Howard Fineman calls it the “Mother of All Battleground States” and there’s a growing concern that it’s not looking so good for the incumbent there:
It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that if [Timken,] follows through on the plan [to close its nearly century-old manufacturing plants in its hometown of Canton]— which will cut 1,300 high-paying jobs and produce a nasty spin-off effect — it could cost George Bush the presidency.
Yes, but as we’ve hashed out here time and time again, the President cannot honestly be held accountable for each and every job that’s lost in a changing economy. Only problem is, this President can’t seem to stop himself from promising such things.
From The Center for American Progress (Via Kos)
On 4/23/03 President Bush visited the Timken Company in Canton, OH, and touted the company as a demonstration of the success of his economic policies. Bush said “the future of employment is bright for the families that work here, that work to put food on the table for their children.”
That’s what happens when you’re only in it for the sound bite. How difficult would it have been for the Bush team to place a phone call and ask the Timken folks if, indeed, the future of employment for Canton families was bright.
“Rove here, look, the President is going to say ‘blah, blah, blah.’ Can you think of any reason he shouldn’t? This is important. Think hard.”
A lot can happen in one year, I know, but surely you don’t just wake up one morning and decide to move a plant that’s been in the same location for more than 100 years. As Fineman notes:
No wonder Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican who accompanied the president to Canton, is all over the case, urging the company and the union to cut a deal to save the plants. From his point of view, it’s hard to imagine a worse story. Is the union making unreasonable demands so that the plants will have to close, in the Machiavellian hope that the news will sink Bush in Ohio? Could be, though I doubt it. Does the governor want Timken to cut a deal at any cost? Probably. Is Karl Rove following the details? I’m sure.
Sure, Rove’s interested now. But before this announcment, Timken was just a backdrop for another stump speech, and the carefully written words meant to convey that the president was truly concerned for the folks listening to him were as cookie cutter and unconnected as those prepared for his next appearance. If those fools in Canton actually believed him, well, they just haven’t been paying attention.
Election campaigns produce all sorts of situations like Canton. A feverish search for a “story” setting to create news in a targeted area of policy and within a key geographic area.
But when first three things on your mind are all “win the election”, there’s a real danger that underlying policy just gets ignored.
There is no “tomorrow” beyond the election for this cabal. Bush says he “has plans” for America. Yeah? Like what?
Mission Accomplished.
Or maybe, just maybe, it could be something else entirely:
But what the hell. I blame Bush, for having been there.
But what the hell. I blame Bush, for having been there.
Yeah, it’s unfair. But it’s really, really embarrassing.
Only if your thought processes are such that this shows up as a cause-and-effect relationship.
We could spend/waste a great deal of time on discussions similar to that. Didn’t Kerry visit Vietnam, and then it turned out that atrocities occurred over there?
Oh, Slarti, I agree that Bush isn’t to blame per se. But live by PR BS, die by PR BS.
I agree completely. But I’m cringing at making retaliatory statements as dumb as the meme that Bush has something to be embarrassed about, here.
In the game of anti-intellectual PR flinch, I guess I flinched first.
Only if your thought processes are such that this shows up as a cause-and-effect relationship.
Come on, Slart, let’s be honest here: the only reason there is a perceived cause-and-effect relationship in this case is because the Bush administration specifically trumpeted one when it was advantageous to them. A year ago, when the local economy was in good shape and the plant was doing well, Bush visited it and held it up as an example of the positive effects of his economic policies. Now that it’s going under, folks are already starting to disavow any connection between Bush’s policies and the health of local economies.
You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t know what your opinion was on this at the time or even if you had one, but it doesn’t seem to me as if you have much ground to stand on here: either Bush’s policies have no causative effect on this plant and he was bullshitting when he claimed they did, or he was correct at the time and now needs to take the bad with the good.
…and asdf manages to distill my three paragraphs into two sentences.
…either Bush’s policies have no causative effect on this plant…
Let me pose you this question: did you (or anyone you know) ever buy into the idea that the general policies of an administration could ensure the ongoing employment of workers in a specific factory? I’m wondering just how credulous you’re willing to present yourself toward the end of manufacturing outrage.
Or, we could just look at the entire quote, instead of a chunk of it and just making the rest up:
So, the fragment quoted by Kos is actually part of a larger statement that’s saying Timken is working hard to make sure the future of this company is bright, and therefore, the future of employment is bright for the families that work here, that work to put food on the table for their children.
Whoops.
Catsy’s absolutely correct; the Bush apologists are trying to have it both ways.
It’s irrelevant whether or not the administration’s policies affected the workers at a specific factory–Bush said it did. Perception, perception. Certainly, had that particular plant experienced job growth, we can be sure Bush and his handlers would have thumped their chests and happily accepted credit.
This entire Timken episode also points to a certain ineptness by Bush’s handlers. If you’re going to use a certain factory as the backdrop for touting the wonders of your economic plan, you really should do your research and ensure that particular factory is going to be hitting on all cylinders for the near future.
Obviously JadeGold needs to brush up on its reading comprehension.
