Friday, July 01, 2005

Bush Lame Duck Watch

This Week's Bush Lame Duck Watch: 1630 (+70)

A smaller bump up this week, but the trend is still increasing.

Significant contributors to the trend include this Knight-Ridder report on conservative factions beginning to prepare for a post-Bush world:

Conservatives now are under the twin burdens of governing and holding onto power. The pressure on them has deepened fissures within the conservative movement, pitting fiscal hawks against "big government" Republicans and social conservatives against business groups.

President Bush has managed to hold the coalition together. But as he nears lame-duck status and conservatives start thinking about the post-Bush era, the rising tensions within their ranks are forcing them to rethink their agenda. At stake is whether they build an enduring majority or slip into decline and lose power.

There was also a repeat of the phenomena we saw last week where reports of Tony Blair as a lame duck showed up because they also mentioned Bush. Except that this week the lame duck standin is Germany's Gerhard Schroeder. This was actually a major contributor to the hits this week.

(Explanation: The Bush Lame Duck Watch is a weekly measure of the hits on Google News for "Bush" and "Lame Duck". The numbers in parenthesis represents the change from the previous weeks number (It is also a link to the previous weeks post.))

Thursday, June 30, 2005

The significance of impeachment

Think Progress thinks it is significant that 42 percent of those polled would approve of impeachment for a president who lied us into war:

A newly-released Zogby poll indicates that 42 percent of voters say that “if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.”

That is a stunningly high number when you consider that only 41 percent of the American public supported Congress proceeding with impeachment hearings against President Clinton in late September 1998. This was after President Clinton’s grand jury testimony was made public and just before the House Judiciary Committee approved a resolution recommending an impeachment inquiry.

I respectfully disagree with Think Progress on the significance of this result. First of all, the question asked was not whether Bush should be impeached but whether he should be impeached if he is found to have lied us into war.

But, even more important, I find it astounding that fully 58% of those polled aren't sure whether a president who lies us into war should be impeached. Admittedly, given the context of the question, most Republicans are going to side with Bush and most Democrats are going to side against Bush. But the numbers suggest that a significant number of independents are comfortable with the idea of a president who lies about the reasons for going to war.

That's not something to cheer about.

What is significant, however, is that things have gone far enough that Zogby decided to poll on the question. The impeachment meme has gone mainstream.

Early signs of the next smear Dean campaign?

The DNC's new Democracy Bonds effort is actually a mockery of WWII era war bonds according to the latest right-wing talking point:

You would think in this time of war that Americans could pull together and support the troops and America’s cause. That certainly is the rhetoric coming from both Left and Right these days.

And yet in a tasteless new fundraising gimmick, embattled DNC Chairman Howard Dean is issuing what he calls "Democracy Bonds" to, well, to raise money to elect Democrats.

“Democracy Bonds” are, of course, a mockery of the War Bonds the federal government issued during World War II to help finance the war against Nazism. Dean's "bonds" are even designed to look vaguely like authentic U.S. War Bonds from the early-1940s.

Dean’s fundraising gimmick emerged in the same week President George W. Bush urged Americans to support the troops and military families by visiting a new Department of Defense website, Americasupportsyou.mil.

Dean’s new gimmick comes on the heels of a recent dip in support for the Iraq War fuelled largely by the rhetoric of Democrat politicians.

I asked one military mom whose husband is “over there” her thoughts on Chairman Howard’s new shtick.

“Disgusting,” is all she could say.

This has all the elements of being a focus group tested smear: faux outrage, allegations of anti-patriotism, the anonymous quote from a "disgusted" military mom, the claim that if it just were for those annoying critics then the support for the war would be just fine.

I don't know if this smear will take off. But keep an eye out for it. Let's see if FOX starts doing special segments on Dean's "mockery".

BTW, I loved this one comment attached to this post:

OK guys--you have gone a little overboard. If the Republicans had done this it would have been patriotic but the dems did it so it is in poor taste. I like it though--please keep hammering at Howard Dean. It makes life easier for the rest of the party.

Translation: it's a smear, I know it's a smear, but I approve it because it may hurt the Dems.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Asking the impossible

The BooMan gives the most concise and to the point analysis of Bush's grand fuckup that I have read in some time. First there is the reason why we can't simply pull out:

I notice this dovetails with a CIA study that was reported on this week in the New York Times. And it is probably true that pulling out of Iraq will leave behind a trained force of terrorists filled with a belief that Allah has given them a great victory.

But the real risk in Iraq is that an implosion of their society could draw in neighboring countries, it could result in ethnic and sectarian cleansing. And it could be disruptive to the energy sector of the world economy.

But, as bad as pulling out would be, Bush's "stay the course" approach is equally doomed to failure. A much more radical approach is needed, one so radical that there is no way that Bush will ever do it: he has to admit he made a mistake and he has to buy cooperation from Democrats and the Europeans by giving up on certain key elements of his agenda. It's hard to know which will be more impossible for him to do.

I know it's difficult to admit mistakes, and it's even harder to ask for help from your political enemies. But that is what Bush needs to do.

First, he needs to admit that he miscalculated how the Iraqis would feel about being liberated and occupied by the United States. Then he needs to explain what the humanitarian and economic risks are if Iraq becomes a failed state, and a regional battlefield. Then he needs to ask for help.

And since he has burned his bridges with both the American left, and with our European allies, he needs to offer us both something in return for our willingness to step in and try to clean up his mess.

The choice is Bush's. Which does he consider more important: (1) fixing the problems in Iraq and securing us from the danger it represents or (2) giving up his public image of infallibity.

Please Mr. President. We want to help you. We want our future to be secure. We want to wake up in a world where we no longer dread what may happen today.

But we can't give you our help if you won't ask for it.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Bushies' sense of invulnerability cracking?

I have a feeling that the White House PR team is kicking themselves over their handling of Bush's Fort Bragg speech. Here's why:

1. It probably seemed a great idea at first to have Bush address the nation about Iraq in front of soldiers. Bush is most comfortable speaking to crowds of men and women in uniform. He really seems to groove on them (and they seem to groove on him as well). What better message to send to Americans than that the troops love Bush and if Americans love the troops then they better love Bush as well?

2. However, as the day of the speech approached, the PR team probably started thinking of an alternative outcome: criticism of Bush for using soldiers as props to prop up his falling approval ratings. Of course, Bush has been doing this for some time, but the mood has started to swing within the establishment media and they are much more likely today to make some noise about this than they would have even two months back.

3. Furthermore, the image of a bunch of "HooHaw"-ing troops probably wouldn't play well with Americans who are growing increasingly anxious about what is happening in Iraq. While Bush plays well with the military crowd, he tends to get all goofy gus while talking with them. When your approval ratings on Iraq are sinking into the 30% range the last image you want to send is of a Command-in-Chief yucking it up.

4. But it was to late to cancel the appearance with the troops. So instead they sent word down late today that the troops were to stifle the "HooHaw"-s and give the President a respectful reception.

5. But what they got was an image of several hundred soldiers sitting stiffly on their hands, even as Bush approached the podium, while Bush recited his "stay the course" message. The only time this changed was when a couple of Bush staffers, probably out of nervous energy, started clapping and launched a scattered wave of applause.

6. The lack of applause has been a major talking point in the post speech analysis fest. So much so that even FOX news was forced to talk about it.

The Bush team probably should have gone with the first instinct. Let the soldiers "HooHaw" and damn the criticism. In fact, they probably could have turned such criticism against the critics as they usually do. The fact that they might have worried that they couldn't may just be a sign that the Bushies sense of invulnerability is cracking.

Bush's grand idea!

So what is Bush doing to show the troops that America supports them? Is he increasing funds for body and vehicle armor? No. He's set up a web site!

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our Nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, coast guardsman, and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom – by flying the flag … sending letters to our troops in the field … or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website – AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

Yeah! Fly the flag! Send letters! Support the military family down the street (someone needs to!) Organize raffles to raise money to buy bullet proof vests! Show that you love America!

And stop all that complaining!

Compare and Contrast

Rick Perlstein, courtesy Digby, reminds us of another historical parallel to the Vietnam era:
Rick Perlstein wrote me an e-mail and reminded me that it was just two weeks after the biggest peace march in American history that Dick Nixon gave his famous "Silent majority" speech on Vietnam --- November 3, 1969. He laid out his plan to "win" the war and successfully marginalized what was becoming a very mainstream anti-war movement. Perlstein thinks that the Bush people probably studied this speech very closely and I suspect he's right.
I suspect he is right to. But there is one major difference between then and now. Then Nixon had a very visible protest ("the biggest in American history") with which to contrast against his "Silent Majority". Now Bush has no similarly sized organized anti-war effort to use as a contrast (as I talked about previously). That doesn't mean Bush won't try to paint what criticism he has received as part of some unwashed, Hate-America-First, rabble. Karl Rove gave a preview of this last week. But Nixon's job was a lot easier than it will be for Bush. There really was a large unwashed rabble screaming at the gates for Nixon to point to and say, "If you don't want to be seen like that then you better support me." Bush/Rove has tried to paint MoveOn as the modern day equivalent, but the comparison is rather problematical when you have to contrast this: With this: (The latter image is of Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, the founders of MoveOn. I don't know who the hippie peacenik is.) Read all of Digby's post. He points out the many difficulties Bush will have in having a Nixonian moment tonight. That isn't to say he can't pull it off, of course. Ever vigilant.

Monday, June 27, 2005

52% of Americans say Bush "Intentionally Misled The American Public" Into Iraq War

Check it out.

The truly amazing thing about this statistic is that there has actually been very little concerted effort to bring down Bush's approval ratings on Iraq (despite the desperate attempts of Rove and company to blame it on liberal malcontents). The anti-war movement's last significant public action was the protest in New York city during the GOP convention. No prominent Democrat has made a habit of attacking Bush on his handling of Iraq. There are the occaisional Durbins and Conyers, but they are potshots at best and hardly evidence of an organized effort to undermine the leadership of this country in a time of war.

The dissapproval of Bush on Iraq has pretty much grown organically within the American populace. It didn't need protests to make it happen. In fact, the lack of protests may have actually helped. There is significant evidence that the vehement protests during Vietnam may have actually hardened the hearts of the average American. Citizens may have felt uncomfortable about what was happening in Southeast Asia, but their dislike of the "hippies" was even more pronounced. It took several years for the ugliness of LBJ's folly to overcome their distate for the "freaks".

Now the American people don't have "long hairs" in the streets to distract them from what is going on in Iraq. They are seeing it straight and they aren't buying the happy talk from the Bush crew.

I personally believe that, in the long run, it is better to make clear that there is opposition to actions like the war in Iraq. It's hard to project an image of strong leadership if all you do is just sit there (unless "sitting there" is part of your protest). But when you live in a society where the liars control all the levers and all the cameras it may actually make sense to just step back and let them fall flat on their face.

At least if you aren't standing near them it makes it that much harder for them to accuse you of tripping them.