Ludicrous Claim: Bush Didn’t Mention Katrina
 

     More on Bush’s new modesty in Wednesday’s lead story on the State of the Union speech by Elisabeth Bumiller and Adam Nagourney, “Bush, Resetting Agenda, Says U.S. Must Cut Reliance On Oil.”

     “President Bush offered the nation a modest menu of energy, health and education proposals and warned against the ‘false comfort of isolationism’ on Tuesday in a State of the Union address that sought to reassert his control over the nation's agenda heading into a pivotal midterm election campaign.”

     They emphasize: “But Mr. Bush was more tempered and less partisan than a year ago, evidence of his diminished political standing.”

     As did David Sanger and other Times reporters today, they try to pin Republican troubles on Bush: “He did so before an audience of dogged Democrats seated across the aisle from nervous Republicans, who find themselves mired in a contentious leadership battle and the influence-peddling investigation in their top ranks on Capitol Hill.”

     Bumiller faults Bush for allegedly not discussing Hurricane Katrina: “The speech was notable for what Mr. Bush did not mention. He offered no new ideas for rebuilding New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, made no mention of his troubled Medicare prescription drug program and offered no proposal to clamp down on lobbying abuses in Congress that have led to the investigation of Jack Abramoff, a formerly powerful lobbyist and a major fund-raiser for Mr. Bush. Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty on Jan. 3 to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion, and prosecutors have said he used campaign contributions, lavish trips and meals to influence lawmakers and their aides.”

     The text box even sniffs that “Lobbying and Hurricane Katrina are not mentioned.”

     But while there’s no mention of “Hurricane Katrina” in the transcript, that’s a deeply misleading statement.

     Here’s Bush near the end of his speech talking about the rebuilding of New Orleans: “A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived. In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country.”

     How can that possibly be characterized as “Lobbying and Hurricane Katrina are not mentioned”?

     Also notice how the Times tries to tie unrelated Republican scandals to Bush and wonders why Bush didn’t dwell on bad news. By contrast, when covering Bill Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union address, reporter James Bennet wasn’t critical of Clinton for not discussing his recent impeachment.

     Bennet wrote the paper’s lead story back on January 20, 1999: “Mr. Clinton left it to his lawyers to attack the charges that he broke the law to cover up his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, the former intern. But he seized on his State of the Union Message as his most potent defense, just as for the last turbulent year he has counted on his dogged advocacy of popular programs to sustain him. Mr. Clinton exuded ease and a sense of political control, reacting with unmistakable delight when both sides of the chamber erupted in applause for his call for equal pay for equal work by women or men.”

For more of Bumiller and Nagourney, click here.

How Cindy Sheehan “Turned the Tables on Mr. Bush”
 

     The morning after Bush’s sixth State of the Union speech, congressional reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Anne Kornblut file “Antiwar Protester Arrested Before Speech, but Her Presence Looms Large.” It’s accompanied in print by a large photo of anti-war Bush-hating activist Cindy Sheehan being escorted out of the House chamber for wearing an anti-war T-shirt.

     “To spotlight his priorities, President Bush invited ordinary people -- a teacher, a physicist, an Afghan politician, the family of a fallen soldier -- to the State of the Union address on Tuesday. But a Democratic congresswoman turned the tables on Mr. Bush by inviting a guest of her own: Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar protester who has dogged Mr. Bush from his Texas ranch to the White House.

     “Ms. Sheehan's presence loomed large in the House chamber, though she was not there. Capitol Police arrested her before the speech began, ejecting her from the gallery after they discovered her wearing an antiwar T-shirt. A police spokeswoman said Ms. Sheehan was charged with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor.”

     Stolberg and Kornblut portray Democratic disrespect during the speech as a victory: “But the prizefighter has taken more than a few punches in recent months, and Democrats were rowdier than usual. Although Mr. Bush hit as many notes as he could to rally the chamber -- paying tribute to Coretta Scott King, demanding changes from the newly elected Palestinian leadership and a defiant Iran -- Mr. Bush gave Democrats several openings to get the better of him. And they took them. When he defended the National Security Agency eavesdropping program, several Democratic members audibly groaned. When he scolded Congress for not passing his Social Security program, Democrats leaped to their feet in cheers, drowning the president out for a long stretch.”

      Like their Times colleagues, Stolberg and Kornblut tie Republican Party troubles to Bush’s speech: “The president arrived in the Capitol at a chaotic moment for Congressional Republicans, who are absorbed by the fallout from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and consumed with the outcome of leadership elections scheduled for Thursday. So the mood on Capitol Hill was palpably different from last year, when Mr. Bush, fresh from his 2004 re-election victory, was talking about how he had political capital and intended to use it.”

