CBS News poll: Bush's numbers collapsing

CBS News (PDF). 5/11. MoE 5%. (April 4 results)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?

Approve 44 (46)
Disapprove 49 (47)

How about the economy? Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?

Approve 34 (39)
Disapprove 60 (54)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?

Approve 39 (41)
Disapprove 58 (52)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism?

Approve 51 (60)
Disapprove 39 (32)

Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not worth it?

Worth it 29 (33)
Not worth it 64 (58)

Iraq and the War on Terror initially had nothing to do with each other, regardless of how badly Bush and Wolfowitz and Cheney wanted it so. But the administration did their darnest to link the two, and in reality, the two are now indistinguishable.

So as Iraq goes to shit, so does Bush's terrorism ratings. And at the end of the day, his performance on the WOT is all he's got left going for him. He wanted Iraq and WOT linked, and now he's got it.

Worst president ever. Without a doubt.

•  Worst President ever

  Until Abu Ghraib I was still holding out for Buchanan, but now I conceded the title to Dubya.

  by Dancing Larry on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:45:38 PM PST

  •  R U Sure?

    But he hasn't had sex with an intern!! </Sarcasm>

    by harry xing on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:56:00 PM PST

    •  How do we know?

      The WH is so secretive.  They probably feed interns the Kool-Aid and they think they're doing a great job for the country.

      by Unstable Isotope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:45:42 AM PST

    •  I'd feel better

      about these guys if they WERE.  At least it means they're actually human...

      by CrazyHorse on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:13:00 AM PST

  •  Worst President ever

    Personally, I would have picked Franklin Pierce as worst president ever. But modern technology has enabled Junior Bush to make faux pas globally in seconds.

    by RINO on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:30:16 AM PST

    •  Maybe a genetic connection

      Bush's mother is a direct descendant of Franklin Pierce.  

      by Knut Wicksell on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:24:13 AM PST

      •  Actually Pierce is a cousin

        so don't disparage Pierce's descendants by linking them to Bush :-)

        Link.

        by Jon Meltzer on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:05:33 AM PST

  •  Interesting that you...

    ...raise that analogy.  In reality, Bush is the exact polar opposite of Buchanan in terms of policy - with the same result.  JB was a big intellectual, learned in the law and a believer in the notion that reasoned argument could trump passion.  He felt that the looming territorial crisis and arguments over slavery could be put to bed through simple Supreme Court rulings at a time when Americans were reaching for their guns.  He was basically a Carter at a time when we needed a Jackson - or a Lincoln.  His zealous, slavish devotion to the constitution and to the "rule of law," rather paradoxically, proved to be his undoing.  His unwillingness to go to war led us to war.

    How odd that a man like Bush, who's only devotion is to his own will to power, could achieve the same ends.  It proves to me that governance is really about realpolitik and not blantant ideology.  Guys like Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, and even Bubba Clinton couldn't be fenced in with strict ideologies.  They had guiding principles, but were willing to flex their policies at a moment's notice to get a job done.  Neither JB or GWB could see their way clear to doing that.

    Now John Kerry is not Lincoln - although what do I know.  Lincoln was a three time loser before he got a stab at it.  But Kerry seems to have the ability to think on his feet, flex his agenda, and make policy that gets the job done.  Characteristics I saw in both he and Dean.  Something like that is the perfect antidote to a guy like Bush.  

    by CrazyHorse on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:25:31 AM PST

    •  Flexibility, the next Kerry trait

      This may have been suggested in the thread yesterday on the Kerry "Seriousness" ad, and is by Kerry's campaign, but another good theme is  that flexibility in changing times is more important than staying a flawed course. It can also be used to turn a supposed flaw into a virtue. It goes along with responsibility, of course, because if you know you will never be held accountable, what does it matter whether you are really right or not?  

      Bush: what good is strong if you're wrong? (Of course, I don't think he's really strong, just stubborn and overcompensating.)

      Kerry:  Serious, Responsible, Flexible in changing times.

      If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

      by Mimikatz on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:01:42 AM PST

    •  ...after Bush is out of office

      ..hopefully this election, I would love to see a psychological biography of him.  I have used the term "Dry Drunk" to describe his personality traits but that may not be the whole story.  He clearly has a personality disorder and his inflexibility, black and white thinking, slight sadism revealed in his sense of humor and grandiosity are calling cards. He's made his administration into a cult following or state religion reflecting his narcissistic and overblown view of himself.

      Right now, I just want him out of office asap and to take his crew with him.  I think that this is the closest that we have been to facism since Tricky Dick and I wont rest easy until they are gone.

      by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:58:09 AM PST

      •  Thanks

        Having spent time in certain rooms, I see "dry drunk" written all over Dubya as well.  To be fair, it would be pretty hard for him to find any anonymity anywhere even if he were willing to work a program.

        by Dancing Larry on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:44:06 PM PST

  •  Jeems Buchanan

    was a guileless patriot compared to GBII.

    James Polk, for his Mexico adventure and abuse of the military, may be close.

    Nixon's scandals - breaking into a campaign office - look like Monica compared to the damage this president has done to the country.

    Easily, hands down, there will be no doubt about it. Bush had precious few supporters among academics - the people who write history - a year ago. Bitching about "revisionist history" was not the smartest thing for starters.

    Now there's no way any honest pencil-pusher will have many kind words for this administration, not now, not ten years from now, not in a century.

    Worst. President. Ever. The outrage of this administration makes me want to puke.

    by RowdyBrown on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:25:22 AM PST

  •  Watergate!

    
    Does anybody else think Watergate sounds like a junior-high level problem compared to the heap on the White House doorstep today?  I can't fathom how, with a war based on falsifications, abu ghraib, lying to congress & the populace about the costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan, diverting congressionally appropriated funds from the Afghan war to repaving runways in preparation for our attack on Iraq, to name a few - how a president could weather this into another term?  Are Americans really expecting a different Bush should he be reelected?

    KWJ

    by USAmnesia on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:08:01 PM PST

•  Below 40%?

  TPM was wondering earlier whether Bush's numbers might drop into the 30's. But, for two of the most important issues (i.e. Iraq and the economy), they have.

  Worst president ever. Without a doubt.
  Yeah, you'd think a majority of Supreme Court justices would do a little better.

  by machopicasso on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:49:59 PM PST

  •  Yeah, really

    Yeah, you'd think a majority of Supreme Court justices would do a little better.

    As long as they were hell-bent on installing a Republican in office, why not just go with McCain? He's got as much legitimate claim to the job as Bush does.

    by agrajag on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:38:48 AM PST

    •  SCOTUS pResidential Installation

      If McCain had won the nomination, I don't think the SCOTUS would have had gotten a chance to intervene.

      I really believe that McCain could have motivated enough swing voters in what turned out to be an otherwise close race to have won legally. Unlike W.

      At the time, I wasn't paying much attention to the issues myself, and while I saw through the BS fed to us about Bush, I wasn't really thrilled with Gore.
      I would have considered voting for McCain, and I know many others who thought like me on this.  

      by keysdude on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:08:35 AM PST

    •  sock puppet

      Scalia. Cheney. Duck blind.

      McCain evidently thinks for himself, but Cheney's hand moves and Bush goes "quack quack."

      Even if Bush is toast, we have to make sure Rummy et al don't live on like the Undead they are. I sincerely doubt that all this policy came straight out of Shrubya's 5-gallon head.

      He's just stupid enough to believe he's the star of the show, and so are all the people who will still vote for him.

      by zinfandel on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:16:37 AM PST

  •  30s

    I never used to think that Bush's numbers could get down into the 30s, but now I'm starting to reconsider.  The latest polls are suggesting that there is only one issue he is over 50% approval on, and that is the general war on terror.  But that issue is one he is dropping fast on and his approval rating is in the low 50s--51 in this poll and 54 in the recent Gallup poll.  I expect this rating to be under 50, as well, before long.

    Which leaves Bush running on nothing but that sparkling personality of his.  And at this point, I think even that is starting to wear thin on some people.  Every morning, Americans are rising to more bad news and looking around and realizing that the country is completely fucked.  Bush is tanking.  He has been for months now and it has only started to speed up.

    I imagine there will be a few small bumps in the poll for him between now and the election, but the overall trend will be downward.  And it's starting to seem very possible that he could get down into the 30s.  I'm not going to count on it, but I won't rule it out either.

    It sure would be nice, that's for sure.

    by aimlessmind on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:01:19 AM PST

    •  Hey, why not go for the record?

      It's been known to happen, that a people can wake up and notice that their leader is doing an exceedingly bad job... Why not shoot for Bush's approval rating going lower than his shoe size?

      [/encouraging tone]

      by Canadian Reader on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:12:27 AM PST

      •  Would that still be in the...

        double digit range?

        by rgilly on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:27:01 AM PST

        •  Unlikely

          He manages to fit that foot into his mouth regularly.

          by kaleidescope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:18:37 PM PST

      •  We can do better than that!

        Shoe size?  Why stop there?  Go all the way to the bottom and shoot for approval ratings lower than his IQ.

        by M31 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:35:56 AM PST

        •  Good one.

          Though I think I deserve some credit for giving you such a straight line... (grin)

          by Canadian Reader on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:47:40 AM PST

        •  Saved by Zero...

          There isn't much chance of that--it's kinda hard to get negative percentages in an opinion poll.

          by turbonium on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:16:20 PM PST

          •  Give Them Credit

            It was Arabs who invented the number "zero."  How ironic that Bush's antagonists were the ones who are responsible for his IQ safety net.

            by kaleidescope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:20:19 PM PST

  •  The economic number

    during April-May of an election year is the key indicator. 34% approval of how Bush is handling the economy is the kiss of death for an incumbent.

    But Kerry still has to drive a stake through the heart of this neocon nightmare.

    by Ed in Montana on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:52:44 AM PST

•  Worst ever

  It is comforting to see Americans starting to wake up and smell the coffe. If Bush were to be "re"elected, the world would be right to view us as a nation of morons.

  by miasmo on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:52:07 PM PST

  •  RE;

    Don't worry there is plenty of time and summer time distractions for Americans find their way back to their ignorantly blissful and jingoistic little worlds.

    by jg on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:53:20 AM PST

•  Via

  Atrios I found out our favorite Bow Tie boy has joined the ranks of the not worth it crowd.

  While he's still a staunch conservative--he's anti-abortion, married with four kids--he's changed his mind about the war in Iraq. "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I'm enraged by it, actually."

  Markos, I've got a link in the previous thread that will get your blood boiling. You may want to wait until tomorrow to read it.
  

  by Mike S on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:54:37 PM PST

  •  Carlson?

    Tucker Carlson has always seemed to me to be a guy who only cared about which way the wind was blowing. If he has jumped ship then maybe we're in good shape.

    by Justguy on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:02:08 AM PST

    •  Never screw with people's archetypal self-image

      ...with photographic proof stapled to your town-hall door. This Bush guy is Ruy Tuixera's "Coming Democratic majority" thesis kickstarted and made fiesty.

      That's the nice thing about blogs, they make it easy to  brag on your 'clairvoyance'...  1-24-04, in the middle of Dean's meltdown and Dem teeth gnashing: Bush IS Carter:

      Carter's "malaise", the gas lines, economic grey skies as far as the eye could see, these all led to his being labelled as inept, but most devastatingly, they led to him being regarded as a victim of his circumstances--the times dictated what he said and recommended for us. And much of what he said was unimaginative and reflexive. True, often, but reflexive and constrictive nonetheless.

      It was noted last June at Calpundit (posted by some Bluto guy), in proudly spouting their pretty little "CEO Administration" moniker, they told the observant all they needed to know about where to look, and for what, in their dealings and their future prospects. Many are finally seeing that they demonstrate the dark side of the CEO personality daily: Arrogance, unilateralism, sleight-of-hand, self-interest, self-worship.  But, as Rummy likes to remind us all in his "Rules": The higher you climb, the more people can view your ass. See you at the polls.

      by fouro on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:30:54 AM PST

  •  Priorities.

    I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that.

    Sounds like he should first find some new friends and then maybe start a new t.v. show.

    by machopicasso on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:09:37 AM PST

  •  pretty sad

    I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that.

    What an offhanded, casual way of announcing one's intellectual bankrupcy.

    Can somebody tell me what this utter rube is doing on television?

    by agrajag on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:43:12 AM PST

  •  staunch conservative

    While he's still a staunch conservative--he's anti-abortion, married with four kids

    Those things don't mean someone is a staunch conservative.

    by Groper on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:06:27 AM PST

    •  Good point

      "The truth won't hurt you; it's just like the dark. It scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark." - Elvis Costello

      by AlanF on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:08:16 AM PST

    •  I only have two kids

      So I guess I'm a liberal.

      by Upper West on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:58:16 AM PST

      •  I have no kids

        That makes me a raving lunatic radical, I guess.

        by Steve4Clark on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:43:30 AM PST

        •  I have five cats

          That makes me a bag lady.

          by zinfandel on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:20:44 AM PST

          •  Uh oh

            I have two cats, no children.

            That must mean I'm a raving lunatic radical part time bag lady.
            

            by Steve4Clark on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:59:24 AM PST

  •  bow tie

    And here I was thinking you were talking about George Will... until I clicked the clicky-clicky.

    by Red Herring on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:46:53 AM PST

    •  George Will

        would never concede that there was anyone in the world smarter than him.
      

      by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:42:56 AM PST

  •  So wait until his wife has a dire...

    life threatening need to have to terminate a pregnancy. Or one of his daughters is impregnated at an inopertune time or, forbid, via a brutal assault and rape?

    Will Tucker change his tune on abortion at that time? Do his views need to be challenged directly for this simp to even consider the reasons for changing views?

    by rgilly on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:37:02 AM PST

  •  Asshole repressed gooper men

    a staunch conservative--he's anti-abortion, married with four kids

    so I guess being a "staunch conservative" means women as baby machines and no more (and god forbid she should have any say in the decison on whether to get or stay pregnant).  Have I mentioned how much I hate right wing men?  

    by FLDoubleBushed on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:07:26 AM PST

    •  You're reading too much into it

      
      so I guess being a "staunch conservative" means women as baby machines
      
      How does that follow?  There are honest and reasonable people out there who are anti-abortion (whoops, sorry, pro-life).  There are honest and reasonable people out there who have large families.
      

      by hari on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:02:53 AM PST

      •  Not reading too much into it...

        The writer made a connection between being a staunch conservative and being anti-abortion and having 4 children.  I think it's a stupid connection, but that's the implication.

        by FLDoubleBushed on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:41:53 AM PST

  •  Tucker's actually been to Iraq

    Tucker Carlson traveled to Iraq around Decemeber (maybe it was earlier). I'm pretty sure that whatever doubts he had before he went, were magnified by his trip. He talked about how he had to travel with a heavily armed escort (pretty sure these were those security contractors types), and how to get gas they had to jump to the front of the line pissing everyone else in line off.

    He acknowledged that the security situation was bad. He didn't really say much more about it that I can remember. One of the few times that Carville was actually really nice to him on Crossfire, and wishing him to stay safe.

    by lanshark on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:25:21 AM PST

•  Ah, thanks

  Wait a little while to go to bed, get to sleep on a better note than fatalities.

  by Laura Clawson on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:57:53 PM PST

•  The rape and torture room comments.

  I think Bush really put himself in a hole with the bait and switch from WMDs to "closing the Rape and Torture rooms" line.  It made the whole war a choice between being good guys and being morally bankrupt.  Americans like to be the good guys, so they bought into the do gooder arguement.  

  However, the prison scandal now shows clearly that we are not the good guys, so it has started to colapse Bush's numbers.  

  Compare that to the charges of abuse at Gitmo.  There Bush used the "Making you safe" style arguement.  When the public learned about the problems and civil rights violation, they shrugged them off.  We weren't trying to be the good guys, just the safe guys, so problems were tolerated.  

  It's late and I could be full of it, but I think this latest scandal could have stronger legs than the other Bush problems that we rant about here day after day.

  by kamosa on Wed May 12, 2004 at 11:59:15 PM PST

  •  Rasul vs. Bush

    It got play here, but not a lot in the mainstream media that I saw. Just to remind us all: at THE SAME TIME that non-accountable torturers were running amok at Abu Ghraib, the administration was presenting oral arguments at the Supreme Court that there was no problem with keeping prisoners in a legal limbo with nonaccountable jailers, because we would never, ever torture prisoners and you should just trust us to do the right thing.

    What is the time lag on decisions by the Supremes? When can we expect the ruling? I believe oral arguments were April 19.

    by rppa on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:38:45 AM PST

    •  summer

      Decisions on the gitmo cases are expected by "early summer," according to reports I read at the time of the arguments, so it's going to be at least another month or so.

      by Politburo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:59:35 AM PST

      •  USSC Recesses...

        in late June typically.  They hand down their decisions on cases argued that court year before they do recess.  Unfortunately for Rummy, this news broke before the USSC ruled.  Undoubtedly, that accounted for Rummy's rage during his Senate grilling last week about the "illegal" release of the photos, which seemed to trouble him more than the photos themselves.  

        by PrahaPartizan on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:29:16 AM PST

    •  All decisions by June 30; possibly July 2

      But no later.  The last argued are frequently, but nowe always, the last decided.  The most controversial are also often the last to come out, on the last possible day.

      If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

      by Mimikatz on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:08:38 AM PST

  •  and it's just "like American porno"...

    according to Rush Limblob

    by FLDoubleBushed on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:31:10 AM PST

  •  You've got a point

    About Americans liking to be the good guys, I mean. The Abu Ghraib scandal -- and particularly the ever more obvious fact that it's the tip of a big, dirty detention-and-interrogation iceberg -- makes the Bush case for the war ideologically incoherent. You can only ignore Abu Ghraib by adopting the most brutal Realpolitik attitude toward our policy in Iraq, and that makes the rhetoric about "liberation" and "spreading democracy" ring hollow.

    Support for the war has been steadily eroding, but now it may melt down very fast, since Americans can no longer link it to their complacent conviction of their own moral superiority to the rest of the world.

    by SqueakyRat on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:02:15 AM PST

  •  Query

    What were the photos of the severed cat head about anyway?

    by kaleidescope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:35:21 PM PST

•  We should continue to link terror and Iraq

  ...as in, instead of doing anything about terrorists, he invaded Iraq.

  by Alex Steffen on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:00:30 AM PST

  •  yeah and

    as in the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing death and torture is the best recruiting tool for terrorists since the Palestine issue.  

    Osama must of wept with joy when his unwitting tool Bush pulled it off.

    by Zero on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:28:57 AM PST

    •  All these yahoos, really...

      I mean, Coulter must have given Al Q its best soundbites since the Fifth Crusade...

      by Alex Steffen on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:53:11 AM PST

•  wah

  it isn't the numbers on iraq that give me so much pleasure.. more so the numbers on the economy. not sure why... does anyone else feel this way?

  by professorhojo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:03:32 AM PST

  •  yes!

    I agree.  The economy is about an entire set of Republican policies that have failed.  The republicans don't know anything about helping the economy.

    Iraq can be pinned on Bush and his team.  

