Father of lies
David Shenk sent this astute e-mail regarding today's front page New York Times story on the relationship between President Bush and his father.
This is the Times at its worst, unwittingly doing p.r. for the White House. Seven years ago the White House used the media to put out the message that 41 didn't have much influence on his new president son. Now that 43 is seen as a disaster, and they want to borrow some of 41's statesman sheen, they trot out insiders to reveal that father and son are much closer than everyone thinks -- that the president talks every morning to his dad and this frequently includes real policy advice. The Times laps it up. It links 41 to Rove, allows friends of 41 to say that the father blames aides and not his son for bad decisions, and more or less dismisses the father-son psychological angle even though it is now patently obvious that 43's Iraq move and other early decisions were some sort of desperate need to distance himself from his father, and to prove he was tougher.The piece they could have done -- that the Washington Post would have done? -- would have played it straight out: What's it like to have a president son who made it a policy of rebuking his father's policies and who has failed miserably?
I'm sure the Times would have included that if they still had the extra inch and a half of space.
Comments
I think they really ARE seeking 41's help. When I read about the "puke-ray" weapon Homeland Security was trying out, I thought it had to be him!
Posted by: Sam | August 9, 2007 12:45 PM
That's right, it's those darn aides, always taking advantage of W's antipathy toward civil rights, utter lack of common sense, and general dearth of knowledge about everything. Blast them, anyway.
Posted by: Francis | August 9, 2007 12:51 PM
I thought Murdoch had taken control of WSJ not the Times' front page?
All in all though, Bush is enjoying his best week publicity-wise in a long time. He's a cameo on Laugh-In away from improving to 35%.
Posted by: Owen | August 9, 2007 10:20 PM
But don't you understand, only Harry can kill Voldermont!
Posted by: jake | August 10, 2007 12:47 AM
"Unwittingly"? Shenk hasn't been paying attention for the past eight years.
Posted by: Jon88 | August 12, 2007 11:06 AM