Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://snipurl.com/e1s9

Bush's Poll Position Is Worst on Record:
Second Terms are Tough, and No President Has Banked Less Political Capital
for the Fights Ahead

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Monday, April 11, 2005; 8:29 AM

With apologies to George Tenet, the first 100 days of President Bush's
second term have been no slam-dunk.

How rough has it been? Bush has the lowest approval rating of any
president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls
going back to World War II.

Bush's erosion of support among independents in particular has helped
bring his overall approval rating down to 45 percent. Forty-nine percent
disapprove of his performance.

Compare Bush's Gallup numbers taken in late March to poll numbers taken at
the same point in the presidencies of the six previous men who served two
terms:

Clinton: 59 percent approval versus 35 percent disapproval

Reagan: 56 percent versus 37 percent disapproval

Nixon: 57 percent versus 34 percent

Johnson: 69 percent versus 21 percent

Eisenhower: 65 percent versus 20 percent

Truman: 57 percent versus 24 percent

True enough, Bush's numbers weren't all that high to begin with. In the
last Gallup poll before the election, he was at 48 percent approval to 47
percent disapproval -- yet he still won and helped his party in the
process.

But second terms are often more difficult than first terms. In addition to
administration scandals, the re-elected president's party often loses
seats in the mid-term congressional elections. Bush will need a higher
approval rating if he hopes to avoid the "Sixth Year Itch."

Only 38 percent of respondents said they believed Bush had done an
excellent or good job in his first 100 days, compared to 58 percent who
believed he had done a fair or poor job, according to a poll conducted
March 31 to April 1 by Westhill Partners and the National Journal's
Hotline.

People will analyze the data differently. But here are a few things that I
believe have hurt the administration in the last few months:

� Overconfidence: The president beamed with confidence after his November
defeat of John Kerry. After the election, Bush told a news conference, "I
earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to
spend it. It is my style." This statement was certainly no surprise, given
that Bush governed as though he had a clear mandate even after losing the
popular vote by a half-million to Al Gore in 2000. But the reality of
Bush's victory in 2004 was that he won with 50.7 percent of the popular
vote to Sen. John F. Kerry's 48.2 percent. You'd have to back to at least
the early 1800s to find a president who has been re-elected by a closer
margin.

The nation remains nearly evenly divided, yet Bush came out of the blocks
as if he'd won by a Reaganesque landslide.

� Social Security: By the time Bush began pushing his first round of tax
cuts in 2001, he had already been advocating the issue for two years,
starting as a candidate in 1999. Bush made the issue his first priority,
deploying his proven communications apparatus to make the case that the
cuts benefited middle-class people and small business owners. By the time
Bush took the nation to war in March 2003, he had been building his case,
piece-by-piece, for months. But during his reelection campaign, he said
little about Social Security. Had he made it a major issue, Kerry might be
sitting in the White House today, a point that is reinforced by the
reluctance of voters to accept Bush's proposal today. Democrats certainly
would have been able to use the issue to bludgeon Bush among older voters,
who also comprise the most reliable block of voters.

After the election, Bush signaled clearly that Social Security reform
would be the first domestic priority of his second term, putting the issue
on the table before clearly laying out the case for the need to make
changes. Democrats, defying their recent inability to coalesce around
anything controversial, came together on this issue and quickly used their
historic advantage on Social Security to define the debate before the
White House. The administration is still playing catch-up, even working to
overcome skeptical Republicans. Meanwhile, most polls show the public is
strongly opposed to private accounts.

� Terri Schiavo: Bush declined to cut short his vacation after the
southeast Asian Tsunami disaster, even as it became clear that it would be
of epic proportions. Then, months later, he interrupted another vacation
in Texas to fly back to Washington in the middle of the night to sign
legislation, pushed through in a rare weekend session, designed to keep a
severely brain-damaged Florida woman alive. The actions of Bush and his
party appeared to deviate from their stated principles supporting states'
rights and the sanctity of marriage and their opposition to judge
shopping. Most polls have shown widespread disapproval of the president's
handling of the issue, even among Republicans.

� Iraq: The recent Iraqi elections gave supporters of the president's
foreign policy something to cheer about. But then the Commission on the
Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass
Destruction -- which had been created reluctantly by the president --
issued a scathing report about the CIA's intelligence failures leading up
to the war. Fortunately for the White House, the commission was tasked
with analyzing the intelligence-gathering agencies, and not how the
president and other policy makers used the intelligence to make the case
for war. The administration has long maintained, essentially, that
everyone in the world believed that Hussein was building WMD. But there
was never anything close to unanimity within the intelligence community
about Hussein's stockpiles or capability to deliver them. Whatever the
case, the public remains dissatisfied about the president's handling of
Iraq, with 41 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving, according to
the Westhill Journal poll.

