From It Affects You

The ride may be ending.

After yesterday's CBS poll showed Bush with a 37% approval rate, I speculated that the low number was only part of the story.  The real story was in his support among his base, or more accurately his tenuous support among his base. His near unconditional support among self-identified Republicans was the only thing keeping his numbers from hitting the floor, and the CBS poll (plus common sense analysis of conservative reactions to his spending on Katrina and nomination of Harriet Miers) hinted that support was on the verge of collapse.

Well, today the AP released the results of their own poll, and it is no longer just a theory.  Once again, the low number (39%) is the secondary story.  Bush is suffering from real discontent among the conservative ranks, and that is the meat here.  Bush has been mired in the high 30's and low 40's for months now even while consistently getting 85%+ approval ratings from self-identified Republicans.  Consider what will happen to his ratings as this group abandons him.  Could it be possible to see his numbers approach 30%?

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

CBS just released new polling data which shows Bush, once again, hitting new lows. (They have him at 37%.)  Last month, when Bush's numbers first dropped below the 40% barrier, I speculated that they could in fact sink lower.  My reasoning back then was based primarily on two points:

• Bush's overall approval rating was higher than his approval rating in every single individual area except the war on terror.  His numbers were being propped up by a single area, and one which his support has been steadily sinking.  (More details here.)

• If you add all the positive numbers together (strongly approve, somewhat approve, lean towards approval), they were still less than the single "strongly disapprove" category.  People disapproving of Bush's job performance were a great deal more convinced than those who support him.  An upward move with such numbers is certainly not impossible, but it's actually easier to go down.  (More details here.)

Katrina had hit by the time those polls were conducted, so the results reflected the failed federal response, but it's too easy to shrug them all off entirely as a result of that disaster.  His numbers were already going down hill.  A month long vacation in the midst of a war did not help, nor did the many vacations he took from his vacation, nor the mother of a slain soldier he refused to meet.

Since I wrote that analysis a couple more things happened which change the equation a bit.

It appears the Katrina disaster did not significantly undercut Bush's support among the conservative base.  What did undercut his support among this group, interestingly enough, was his pledge to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.  They were apparently satisfied enough with the federal response not to question their support for Bush, but the first real grumblings came when Bush pledged not only a massive use of the federal government, but also about a gazillion dollars to the cause.  

And, of course, there is Miers.  It has already been written here and elsewhere how deeply disappointed and bitter many conservatives - particularly Right Wing Sexual Conservatives - are over her nomination.  They view it as a betrayal.

Add the spending and use of government issues with the Miers nomination, and for the first time that I can recall, Bush's support among his core supporters is in serious jeopardy.  

In this CBS poll, Bush still received a very healthy 79% approval rating from self identified Republicans.  CBS unfortunately does not give breakdowns from previous polls, but I generally see his results in the mid to upper 80's.  Having a sizable core group of supporters consistently giving you 80% and above approval ratings will do wonders for your overall mark.  But imagine how vulnerable you are if your ratings are down in the upper 30's and low 40's even with such high marks from your core group.  Any slippage among that group and you could be in for a world of hurt.  Well, Bush is in for a world of hurt.

The two points I made last month still hold.  Add in some lost support among Republicans, and Bush's numbers could go lower than most of us ever anticipated.

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

I've read many great defenses of prosecutor Ronnie Earle here and elsewhere.  As they point out, he's got a decidely nonpartisan record, having prosecuted four times as many Democrats as Republicans.  But as good and as accurate as these defenses are, many play into DeLay's frame.

The evidence is clear enough and presented well enough that we will convince any reasonable person that Earle's motivations are not partisan. But the mere mention of the argument in these terms forces people to answer the question "Is Earle (Are Democrats) targeting DeLay for partisan reasons?"  The frame is of angry Democrats out on a witch hunt for Republican blood, and so it allows DeLay to change the subject.  When responding, we need to reframe it so people are instead asking themselves, "Are DeLay and his supporters smearing an honest public servant so they can avoid accountability?"  The frame now is of unethical Conservatives looking to get away with bad behavior by blaming others.  The focus stays on conservative corruption, and we become the aggressors rather than the defenders.  

It should not be difficult to do.  After all, wouldn't you expect someone with a history of unethical behavior to defend himself using unethical methods?  It plays right into our frame.  So when we're facing accusations of Earle being on a partisan witch hunt, we should not respond with, "Earle is not playing politics because..."  Instead we should respond with, "As he's always done, Tom DeLay is using dishonest and unethical methods to achieve his goals.  Now that he's been indicted for some of those tactics, rather than face the consequences, he and his supporters are attempting to smear those who stand against his unethical behavior..."

And then, thanks to the great work of Think Progress and others, we have plenty of evidence to go on the attack to show that DeLay and his apologists are sliming a dedicated and honest public servant.

This is not a time to be on the defensive, it's a time to attack.  

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

During his testimony to the congressional whitewash panel on Katrina, Brownie got right down to the heart of the problem:

Forget for the moment Brownie's specific incompetence (though it is great) and forget for the moment he's accepting some responsibility primarily by blaming others.  (He said he should have recognized Blanco and Nagin were not getting the job done and stepped up himself, for example.)  Forget for a moment the specific incompetence of the Bush administration (though it, too, is great.)  Brownie's quote gets right to the philosophy which pervades conservative thinking, and which is really at the heart of the failed preparations and response.

Katrina was not, of course, some small disaster effecting one or two communities across the country.  It was likely the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.  It's an argument for a responsible government - before, during and after - if there ever was one.  Hearing Brownie express disdain for the very job function of the agency he headed gets at the larger problem which most of what we witnessed springs from - modern conservatism itself.

The Katrina disaster did not simply expose incompetence at high levels of government.  It did that in spades, to be sure, but it exposed a great deal more.  Bush didn't fill key positions at agencies critical to the safety of Americans with cronies strictly because he's part of a corrupt system.  He was able to do it with relative ease because Conservatives do not take these agencies seriously.  In the modern conservative view, it's not the role of the federal government to provide disaster relief, so it's not any sort of controversy to appoint a clearly under-qualified individual to head the agency assigned to respond to disasters.  It's not the role of the federal government to oversee health care issues, so there's nothing wrong with placing a veterinarian in charge of women's health at the FDA.

Politically, they could not cut cut these programs, but that does not mean they need to take them seriously.  If you don't value these programs, if you don't believe their missions are any business of the federal government's, then you don't really care about the qualifications of the people you appoint.  These are useless, wasteful programs which can't be cut, so they might as well be used to reward supporters.  So what if key government programs are undermined?  They're not worthwhile to begin with. This is not a surprising development, and perhaps even an inevitable one, of the modern conservative takeover of government.

We can try to fix the problems on the ground - which we must - but we cannot let it end there.  We have an incompetent conservative administration in the White House and mostly incompetent conservative leadership in congress.  That made matters worse, but it did not create the problems.  The real problem is modern conservatism itself.

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

I know what you're thinking.  "Surely if Hillary Clinton perfected human cloning, I would have heard about it."  That's what I thought, too.  But that might just be the best explanation for the recent multiple Hillary sightings.

We've been hearing from the Right Wing that Hillary is busy "pretending" to be a centrist in order to broaden her appeal for a presidential run in 2008.  Well, it seems her GOP rivals in New York have uncovered a second Hillary who is simultaneously busy appealing to the left wing fringe.

This first bit is from Jeanine Pirro:

Of course, that's Pirro's entire schtick.  Whatever Hillary does, attack it as evidence she's using New York to become our president in 2008.  "Hillary Clinton ordered her bagel with cream cheese this morning because she's focused more on 2008 than she is on New Yorkers."

And talk about sweet irony.  Like the majority of Clinton's constituents, Pirro is pro-choice.  Yet she's been trying to court New York's conservative party by softening her views on protecting reproductive rights.  Or, as Pirro would say, she's appeasing the most partisan wing of the Republican Party.  Not to mention Pirro is pretty clearly telling us that if elected, she would not take her constituents' views into account and instead vote against the views of a majority of New Yorkers.

But I digress.  The real story here is Hillary's clone which is partaking in the exact opposite strategy as the real Hillary.  Or maybe it's an evil twin?

Another opponent apparently had an encounter with Clinton's clone/evil twin:

Man, this is getting confusing.  Who can keep track of the centrist/extremest Hillaries?

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

There's a new AP poll measuring Americans' attitudes towards issues relating to Katrina - mostly it highlights the usual areas.

But viewing the topline results (PDF), I found a very interesting question not featured in the AP's own story on their survey:

From It Affects You

Ipsos has now released the topline results of their survey (PDF), and as I speculated below, Bush's total in all three "positive categories" is less than the total in just the single "strongly disapprove" category.

Strongly approve      20
Somewhat approve     11
Lean towards approval     8
Still have mixed feelings     1
Lean towards disapproval     14
Somewhat disapprove     5
Strongly disapprove     40
Not sure     1
Total Approve     39
Total Disapprove     59

I expect many conservative pundits will, if they address this at all, dismiss the low ratings as a blip relating to the "liberal media's" negative portrayal of Bush's handling of Katrina.  While his inept handling of the crisis likely did help drive his numbers down, there's every reason to believe this is more than a blip.

First, as I wrote below, the distribution of his approval/disapproval ratings suggests the disapproval numbers are far more solid than the approval numbers.  He is on far shakier grounds with those who view him positively and it may actually be easier for him to go down than up.

Second, all the major surveys from August showed Bush at lows or near lows for his presidency.  His approval rating was sinking before Katrina.

And third, looking at Zogby's breakouts, it appears even these low numbers may represent a bit of a bubble.  Except for the war on terror, Bush's rating in every single category was lower than his overall approval rating.  Every single one.  That means his approval ratings are likely "overvalued" and being held up by a single, tenuous category.  As Team Bush tries to rally support for the war in Iraq by placing the PR machine into full court press mode to tie it closely with the war on terror, it is likely to backfire.  Rather than pull public opinion on Iraq up, it should weigh public opinion on Bush's handling of the war on terror down.   And then there's Bush's disastrous handling of Katrina which should have shattered the myth that conservative policy is keeping America safe at home.  

Bush is in trouble on his "signature issue," the one he has most politicized and the one holding up his low ratings.  Once that falls consistent ratings in the 30s will be inevitable.

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

Homeland Security is a $40 billion a year monster, and preparing for disasters is at the top of their list.  Literally.  The first bullet point on their list of priorities is "Supporting First Responders."  The last few days they had an opportunity to show off the apparatus which they supposedly have been building to keep us safe in the event of a terrorist attack, and what they have shown should leave all Americans demanding answers.