May 04, 2005

The Washington Post the other day ran an AP story by Liz Sidoti titled Bush Working to Avoid Setback Over Bolton:

Since the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly delayed a vote on Bolton's nomination last month, the White House has reiterated its support daily, worked to reassure wavering Republicans he's the right choice and ensured that Senate GOP leaders are on board.

...

The confirmation battle has enormous stakes for the president, potentially providing him with either a boost or a blow at a critical time.

OK, I have some issue with the way that's being presented, but more on that in a minute. Let's read a little further.

Bush's poll numbers are sagging. His proposed Social Security overhaul - like much of his agenda - has been met with skepticism in Congress, his nominees for judicial posts are tied up in the Senate and ethics questions surround a prominent member of his party and fellow Texan, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Well, let's talk about the poll numbers. The approval poll at the time showed President Bush with a 48% approval rating, which is right around where it's been historically.

That said, Sidoti doesn't explain the relevance of an approval poll. I don't know that this particular poll means much in the context of the story. If we were talking about someone running for reelection, then maybe. But I don't think President Bush is basing his decisions on an approval poll. Now, a case could be made that it's relevant for those in Congress who are looking at an election in a year and a half, but in that case wouldn't a more relevant piece of information be in looking how the public views Congress? In the same poll, Congressional Republicans have a 42% approval rating. OK. And then a little further down...Congressional Democrats have a 40% approval rating. The question becomes...why doesn't the AP mention "sagging" approval ratings for Congress, particularly Congressional Democrats? Sidoti mentioning only Bush's approval ratings paints a somewhat different picture than when Congressional numbers get included.

In fact, looking at the Social Security polling data, I see a very contradictory picture being painted, so contradictory that I don't think one can look at Bush's approval rating and decisively say it's because of *his* Social Security "agenda." And as long as we're talking about Bush's "agenda," what did he want to accomplish in the first few months of his second term? Eric Pfieffer of National Review's Beltway Buzz points out Bush wanted to get reforms in bankruptcy laws and class action lawsuits....things that were, in fact, accomplished. This, along with other accomplishments, does not support the picture of a Congress "skeptical" of President Bush's agenda. It actually shows a President getting things done...the things he wanted to do.

On another throwaway line from Sidoti, she talks about "ethics questions" with Tom DeLay. But did Democrats not do the same thing DeLay is being excoriated for? Why is DeLay being treated as a pariah for doing what Democrats haven't had a problem with? Is it truly an ethics issue? I mean, look at the way the story presents the issue:

At least two aides to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two Democratic congressmen received travel expenses initially paid by lobbyist Jack Abramoff on his credit card or by his firm, internal records of the lobbying firm show.

So we have TWO AIDES TO TOM DELAY and oh yeah, two Democratic congressmen mumble mumble mumble.....and TOM DELAY is breaking rules and so are Democrats mumble mumble mumble.....

But it's not like that's important to mention when there's a chance to attack Tom DeLay, right Liz Sidoti? And not when you can go on to attack John Bolton:

Democrats working to derail Bolton's confirmation paint the nominee as unfit for the job because of his tough-talking demeanor, hard-line foreign policy stances and past criticism of the United Nations.

You know, I read that and wonder "What's debilitating about any of that?!?" Tough talking demeanor? So what? Hard-line foreign policy stances? Again, so what? Criticisms of the UN? Hooray for THAT! But then when introducing examples, Sidoti starts with:

Allegations of professional misbehavior have trickled out, including claims - some unsubstantiated - that he:

Um...unsubstantiated?!? Why are unsubstantiated allegations being tossed in here? Which of the claims she cites are unsubstantiated?!? Melody Townsel's accusations (which have plenty of their own problems..and notice she's a "Dallas Businesswoman" and not "organizer of a Mothers Against Bush chapter...)? The Westermann incident (which she misstates, incidentally)? The the Armstrong incident (which she again misstates)? "Asked" a "spy agency" for details of recorded communications (What..."asking" is a crime?)?

Now, let's go back to the way Sidoti is playing this:

The confirmation battle has enormous stakes for the president, potentially providing him with either a boost or a blow at a critical time.

Does that theme sound familiar? Does it sound an awful lot like what the media was saying during the Presidential election? That it would serve as a referendum of Bush's policies, that if he were defeated it would be a resounding indictment of him? We even had Evan Thomas of Newsweek saying that media support was worth 15 points at the polls. And what happened? Bush was reelected, even with that 15 point handicap. Republicans gained seats. Then suddenly it wasn't much of a referendum, was it? No, it was something else...a vote stealing power grab or an exercise in the "religious right" all turning out to vote against Gay Marriage and oh by the way voting for President Bush. Any number of excuses were given to rationalize away the claims made before the election, and suddenly Bush's victory didn't mean much at all.

So I'm viewing this story as the opening salvo for a repeat performance by the media for the midterm elections. They're coming up, you know. We're already hearing stories starting to sell the story that this is a country mired in deep dissatisfaction. And so this confirmation, which is being portrayed as a make or break event, will be heavily played as "break" if Bolton loses. But if he gets confirmed, and I have very little doubt that he will, will Liz Sidoti write a story about Bush's great win? I really doubt it. Instead I think we'll start getting stories about how Bush had to spend a ton of political capital getting his nominee through, that everything was so gosh-darned controversial and how Bush screwed up such a routine nomination.

With all of this, is it really any surprise that the mainstream media is losing their credibility? For that matter, I think they're starting to lose their minds. There's no other explanation for it. Media outlets are facing "sagging" ratings (to borrow a term), and I think they're starting to go crackers over it. So in a fit, we're starting to hear more and more explosively-toned stuff from them which is likely an effort to get their audience back. The problem is, there are now alternatives. You don't have to trust the AP anymore. You can go to any number of other outlets. But instead of learning from that, they keep sending out more and more hatchet jobs. For example, there's a recent story about the Secret Service asking for the race of guests who will be attending a media reception with President Bush, and of course there's the reported outrage:

Some senior correspondents who cover Bush regularly and have attended the reception in past years said Friday they had not been asked for race information previously and were shocked at the request.

"[White House] reporters already have hard [permanent] passes, have gone through all the checks, and are often in reach of the president," said Ed Chen of the Los Angeles Times, who is secretary of the association. "I think it's unnecessary and offensive."

But then in the story, we get this:

The Secret Service, which is responsible for protecting Bush and his family, "routinely" asks for five "identifiers" of people who will be near the president to run through a criminal data base, Mazur said.

The five factors -- name, date-of-birth, Social Security number, gender and race -- are used to search the database "in a most timely and effective manner," he said.

"When the president travels or has events, this is information that is routinely requested," Mazur said.

Well, that neatly refutes Chen's outrage, doesn't it?. So why even report on it? What's the story? If asking for race...something done routinely and for quite some time before this...is offensive (ie "racist"), then asking for gender is sexist? Date of birth...is that offensive as well to older people? Or is Chen's vitriol being aired as just another way to launch an attack against President Bush with an inflammatory lede? And I have to say...between now and November 06 I think we're going to see things get much worse, and much more obvious.

Posted by John Tant at May 4, 2005 02:07 PM

    The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/883