President Bush shifted his rhetoric on Iraq in recent weeks after an intense debate among advisers about how to pull out of his political free fall, with senior adviser Karl Rove urging a campaign-style attack on critics while younger aides pushed for more candor about setbacks in the war, according to Republican strategists...I guess spouse-fighting chez Rove is an ugly affair. Nice of the younger-generation aides to think the we could actually appreciate something other than pure pep talk.
Although Rove raised concerns about giving critics too much ground, the younger-generation aides prevailed. Bush agreed to try the approach so long as he did not come off sounding too negative. Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion who now works at the White House, helped draft a 35-page public plan for victory in Iraq, a paper principally designed to prove that Bush had one....
Writing off 30 percent or more of the public as adamantly against the war, his advisers focused on winning back a similar-size group that had soured on Iraq but, they believed, wanted to be convinced victory was possible....
The humility theme was woven into speeches, often in the first two minutes to keep viewers from turning away. Aides had noticed that anger at Bush after Hurricane Katrina subsided somewhat after he took responsibility for the response. The idea, one senior official said, was like fighting with a spouse: "You need to give voice to their concern. That doesn't necessarily solve the division and the difference, but it drains the disagreement of some of its animosity if you feel you've been heard."
I wonder if there's some implicit advice in this for the President's opponents: The straight dyspep talk is offputting. Defeat your inner anti-Rove.
पोस्ट्स
६ टिप्पण्या:
37: Yeah, and Clinton was not helped by the fact that we had to see him as a bad husband.
The idea, one senior official said, was like fighting with a spouse. This made the following image flash in my head: President Bush appearing on national television, saying, "I don't get it. What'd I do?" Followed by the Democratic response: "Oh come on, you know what you did!"
LetMeSpellItOutForYou -
Close. Very close. You need a few more years of marital time. The actual line is, "If you cared at all, you'd know what you did."
When you have the facts, you argue them, right?
I also think that the relationship of governed to government is like family. We want to love our spouses or parents, but sometimes they make it hard. It's beyond reason, but the natural impulse to love is always there. How else can you explain forgiveness and reconciliation in a damaged marriage or family?
Maybe the same thing is happening in politics. Most of the voters are floaters, not attached to either party. They will not follow or criticize blindly; they want the real deal. Bush is answering them back, using their language, correcting their errors (like the last letter of soldier Jeffrey Starr) in a respectful way. The younger aides should be congratulated.
Simon, you're absolutely right. Only seven years in, you know. ;-)
David, your opinion of Bush's motives or why he is talking now and not then and what the rightwingers are doing or not doing is your belief and opinion, and you are welcome to express it. No one is "suppressing" dissident opinions; they're criticizing them.
And, yes, the war is or was a big mess, but every war is a mess. I'm glad we both want success in Iraq.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा