Bush vs. New York Times: Who's Winning?

The NY Times has twice in the past 7 months revealed classified information about government programs designed to track terrorist activities; first with the December revelation about the NSA phone tracking program, and more recently regarding the SWIFT program which tracked banking transactions. Bush and many Republicans have been on the attack against the Times and other media, and the Times has been scrambling to respond, although choosing to do it on their own pages or in front of friendly media. So who's winning? Robert J. Caldwell gives us the current standings in today's San Diego Union-Tribune:

So, what's the political score to date in what might be called the Bush vs. New York Times aftermath?

So far, Bush is winning, handily.

An Opinion Dynamics Corp. poll conducted for FOX News after the Times revealed the administration's secret tracking of terrorist financing resoundingly affirmed the Bush position.

First, 70 percent of those polled in this nationwide survey conducted over two days at the end of June supported tracking terrorist financing. That 70 percent included 83 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of independents and 58 percent of Democrats.

Not much room there for doubting that the public endorses Bush's follow-the-money strategy. The until-now secret operation that tracks terrorist financing is a joint operation by the Treasury Department and the Central Intelligence Agency that began soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

The same polling found that 60 percent of Americans believe that the Times' decision to reveal this secret intelligence program “did more to help terrorist groups like al-Qaeda” than to “help the American public.” This damning, for The New York Times, conclusion was held by 84 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 42 percent of Democrats.

[...]

Bush also won a political endorsement from the House of Representatives, which voted 227 to 183 for a resolution condemning disclosure of the terrorist financing surveillance. While this was a largely party-line vote, Democrats offered an alternative that backed monitoring terrorist financing and expressed concern about the leaking of classified information.

No comfort there either for The New York Times.

And that's not all. Following the leak of the NSA program, Michael Hayden was nominated as CIA chief. Hayden used to run the NSA and the Times didn't like him one bit. How'd that work out?

No one defended the legality or necessity of the NSA's surveillance more ardently than Gen. Michael Hayden, the former NSA director who conducted the program and later became a principal intelligence adviser to Bush.

When Bush subsequently nominated Hayden to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Times, citing Hayden's role in the NSA surveillance, vigorously opposed his nomination on its editorial page. Thus, the Senate's confirmation vote on Hayden's nomination became yet another political test of strength between Bush and his media critics.

Bush won, easily. The Senate voted 78-15 to confirm Hayden as CIA director.

The NY Times is no longer the paper of record. They are the paper of opposition and Bush and his political team realize that. The Times credibility with the public is in free fall and they are quickly "leaking" themselves into irrelevance.