I don’t know that I accept that Bush’s reviews are ‘pre-written’. I seem to recall a reasonable amount of criticism when he didn’t come immediately back to the White House on the 11th, and I also remember some criticism of his ‘Wanted - Dead or Alive’ comment.
I really think that the reason he isn’t getting criticism is simply because he doesn’t deserve it. The government, it seems to me, has struck exactly the right tone, and is proceeding with this ‘war’ in exactly the right manner. The minute he misfires, I think he’ll get criticism for it.
This discussion was had on “This Week” this morning. One pundit said that Bush was simply riding a wave of patriotism, but Cokie Roberts said that he deserved it, and had some interesting stats to back that up. The one I remember was that a poll was taken a couple of days after the Sept. 11 bombing asking Americans if they thought the government was going in the right direction to protect them, and only something like 55% of the people said yes. A week later, that number was up over 70%. So clearly people have gotten more and more impressed with Bush. I think the real turning point was his speech to the Congress. Before that day, there was some general unease about Bush, and a reasonable amount of worry that he wouldn’t be up to the task. After that speech, his popularity soared.
Now, I’ll be perfectly willing to grant that it’s much easier to make a ‘great’ speech when the topic is so cut-and-dried, and when the country is unified on the ‘proper’ course. But it was still his to screw up, and he didn’t.
Mmm, you’ve heard of Patrick Buchanan, right? Seriously, I think you understimate the egos of these people.
I didn’t see the particular press conference mentioned in the OP, but I do remember the one he had on the 12th when he phoned Giuliani. That was embarrasing, no other way to spin it.
I agree with others here that the punditocracy is not going to cut its own throat now by attacking the president’s style, regardless of how inept he appears. But if his war policies backfire, expect the grumbling to start.
Or, more likely IMHO, they could have said “We can support our troops without supporting the President”.
Quote courtesy of Trent Lott, Senate freakin’ Republican Leader, in 1998, after Bill C. tried to take out bin Laden.
If you substituted the word “Bush” for “any president after a national crisis” I’d agree with you.
Remember Jane Fonda’s criticism of the administration during the Vietnam war? She was so soundly vilified after going on her Hanoi Jane campaign that most Americans old enough to remember the incident still despise her. And it wasn’t that WHAT she said didn’t have some merit. It was her timing. When the United States is involved in a war, you rally behind your leader. When the U.S. is sucker punched by some terrorist, you SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY. You don’t use your platform as a means to divide the country. This is Basic Civic Responsibilities 101.
And personally I think a journalist who chose to put his ego above the interests of his country SHOULD have been fired. Let him go work in Afghanistan.
PunditLisa, while I understand your feelings, grim experience (I am one of those who remember “Hanoi Jane”) teaches that it is precisely when patriotic emotion runs high that you must, repeat, must put your skepticism machinery on. There is too much at stake to write a blank check to anybody. Blind obedience is for the bin Ladens and the Nixons of the world.