On December 14, two conservative pundits on MSNBC dubiously asserted that President Bush's deliberations on Iraq war policy are free from any partisan political considerations and are solely concerned with finding the right policy. On the December 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley claimed that unlike Republicans and Democrats in Congress, who “are looking at how do they position themselves for 2008,” Bush “doesn't have much of a political view of this. He is now looking at the policy. It's all on his shoulders. He's not running for re-election again, and he's going to decide what to decide on a policy basis.” On the December 14 edition of MSNBC News Live, Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus went further. Responding to MSNBC host Melissa Slager, who asked her whether Bush's decision to announce a new strategy for Iraq in the new year was “a smart idea” when "[h]e had said it would happen before Christmas," Jacobus baselessly asserted, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that Bush “has always been pretty good [at] not conducting his job based on the polls, even if a lot of the people around him wanted to.” Jacobus -- a former deputy communications director for the Republican National Committee -- made similar comments on the December 4 edition of MSNBC News Live, during which she claimed that Bush “has not conducted this war based on the polls” and has “basically be[en] able to manage this [war] in a nonpartisan way.”

However, there have been several documented and reported instances of the Bush administration manipulating the timing of announcements or actions in the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism for its own political benefit, as Media Matters for America has explained. For example, on the October 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported that a White House official told him, "[D]o not expect to see anything significant prior to Election Day" “as far as a significant change” in the administration's Iraq policy and then quoted the official as saying: “You're not going to see anything before November 8th. It would be political suicide, and Karl Rove would never allow it.” Media Matters also noted an October 11, 2004, Los Angeles Times article that reported that the Bush administration planned to delay major assaults on insurgent strongholds in Iraq until after the 2004 U.S. presidential election, fearing large numbers of U.S. military casualties.

Also, as Media Matters has previously noted, while Bush has gone to great lengths to create the impression that he does not rely on polling, there is ample evidence that polling data figure prominently in administration strategy and messaging. For example, as Media Matters noted, a December 4, 2005, New York Times article reported that Duke University professor Peter D. Feaver, who specializes in public opinion during wartime, reportedly played a central role in the writing of “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” a 35-page document released by the Bush administration on November 30, 2005. According to the Times article, Feaver's analysis of polling data on Iraq was “clearly behind the victory theme” in both the document and Bush's November 30, 2005, speech on the topic.

Further, in comments aired on the December 14 broadcast of NBC's Today, National Review White House correspondent Byron York suggested that there was a political component at least to the timing of Bush's announcement of a new Iraq policy, asserting that Bush's decision to delay his announcement of changes to the administration's Iraq war policy until the new year had “a public relations aspect to it.” York went on to suggest that Bush's decision would benefit him politically, claiming that “the president wants to come out with something new, something fresh, and something that will help change the debate at the same time that the Democratic Congress is taking office and getting a lot of attention in Washington.” As Media Matters noted, York was not challenged on his assertion that a delay in changing strategy would help Bush politically despite the daily toll of casualties in Iraq, including the deaths of nearly 50 U.S. troops so far in December alone.

In addition, on the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Roger Simon, chief political columnist for The Politico, a political news website to be launched in January 2007, commented on the possible political considerations behind Bush's delayed announcement of his new Iraq war strategy. As Media Matters noted, Simon said that another reason for “slowing down” a decision about a new strategy in Iraq is “stagecraft”: The White House “do[es]n't want to do a major pitch speech at Christmastime. You know, they want the perfect speech in the perfect setting. They don't want people thinking about the holidays and football and spending time with their families. The trouble is, people are dying and maybe that would be a reason to speed things up a little.”

From the December 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MIKE BARNICLE (guest host and political and social commentator): Tony, [NBC News correspondent] Mike [Viqueira] brought up the -- you know -- the Baker-Hamilton report. On a scale of one to 10 -- one being, you know, very quick dismissal of the report; 10 being, you know, we're really going to study this -- what do you think the administration has done with this report in terms of dismissing it or paying attention to it?

BLANKLEY: I think, publicly, they have given it a four. Privately, I'm guessing -- they haven't told me -- they've given it about a one. I don't think it's a live element in the policymaking decision, beyond what obvious truths it stated that would've been shared by the president and most observers anyway.

