A serious credibility problem

July 14, 2005

For reasons that I’ve never fully understood, the president has excelled in recent years as someone people trust. Even when voters don’t agree with him on an issue, the idea goes, Bush is at least credible and consistent. A “say what you mean, mean what you say” type.

This has never made any sense, but it’s kept Bush afloat politically for nearly five years. Without trustworthiness, Bush’s authority and standing collapse.

And when one considers the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, we see that this collapse is already underway.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows how much Mr. Bush’s political standing has been weakened as he confronts controversy over a top aide’s discussion of a Central Intelligence Agency operative’s employment, a Supreme Court vacancy, his Social Security plan and Iraq. Majorities of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, foreign policy and Iraq. And a plurality rates Mr. Bush negatively on “being honest and straightforward” for the first time in his presidency.

Specifically, the percentage of Americans who believe Bush is “honest and straightforward” has fallen to 41% (in January, it was 50%). The timing for an erosion of public trust in the president couldn’t be much worse for the Bush gang — this poll was taken before the public started hearing about Karl Rove’s role in leaking Valerie Plame’s undercover identity.

That’s right, this poll is awful news for the president, but it came before a major White House criminal scandal broke onto America’s front pages. In other words, it can, and probably will, get worse for Bush.

A few other random notes from the poll that are worth keeping in mind:

* When asked if they’d prefer a Dem Congress or Republican Congress after the 2006 elections, 45% of Americans want Dems in charge, while 38% want the GOP. It’s the worst Republicans have scored on this question since NBC/WSJ started asking it in January.

* Respondents were asked if they thought it would be a good idea to change Social Security to “allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market.” 57% said it was a bad idea; 33% said it’s a good idea — the worst performance for privatization since NBC/WSJ started asking the question last December.

* Respondents were also asked about their thoughts on replacing Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. A surprising 55% of Americans want a justice who will uphold affirmative action, and a whopping 65% say they don’t want to see Roe v Wade overturned.

* Overall, Bush’s approval rating stands at 46%, the second lowest it’s been in any NBC/WSJ poll since 2001.

For reasons I don’t understand, Democrats seem to take the anti-Rove strategy that says they should never attack a person’s strength. If a person like Bush simply declares their honesty enough times that the idea starts to stick, the Democrats seem to think it is then off limits, that it would be dumb to go against public opinion.

Public opinion can be formed. We shouldn’t fret about pointing out dishonesty. Attack his strength relentlessly, as Rove would. In our case, it will be the truth.

  • One thought – it is easy to project what you want in someone when that someone is/seems a blank slate. Just look at his life.

    He has lived it in a bubble created by money and the Bush name. Unlike his brother Jeb who has actually tried to do something with his life, Bush 43 has done nothing much of note until he decided he wanted to be governor and then president. It is hard to see anything in a man who has coasted though his life (though much of it in a alcolohic haze). So because there isn’t much to see people project or try and fill the void and are abetted by his political handlers.

    Anyway, many people’s impression of politicians is farily shallow so all one needs is a veneer of trustworthiness – no futher digging is necessary for many average voters.

  • He has lived it in a bubble created by money and the Bush name.

    This helps him a lot because he genuinely doesn’t give a rat’s ass what people think. It’s this quality of not giving a damn about others that people confuse with being straightforward.

  • Attack his strength relentlessly, as Rove would. In our case, it will be the truth.

    Memekiller is spot on. If the current Dem leadership doesn’t do it, the next gen will.

  • Rove’s philosophy isn’t “attack your strength,” it’s “attack what should be unattackable” — there’s a difference. In Bush’s case that would mean saying not, “Look at how Bush lies!” — hell, MoveOn.org and Media Matters do that every day — no, it would consist of saying, “Bush is too hifalutin and Bush is too left-wing and Bush doesn’t care enough about oil and Bush is too pro-homosexual.”

    Now THOSE are arguments that would leave the GOP flummoxed– because they make no sense. That’s the genius of the Rove strategy.

  • I don’t know, Martin, that’s the case in some attacks, but it’s more of a “no shame” issue—go right after what everyone supposedly thinks is true/unassailable. This, go after a Vet hero as a coward, etc.

    So, I’d think we could see something like, “George Bush is a coward—he can’t fire a traitor,” “George Bush is indecisive,” “George Bush makes his decisions based on what a prosecutor tells him,â€? “George Bush is helping the enemy,â€? “the terrorists voted for GWB.â€?

    While some of this is true, and while Dems should have talking points like these if they are serious about an attack on the WH, part of the problem is that saying crazy stuff is easier if you have no scruples. So, Democrats are at a disadvantage against the thuggish hoodlums running national Republican campaigns.

  • To me, one of the reasons Bush has been able to keep the “say what you mean, mean what you say” impression is because he is great at saying toughing sounding statements that are so vague that they are meaninless. For example, his standard statement on Plame – “I have told everyone in the White House to fully cooperate with the investigation” – sounded great to a casual observer, but covered the fact that he wasn’t lifting a finger to find out how leaked Plame’s name.

  • To make Rove’s philosophy to work, you have to have a massive message delivery infrastructure how well say whatever lies they are told to say. The Swifties worked because Fox and Rush gave them lavish covereage and just about every media pundit treated all their claims with absolute seriousness. The MSM then started echoing what VRWC was saying. The Left has no equivalent message delivery infrastructure. The Democrats can think up all sorts of wonderful attacks, but they don’t have any effective way of delivering them.

  • Earlier this week, the LA Times ran an article
    predicting a bounce in the polls for Bush after
    the London bombings. So called political experts
    had made the prognostications.

    It didn’t happen, did it? Interesting. Perhaps
    a good sign, coupled with other poll results.

    But predictably, the London bombings remain top
    news, day after day, while even more ghastly
    carnage continues in Iraq, hardly covered at
    all. Will the irony ever strike the American
    people? Here we are, fighting like hell for
    Iraqi freedom and democracy, sacrificing nearly
    2000 coalition soldiers, and yet the slaughter
    of innocents in Iraq is barely mentioned, as if
    these people don’t really count.

    If they don’t count, then what the hell have nearly
    1800 U.S. soldiers been sacrificed for? And if
    they do count, then for God’s sakes why aren’t we
    talking about the horrors over there, and doing
    something about it, instead of perpetuating this
    madness that goes on killing and killing and killing
    and destroying and destroying and destroying?

    Are human beings capable of rational thought? Of
    compassion? Empathy? Are we all really sociopaths
    masquerading as something else?

    • Comments are closed.