
The assault, which was linked right off the White House webpage, is titled "Setting the Record Straight: The New York Times Mistakes Its Own Blindness for Presidential 'Invisibility,'" and it even stoops low by referring to the Times as the "Old 'Gray Lady,'" a jab akin to "your mama wears army boots."
It seems that what got under Bush's skin was one article that appeared today by Sheryl Gay Stolberg titled "In Economic Drama, Bush is Largely Offstage" and attacking Bush for not being in tune with the economic hardships facing many Americans. An article, by the way, that was not even on the front page of the Times online. I suppose the administration felt this worked in its favor since anyone wishing to read the article for himself would probably give up after it was not located on the first page he came to in his online search. And the administration was not helping out by putting up a link of its own.
The article begins by citing Bush's surprise that gas prices were topping $4 a gallon, something he claims not to have heard from any of his "people." The article also cites Republicans who are critical of the President, including Kenneth Doberstein, who served as President Reagan's chief of staff in his second term. Doberstein says of Bush:
The administration makes no mention of Doberstein in their criticism of the article. Nor does it mention the criticism they received from another Republican--Peter King of New York--who blamed the President for allowing his surrogates to do the talking on the economy, something that also, in fact, has happened:
I am not sure if the administration understood the point of the Times article--that the administration is doing any thing in order to avoid dealing with the hard questions of the economy, and it seems to me by attacking the Times publicly only makes their point. Those Americans who are suffering because of the terrible economy--with the Fed Chief declaring a recession--it really isn't going to matter much that the President recently took the heroic step in creating an "Advisory Council on Financial Literacy" that brings "together business experts and faith-based and non-profit organizations to develop recommendations to better educate Americans about matters pertaining to their finances and their future." Forgive us if we don't get off our repossessed couches and give you the credit you so "richly" deserve! And shame on the NY Times for not seeing your initiative!
|
The assault, which was linked right off the White House webpage, is titled "Setting the Record Straight: The New York Times Mistakes Its Own Blindness for Presidential 'Invisibility,'" and it even stoops low by referring to the Times as the "Old 'Gray Lady,'" a jab akin to "your mama wears army boots."
It seems that what got under Bush's skin was one article that appeared today by Sheryl Gay Stolberg titled "In Economic Drama, Bush is Largely Offstage" and attacking Bush for not being in tune with the economic hardships facing many Americans. An article, by the way, that was not even on the front page of the Times online. I suppose the administration felt this worked in its favor since anyone wishing to read the article for himself would probably give up after it was not located on the first page he came to in his online search. And the administration was not helping out by putting up a link of its own.
The article begins by citing Bush's surprise that gas prices were topping $4 a gallon, something he claims not to have heard from any of his "people." The article also cites Republicans who are critical of the President, including Kenneth Doberstein, who served as President Reagan's chief of staff in his second term. Doberstein says of Bush:
“He’s over there arguing about who should get into NATO, and the American people are focused on what’s in their pocketbooks. He has talked about the economy, but it is not viewed as being a satisfactory response. Unfortunately, the lasting image is of not knowing of $4-a-gallon gas.”
The administration makes no mention of Doberstein in their criticism of the article. Nor does it mention the criticism they received from another Republican--Peter King of New York--who blamed the President for allowing his surrogates to do the talking on the economy, something that also, in fact, has happened:
“I think for the most part the administration is doing the right thing in addressing the economic problems we have. But I think tactically it would be better if the president himself was more out front, rather than leaving it so much to Paulson. When there is a perceived national crisis, it’s important for the president to be the point man.”
I am not sure if the administration understood the point of the Times article--that the administration is doing any thing in order to avoid dealing with the hard questions of the economy, and it seems to me by attacking the Times publicly only makes their point. Those Americans who are suffering because of the terrible economy--with the Fed Chief declaring a recession--it really isn't going to matter much that the President recently took the heroic step in creating an "Advisory Council on Financial Literacy" that brings "together business experts and faith-based and non-profit organizations to develop recommendations to better educate Americans about matters pertaining to their finances and their future." Forgive us if we don't get off our repossessed couches and give you the credit you so "richly" deserve! And shame on the NY Times for not seeing your initiative!