     At the end they generously provide some coverage of the attendees who didn’t get arrested during a publicity stunt: “The State of the Union address is often as much symbolism as substance, an occasion for the president to use his invited guests to put a human face on his domestic and foreign policy priorities. On Tuesday, Mr. Bush did just that, with a compelling counterpoint to Ms. Sheehan: the parents and widow of Dan Clay, a 27-year-old Marine staff sergeant who was among 10 soldiers killed in Falluja when a roadside bomb exploded Dec. 1.”

     Near the end they underline Republican worries: “Republicans, who regard national security as the president's greatest strength, welcomed his effort to seize the spotlight in that arena. But with gas prices rising and health care costs spiraling upward, some could not help but sound a bit weary."

For more Stolberg and Kornblut, click here.

Bush “Confronting His Anxieties” by Moderating on Energy
 

     David Sanger’s Page One “news analysis” of Bush’s sixth State of the Union speech “Bold Visions Have Given Way to New Reality.”

     “It was an evening for President Bush to confront America's anxieties -- and his own. Only a year after Mr. Bush stood in the House, describing in bold terms how he planned to spend the political capital he had amassed in the 2004 election, the president who addressed the nation on Tuesday evening was far less ambitious, his tone noticeably different.”

     Sanger wants to paint Bush as newly humbled and turning moderate in response to liberal criticism. “The Texan who swept onto the national political scene six years ago talking about drilling for new energy supplies and preserving the American way of life vowed on Tuesday night to wean the nation from its reliance on oil. Instead of urging Congress to drill in the Arctic, the president who had waved off the critics who portrayed him and Vice President Dick Cheney as captives of the oil industry asked Congress to finance federal research into alternative fuels and lithium batteries.”

     Bush indeed devoted four whole paragraphs of last night’s SOTU to energy independence (today’s lead editorial sniffs the “remarks were woefully insufficient”). But how big a shift is that? After all, Bush has been talking conservation in his State of the Union the last four years. Here’s Bush in his 2005 speech: “And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol.”

     Bush  in 2004: “Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run -- so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.”

     Bush in 2003: “Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car -- producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

     Bush in 2002: “Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.”

     The Times itself points out in a story by Matthew Wald and Edmund Andrews that “Bush has called in each of his past four State of the Union addresses for a reduction in the dependence on foreign oil.”

For more Sanger, click here.

Alito, Conservatives “Tilt” Court to the Right, But Ginburg Was Apolitical?
 

     Yesterday afternoon, reporter David Stout of the Times’ online news desk posted a report on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

     The teaser sentence: “The vote is a triumph for President Bush and conservatives who have longed to tilt the balance of the court to the right.”

     Stout’s text emphasizes Alito’s conservatism again and again: “Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has been widely praised for his intellect and integrity but both admired and assailed for his conservative judicial philosophy, was sworn in today as the 110th justice in the history of the Supreme Court. The ceremony, at the Supreme Court, came shortly after Justice Alito was confirmed by a sharply divided Senate, which voted 58 to 42, largely along party lines.”

     Stout again emphasizes: “The vote is also a triumph for the conservative movement, whose adherents have longed to tilt the balance of the court to the right. Admirers and critics have predicted that Samuel Alito will do just that. Legal scholars have described his jurisprudence as cautious, respectful of precedent -- and solidly conservative. In contrast, the justice he will succeed, Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, came to be widely regarded as a swing justice between the tribunal's liberal and conservative wings.”

     Later he writes that Alito “becomes the second relatively young conservative to ascend to the court in recent months.”

     Though the profile is not hostile, the emphasis on Alito’s conservatism comes in sharp contrast to how the Times covered the Senate vote that made liberal former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg a Supreme Court Justice.

     The August 4, 1993 edition story by Supreme Court reporter
Linda Greenhouse (who has the same beat at the Times today) makes no mention of Ginsburg’s liberalism. The only ideological labeling was of the “three conservative Republicans” who voted against Ginsburg.

     Wednesday’s hard-copy story by David Kirkpatrick also mentions Alito is “expected to tilt the balance of the court to the right on matters like abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty” up high in the second paragraph, but to his credit he ends with balanced labeling. The youngest justices, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are recognized as “conservatives,” while the oldest, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stevens, are actually called “liberals.”

For the full Stout, click here.

For more Kirkpatrick, click here.