NY Times reported that Bush gave up politics for Labor Day trip to MD, omitted possible reason why

A September 5 article by New York Times reporter David E. Sanger noted that while President Bush had "used Labor Day for maximum political effect" during previous election cycles, this year, "there were no candidates with him" during an appearance at a union facility in Maryland. The article's headline -- "Forsaking Politics, Bush Has Low-Key Labor Day" -- suggested that it had been the White House's own choice to keep the September 4 trip free of politics. In fact, there appears to be a different reason "there were no candidates with him." Maryland's two most prominent Republican candidates -- Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, who is running for re-election, and Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who is vying for an open U.S. Senate seat -- both declined to attend the event with Bush, according to a September 5 Washington Post article. In contrast with the Times, the Post noted that "60 to 70 percent of [Maryland] voters do not approve of Bush's performance" and reported that both Ehrlich and Steele had passed up the presidential visit to attend events elsewhere in the state. The Post specifically mentioned that Steele, when asked recently if he wanted Bush campaigning for him, responded, "To be honest . . . probably not."

Sanger led the Times article by comparing Bush's past Labor Day appearances -- which have generally featured "local Republican leaders" -- with this year's event in Piney Point, Maryland, during which "there were no candidates with him":

In the nearly six years of his presidency, President Bush has used Labor Day for maximum political effect, showing up at picnics to address carpenters in Pennsylvania and highway construction workers in Ohio, often with local Republican leaders in tow.

But two months ahead of a midterm election in which Mr. Bush's party is in danger of losing control of the House, in part because of his low approval ratings, there were no candidates with him on Monday as he appeared briefly at a Seafarers International Union facility here on the edge of the Chesapeake Bay.

In fact, there was not even a picnic -- just a small invited audience, which Mr. Bush addressed for 11 minutes.

In the rest of the article, Sanger covered Bush's remarks on the economy and America's dependence on foreign oil. But while he did report that Bush's "low approval ratings" have contributed to the Republicans' troubles this election season, his article did not mention the specific absence of Ehrlich and Steele. Meanwhile, the September 5 Post article, by staff writer Philip Rucker, noted that Ehrlich and Steele opted to appear at a local parade instead of at the Bush event. From the Post article, headlined "Ehrlich, Steele Absent From President's Md. Visit":

But on a day considered the launching point of the fall election season, Maryland's top two Republicans -- Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich and Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele -- did not appear with the president in the St. Mary's County town. Their absence quickly became political fodder for Democrats, who accused the Republican officeholders of dodging the unpopular president even as they allow him to raise money for Ehrlich's bid for reelection and Steele's campaign for the U.S. Senate.

"This Labor Day, Ehrlich and Steele are afraid to be seen with the most anti-working-class president since Herbert Hoover, even while they gleefully count his checks for their campaign," Maryland Democratic Party Executive Director Derek Walker said in a statement.

Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, traveled with the president to Piney Point and said Ehrlich and Steele could not attend because "they had existing events of their own." The governor and lieutenant governor marched yesterday in a parade in Gaithersburg.

The Post article further noted "anonymous remarks traced" to Steele, which the Post's Dana Milbank originally reported in a July 25 "Washington Sketch" column. In that column, Milbank quoted a Republican Senate candidate responding to a question about whether he wanted Bush campaigning for him, "To be honest . . . probably not."

The absence of Ehrlich and Steele illuminates a balancing act the two men face: the need to appeal to their Republican base as they also try to win office in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 and where 60 to 70 percent of voters do not approve of Bush's performance.

When Steele, in anonymous remarks traced to him last month, was asked whether he wanted the president campaigning for him, he responded, "To be honest . . . probably not."

Zach P. Messitte, a historian of Maryland politics and director of the Center for the Study of Democracy at St. Mary's College of Maryland, said he found it puzzling that Ehrlich and Steele would not want to appear with Bush in St. Mary's, a reliably red county in a blue state. Indeed, Rove pointed out to the White House press corps that the county was "one of the most rapidly growing Republican counties in Maryland."

But, Messitte reasoned, associating with Bush could have weakened Ehrlich and Steele's appeal among Democrats and swing voters.