    The economy issue will reverberate into House and Senate races and party building.  The Iraqy issue will fall onto Bush instead of onto the entire republican agenda like it should.

    by Snuffleupagus on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:37:12 AM PST

    •  iraq and congress

      That's a good point, but of course the GOP in congress (and dems) is also very much culpable for the Iraq disaster.  As far as public perception of that goes it was probably given a big boost by Inhofe's disgusting comments the other day.

      by Red Herring on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:56:39 AM PST

    •  Has anyone else...

      ...been watch Lou Dobbs' nightly pieces on the higher cost of college education?  People are going back to school in droves...more high school grads are getting into higher education.  This always happens in an economic downturn.  But schools, thanks to the Bush tax cut, don't have the money to take care of the influx.  California is actually turning kids away.  

      This is the stoopid part.  When the economy starts to take a hike the first thing the G should do is pour money into college education.  Education and retraining are major economic boosters.  You give the schools money and you provide tax incentives to get people back to school.  

      This is just one example of how far off the reservation neo-con thinking on meat 'n taters economic issues actually is.  

      by CrazyHorse on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:45:03 AM PST

      •  Good point

        This an area that isn't gettin much attention, and it's making parents and prospective students angry. Crazy Horse has more on the ball about this than anyone I've seen lately. Please take this even larger in a diary with issue expansion.

        Under Clinton parents were getting the smart kid with grades into college, and the second kid, smart  with bad grades, into "redbrick" schools and art colleges and such, and the older student into College or pro trade schools. Now we're lucky to get the smart kid with grades into college.

        by Rolfyboy6 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:35:39 AM PST

        •  But what's even worse ...

          is that all these kids have to look forward to is tens of thousands of dollars in debt, while the jobs they are training for will all be in India.

          But today's NY Times says there's a growing market for cosmetologists.

          by Jon Meltzer on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:13:59 AM PST

  •  people judge the economy from their own lives

    These numbers prove, yet again, that great economic statistics do not a great economy make. People know the job market is still not very good, nobody is getting raises or bonuses, and inflation is hitting people where it hurts.

    In addition, I think this very discrepancy between the stats and people's reality is causing some dissonance and some resentment. I for one am getting pretty pissed off at these sunny job numbers when all I see are temp jobs and retail clerk and nursing positions. And the media absolutely refuses to report on the quality of the jobs being created! Why do you suppose that is?

    by tmo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:48:01 AM PST

•  I wonder what the

  government/the admin and the war machine will do now...

  by Marisacat on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:04:33 AM PST

  •  OT, but...

    Marisacat,

    A couple days ago, I argued with you re: Rumsfeld resigning/being impeached.  I've been reading up about Rummy, and I have to say I was wrong and you were dead on.  Most of what's going wrong in Iraq, torture or otherwise, can be traced back to Rumsfeld in one way or another, usually pretty directly.  If he doesn't resign, he should be impeached.  

    Admitting mistakes more readily than the Bush Administration since 2001,

    CI

    by Categorically Imperative on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:18:49 AM PST

    •  He's got to go......;-)

      ... and I am very happy to see Kerry calling even more forcefully than a few days ago.  His renewed statements coming out of Orlando yesterday, and more fully reported in the Wapo than by AP, are a relief.

      The whole world is watching.  Rumsfeld must go, for his crimes.  I am expecting he will, but I want it sooner, as soon as possible..., not in many, many weeks.

      Thanks for your post....;-)

      by Marisacat on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:30:26 AM PST

      •  ..What's the hurry?...

        ..Rummy is the anvil that has been thrown onto this administration.  I hope that he takes it right to the bottom along with his arrogant, disastrous policies.  By firing him, Bush cleans himself up and I don't want him to do that...just get out as soon as possible.

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:08:07 AM PST

        •  Rummy has been around

          for far, far, far too long (remember that picture of him shaking hands with Saddam as Reagan's envoy?). Bush is stupid and bad, but it's the Rime of the Ancient Neocons that is pushing all this, and if Rummy gets discredited in a big way (not just a wrist slap a la Ollie North) then he can't come back to haunt us.

          Bush I only lasted a single term, but all the bad elements floated back into power. If Bush II is the only fall guy here, they could conceivably turn up again. Apparently any sock puppet in the Oval Office will do.
          

          by zinfandel on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:46:32 AM PST

•  waiting for the other shoe

  while I'm happy that Bush's approval ratings are falling, I can't help but worry about what kind of desperate response will be forthcoming from this White House if the numbers keep dropping. In particular, all the new moves around Cuba and Syria make me frightened for what could happen.

  by Sayhey on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:04:48 AM PST

  •  I agree

    The poll numbers will make them more and more desperate. Even if it becomes obvious Bush cannot win the election that does not mean the neo-cons around him will not at some point push the panic button and do something even more stupid than what we have already seen with Iraq. If he reaches for Cuba or Syria or anywhere else this time hopefully Congress or the courts or someone will stop it before it can start.

    by Rob on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:13:36 AM PST

    •  Re: The Panic Button

      To a large extent, I think your concern is well-warranted. The neocons have shown a complete disregard for anything or anyone not in step with their ideas.

      But wouldn't a last-minute attack/invasion on Cuba or Syria give Democrats the opportunity to argue that BushCo is a thoroughly insane, raving lunatic?

      by pine on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:27:32 AM PST

  •  Well, they're not known for their principles, so..

    if people inside the echo chamber start to think the campaign's a hopeless effort, then we may see signs of people trying to salvage their careers. Somebody, here, implied something along these lines the other day with respect to a comment Karl Rove recently made about the situation in Iraq, but I can't remember the specifics.

    by machopicasso on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:15:57 AM PST

  •  They have very few options

    We starting talking here last year about how BushCo had "broken the Army", that is overcommitted it in such a way, and reduced morale so much, that the possibility of using it for force projection anywhere else in the world was becoming a practical impossibility.  Well this week I heard quotes in the paper from a General (speaking on background) using exactly those words: Broke the Army.

    I do not believe the Army Brass will support any kind of move on Syria.  And I am not talking bureaucratic footdragging, I am talking turn in their resignations.  We do not have the troops to support our current committment in Iraq after next Spring, taking on a country that has an army and an economy unbroken by a decade of no-fly zones and sanctions would be literally insane.

    I don't doubt that Chief of Staff General Myers would go along.  He is Air Force and a war on Syria would give his boys unlimited targets to blow up.  But the fighting Generals in the Army will rebel.

    by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:57:21 AM PST

    •  They don't have to resign

      The generals wouldn't resign: they just wouldn't do it. The general officer corps is much more a club than a hierarchy that it would seem to be. So even in the best of times, if a general doesn't want to do something, it's pretty hard to get him to do it however many stars are on his shoulders.

      Now assume pretty accurately that the majority of Army leadership is against any new war. They'll tell Rummy how they can't do this or that, or how it will take a year to do this and we'll get back to you. Sure Rummy will know he's being played, but what's he going to do? Fire over half the general officers? Never underestimate the power of institutional resistence.

      by RichK on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:43:27 AM PST

    •  Myers is scared sh*tless...

      he knows just how deep this hole is.  And he knows the contempt with which he is held by the troops.  Tool me once...

      by wozzle on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:49:10 AM PST

  •  Send Bush to Mars?

    It would certainly keep his little mind busy, and keep him out of trouble :-).
    

    by ericy on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:30:20 AM PST

    •  Nah, the little green men would only send him back

      by NeutralObserver on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:22:15 PM PST

  •  Losing the military limits options

    We have to remember that there is a major split in the top military, and many view the military as already broken.  I can't believe they will stand for more military action while 135,000 troops and a lot of broken equipment are tied up in Iraq. And as for martial law--forget it.  That leaves a terrorist attack, but even there it may be that there are too many people deserting the ship to maintain the requisite level of secrecy.  Their incompetence has limited their options, to our benefit.

    If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

    by Mimikatz on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:15:15 AM PST

    •  Ellsburg the Man

      Daniel Ellsburg made the point that Bushco's survival in power depends on its crimes and lies being kept secret.  That's becoming increasingly difficult as the bureaucracy fractures and rats start to look for a way off the sinking ship.  

      A similar process took place post-Tet and it lead to all sorts of crimes coming out, from the secret bombing of Cambodia to breaking into Ellsburg's psychiatrist's office to government funds being spent improperly to build a fence for the Western Whitehouse in San Clemente.  I believe we've already reached this point with regard to Iraq.  Look more damaging stuff to leak.  

      For Kossaks too young to have experienced Watergate, let me tell you you're in for a treat this summer.  Think of how you feel about Bush -- that's how almost everyone I knew felt about Nixon.  To watch him crucified in the media day after day and then go down in flames was better than my birthday, Christmas, Halloween, Easter and election day all rolled into one.

      The summer of 1974 I was working a plastic injection molding machine in Phoenix, too poor to afford air conditioning. That July, as part of an attempt to bolster his sagging ratings, Nixon did a tour of conservative venues like Nashville and Phoenix. "I am not a crook."  He was chased from Phoenix by a raucous crowd singing "Jail to the Chief."  I took great pleasure flipping his limo the bird as it sped to the airport.  Johnny Cash played a concert at the Whitehouse and Nixon made a special request that Mr. Cash play "Welfare Cadillac."  Johnny played "What is Truth" instead.

      Fasten your seatbelts; it's gonna be fun.

      by kaleidescope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:02:35 PM PST

•  keep punching. keep pushing.

  These plummeting numbers are good news and well deserved.  Bush has been screwing up for a long time, but enough of his chicken shit has come home to roost in plain sight and gagging stink for most Americans to finally notice.

  He and his crew will get uglier going down, and won't stop at much to pull his numbers back up.

  We can't let up in our communicating about Bush's depredations and the "progressive promise."  We've got to make sure this dracula stays down.  And we've got to try to get Kerry a sweeping mandate.  Kerry will need it given all the mess the new administration will have to clean up.  We'll be greatly helped in our international situation if the rest of the world sees that we Americans reject Bush's doctrines utterly.

  Also, the greater the mandate Kerry can achieve, the less he'll have to triangulate with the vestiges of the right.  A big Kerry mandate would also motivate moderate Republican lawmakers to reject their NeoCon party-crashers.  A mandate for Kerry should also give us progressives more sway to help return our party to Democratic values.

  by Civil Sibyl on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:06:49 AM PST

•  I don't understand

  Why he's percieved as doing so badly on the economy. Yes, in absolute terms unemployment is up since he took over, but he's had two months of positive news on this front. Why have the numbers collapsed now?

  Is it just that he's too busy to point to a quarter long recovery, or are there other factors at play?

  by EJMorley on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:07:19 AM PST

  •  Unreliable.

    I don't think the official unemployment numbers are reliable (-I assume those are the ones to which you're referring). Relevant factors are usually omitted (e.g. people who are unemployed and have stopped looking for work on account of discouragement are typically excluded from the numbers). Of course, this Administration manipulates practically every report it can, so it shouldn't be a surprise if public opinion doesn't square with the "data" the administration presents.

    by machopicasso on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:23:34 AM PST

    •  mcdonalds is a factoy job

      The numbers also don't reflect how many people have lost decent paying manufactoring jobs and have had to take low paying wal-mart cashier positions and the like.

      by Groper on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:10:19 AM PST

      •  Exactly.

        Mere employment numbers seem a superficial indicator. What's needed is a breakdown of the "jobs lost/jobs gained" category that tracks salary and benefits. Spending one person's living-wage salary to employ three below living-wage workers shouldn't count as "growth".

        by machopicasso on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:17:10 AM PST

        •  Exactly,

          people are hearing that the economy is better and there are more jobs in the paper, but they all suck. They don't really understand exactly how the economy has been retooled to benifit the haves, but they know it has happened.

          by PLS on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:07:47 AM PST

      •  Yes.

        You see them everywhere in Massachusetts - middle-aged ex-engineers working as cashiers at convenience stores and Trader Joe's.

        by Jon Meltzer on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:17:43 AM PST

  •  Gas prices?

    Is it just that he's too busy to point to a quarter long recovery, or are there other factors at play?

    Maybe Americans have finally realized that they can rightly blame high gas prices on the oilman himself. If so, it's been a long time coming.

    by harveythechainsaw on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:27:44 AM PST

    •  It Ain't Just Gas Prices!

      Just wait 6 months. There is a wave of hefty price increases in raw materials that will rapidly increase prices in a huge range of industrial and consumer goods. My company is purchasing some large forgings that have increased 30% in price in 1 year due to increased cost of steel. Copper prices, steel, stainless steel all are going through the roof due to increased consumption by Chinese industry. This, in addition to increased petroleum prices will have significant cost implications in almost every product and service we buy. Once Greenspan decides to cool off the world economy by raising Fed rates we should see a significant level of default on bad consumer debt. This will really get the default ball rolling. Be afraid! Of course, the major impact will have more to do with the long term implications of free trade policy than specific Bush admin screw ups.

      There will be bumps in the road to prosperity.

      by Round Midnight on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:04:31 AM PST

  •  We've

    About 3 yrs. of stagnant/falling wages.  Health care costs are through the roof.  Gas is high.  Interest rates will go up soon.  Tax refunds weren't as high as expected ($98 more rather than $300 more).  A lot of people realized that $300 check was a refund pre-payment (they had to add it to the tax bill).  I don't see how this will help Bush.  His policies are coming home to roost.

    by Unstable Isotope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:53:06 AM PST

    •  Interest rates.

      Bingo. The US economy has been feebly struggling to its feet... maybe. Although people don't really judge it by official statistics, they judge it by how many friends, family, and acquaintances have lost their jobs and not found new ones, and by how scared they are personally of losing their own jobs. It takes many months of growth to get people to stop feeling that times are bad.

      But in any case, it's all going to get knocked down again, because as soon as interest rates start going up, the real estate boom that has been sustaining the economy from total collapse is going to burst.

      by Canadian Reader on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:27:09 AM PST

      •  Agree

        Was thinking about this on the way home last night.  If they have artificially inflated the employment numbers, they are backing Greenspan into a corner.  The markets are jumping all over the place in anticipation of a rate increase (especially after the "stronger than expected" employment report).  But if the reports are wrong, how can he make the right decision?  The whole thing is screwed up because of all the misinformation.  

        Of course, "the stock market" does not equal "the economy", but if they raise rates prematurely because of pressure, the housing market will be impacted.  Then all bets are off.

        by out grrl on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:50:09 AM PST

        •  It'll be impacted anyway.

          Even if the reports are right, consumers are over-extended in terms of debt. A lot of people have been surviving unemployment by leveraging the equity they have in their homes to the max. Low interest rates made that feasible.

          Low rates also allowed home-buyers access to much higher mortgages than they would normally be able to afford at their income levels, which drove up house prices. If interest rates increase, buyers won't be able to afford such large mortgages, so those inflated house prices are going to fall. Result: there will be a bunch of people stuck with a mortgage bigger than the resale value of the house.

          This is not good, because interest rates are heading up fairly soon. If they followed Greenspan's recent advice, they'll have a floating-rate mortgage (yes, he really said that!), and won't be able to afford the new higher rate. Even if they have a fixed-rate mortgage, sometimes people have to sell, in which case they'll end up owing money to the bank. Or they might just take a look and decide the hell with it, they're better off to default on that huge mortgage and give the house keys to the bank.

          So. Any way you slice it, there's trouble ahead in the real estate sector.

          And these are matters that really hit people hard. Losing your home... for most people, there's just no bigger indication of bad times than that.

          Who are they going to blame?

          by Canadian Reader on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:59:35 AM PST

          •  Blame

            Blame?  Why, Bill Clinton of course!  

            Compound the rel estate devaluation with  imminent inflation and wage stagnation (or decrease) and you are putting a lot of families very close to the edge of disaster.  For the life of me, I can't imagine what Greenspan was thinking when he recommended variable rate mortgages.  Anyone who took that advice and isn't paying close attention to rate fluctuations (like most American families) is going to get hosed.  

            Every time I hear talking heads go on and on about how the housing market will survive because "this is different", I think back to the heyday of the internet bubble when all the talking heads were telling us "this is different".

            by out grrl on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:06:15 AM PST

            •  What was Greenspan thinking?

              Well, I heard about this on "Marketplace." I forget who it was talking about it, but the only guess the expert could offer was that Greenspan was worried about the effect on lenders who could get stuck with all these very low fixed-rate mortgages, so he was trying to convince consumers to act against their own interests.

              I'm not sure how many people listened to him. I mean, if they're naive enough to buy this line of hooey, would they even know who Greenspan is, or why he's important?

              By the way, I remember the 1970's. When credit is tight and interest rates are really shooting up, with no end in sight, mortgage lenders don't beg you to take a floating rate, they tell you that's all you're gonna get. Nope, no fixed-rate mortgages available at any price. If you don't like it, sorry, you don't get to buy the house.

              by Canadian Reader on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:00:54 PM PST

              •  Greenspan

                Greenspan has been touted as a genius for so long that there are probably a number of people who listen to him.  People who really don't know that much about markets and rates who are doing a little digging around before taking out a mortgage (now that we have the internet this is a pretty easy exercise) could read and respond to those commnets. IMO they were reckless.  If they were tied to serving the interests of lenders, then he should be dragged out to explain exactly what his motivations are and exactly who it is that he calls "master".

                by out grrl on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:11:41 PM PST

                •  I just tried a google search

                  The search terms mortgage rates fixed floating

                  yielded 70,000 pages. Adding greenspan found just 2,090 pages. So only about 3% of the pages in that (probably fairly typical) search request would have included any reference to Greenspan. I didn't spot any reference included on the first page of search results.

                  In the second search, I did find this source that gives more detail about what Greenspan actually said.

                  I've got to say, if I were trying to make up my mind on this question based on what I found in the first search, I would be very confused. There were a lot of lender-sourced documents purporting to prove that floating rates are just, ooh, way better, but I didn't find any site that clearly explained the decision tree depending on what you think is going to happen to interest rates, and when. I'm sure a more focused search could have found something. I'm not going to spend the time today, though -- I have an 'adequate for current needs' understanding of the issue already, and no plans to take out a mortgage any time soon.

                  Where was I going with this? Oh yes. The above admittedly cursory investigation suggests to me that the problem of misinformation is way bigger than Greenspan. But he still shouldn't have said it.

                  by Canadian Reader on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:13:15 PM PST

  •  Maybe people understand

    that a 1/2 trillion dollars in deficit spending do not an economic recovery make.
    

    by Manny on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:24:50 AM PST

  •  It's the collapse in general support

    IM(not usually)HO.  I suspect Bush's economic numbers have been propped up by his overall approval numbers.  There is just too much cognitive dissonance between telling a pollster that you, along with 60% plus of other Americans, approve of Bush's job performance, and simultaneously saying that his performance on the economy sucks.  Your mind then has to duck the question "What's to like?"

    Bush crashing through the Mendoza line has liberated people to rate him fairly on all issues.

    by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:04:27 AM PST

    •  Conversely

      People who aren't ready to admit they were wrong about Iraq have to vent their general uneasy feeling somewhere.

      by Pericles on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:01:36 AM PST

  •  Well,

    The net loss of jobs has not been offset by these few rather pitiful gains.  People are still hurting in a big way.  Pluse the jobless claims numbers are artificially depressed by the fact that folks are starting to fall off the rolls.  This guy still stands as the only preznit since Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.  The so-called recovery is spin and nothing more.  

    by CrazyHorse on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:50:13 AM PST

  •  tip of the iceberg now above the water

    Even those in relatively stable jobs and economic sectors have seen little or no gain in income over the last half decade. Like the tax cuts, the gains from productivity increases have gone to the top, not to the work force. This has been intuitve to those in the work force. Only lately has it begun to be spun out in the press.
    

    Eventually this all adds up: good jobs replaced with crappy ones, whole industries decimated, joblessness underreported, the employed middle class in economic stagnation, etc.

    by Kit on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:36:48 AM PST

  •  Economic numbers belied by reality

    Sure, they can point to new jobs, but they are at Wal-Mart or temp jobs.  They never compare the pay of jobs lost versus pay in the new jobs.  The "jobless rate" figures are skewed because they just drop people who give up looking for work.  Further, even if there are macroeconomic gains, they are still going to the wealthy.  Corporate profits are up, but they are going to manangement and shareholders, not workers.  The tax cut is now seen as a hoax.

    Bush blew the chance to create publicly funded jobs like cops, firefighters, health care workers, teachers, pollution control technology etc, that would have paid well and not gone offshore.  Plus, inflation is up in everyday things, like food and energy.  People aren't fooled by the numbers when they are contradicted by the reality of their own lives.  

    If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

    by Mimikatz on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:23:35 AM PST

  •  Bush I Redux

    It's a somewhat similar situation to what happened during his father's administration. According to the number crunchers, the economy was already in full recovery by mid-1992. But the public was only beginning to see the effects of it and the idea of a "bad economy" had been so cemented in the press that Bush Sr. could do nothing about it.

    There are a few other variables in this election, but none that help Dubya. Namely, the war in Iraq has dragged on longer than the administration bargained for and prevented Bush from focusing on economic policy. I'm sure that in Rove's twisted mind, he figured that cheering Iraqis would accept self-rule and that triumphant King George would then pretend to turn his attention to the economic plight of his own people. The other variable that hurts Bush is that the dynamics of the recovery are not too great. There have been new jobs created, but most are low-paying and without benefits.

    by pine on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:36:04 AM PST

    •  Thanks

      Thats a pretty solid summary of things to explain it - and a testimony to the standard of discussion round here. So things to watch out for are

      House prices falling
      Rate rises
      Oil prices (record high today I see)

      After a house price bust in the UK negative equity (your mortage is worth more than your house) became the phrase of the day and political poison. If that's coming your way a lot of people will be feeling the squeeze as well as Bush.

      by EJMorley on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:17:19 AM PST

•  Bush's real problem

  I said this before the war and many time since:  the American electorate will never punish Bush for starting this war, no matter how immoral, unjustified or stupid it was to do so.  A frightening majority of Americans will support any bold, resolute leader who kills foreigners who hate Americans or who look like foreigners who hate Americans.

  The American electorate will only punish Bush for losing the war or appearing to lose the war.  And that is exactly what he is doing right now.

  No time to get cocky though, he's still got six months to get Osama.  And he could cut and run in Iraq and call it a victory.  You have to know that four networks and two major newspapers will crow their agreement and punish anyone who disagrees.  We have to keep in mind that the corporate press/media are just as invested in this war as the Bush administration.

  by James Earl on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:13:26 AM PST

  •  Brucewin's Law

    When a gloom and doomer shows up the thread is dead.

    There is exactly no way that Bush can' cut and run and call it a victory'  and the corporate/press are only invested in ratings.

    I have never believed the US people at large are stupid.  But it is certainly true that many, many and perhaps a substantial majority are disengaged from not only politics as we examine it here, but national and world affairs at large.  Because they devote all of their time and energy focusing on making a living and being involved in their children's lives. (Losers - what are they thinking)

    But most people are aware of the big issues at some level, they walk by the newstands, they turn on the morning shows to catch the weather and the traffic, and get some news in passing.

    BushCo is rapidly turning into a steaming mass, and Americans can smell bullshit when they have to.

    by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:17:52 AM PST

  •  You're right

    Is that irony?  Some people are really into correcting folk on their use of irony.  It's similar to Serbian elections a while back when Milosevic lost.  He lost not because he was a vicious war starting monster, but because he lost those wars he started.  Sharon in Israel just lost that vote about Gaza not because it was a territory grab never seen before in that conflict, but because it didn't go far enough.

    by Rob C on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:20:45 AM PST

  •  I think

    Bruce Webb is right:  I compare my life--a single young person with no dependents and relatively few commitments besides a fairly untaxing 9-to-5 job, versus a father and/or mother of four children who are running from work to soccer practice to dance classes to PTA meetings (in other words, my parents' lives for the last 20+ years).  I have the luxury of reading blogs and online newspapers, taking an hour to watch the NewsHour, and keeping close tabs on the news, while many other Americans barely have enough time to skim through the morning's newspaper.

    EVEN SO, that does not excuse people from not engaging in critical thinking.  All you have to do is read the front page, watch the 30-minute newscasts, and think, "Okay, why are these things happening? Do Bush and Rumsfeld deserve to be called good leaders if all of this is happening under their watch?"  

    James Earl, you're also right in that the American people tend to look at the results rather than the process or even the cause, and I also despair about the ability of the American populace to put 2 and 2 together; but there are moments when I think back on all the people I personally know in my blood-red home state, and I feel a glimmer of hope:  these people may be slow, underinformed, and a little too doggedly loyal, but by and large, they aren't stupid once they learn the facts.

    by heg03 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:57:07 AM PST

    •  we'll see in November

      I think a lot of people are supporting Bush on the war because that was their initial inclination, and they haven't had the time to check whether there's anything to back up his claims. A bunch of those people will do some last-minute checking just before they vote, and I think many will change their minds.

      That, I think, is what happened to Gray Davis in the recall election. The polls were close going into the last week, because a bunch of the people who voted for him in the general election assumed he had some good answer for his critics. When it got into the last week and all he wanted to focus on was Schwartzenegger's grope scandal, they realized he didn't.

      This will be close into mid-October, and then the just-tuning-in people will break Kerry's way.

      by Pericles on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:10:59 AM PST

•  Never ignore the war on terror

  Those numbers are still somewhat strong, and key. In the event of another terror attack here in the US or in a place that harms a large number of Americans, support will still swing back behind Bush because he is still seen as a terror-fighter.

  Kos is right that the war on terra is all that Dubya has going for him. But it's a real big thing to have on his side. September 11 and the fight against terror have enabled Bush to rape this country as he has. It's what is keeping the more timid elements among the GOP on board the Titanic. It has kept the media from launching an all-out assault on the Worst President Ever.

  So while we can see a good deal of good news in these numbers, that WOT number is one we need to fixate upon. If we really want to finish off Bush, we have to expose his sham anti-terror strategies. Show how first responders and ports and airports have been screwed over. Show how the Patriot Act has been used to expand government power instead of protect Americans. Show how Bush's actions around the globe have crippled the fight against terror by making more enemies and making our friends reluctant to join in our idiotic crusades.

  by eugene on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:21:40 AM PST

  •  That's why they fought the 911 Commission

    They've done a fairly good job disarming the 911 inquiry, which has been pretty much overshadowed by the events of the past two weeks.  But it won't go away.  The Jersey Girls are still out there.

    by Knut Wicksell on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:36:18 AM PST

    •  Yeah, 9/11 comisssion

      Has all the evidence???

      http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0001/20040507/003484655 1.htm

      Hmmmmm.  Bushco needs a terra attack to get the base back.  I'm thinking Sep/Oct.

      by quartzite on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:17:39 AM PST

      •  Team USA at the Olympics?

        by NeutralObserver on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:32:19 PM PST

•  Polls Move Toward Rum's Ouster, But Critics Abate

  Should Rumsfeld resign?
  Poll	Date	Yes	No	Other
  ABC/WaPo	May 5-6	20%	69%	11%
  Annenberg	May 6-9	24%	66%	10%
  Gallup	May 7-9	31%	64%	5%
  CBS News	May 11	37%	53%	10%

  Or, to spell out the trends:

  Should Rumsfeld resign?
  Poll	Date	Yes	No	Other
  ABC/WaPo	May 5-6	20%	69%	11%
  Annenberg	May 6-9	24%	66%	10%
  Change	1-3 Days	+4	-3	-1
  Gallup	May 7-9	31%	64%	5%
  Change	0-1 Days	+7	-2	-5
  CBS News	May 11	37%	53%	10%
  Change	2-4 Days	+6	-11	+5
  Total Shift	5-6 Days	+17	-16	-1

  If anyone has seen other polls on this, let me know.

  Troublingly, though, noise about Rumsfeld resigning seems to be quieting.  Here's a timeline of the numbers of stories posted on Google News each day that include the words "Rumsfeld" and "resign":

  May 4: 11
  May 5: 295
  May 6: 919
  May 7: 1,100
  May 8: 457
  May 9: 159
  May 10: 846
  May 11: 232
  May 12: 218

  Did politicians see the early poll numbers and feel it was a losing issue?  Did they believe that, once Bush publicly professed hearty support of Rumsfeld that demanding a resignation would be fruitless?

  Even if a resignation doesn't occur, it's to America's benefit that Rumsfeld, his policies, and Bush's overall handling of the war be discredited in the minds of the public.  Calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is an effective way of making that happen.

  by Michael D on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:22:37 AM PST

  •  Yep

    "Did politicians see the early poll numbers and feel it was a losing issue?  Did they believe that, once Bush publicly professed hearty support of Rumsfeld that demanding a resignation would be fruitless?"

    Pretty much. Shows that Bush still strikes fear in the hearts of the immature kids who run the DC Dems and the media punditocracy. Until that veil of Stalin-like power is pierced, our road will remain an uphill one.

    by eugene on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:25:27 AM PST

    •  Or

      Maybe they figured that Bush keeping Rumsfield on would be a net political plus for the Dems.  Which given the very poll we are discussing is a distinct possibility.

