The Big 3 automakers hardly shined in terms of public perception during their recent Washington foray for bailout funds but Ford recently seems to have scored a modest PR coup in deferring its option to tap into the $9 billion line of credit it secured during the bailout deal. In the Twitter universe, the decision played well and Ford CEO Alan Mulally has won props after a decidedly more awkward start when he joined fellow CEOs in Washington on the initial round of bailout pleas.

In refusing to tap into the line of credit Ford was offered, Mulally said:

“We are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government. But all of us at Ford appreciate the prudent step the administration has taken to address the near-term liquidity issues of GM and Chrysler. The U.S. auto industry is highly interdependent, and a failure of one of our competitors would have a ripple effect that could jeopardize millions of jobs and further damage the already weakened U.S. economy.”

In a recent article in Advertising Age, Doug Spong, a leading PR executive for the auto industry offered warm words for Ford’s move. “To be able to look America in the eye and say, ‘We’re in a position where we don’t require a helping hand in this time of need, and thank you for offering it, but we will pass,’ shows a lot,” he said in the article.

It is one of the smarter PR moves a major automaker has made recently. It certainly is too early to see if Ford’s seemingly magnaminous gesture will translate into higher showroom traffic. On the other hand, by rejecting the need to immediately tap into the funds, Ford has the opportunity to distinguish itself from the other two domestic automakers.

This is not easy. Ford’s tactics from this point onward cannot seem too opportunistic, especially for consumers who have been worn down by a seemingly endless spate of bad economic news during the last several months. In Spong’s assessment in Advertising Age: “If I’m counseling Ford, certainly I’m not running ads with William Ford III coming out and extolling the virtues of not having participated in the bailout and taking a pass on the free money. That looks too self-indulgent and would actually turn off consumers. They just need to keep doing what they are doing: support the industry and their competitors, continue to talk about how it’s good for everybody when there’s a healthy automotive industry; and support the public discussion and policy that favors the automotive industry and not just Ford.”

In the Wall Street Journal, Mulally kept on message. He said of Ford’s different place in the industry: ““We believe we have sufficient liquidity to get through this recession. But if the economy continued to deteriorate and the industry continued to deteriorate, then even Ford might have to need a bridge loan also.”

Let’s hope so. Mulally’s biggest challenge is to convert widespread, well-entrenched public skepticism about Ford’s viability. After Mulally came on board after leading Boeing, he mortgaged a healthy chunk of Ford’s assets, giving the company $30 billion, certainly enough to weather a loss of more than $8.7 billion this year and a potentially good enough position to survive 2009, especially if industry sales stay in the 12 million-13 million range, which may constitute a minor miracle given current conditions.

Mulally must not deviate from his current message if he indeed wants to alleviate the deep skepticism among American car-buying consumers. Absolute consistency in messaging and practice must be aligned. Automotive News’ Amy Wilson recently reported that “despite a company sales drop of 32.6 percent for November, the monthly market share for Ford’s domestic brands came in at 15.8 percent of industry sales, a 1.6 percentage point gain from a year ago.” Another encouraging sign is that Ford still strongly aligns itself with its credit arm (Ford Motor Credit Co.) unlike its domestic competitors.

Mulally’s experience at Boeing — which emphasized a design-oriented dynamism — is much needed. Other factors are at play as well — not least of which is the need to divest the company of its remaining Ford family members. Innovation pays off handsomely in times of deep recession.