The White House is on spin overdrive over the growing Zell Miller fiasco. In today's USA Today,
Karl Rover praises Miller's speech, saying:
The fact that he is angry as a Democrat about what has happened in the Democratic Party and he is upset with the views and votes and statements of fellow Democrat senators gives his speech enormous credibility and makes it a very persuasive case for this president.
So, according to Rove, Zell is angry and that anger makes a persuasive case for the president. But wait a minute. In the same edition of USA Today, we find out that:
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt rejected claims the convention had an angry tone.
So Rove says Miller was angry and the Bush campaign says Miller wasn't angry. Rove also praises Miller's speech as making "a persuasive case," but then
John McCain turns around and says Miller's speech was even worse than Buchanan's in 1992:
"'I think it backfires,' McCain said, his face a picture of genuine astonishment. 'It makes [Pat] Buchanan's speech in Houston look like milquetoast.' "
Laura Bush's seems to echo McCain's criticism of Miller's substance:
First lady Laura Bush, in an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw, responded coolly when asked whether she and the president agreed with what Miller said. "I don't know that we share that point of view."
So Mrs. Bush doesn't agree at all with the case Miller's speech laid out. But Mr. Bush praises Zell Miller as a "discerning Democrat" even after the speech. What's more, while Mrs. Bush clearly wanted to distance herself from the substance of the speech, the Bush campaign seems to be endorsing the substance and only distancing themselves from
the tone and presentation:
"Everyone read the speech in advance and approved it," said one prominent GOP lobbyist working closely with the Bush-Cheney campaign on the staging and message for the convention. The problem, he added, was that handlers did not account for the shouting voice or glowering stare with which the 72-year-old former Marine delivered his speech, or the short-tempered manner he displayed in interviews once the veracity of his charges began being challenged minutes after he left the podium.
But then Bush chief of staff Andy Card says he apparently has no reservations at all about the speech, it was an
unbridled success:
"Putting Zell Miller on was not a mistake. He was reaching people we might not be able to reach otherwise. I was told Zell Miller was off the charts positive," said White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
So now, I'm totally confused. Bush embraces Miller. Mrs. Bush distances herself from Miller, saying she disagrees with Miller's substance. Karl Rove embraces Miller. McCain says Miller was a total disaster. The Bush campaign says it agrees with Miller's substance but disagrees with his presentation style. And perhaps most importantly, the White House UNINVITES Miller and his wife from the president's box seats at last night's acceptance speech, right after the president praises him and the First Lady trashes him.
So which one is it, Mr. President? Do you agree with your wife, your top strategist, John McCain, Andy Card, or your campaign? Was the speech a success or a disaster? In this case, Bush isn't just trying to have it both ways, he's trying to have it 5 ways. Now who's the flip-flopper?
Read More......