It’s all about perception, Slart. Even a U of F grad should be able to comprehend it. To steal from another blog, Bush’s “Potimken” Village has been exposed and Catherine the Great has left the building.
Even a U of F grad should be able to comprehend it.
I agree, although I graduated from a slightly colder place. It’s a pity you can’t muster up the same quality of perception as you expect from a UF graduate, though.
Always good to be reminded a little cheap ad-hom can keep a thread rolling.
Hey, and let’s spell our historical analogies right, while we’re racking up debate points.
Slart, the relevant facts are these:
It has nothing to do with Bush’s having “been there.” Bush could have been there for a million non-embarrassing reasons. He could have been inspecting; he could have beend fund-raising; he could have stopped to use the bathroom.
But the point is that he’s been engaged in this long campaign (dunno if you’ve followed along on that) of traveling around the country to company after company in battleground states, and declaring that they are examples of his strong economic policies leading to job growth, and this is why you should vote for him.
It’s nobody’s fault but the Administration’s if they pick places that go under not long after. And if people notice, that’s not illegitimate.
It has nothing whatever to do with any “cause-and-effect” of Bush showing up, causing the company to have problems, and no one has suggested such.
“Let me pose you this question: did you (or anyone you know) ever buy into the idea that the general policies of an administration could ensure the ongoing employment of workers in a specific factory? I’m wondering just how credulous you’re willing to present yourself toward the end of manufacturing outrage.”
How credulous do you believe the Administration thinks we are?
I’m unclear what point you are trying to make with the expanded quote, I’m afraid. Can you elucidate what significant difference you see it making? Where’s the “whoops”?
You and JadeGold going for personal attacks certainly doesn’t push the discussion ahead in any useful manner.
asdf, that was my first reaction, then I recognized the humorous intent of the spelling: poTimken.
Gary, the “Whoops” was in response to this assertion:
Bush … held it up as an example of the positive effects of his economic policies.
In fact, he didn’t — he credited the success of the company to the hard work of its owners and employees. Full text of speech here.
On the other hand, much of Bush’s speech was an attempt to sell his tax-cut plan as a job-creation package, so there is still a bit of irony in the situation.
I’d say that the point is the same.
As a complete digression, I think it would be lovely if Republican politicians started talking about a cut in payroll taxes, since tax cuts are so wonderfully beneficial.
I’d say that the point is the same.
The point might be the same, but all the purported evidence to support it just went down the toilet.
Thanks, kenB, for getting it right in my absence. A vomiting child always, always gets higher priority than comment threads. For me, anyway.
As a complete digression, I think it would be lovely if Republican politicians started talking about a cut in payroll taxes, since tax cuts are so wonderfully beneficial.
Which payroll taxes do you think are candidates for cutting?
You and JadeGold going for personal attacks certainly doesn’t push the discussion ahead in any useful manner.
I attacked?
Only in return, and mildly, but counter-battery ad hominem is still commentary on the quality of the person, not the information.
On the original question:
We seem to be talking past each other. Bush is on the trail, going to places that he purports demonstrates that his policies are causing job growth, and must be supported, else the economy will go wrong, as would happen under Democratic policies. He goes to specific places that purportedly demonstrate the success of his policies.
When one example kills a lot of jobs, it is not actually a useful example of creating a lot of jobs.
He goes to specific places that purportedly demonstrate the success of his policies.
So what’s your point, here? That Bush can’t go anywhere at all without it being a sort of policy victory dance? And it’s so just because you say it is? I’m not buying it, Gary.
Not only that, I completely reject the manufactured outrage that, it turned out, was based completely on a lack of comprehension (on the part of far too many) of what Bush actually said.
Actually, I think the fight kicked off at 1:14PM. Casting aspersions on another’s reading ability is the canonical internet insult (makes me pine for Usenet). Regardless, it’s currently 20-18 Slarti on my card.
The idea that Bush would not have been warned (or that his staff didn’t bother to ask) about the future of this plant before they used it as a backdrop is the point of the post. Clearly, W does not need my help to win in November*, but I hate to see sheer stupidity that’s so easily avoided.
Hailing from Ohio, with family in Canton, I know all the economic truths in the world won’t save this from playing poorly for Bush.
He may not have “technically” said his tax cut was ensuring a healthy Timken plant in Canton, but that’s all those folks heard that day. That’s all they wanted to hear. And that’s why Bush phrased it the way he did. Oopsie.
*I’d say at this point he needs Q’s.
but that’s all those folks heard that day
Ah, the old “I wasn’t fooled, but some folks might have been” argument. Show me a few, and I’ll give that some consideration.
The reading comprehension remark was to prompt JadeGold to actually read the thread, asdf. The alternative to his not having read it is inability to understand, which isn’t exactly where I was going.
Oh, and given that the union said the shutdown was a complete surprise, Edward, I doubt that Bush had any warning about it, either.
Speaking of reading comprehension, Slarti.
Twice now I’ve written that the Bush team should have asked! Not that Timken should have offered up the info. Hell, they wanted the free publicity, they were hardly going to dissuade him on their own.
