Of Watergate it is often said the problem was not so much the initial crime, but the cover-up. When it comes to the Bush White House controversies, the problem has often been not so much the initial actions of the administration, but rather the communications effort after the fact.
The controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is only the most recent example of a complete communications breakdown. News reports for more than a week now have focused on what were reported as unprecedented politically motivated firings, as well as accompanying allegations from Democrats claiming wrongdoing, and even criminality, in the firings.
Many of the reports the past week not only did not inform the public that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, but they failed to provide historical context by omitting the fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993.
Administration officials were not only unable to get that information to the public through the media filter, but they struggled to present a clear position on the matter. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales apologized for the controversy, not the firings, but all too often that was not clear from media reports.
The U.S. attorney firings are only the latest example. Some of the biggest failures of the Bush administration have been the result of poor communications.
In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the communication breakdown took place during the crisis and the result was help not getting where it needed to be, when it needed to be there.
The White House wasalso slow and weak in conveying to the public information about what was being done well, such as the stellar response of the Coast Guard rescue teams which evacuated or rescued more than 33,000 people during the disaster.
The administration has had similar trouble communicating information regarding the war in Iraq. Too often, good news from the region was not to be found on the networks and in national newspapers, but rather was only available to the public through military blogs and talk radio, which reach a much smaller audience.
In many cases, the various battles in Iraq were reported as if in a vacuum, with casualty counts being the primary focus, rather than reporting objectives that were accomplished as a result of various missions.
As the administration has had trouble getting out the good news on Iraq, they have had similar problems with good news closer to home. Last week it was reported that the deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending.
The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year.
In spite of this excellent news regarding the deficit, and some incredibly strong employment figures reported the past few years, polls show that not only does the administration not receive credit for good economic news, but in many cases the public has the perception that the economy is performing poorly.
The basic economic numbers are at least being reported accurately, albeit with a decidedly different spin than during the Clinton years, but the administration has had trouble formulating a message to explain to the public how those good numbers came to be.
They have not been able to take ownership of the good economy. In past years, if the economy was good, the president frequently reaped the benefits in his approval ratings.
With the mainstream media now unwillingly to make the connection between economic policies and results as they did for Bill Clinton, the Bush administration cannot rely on the numbers to speak for themselves.
The administration has to be more proactive and have a focused strategy to convey their message and that has been either lacking or insufficient.
The problem begins with the president. He does a great job on the road touting good economic news. He speaks movingly and persuasively about the mission in Iraq when talking to groups of real people.
He has trouble, however, working that same passion into more formal speeches that actually get airtime from the networks. Without properly conveying to the public the virtues and successes of various policies, it is impossible to build public support.
Without sustained support for a policy or action it is almost certainly doomed to fail. It is time for the administration to step up its communications game with a more aggressive strategy.
Lorie Byrd is a member of The Examiner Blog Board and blogs at Wizbangblog.com.
