Last week, in this space, I suggested that President Bush had reached a tipping point in his credibility with the broad public and the mainstream press. I speculated that we would soon see newsmagazine covers depicting Bush in trouble. Well, Time Magazine obliged. Its new cover shows a two-faced Bush, and asks: "Does Bush Have a Credibility Gap?"
Does he ever. The press has at last given itself permission to be tougher on misrepresentations that have characterized the Bush presidency since its beginnings.
Bush's hour-long Sunday interview with Tim Russert of Meet the Press crystallized the moment, and underscored just how vulnerable the president suddenly is. That Bush did the interview at all is an indication of panic setting in. This president is not noted for his effectiveness off the cuff. He does well to the extent that he is scripted and not exposed to spontaneous encounters where he might wander "off message."
The Russert interview was a reminder that the Democratic candidates get relentless press scrutiny which exposes the most minute inconsistencies, while Bush, hiding behind his role as chief executive, almost never faces close questioning. Indeed, this was the first time in his presidency that Bush has been subject to a string of follow-up questions that could expose either his misrepresentations or his ineptitude at covering them up.
Russert successfully walked a tightrope, being as exacting with Bush as he has been with Bush's challengers, without seeming disrespectful to the presidency. Russert pointed to a long litany of misrepresentations, including the deceptive accounting on the tax cuts, the budget, the deficit, the economy's job creation, Bush's own military record, and of course the Iraq war.
Under firm but respectful questioning, Bush wilted. He couldn't explain his constantly shifting rationale for war with Iraq, or why he was permitted to quit National Guard service eight months before his hitch ended, or why his deficit goes ever deeper in the red, or the dismal job-creation record on his watch.
The result was not just that Bush came off looking evasive and defensive. Worse, he looked feeble. You can't very well wrap yourself in national security threats - Bush kept calling himself a "war president" - and then look like a weakling. If America is indeed facing permanent terrorist threats, then Americans want a plausible leader.
The Bush spin machine has tried to depict the interview as a triumph. But in Tuesday's New York Times, Bush loyalist David Brooks devoted an entire column to what Bush should have said (if only he were as clever as Brooks.) You don't write a column like that when your guy did well.
All over Washington, journalists were suffering from Russert-envy. Given Bush's dim performance, it's unlikely that his handlers will repeat an open-ended interview any time soon.
But the rest of the press should take heart. Investigative reporting is seldom based on direct interrogation. You don't need a live interview with the president to expose his misrepresentations. All you have to do is check the public record, compare what he said with he did, and not flinch from reporting what you find.
The press often behaves as if "fairness" dictates not drawing conclusions in a news story. But if the president insists that black is white, pointing out the lie is not opinion-journalism; it's reporting fact.
Bush has gotten a friendly press, until lately, for several reasons. First, the working press in the 2000 campaign experienced Bush as a nice, likable guy, while they experienced Al Gore as a stiff. Minor inconsistencies in Gore's statements got a working over, while more serious lapses by Bush were indulged. This friendly treatment carried over into his presidency.
Just when the press was getting skeptical, Bush benefited immensely from 9/11. There was a natural coming together behind the chief executive, and criticism of the president seemed almost unpatriotic. Bush's political operatives exploited this sentiment ruthlessly.
Bush has had the advantage of a closely allied rightwing press, ranging from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal editorialists, the Washington Times, to the Weekly Standard, and the talk radio ditto-heads. There is no comparable propaganda machine among his critics.
Finally, the White House staff works systematically to isolate reporters who do ask impertinent questions, by denying them access. It hammers their editors and producers. Until now, these pressure tactics have caused many reporters to pull their punches.
But most reporters, in their hearts, want to play it straight. And, finally, they've had a bellyfull. Bush can dismiss Democrats' charges as just politicking, as he did with Russert, but it's harder to dismiss independent reporting based on the factual record.
Once a president loses a docile press, he seldom gets it back. What a relief to see the media doing their job again.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. This story originally appeared on Wednesday in The Boston Globe.