      "May you have warm words on a cold evening,
      A full moon on a dark night,
      And the road downhill all the way to your door."

      But you guys insist on turning that all around.  For you every road is "uphill".

      by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:26:42 AM PST

      •  Cheney

        Stopped the bleeding for Rummy when he said that Rummy was the best SecDef in U.S. history.

        After Cheney spoke, the Repugs circled the wagons around Rummy. Even Bush got the message. Remember, before Cheney spoke, Bush privately "chastised" Rummy. After Cheney spoke, Bush said that Rummy was "superb."

        All of the Repugs are afraid of Cheney.

        by rlm on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:36:26 AM PST

        •  I am not counting

            on the hard-core republicans.  I am counting on the sensible middle who will take this "best SecDef" nonsense and say "Huh?  What about this guy?" George Catlett Marshall .  Let's see?  Author and implementor of the "Marshall Plan" that rebuilt Europe and gained him a Nobel Peace Prize? or Rummy, who lied us into war?

          by Bruce Webb on Fri May 14, 2004 at 07:04:54 AM PST

  •  brilliant

    What a beautiful illustration of the idiocy of governing by polls.

    by agrajag on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:47:01 AM PST

  •  Or just another miscalculation?

    First strategic error: Bush identified himself with the WOT, which he identified with the war in Iraq, which is now failing miserably.  

    Second strategic error: Bush identifies himself with Rumsfeld (i.e. amid torture allegations, he says Rumsfeld's doing a "superb" job).  The photos on which the allegations are based have not yet been released (-or leaked-) in their entirety. The Secretary of State implicitly suggests both Bush and Rumsfeld are lying.
    

    by machopicasso on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:52:43 AM PST

  •  Blood in the water

    I get the impression that UK politics sees more forced resignations at Cabinet level than US. In the UK the cycle is usually

    Big scandal > Either quits/fired or limps on

    If a cabinet member opts to limp on they're typically fair game until at least the next election. Right now it'll take one more big error to bring Rumsfeld down, and there are probably plenty of people who have the right info and contacts to engineer this. Given how unpopular Rumsfeld is he's got to be worried that someone out there is gunning for him.

    If this wasn't election season I think someone in the GOP would have wielded the knife by now. As it is I'd see the military as the most likely to do the deed.

    by EJMorley on Thu May 13, 2004 at 01:44:23 AM PST

    •  He'll just go...

      sit on some corporate or well-funded nonprofit boards, do the $50K+-a-pop lecture circuit thing, write a tell-all book, go hobnob and do "show-and-tell" with McNamara, sail off into the sunset to Bali...

      Rummy's life, other than not being Secy of Defense, will not change one iota.

      by rgilly on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:03:08 AM PST

      •  I don't think he'll just go

        Rummy's a multizillionnaire. He's over 70. Why isn't he sitting on the deck of his yacht in the Carribbean instead of working 14 hour days at the Pentagon? Because he wants power and he won't let it go easily.

        I don't think he'll be fired for the same reason I think Tenet is still there: they know, literally, where the bodies are buried.

        by RichK on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:53:34 AM PST

      •  He'll be miserable

        He'll no longer have what is most important to him:  power and attention.  He'll hate being just another rich guy.

        by ScientistMom in NY on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:53:54 AM PST

        •  Best Wishes

          Here's hoping there's an invasive proctological procedure in Rummy's near future.

          by kaleidescope on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:35:09 PM PST

    •  There's a big difference...

      UK cabinet ministers are members of parliament and they have to answer questions directly to their fellow MPs.
      

      by NeutralObserver on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:37:16 PM PST

  •  Polls don't matter that much

    Well they do in some cases but here, no matter how much Democrats call for his resignation, it just isn't going to happen. The public will move on to other issues, because the media forces them to.

    by JamesB3 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:19:47 AM PST

    •  Making Noise

      If top Democrats continue to press for Rumsfeld's resignation, and support for Rumsfeld's resignation continues to increase, the media will continue to cover it.  But if we clam up, the media will have no new soundbites to report on, and the issue will go away.

      by Michael D on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:37:04 AM PST

      •  Measuring Success

        By the way, as I wrote above, Rumsfeld's ouster isn't the only measurement of success.  Discrediting the fools who took us to war is a reward in itself.  So far, it's worked.  So why stop?

        by Michael D on Thu May 13, 2004 at 02:40:19 AM PST

  •  berg affect

    The Berg murder sucked up a lot of wind from the Rumsfeld Resign sails. Depending on what happens when those 1800 iraq pics and vids get out, you could hear resign chatter pick up in the next few days.

    by Jumbo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:34:07 AM PST

  •  Pretty html tables

    Thank you.

    by paradox on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:24:18 AM PST

  •  Ah, let the asshole stay...

    ...and get his forced resignation in November, along with the rest of his corrupt cronies. He's got no credibility left, and the generals hate him. It's the best of all worlds: Rummy remains a millstone around Jr.'s neck, while his sworn enemy Colin Powell takes charge of the unsalvageable mess that is Iraq.

    He's a living symbol of everything that the neo-cons did wrong - better to have him shuffling around the pentagon like Hamlet's ghost that off on some face-saving, pseudo-exculpatory book tour.
    

    by Hard Left on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:18:50 AM PST

•  I have a dream

  too, and maybe this is the beginning of my dream becoming reality.
  I HAVE A DREAM!!!
  Peace!
  ABB&B!!!

  by PC on Thu May 13, 2004 at 03:56:49 AM PST

•  Hopes and dreams

  I hope George W. Bush doesn't really want to be President. Maybe Kerry feels sort of "entitled" to the Presidency and "my-turn-ism" might have motivated his run this year, but you can definitely tell he's spent a lot of time lusting after the oval office. Bush however has always seemed vaguely reluctant (when not simply vague). Sure he had a viscious winatallcost team headed by Rove pushing him, but his naive "just a regular Christian who got lucky" schtick was both a primary reason for his "election" and a genuine aspect of his personality. He's lazy. He's spoiled. Everything in his life has been remarkably easy. I don't want to say it out loud lest I jinx it but I think he might be sick of his job and want to go chill on the ranch full time. He got Saddam, who wants to deal with the mess Iraq has become? On NPR they showed the competing stump speeches. Kerry was wordy and a little tedious in his explanations, but there was a definite effort to sell his health care plan and explain it in detail. Bush just rambled distractedly about No child left behind. He seemed agitated and sort of distant and his points were weak and weakly delivered. I don't know. I think with all the stress of the hardcore presidenting he's supposed to be doing right now and the fact that Kerry is starting to breath down his neck he might crack. That would be awesome. I want it to be like ten times worse than Dean's scream. I want him to flip out at some reporter or start weeping uncontrollably in the middle of a stump speech. Or if he'd just resign. That'd be great too.

  by Jumbo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:30:40 AM PST

  •  How's about...

    nervous breakdown?

    by rgilly on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:41:57 AM PST

  •  A sociopath that was more than...

    likely abused by their "beautiful mind" mother to be a "strong little man". This caused the emotional centers in his brain controlling tearful emotions, to go into permafreeze or completely atrophy.

    Think Roi du Soleil Arbusto II is capable of even getting a little misty? Perhaps the make-up crew could squirt some glycerine around his beady little rat eyes to give the appearance of genuine maudlin state.

    See him, feel him, touch him, heal him...

    Ewww!

    by rgilly on Thu May 13, 2004 at 04:56:35 AM PST

  •  More likely...

    He'll go back on the bottle big time and show up for a debate shitfaced.  Then again his performance wouldn't  be too different from the press conferences when he's supposedly sober.

    by MrHappy on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:05:05 AM PST

•  Do you approve?

  "Do you approve of the way George Bush is handling the economy?" Handling? I think the word they're looking for is "pillaging".

  by Marco Polo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:25:39 AM PST

  •  or...

    how bout "fondling?"  No, I'm not quite sure what that would mean.

    by Red Herring on Thu May 13, 2004 at 05:38:00 AM PST

•  Couple of Things

  First off -- look at the Indian Election Returns, they are just out this morning, and India sent its center-right government a packing, and have returned Congress (PM, Sonja Gandhi -- Italian born) to be supported by coalition with CPI - Marxist -- in otherwords the Communist Party of India, Marxist (this distingishes it from the 2nd CP -- the Maoists).  The difference in this surprise result apparently is Rural India which is not sharing in the 8% growth rate.  Bush will not be at all happy with this result -- he was most comfortable with the BJP.  Some issues in the campaign were Enron and the rules of the World Bank and the IMF.  Get people you know to read about it all even if they don't follow Indian Politics.  Put simply, the Indian Voters need to be recognized for their "regime change."

  Second -- Rumsfeld is winging his way to Baghdad for an inspection tour.  Taking his Chief of Staff and all his lawyers with him.  Trip was quickly planned.  NPR is running a story this morning about much of the Baghdad middle class leaving the country due to a rash of kidnappings and murders that seem to be organized by the old Secret Police.  People sending wives and kids abroad and then hiding out.  Speculation it is prep for Civil War.  I question whether Bush can hand over anything if it all boils.  What then?

  Third -- don't miss the front page story in the NYTimes today about the methods used to interogate the Al-Qaeda leadership.  They make plain the lack of much forethought and planning in the intelligence collection processes, and a near total lack of recognition that torture does not necessarily produce good intelligence.  This may be the peg to hang a further drop in Bush's nembers regarding confidence in his war on terra. That's the one number I'd like to see drop another ten points or so in the next month.  

  Yes, it is just one or two more bad things that will put his numbers where they belong.  

  by Sara on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:09:33 AM PST

  •  Indian Elections

    Here's a link to the BBC story on the election.

    by Jeffo on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:25:41 AM PST

•  Polls

  I don't want to be the turd in the punch bowl here this morning but, the election is 6mos. off and although I'm pleased to see that it appears the American public is at last starting to wake up, it's way to early to claim victory. I suspect Bu$H's poll numbers will go back up at some pt. in the next 6 mos. probably more then once. Lets hope though that the general trend which has been downward continues. God knows the rest of humanity is counting on the American public to realize what a nightmare this administration has become and to do the right thing in Nov. I'm afraid that it's going to take a super majority to defeat him though with millions probably voting on "rigged" Diebold etc. machines.

  by Blutodog on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:13:16 AM PST

  •  Why ?

    Do you suspect Bush's numbers will go up?  I ask this seriously because any examination of Bush's actual numbers shows a clear pattern: absent the three 'commander in chief moments' : 9/11, the fall of the statue, and the capture of Saddam, Bush has steadily bled support over time.  And his spikes have been much less each time.  If you look at the charts you can hardly detect the so called 'Condi bounce' of a few weeks ago.  The latest Gallup and ABC polls fit perfectly into Bush trendlines.

    R-F-M updated his charts, thank you Mr. Monkey!
    Bush Approval

    Compare Bush's trendlines to Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton.  Note that Clinton and Reagan never scored as high a number as Carter, Bush I or Bush II's top numbers.  Can anyone but me spell the word 'disillusion'?
    Presidential Comparison

    You lose the voters this late in your term and you don't get reelected.

    by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:51:13 AM PST

    •  Great posts this am, Bruce.

      If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

      by Mimikatz on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:34:07 AM PST

    •  I hope U right

      As they say from your lips to God's ear. Damn I hope your right. However, 6 mos. is a long time to go and Bush has one group on his side none of us can hope to influence Al Queda. The last thing Bin Laden et al. want is a Bu$h defeat. GWB is BinLaden's own personal 1 man recruiter. As long as GWB and his wrecking crew are in Bin Laden will have hundreds of thousands of new recruits signing onto his Jihad. A Kerry win will be much more probkematic for the Jihadist. If I we're Karl Rove I'd be praying for my ally OBL to strike another blow for fundamentalism ( Muslim and Christian) somewhere in the west and hopefully in Oct. of 2004.

      by Blutodog on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:55:49 AM PST

    •  Interesting

      how the Clinton and Reagan numbers matched almost exactly (and unlike any others).

      by Superribbie on Thu May 13, 2004 at 11:39:08 AM PST

•  osama

  what are these numbers going to look like after Bin Laden is captured in October?

  by queerbklynboy on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:30:03 AM PST

  •  October?

    Nay, July!

    by JamesC on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:39:42 AM PST

    •  Try Halloween...

      Anything earlier wouldn't be effective because the American public's attention span is so short that they'd have moved on to the new television season, or the lastest group dance craze by election time. In addition, if he were "captured" earlier, the public would have plenty of time to realize that it wouldn't have any effect on the "war on terrorism."

      by bisbeegal on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:40:49 AM PST

•  hoohooheeheeheeHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  Sorry, this just made my day. I mean, really. DEAR LORD, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME HOPE. Despite the smears, the constant stream of lies and distortions, the backstabbing, the treason, the deluge of daily propaganda from Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, and the rest, despite the media being this administration's bitch and the fervent hopes and dreams of the evangelical community, this president's continued failures are finally catching up with him.

  BUT FOR KRISHNA'S SAKE, DO NOT LET UP THE PRESSURE! We must do everything we can to ensure that Bush's brand of conservativism is relegated to the Free Republic and has no gravitas in mainstream political discourse. I have hope that we may one day soon restore not only our great nation's dignity but its dedication to the principles of liberty, justice, and democracy.

  GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND DOWN WITH BUSH!

  by JamesC on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:37:27 AM PST

•  I hate to be a spoilsport, but...

  ...this is a relatively small sample, only 448 respondents (probably why they didn't ask a vote question).  The margin of error is 5.  So the approval rating is really 39-49 approve, 44-54 disapprove.  Still an improvement over previous numbers, but I'd like to see this confirmed in a larger poll.

  by tyronen on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:45:42 AM PST

  •  You won't spoil my party

    Because the possibility of results actually being at the magin of error are by definition low, and if multiple polls show the same trend, the possibility of them all being off in the same direction becomes even less.  The fallacy that the 'real results' float freely between the margins of error is rampant - which does not make it any less a fallacy.

    Every poll mathematically has a margin of error, but given a proper sample is more likely to be right than wrong.  And if you take a series of the same poll and draw a trendline you can be pretty confident you are tracking real sentiments.  And say if you take fourteen polls and draw a combined trendline you are talking take it to the bank certainty.

    Once again from our friend RadioFreeMonkey: Bush Approval over his entire term

    by Bruce Webb on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:01:46 AM PST

•  so, I guess we're all hypocrites, now

  since Murka can't tell the difference between the Iraqi invasion and the War on Terra, and that's the millstone 'round W.'s neck.  

  So as Iraq goes to shit, so does [sic] Bush's terrorism ratings.

  We tried to tell them, but they wouldn't believe us.  It's a tar baby within a tar baby.  Nice.  

  by Grand Moff Texan on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:46:47 AM PST

•  My grandparents

  have been around for a good portion of the 20th century, and have experienced some of the best and infamous leaders we've had in the White House.  But every time I come home for the holidays, they vow that Bush is the VERY worst president they have ever seen.  They saw right through that Medicare bill, they were against the war in Iraq, and the tax cuts didn't appease them at all.  And they live in the heart of the Midwest and are otherwise highly conservative on social issues.

  Most other presidents were mediocre at their worst, and even Nixon was a brilliant if flawed leader who got us out of Vietnam and pushed through crucial social legislation.  But Bush . . . I honestly cannot think of one single good thing that was signed, passed, or enacted in the past three years that I can even grudgingly give him credit for. And if there is anything, there are a hundred more missteps that would cancel it out in a nanosecond.

  by heg03 on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:14:43 AM PST

  •  Penn Station

    He got the US Postal Service to move out of the Farley Building on 8th Avenue so that Penn Station can be resurrected there in all its glory.

    That is the one and only good thing George W. Bush has ever done.  Whenever, in ten or twenty years' time, I enter new york on rails (like an emporer, rather than scurrying in like a rat), I will think of ol' Dubya, and all the manifest evils the world had to endure as the price of such local progress.

    by BrooklynRaider on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:57:20 AM PST

•  Worst Ever

  For someone who boasted being a lazy-ass C student in college, it would be/is poetic justice that he FAIL in the biggest test of his long sheltered and bailed-out "professional" life.

  by VA6thDem on Thu May 13, 2004 at 07:44:35 AM PST

•  Fox and Rabbit, Donald and George

  It's a tar baby within a tar baby.-Grand Moff Texan
  The story went along these lines:
  Fox made tarbaby to trap Rabbit. (Whether to eat or just to kill, I'm not sure, but he hated Rabbit.)
  Rabbit was trapped because tarbaby was "rude" and wouldn't respond.
  Fox lost Rabbit because Rabbit accepted and amplified any form of death Fox contrived, but pleaded not to be thrown into the briar patch. Fox could have just wrung Rabbit's neck, instead of deciding that the worst method of death was to throw Rabbit into the briar patch, which was what Rabbit had wanted because he'd been born and bred in the briar patch. Rabbit cleaned all the tar off with a branch of briar, and was good as new.
  Considering that it's just a story, it's also similar to fables, like the one about the dog with a hunk of meat in its mouth that crosses a river bridge and, seeing another dog with a hunk of meat-reflected in the river below-decides to steal that dog's meat, opens its mouth to grab it, and loses the meat it had, which had been stolen from the butcher.
  That includes cliches, too, like my favorite: The empty bucket makes the most noise. I read the Taguba report last night in a pdf file. It's only 53 pages long. That makes it relatively "quiet," and quite full of truth.
  I'm no great-weight thinker like so many posters here, who I thank for sharing their knowledge. I'm forced to reduce issues sometimes to cliche/fable level in order to deal with them. At the moment, I'm thinking of Cronos, who ate his children. How could he?! And yet, the children survived. It's a story, but it's also a lesson. So I draw on such stories to help me learn the larger lessons I have to learn.
  Jonathan Kozol has written much about the state of American schools. Others have written about the state of American social workers and the children they try to protect. I was so lucky, and my child was so lucky, to have had an opportunity to learn in a safe environment.

  by greenbird on Thu May 13, 2004 at 08:38:29 AM PST

•  the truly remarkable thing...

  ...is the drop in approval of the economy to a toxic 60%, at a time when the media keep shouting the arrival of a booming recovery.  Even if you assume some lag time in public perception, the numbers shouldn't take a nose-dive during what was (headline-wise) a good month.

  Possible reasons:  The job numbers, as some suspect, are fudged?  The unequal distribution of tax cuts has led to a similarly unequal recovery -- i.e., your rich neighbor has seen his holdings appreciate by 15%, but those of us just getting by are treading water?  Or could it be the gas prices, going so high so fast that they negate whatever growth the economy is technically experiencing?

  I ask this because the economic component of this election is the most problematic as far as forecasting.  Those who rely 100% upon economic news are telling us Bush will achieve a Reagan-like landslide -- 58% or better is their prediction.  The Lewis-Beck model, which melds approval rating with 1st quarter growth numbers, calls for a marginally more modest but still decisive 54%.  The Lichtman Keys to the Presidency system would debit Bush for long-term economy, but current measures would provide an up arrow for short-term economy (and put the election into winnable range).  How do we square this with such strong pessimism in this poll?