You know, going back to what's going on in the Senate, vis-à-vis the president on Iraq, there is a little bit of a paradigm mix-match between the White House and Congress on Iraq. While I'll posit that every Republican and Democratic congressman and senator are patriots, they're looking at how do they position themselves for 2008 -- so, the Democrats may have a private view of what their policy will be. They want to keep their hand, their fingerprints off a disaster. The president doesn't have much of a political view of this. He's now looking at the policy. It's all on his shoulders. He's not running for re-election again, and he's going to decide what to decide on a policy basis.

So, all the congressional people, Republicans who are trying to protect their skins for 2008, Republicans -- Democrats keeping their fingers off it, they'll harass him or they'll quietly support him as they judge politically useful, but they're not forced over the next two years to make the hard policy decision, and he is, and that's sort of a -- quite a mismatch. Usually, a president also has a pretty good political calculation.

From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the December 14 edition MSNBC News Live:

SLAGER: Cheri, as you were just saying, his approval rating is so directly tied to Iraq. With the approval rating now being at only 23 percent, now he's saying that he won't announce his new Iraq policy until the new year. He had said it would happen before Christmas. Was this a smart idea?

JACOBUS: Well, you know, at this point we have a president who is not running for re-election. The vice president is not running for president. This president has always been pretty good not conducting his job based on the polls, even if a lot of the people around him wanted to. Now, he has the freedom to do what he thinks is right and not really pay attention to the polls, and so --

DAVID BROWNE (Democratic strategist): But that's what he's done all this time.

JACOBUS: -- and -- and, so, at this point, he is using his best judgment in terms of when he feels ready to make an informed decision. And he knows where his poll numbers are. Right now, the people that are -- have to pay attention to the polls are the Democrats in the House, those running for president, both in the Republican primary and the Democratic primary, and of course in the Senate.

BROWNE: But, Cheri --

JACOBUS: So, the president himself is somewhat freed up from that burden.

SLAGER: We have time for one quick response from David. Go ahead.

BROWNE: Just that -- you know what? Things haven't gone well and there's a reason the poll numbers are where they are. And he needs to, at some point, say, “Maybe, I'm wrong.”

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the December 4 broadcast of MSNBC News Live:

CHRIS JANSING (host): David, understanding what -- what your position is on this. Let me ask you this: It's in no one's best interest for the next two years to be ineffective on any level --

BROWNE: Absolutely.

JANSING: -- whether it's the new Democratic Congress or it's the president of the United States. If he were to ask, and I know you're not expecting this, but what can President Bush do, in your eyes, do you think, in the next two years, to be remembered as a better president than you think he'll be remembered right now?

BROWNE: I think he needs to do what he said he was going to do when he was first elected in 2000. I think he needs to reach out and say, “I'm going to be bipartisan. And we can do some things on global warming and energy. Some things we don't see -- that no one would see coming.” And this president domestically turns on a bipartisan spirit and really does work with Congress. I don't think it's going to happen, but if he did that, then, maybe, there would be some redemption for him.

JANSING: Cheri, do you think that in these coming days and weeks -- because we may be indeed at a critical point in Iraq and a lot of people are asking the questions, as we've talked about in this last hour, about whether or not he will listen to a lot of other voices out there including the bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- do you think that bipartisanship is really possible in the current climate and will President Bush reach out?

JACOBUS: I think the president will reach out. A lot of this has to do with how Nancy Pelosi behaves, and if they can muzzle, you know, Howard Dean, who's been an absolute mess as DNC chairman, and some of the things that he's said about this president and the Republican Party. But I -- I do think that one of the good things this president has going for him is that he has not conducted this war based on the polls and that sort of thing and that is to his credit. So, I -- I think that he has a history of -- of being able to do -- basically manage this in a nonpartisan way, which is probably the best way to describe it rather than bipartisan. And if the newly elected Democratic Congress and the new leaders are willing to also operate in that same vein, I think that that would be a very, very positive thing.

JANSING: All right, so I can't resist the parlor game, but let's take George W. Bush out of the equation. Cheri Jacobus, who is the worst president ever?