I understand they’re currently recruiting a Buck Czar.
I dunno. I don’t mind so much that the Administration tries to script and stage the President’s “public” events to the furthest extent possible, as much as I mind the media letting them get away with it.
When the White House hands out a “fake newscast” press release with a “fake reporter” telling the story, if a news channel broadcasts that, I want them clearly announcing “Here’s a press release from the White House on that story”. When the President holds a scripted “town hall” PR event, I want the media that report on it pointing out that the Q&A was staged. When the President holds a rally where demonstrators are shunted off to a distant site, I want the newscast to show some footage of the demonstrators, along with an acknowledgement that the rally organizers prevented them from assembling within camera-shot of the rally.
The President is allowed to try to hide from his detractors in public if he wants to, as far as I’m concerned. But I want the media to be alert enough to let us know what he’s up to, so we can keep that in mind while judging the persuasiveness of his PR.
If it did, his Office of Presidential Advance handlers must have been one incompetent bunch of screwups. Because IIRC (and news reports seem to bear me out), Reagan got heckled quite a bit in his speeches by people who disagreed with him.
E.g., in early 1984:
And in late 1984:
At the 1982 Bundestag speech (does it count if it’s not on US soil?):
Reagan’s own reminiscences of his re-election campaign:
I was never a Reagan fan, but I have to say for him that, canny old showbiz hack as he was, I don’t really think he would have stooped to using his presidential power to create pseudo-public appearances where anybody who might venture to disagree with him would be shuffled off out of media eye- and ear-shot.
IOKIYAR.
“It” under the New and Improved Republican Party now includes torture and treason, impersonating an FBI agent is small potatoes.
Well, it is a limited-capacity venue…
Of course anti-Bush rallies are organized. The question is do they bar pro-Bush people from these rallies?
Also, do any of Bush’s opponents bar pro-Bush people from their rallies?
I don’t accept barring anyone from a political rally in this country even on the campaign trail. Let them have their say, but don’t let them rob you are your right to hear and be heard.
Even Nazis have the right to organize demonstrations in Jewish neighborhoods in the USA. Are you going to tell me that pro-Constitution supporters can’t show up at a Bush-Cheney rally?
If Bush wasn’t such a fumblemouth, he could handle it like this Clinton YouTube video.
I don’t agree with the man, but this Romney YouTube video shows another quick-thinking politician with balls.
But Bush needs “rally squads” and manuals so it looks like he has support. Pathetic. Clinton and Romney gained support because they took on dissention themselves.
Considering the situation he’s in, I would guess, beer.
There used to be a guy who had the same ideas as the Bush Advance Manual authors. In fact, he was so good at it that he would create entire fake communities full of fake goodwill for his political leader. His name was Potemkin, the leader was Stalin and he was the creator of Potemkin villages. I gather that all the Bush defenders who can’t see anything wrong with these tactics are down with Potemkin and Stalin, too. (Come to think of it, the Soviets also suborned a New York Times writer (Walter Duranty) to help them with their happy news facade while they starved 20 million people in the Ukraine to death. Think of him as an early Judith Miller. Like Miller, he would eventually be exposed for the news ho that he was, but not until after he had done his damage to America.)
(Thinking about it, the neocon leaders who started this whole mess are supposed to be ex-Trotskyites. Could it be that our conservative friends are adoping the public relations tools and techniques of the Commies without adopting their ideology as well? Would it be fair to call them the New Commies, dedicated to destroying America from within by utterly corrupting democracy, just as the old style Commies were reputed to be attempting back in the 50s?)
[pedantic sniff] Potemkin worked for Catherine the Great. [/ps]
And the story about him erecting phony villages is a myth.
Correct, mostly, though it’s generally conceded that Potemkin did some sprucing up to make the territory he conquered look more valuable thatn it was – but he never bult fake villages.
That said, the impulse to create fake news about happy people is a widespread one, most often used by authoritarian regimes with something to hide, as this article about Potemkin villages demonstrates. And my main point still holds: the people who think Bush’s fake townhall meetings and so forth are acceptable stratagems should be forced to answer the question: how far are you willing to back this kind of behavior? Where do you cross the line between simple political savvy and fascist authoritarianism?
He’s saying that Bush shouldn’t act unethically just because it’s in his power and self-interest to do so. You’d probably agree with him completely if he were talking about the guy that didn’t wear the same regalia as you.
Because it’s focusing on image more than substance? Perhaps trying to be popular by I don’t know, serving the people to the best of your ability? Is that not preferable to manipulating the way you appear on television?
Ha, I’d argue the opposite. I’d say they are masters of it.
Prescott Bush is being kept alive in a sort of ‘Bacta’ tankish setup at Langley watching multiple feeds 24/7.
NeoCOMMS… as it were…
If the term “Potemkin village” is historically inaccurate, then someone should coin a new phrase to embody such an important concept.
Since the current thread mentions “rally squads” and other such bogus grassroots organizations, I therefore nominate the phrase “Bush league.”
If they were that good at it, he’d have more than a 30% approval rating, his party would have control of Congress, and he’d be able to pass items on his legislative agenda.
It’s stupid to blame Bush for this. He’s a politician, so of course he’s going to thy to stage manage events to make himself look good. It’s what politicians do. If you’re going to blame anybody, blame the members of the press who let him get away with it.