I imagine this poll data has been talked about a lot tonight (I work third shift on Saturday so haven't been around) but I wanted to offer some thoughts I had on reading this poll. Personally, I hate polls but this one appealed to me.
Basically, the president scores positively in terms of the War on Terror (68% approval).
Outside of that, things get very interesting though. For example:
Less than half now approve of how he is handling the situation in Iraq. 51% say the war was not worth the costs.
Only 30% say he is more interested in protecting the interests of ordinary Americans than in protecting the interests of large corporations. Just 39% - fewer than before - have confidence in his ability to make the right economic decisions.
Just 41% say the president has the same priorities on the issues as they do.
most Americans say things in the country are worse now than they were five years ago. Fifty-seven percent say things are worse, while 21% say they're better.
Several other evaluations of the president - such as his ability to handle an international crisis, and perceptions of the respect he receives from foreign leaders - have fallen back to pre-9/11 levels after having risen sharply in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
Some may view this as results from an anxious public or dismiss the numbers as still relatively "safe" for Bush but I believe it reveals weakness that the Democratic nominee can exploit. In fact, I propose that Bush only gets high ratings in the "war" on terror because most Americans would give approval to any president in a conflict situation by instinct. I believe a lot of us are loath to go against a sitting president in times of war.
Democrats need to hit the president on these issues. If they supported the US invasion then they have to tell us why- not feed us some bullshit about how it was a good idea but the president messed it up post-conflict. Were they misled like 80% of America? What exactly were they told!? I know many of the senators in the race have come close to saying things along these lines but they need to be much more clear. The administration would love to sweep how we got into the US/Iraq War under the rug and the canidates and eventual nominee cannot let the happen. Bush will try to shift focus to "well, we're their so what are you going to do about it?" and a plan for resolving Iraq has to be clear as well but the public's trust in Bush can be very damaged if Democrats continue to hammer him on this issue- "Why the Hell are we in Iraq?".
Striking at the president in how we were misled in the buildup for war cascades into all the other ways to attack this Administration. I can't think of any social policy pushed by this president that holds up when you look beneath the surface. When it comes to environmental policy, Bush is downright Orwellian- Democrats should crush him on the environment. If you go back to what the president said while he was compaigning in 2000 and how he has acted in office it's like friggin night and day!
Bush Misleads. The Democrats need to stitch this onto a banner and wave it high in every battle. If the High Office is a place that is suppose to preserve the "public trust" then this president is not trustworthy. It opens the door into calling the presidents morality into question (many Americans seem to view Bush as "moral")- I notice Dean is already knocking on that door in some of stump language.
We have a lot to do as well. We need to work together, educate ourselves and put together our own set of talking points to do battle with over the next year. We need to reach out to Independents and get them in our camp. We need to empower those who haven't voted but are extremely unhappy with the current state of things and get them registered.
I talk politics quite a bit and I intend to start writing down arguments that work with Independents as well as moderate Republicans- I will post them over time. Lately, I've also been telling everyone I know to buy "The Price of Loyalty" as soon as possible I've also been using parts of it in my arguments against the administration. I don't like O'Neill's policy but I believe him and appreciate his boldness in stepping forward for this book.
Anyway, I am an Independent voter but I have to admit- my heart is with the Democratic Party this year and maybe even for longer if I like what I see. Democrats need to change, they need to become the party of the people again- if not, they stand the risk of losing voters to someone like Nader or future Green Party canidates. This is very dangerous since the Republicans have successfully infused the radical elements of conservatism and the moderates under one umbrella.
2004 is going to be the year that sets the tone for the first decade of the 21st century. Roll up your sleeves folks.
Source for poll data:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml