As this is in the subscription protected part of the Financial Times, this may not have been commented yet (sorry if I missed it), but Zogby is pretty explicit there:
Iraq loses its gloss for Bush in polls by John Zogby
Mr Bush has staked his presidency and his legacy on the war in Iraq. As we look at Iraq today, things are not going well on the ground. Hence, the main reason for the president's low numbers amid good economic news. The dictum of James Carville, former Clinton adviser, that "it's the economy, stupid" - so true in 1992 - is not true all of the time.
(...)
And, today, the linkage between Iraq and the war on terrorism that has worked for Mr Bush in the past is taking its toll. Barely a majority give the president positive marks for handling the war on terrorism - down from 66 per cent when he was re-elected in 2004.
The Bush presidency is all about Iraq and today neither is doing well.
Another quote below and a few comments.
the US is still polarised over the war in Iraq and half the nation is still bitter over the 2004 election. Mr Bush's presidency is all about Iraq. This is fitting because it is what he and his team wanted from the time they took office. There is ample evidence from the writings of two former insiders - Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary, and Richard Clark, former national security adviser - that Mr Bush wanted to go to war against Saddam Hussein from the earliest days of his administration, well before the horrors of September 11 2001. The president and his team were searching for a reason to go after Mr Hussein and the terrorist attacks gave them that reason, even though there were never links between the secular Mr Hussein and the fundamentalist terrorists.
But it worked for the president. He was seen as a decisive figure - a man "who means what he says and says what he means". The war in Iraq gave him the edge in voters' minds in fighting the war on terrorism. This perception helped him win seats for the Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives in 2002. His strength was a factor in his 2004 re-election.
Today, the war in Iraq is not working for Mr Bush. American deaths in Iraq number more than 1,800. Al-Qaeda and its spin-offs now do have ties to the Iraqi opposition, and the attacks on allied forces do not suggest an enemy that "is in its last throes", as Dick Cheney, the vice-president, recently remarked.
Indeed, in polling that my company did in early March 2003, as America was leading up to war, support for the conflict went down to the middle and high 30s, from the high 40s, if US voters saw hundreds of American and thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties. Those numbers now appear to be prescient. I have learnt from my polling after 9/11 that Americans are still very much in the post-Vietnam war era: they want their wars to be won, to be over quickly and the troops out of harm's way.
This opinion piece makes a few notable points:
- Zogby notes rightly that Bush sold himself as "decisive" and "meaning what he says". That's his main strength, and it's currently taking a pounding. This suggests that it is essential to continue to push the "untrustworthy" and "unaccountable" stories, and to focus on all the lies. It is slowly seeping through, and the effort must continue;
- he also points out, sensibly, that Americans want results ("they want their wars to be won, to be over quickly and the troops out of harm's way"). The results are not there. Bush is incompetent, and he is stubbornly heading toward new levels of incompetence. That must also be repeated - Bush is pushing things in the wrong direction, towards failure. The perception is beginning to be there, and must be amplified;
- Zogby suggest, and his wording shows that he believes it himself, that the economy is doing well (although that is not enough to compensate for the perception that the war is going badly). This is something that needs to be fought harder. The economy is not going well for most Americans, and that meme must be fought at all times. Use the numbers in Stirling Newberry's recent diary: How can an economy this good feel so bad (although I would suggest to stop saying completely that the economy is "good", and stick at most to "apparently good")
But this is the main frame:
The Bush presidency is all about Iraq and today neither is doing well.