  These economics guys will tell you Carter lost in 1980 because of a recession in the second quarter.  I, frankly, barely recall any downturn being considered significant (especially since, as Lichtman points out, Carter's previous three years had featured growth that dwarfed anything during the Nixon/Ford years).  But the soaring gas prices trumped everything: they -- along with accompanying inflation -- more than any technical recession made the economy look dismal (and Carter weak and ineffective).  I live in the city where no one owns a car, so my encounters with gas prices were few.  But I remember stopping by a local pizza place to get a slice in late summer that year.  When I realized the price was 10-15 cents higher than a week or so earlier, I said to a friend "That's it: I'm voting for Reagan".  It was a joke, of course, but the fact the a die-hard Dem like me would even make it summed up the trouble Carter was in.  I wonder if Bush's problem is the same: his economy, on paper, is not a bad re-election platform.  But given the stagnation of the previous three years and the oncoming oil shock, the voters aren't looking at the statistics; they're checking their daily lives, and not liking what they see.

  by demtom on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:13:09 AM PST

  •  gas prices

    I got an easy answer... people are negative on the economy because of high gas prices.  Its something that EVERYONE (even rich ppl) notice and are annoyed about.  Gas prices are a huge influence on the average person's view on the economy.  

    And yes, to a certain extent we hear that the economy is growing.. but where does that leave the average person's pocketbook?? We're not seeing our pocketbooks expand because of high corporate profits.  We don't own that much stock.. if any at all.  We've already blown our tax cuts (whatever there was). We've already refinanced our houses and gotten all the extra cash outta that.  Plus we hear that interest rates are going to rise.. so the party is almost over.  Our debt load just keeps ballooning.  We've been able to spend and buy like crazy.. but we have the feeling that this isn't going to last much longer.  Those credit card statements aren't gonna be easy to pay off.. and with what savings?  And guess what.. everytime we go to fill up our big SUV's.. we gotta pay over $2.00 a gallon for gas!!!!.. WTF!?!!

    by wintersnowman on Thu May 13, 2004 at 11:50:10 AM PST

•  Rumsfield as "strong"

  The comment from the president that most struck me was that Rumsfeld was a "strong" defense secretary. That seems so Bush-like in its self-deception or sheer fantasy. Results are of no consequence, only that Rumsfeld (or he himself) act strong by always speaking decisively, strongly, never acknowledging error or the need to change course (even when occasionally doing so because there is literally no other course).
  

  One can only hope that the poll trends show that this cognitive dissonance is becoming so great that even former supporters are peeling off. As others have noted, it is extremely difficult, psychologically, for someone who has made a horrible mistake in judgment - as in believing in the Bush fantasy of the last couple of years - to make an about face. But it may actually be happening.

  by Kit on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:18:17 AM PST

•  Rehugs continue to believe

  Check the actual poll results.

  Repigs continue to believe.

  82% approve of W.
  Condi is 'fabulous'
  Rummy is 'superb'
  Tenet has full support
  Cheney is a scumbag, shithole, bastard pie. Oops... I mean...

  by BushHater4Dean on Thu May 13, 2004 at 09:47:23 AM PST

•  I have lots of kids...

  Seven so far and more on the way in July.

  Though they're the kind with four legs and they say "baaaa", so I'm really not sure what that makes me besides the crazy tree-hugging goat lady.

  by Baaaa on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:08:46 AM PST

•  Whoops!

  That post was soooo in the wrong place.  It was meant for WAY up thread.  

  blushing

  by Baaaa on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:10:03 AM PST

•  I wouldn't be so optimistic about November

  The economy has been growing at 4 percent as of the most recent data, a pace that is expected to roughly continue.  Furthermore, retroactive data-gathering do support the idea that the 2003 tax cut helped provide substantial stimulus, as opposed to those enacted in 2001, which were a sop to those who insisted on the earned-income tax credits with delayed impact on marginal rates.  Whether this is worth the rise in the deficit is a separate question, but as we all know, the impact of the deficit is not felt politically in real time, if at all.

  Although the net gain in jobs under Bush will end up being (oh, let's use a round number) about 0, versus 22 million under Clinton, this ignores the more important stat of overall unemployment.  Some of the Bush surrogates have insightfully pointed out that the unemployment rate has been lower on average than under Clinton.  This matters in that virtually all serious labor economists agree that there is a natural rate of unemployment (say 3-4%), and as you attempt to get down close to that number, it's hard to make additional progress.  Bottom line is that you're going to have a helluva lot easier time creating jobs if you're coming off the Great Depression than if you inherit the January 2001 economy.  Stock market has been up 30-40% over the past 12 months, which isn't really major, but no bubbles looming in that regard (although stock forecasting is really nebulous, so let's not say more).  Political economists' macroeconomic forecasting tools would give the advantage to Bush, albeit one that should be discounted due to the public's (greatly exaggerated) fears of outsourcing.

  I think that the social issues are where Bush is going to gain some real traction.  Although he is very coy on the topic, activists in the know are betting that he will deliver in terms of judicial appointments - specifically, put individuals on the bench that are friendly to the anti-abortion and "limit judicial power" causes.  The gay marriage issue is really the one that will serve as the ultimate lightning rod for the culture war, though.  Bush's religious beliefs are generally a plus for him as well.  Regardless of one's own opinion, I can assure you that the more that Kerry is identified with supporting abortion (including federal funding, not just being "pro-choice") under all circumstances, gay activism and criticizing the Church (look for more Catholic Bishops to speak out against abortion-friendly pols like Kerry) or faith-based initiatives, the more that undecided "average" people from Missouri to West Virginia to Wisconsin and elsewhere will sour on him.  Big-time.  And I haven't even mentioned the guns issue, which Kerry is working his ass off to defuse.  Again, irrespective of your own opinions on these different issues, it cannot be denied that Kerry and the Democratic party are gradually becoming borderline extremists in terms of public opinion (at least in the part of the country that isn't located in the Northeast or Pacific Coast).  Yes, it makes a lot of difference how you frame the question and offer the choices, but the Dems couldn't effect many desired policies without reliance on the judiciary branch.

  War on "Terror" and situation in Iraq are obviously important.  Sad to say, Bush is still doing very well here, although his advantage is more tenuous.  In my opinion there was a thoughtful, intelligent case for going to war based on our understandings in March 2003, but the ensuing lack of WMD and the current mess should have been a bucket of cold water on most people's heads.  Guess what?  It hasn't, not to the extent that you'd think.  I'll bet that if a poll was taken today, nearly half of the respondents would say that Iraq was directly connected to 9/11.  Kerry has to come across as strong and powerful all the while correcting the misinformation; and for God sakes, emphasize his Vietnam and other relevant experience.  This WILL be tougher to do given not only his vote for the war authorization but also his previous sponsorship of regime change in Iraq.  

  To conclude, it's really hard to put much stock into this or that daily poll.  This election will be very tough, fierce and competitive.  Kerry has shown great campaign and political skills his whole life, but he's a slight underdog to win at this point.  2000 Bush voters who oppose him now (such as say, me) seem to be wildly abundant on talk group websites, but I think that the silent majority is lurking underneath.

  by awfernan on Thu May 13, 2004 at 10:45:52 AM PST

  •  the complete opposite

    I'm on the complete opposite side.  I feel that horse-race polling this far out from the election doesn't show what will happen in November.  People who are worrying about Kerry's polling numbers now ignore the history of recent incumbents.  This race is all about whether we want to keep Bush.. basically continue down the path that he's led this country.  I think that the end result will be a solid majority of Americans answering.. NO!

    People who voted for Bush in 2000 just aren't going to peel away from him that easily.  These people were hard supporters of him in the early part of the "war on terror."  It is going to take even more bad news in Iraq before many of these Bush supporters will peel off.  They may be having serious doubts now, but when called by a poll they won't turn on their man yet.  They voted for him 4 years ago and they still harbor hopes that things will still get better.  Let's face it.. Bush's supporters and Repubs generally have the (i think naiive) attitude that things will always turn out good.  Their view is that this is America.. everything we touch is gold.. we hold the moral high ground and we know best.  It's always "morning in America."

    SO their tendency will be to stick with their man for longer than others (liberals, me among them) would think.  I think your premise that there is a silent majority for Bush just lurking underneath is wrong.  I think that Bush's support is weakening as I type this message.  His support reached it's zenith long ago and won't be coming back in time for the election.  The support you claim he has is not as strong as you think.  

    by wintersnowman on Thu May 13, 2004 at 11:35:47 AM PST

  •  Good points

    
    You forget the Saddam trials, which will certainly encourage the "Saddam was such a bastard taking him out was a service to humanity" pro-war crowd.  GNP has grown, and perhaps it was a matter of time until GNP growth and massive deficit spending produced a short-term surge in job growth.  Another five months of 300,000 jobs/month will stick in Americans' memories.  

    Oil, and hence gasoline, prices are set to fall;  OPEC believes that $35.00/barrel is what the market will bear, and the price is currently $40.00/barrel.  

    Greenspan may raise interest rates 0.25% or 0.50% before the elections -- ARMs may edge up a tad in response, but not disastrously.  

    Absolutely nothing prohibits Bush from cutting and running on July 1.  I think Will and Tucker are giving him room to do just that.  This would replace stories of murdered Americans and depraved Americans with stories of happy American soldiers returning home.  Few tears will be shed for Sunni and Shi'a extremists slaughtering each other.  

    by Yamaneko on Thu May 13, 2004 at 12:35:01 PM PST

•  It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

  It's about fucking time the public saw Bush as what many of us saw him even before he was elected.

  The media's covered Bush's ass for over three years.

  They can't make him look good anymore.  

  by PhillipG on Thu May 13, 2004 at 11:51:26 AM PST

  •  Damn right!

    Jon Stweart has been the lone voice in the mainstream media preaching against this moron.

    "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry." - Thomas Jefferson

    by PusBoy on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:02:33 AM PST