As for proof of what the folks there heard that day, you need look no further than Gov. Taft’s reaction.
“inability to understand”
Actually, that’s exactly what reading comprehension means. And who’s this asdf character?
This most interesting angle to this news is that it continues Bush’s anti-Midas touch when it comes to people and places to highlight. Someone came up with the list a while ago and I’ve forgotten all of the details, but the gist was that every time Bush gives a speech using some small business as an example. it’s the kiss of death.
“Not only that, I completely reject the manufactured outrage that, it turned out, was based completely on a lack of comprehension (on the part of far too many) of what Bush actually said.”
Who expressed “outrage”? Amusement is what I’ve observed, though there’s nothing amusing in it for those who have lost their jobs. Which, of course, is no more the President’s fault than he deserved any credit for their having been employed.
“*I’d say at this point he needs Q’s.”
Is that Bond or Star Trek, Edward? Or New Testament?
Hmmm. Had never heard of the New Testament Q, Gary. Will save that reading for later. Thanks.
Had Star Trek’s omnipotent trickster in mind. And at this point, I really doubt Blair will approve any additional help from British intelligence until W assures him he won’t sacrifice his poodle to save his own political skin (which of course we know he will).
“Had never heard of the New Testament Q, Gary.”
I thought that possible, which is why I threw in a link.
“Will save that reading for later.”
Don’t, pardon the expression, take that particular link as gospel. I pulled it up pretty much randomly, just to have a reference to the topic, rather than carefully searching for something that I’m likely to agree with; unsurprisingly the topic can be quite heated (and I’m not remotely expert in it, just aware of it).
I suspect Q wouldn’t find Bush as intriguing as he did Captains Picard and Janeway (he didn’t seem terribly interested in Captain Sisko, despite dropping by on a couple of occasions), but I could be wrong.
I’m now engaging in the frightening, involuntary, mental excercise of placing George W. Bush into the place of those Captains in various situations (episodes), and imagining the results. It shows my biases that I don’t think he’d do quite as well.
Rumsfeld as Weapons Officer, Rice as Science Officer, Powell as the Doctor….
Honestly, Bush would have owned Q. Q’s entire schtick was putting people through perverse moral dilemmas to see how well they held to their principles. From a distance, it looks like Bush has a pretty mercenarial relationship with his morality, so I don’t think he’d have any problems.
Actually, Cheney has a Riker-like head twist. You’re on to something.
Slarti, don’t forget about the photo.
Seriously, I know you feel wronged, and that it’s not fair, but guess what?
This is how politics works. Bush lost.
It shows my biases that I don’t think he’d do quite as well.
That’s because Star Trek is, um, fiction. Shhhhh…
Edward, I suspect Governor Taft has a little more on his mind than Bush’s public image. Namely, his own. Plus, he just might have wanted Timken to keep the plant open. By all accounts, Timken dropped a bomb on nearly everyone, and the union is a little torqued because they think Timken had decided to close and were just going through the motions of negotiation.
asdf, Bush has already lost with you. I don’t count it as a serious PR failure when he does so again.
By the way, I also find the idea of Captain Bill Clinton to be hilarious, and that he wouldn’t do as well as the real, real, I tell you! captains.
In fact, pretty much any President as Captain of the Enterprise is hilarious. Just imagine Captain Jimmy Carter. Or Captain Richard Nixon, or Captain Gerald Ford….
And Captain James Polk and Captain Andrew Jackson are downright scary to contemplate as we consider how much land they’d add to the Empire.
Seeing Captains Roosevelt would be downright fascinating, and Captain Eisenhower would also be very interesting.
Heh. Well, Abraham Lincoln has already paid a visit to the bridge, although his comment on Uhuru being a “charming Negress” wasn’t sufficiently PC for the enlightened Starfleet.
Hey, Slarts, if Bush had just taken my advice about everything, I’d love the guy.
Hey, Slarts, if Bush had just taken my advice about everything, I’d love the guy.
I can see that. I’d have a lot more regard for him if he was more reluctant to throw even more money into the pockets of the wealthy farmers. Just as a ferinstance.
And that’s something we can agree on!
Although, having been to Cedar Rapids this winter, it humanized the whole thing for me, looking at all of the declining industrial elements that *depend* on corn (and subsidization thereof) for survival.
Ditto on the farm subsidies.
I envision Captain Nixon of the Enterprise, incidentally, as bearing an uncanny resemblance to a certain Captain Queeg.
I offer up Truman as probably the most sensible Oval Office to Enterprise Bridge transition.
Harry did wield futuristic weapons, but it’s hard to imagine him duking it out with alien starship captains.
Captain Truman would sanction use of Genesis as a weapon, I suspect…
Still no retraction
Just to note: Yesterday Edward over at Obsidian Wings posted something he relayed from Kos who in turn read this over at the Center for American Progress (I’m quoting in its entirety): On 4/23/03 President Bush visited the Timken Company…
I’m just sayin. . he’s the only one who could plausibly lead an away party.
Except now that I think about it, Teddy would be even better.