� The economy: A majority of Americans -- 56 percent according to the
Westhill poll -- oppose the president's handling of the economy.
Republicans are even feuding even among themselves about the president's
agenda, disagreeing on whether to push for a new round of tax cuts or to
focus on tackling a massive federal budget deficit that clearly now is
more than just a short-term problem.

For the first time in his presidency, Bush made a real effort to cut and
slow spending, but his budget barely nips at the edges of the massive
inequity between government revenues and spending. The signature economic
achievements of Bush's first months of his second term -- new laws
restricting class action lawsuits and bankruptcy protections -- could be
two issues that resonate little with Joe and Jane Sixpack. Congress has
already pushed through legislation designed at curbing class action
lawsuits -- a top priority of the corporate lobby. And the Senate has
passed a bill that would make it much more difficult for people to declare
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, another corporate top priority. The House appears
poised to pass a similar piece of legislation.

What difference does it make that Bush poll numbers appear to be weak on
all of the major issues that have come up so far in his second term? One
of the enduring realities of the American presidency is that second terms
are often politically tougher than first terms. What's unusual in Bush's
case is that the public's typical second-term disillusionment began so
early. In one sense, this matters little because Bush will never run for
another election. But it could be an early sign of trouble for his party,
especially when you consider that the Republican-run Congress's approval
rating has dropped to its lowest point in nearly a decade, with only 40
percent or fewer approving of the job it is doing, according to several
recent polls.

Among political professionals, the campaign season runs continuously. So
even though there's little news about it in the nation's papers and
broadcasts, both parties are already in the thick of candidate recruitment
for the 2006 midterm congressional elections. Much is at stake. Elections
in the sixth year of a presidency are typically perilous territory for the
party of the president in power.

"There have been six of these elections in the post-World War II era
(1950, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986, and 1998). The average loss for the White
House in these sixth year elections has been six Senate seats -- double
the overall midterm average loss of three seats," wrote Larry J. Sabato,
the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, in a
recent analysis.

A loss of six seats for Republicans would put Democrats back in control of
the Senate. But averages are nothing more than academic debating points.
In truth, each election has its own dynamic.

Clinton's Democrats lost no seats in 1998's congressional elections. But
Eisenhower, who began his second term with significantly more popularity
than Bush, saw his party lose 13 seats in the Senate in the 1958 midterm
election.

"[Bush] got no real bounce out of the election," said nonpartisan election
analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "He has had an ambitious but controversial
agenda and doesn't start off with widespread support. And I think it's
relevant a couple ways, both down the road and over the next six months.
First it will affect candidate recruitment. And it will also impact his
ability to intimidate the Hill."

Some left-wing activists are becoming increasing engaged in an effort to
defeat the bankruptcy bill in the House. They appear to be energized not
only by the president's troubles on the economy, but by their anger at the
18 Democrats broke ranks to support the bill in the Senate.

And the Schiavo case may complicate the GOP's efforts on other parts of
its domestic agenda, particularly the nomination of conservative Bush
appointees to the bench. Democrats are planning to use the Schiavo case --
and the disparaging comments made by congressional Republican leaders
about the judges in that case -- to argue against the elimination of the
filibuster in judicial nominations, which some Republicans are advocating.

Of course, none of Bush's problem matters if the Democrats can't get on
the same page. Already the party has shown deep fissures on the Schiavo
case as well as the class-action lawsuit and bankruptcy bills. Nearly as
many Democrats voted for the Schiavo bill as voted against it, which will
complicate the party's efforts to make a sustained case about GOP
extremism in coming months.

The Republican triumph of 2004 was less about the electorate's
overwhelming love for the Bush agenda than it was about the failure of
Kerry and the Democrats to present an enticing and viable alternative and
a cohesive vision for the future.

As it stands today, there's little evidence -- outside of the Social
Security issue -- that the Democrats have changed all that much since
Kerry's defeat in November. They don't appear positioned to take advantage
of Bush's dropping poll numbers any more than Republicans are queuing up
behind the president as a strong leader of the party. It seems in some
ways that both parties are doing their best to lose.

_____________________________

Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of 
articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. 
 If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this 
message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, 
send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
or you can visit:
http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news  Go to that same 
web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe.

E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few 
days will be deleted from this list.

FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the 
information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have 
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes.  I am making such material available in an effort to advance 
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, 
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair 
use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.

Reply via email to