Bush hits the 20s

I promised a while back not to publish regular polls about the president — most of which simply reinforce the obvious fact that Bush is unpopular — unless he reached new lows. In this respect, I think the new CBS poll qualifies as noteworthy.

Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he’s handling his job.

Two-thirds of Americans remain opposed to the president’s plan for sending more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq — roughly the same number as after Mr. Bush announced the plan. And 72 percent believe he should seek congressional approval for the troop increase.

It’s likely that Tony Snow would dismiss it as “just a number,” but there seems to be something psychological about these thresholds. When Bush dropped into the 40s, it was indicative of a president who was losing the middle. When he dropped into the 30s, Bush was scraping the barrel, relying on little more than support from his obstinate base. But the 20s? We’re looking at a president who has lost just about everyone, including some of his base.

In a historical context, Bush’s only post-WWII rival for public disapproval is Nixon in the midst of the Watergate crisis that drove him to resign.

The doubt on Capitol Hill reflects the continuing erosion of Bush’s public support across the country. His approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, and only twice in the past six decades has a president delivered his annual speech to the nation in a weaker condition in the polls — Harry S. Truman in the midst of the Korean War in 1952 and Richard M. Nixon in the throes of Watergate in 1974.

For the first time, majorities of Americans say Bush cannot be trusted in a crisis, has not made the country safer and should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq to avoid further casualties rather than leave them until civil order is restored. And, in a sign of intensifying opposition, a majority — 51 percent — for the first time expressed strong disapproval of Bush’s performance, compared with 17 percent who strongly approved.

“The world changed significantly on Election Day, and the only people who were surprised were them,” GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said of Bush and his aides. Now, he added, “they’ve backed themselves into a tough corner, and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want, makes him look . . . like [he’s saying], ‘I’ll listen to you, but I’ll do what I want anyway.’ “

Last week was supposed to be the start of Bush’s turn-around. The White House would launch one of its patented public-relations offenses, the gang would fan out across the media, and the public would hear all about the president’s vision.

There’s an old line, “Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than speak out and remove all doubt.” As it turns out, Bush might have been better off keeping the adage in mind. Since launching his new p.r. offensive, the public disapproves of him more, dislikes him more, distrusts him more, and rejects more of his agenda.

Good luck with that State of the Union, Mr. President. Just don’t count on too much applause.

20s? My faith in America is being slowly restored.

Now we need moves toward impeachment to complete the Bush-Nixon analogy.

Except that all analogies are never quite complete. This impeachment effort must be Cheney/Bush since they’re essentially one person.

  • This is what happens when you have a lame duck and a VP who is even less popular: they don’t have to give a flying fuck about the country.

    There is one obvious remedy: impeachment.

    It’s not just because Bush is unpopular, it’s because he’s thwarting the popular will *and* being an unconstitutional asshole.

    Maybe he doesn’t care about that stuff, or shitting on the brand of his party, but it shouldn’t be too hard to convince members of the GOP (at least some; at least the relatively sane ones) that they need to cut him loose if they want to remain in office. That’s why we should be talking about impeachment. Get Bush out of office before he fucks up anything else, and use the *threat* of impeachment to convince some Republicans to help us. What’s the percentage in siding with a guy at 28% in the polls?

    Does Karl Rove really want to go from a 50-50 country to a 70-30 country? Do other Republicans? Let’s find out…

  • I always hated all of that phony cheering. A quick, silent SOTU would be refreshing.
    And don’t forget the drinking games (how else could you watch this twerp?), with keyword possibilities like freedom, terrorism, tax relief, and 9/11, be careful with your choices. Most of us do have to work tomorrow.

  • Two-thirds of Americans remain opposed to the president’s plan for sending more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq…

    Surely the serious policy commentators (Leno, Letterman) have already suggested this, but… maybe the 20,000 people who still support Bush should be the ones who go to Iraq.

  • Here’s what Bush can say to get the public back on his side. “I fucked up everything. Big time. I’m really really really sorry about it, but I don’t know what else to do. This jobs sucks. I quit.”

  • Buzzmon, you can forget about phony cheering and applause. But don’t count on a silent gallery. I fully expect outright booing, hissing and hooting at various times during the speech tonight. And, no, they aren’t shouting “Boooosh!”.

  • I’d love to see some empty chairs at the SOTU.

    I’d love—even more—to see just a few brave souls stand up in the middle of the speech, turn their backs on this Bush-thing; this “pompous prince of pettiness,” and leave the room. Either the viewer will see acts of open dissent to the broken message carried through to simplistic completion, or they will see Bush’s “minders” forcefully prohibit people from leaving the chamber. Both scenaria can be powerful weapons in America’s “War on George’s Tyranny….”

  • Gridlock, I’d like to see that, too, though I would also expect that anything less than constant thunderous applause will be decried as “uncivil” by the whiny-ass titty-babies of the right (yes, I include Joe Lieberman in that, or rather, he includes himself, so I’m including him).

    Actually, I think that’ll be the WATB litmus test: what did you think of Bush’s speech, and the audience’s reaction?

  • Completely OT, it makes me mad that the NY Times can get away with online front page Oscar story headline: “The Carpetbagger: A Dreamgirl’s Nightmare”.

  • My uncle, a WW II vet, described going into German towns where everyone shouted “Nicht Nazi! Nicht Nazi!” He said you’d think no Nazis ever existed in Germany.

    Better late than never, of course, but where were all these Bush critics when most of the country was cheering the invasion? I have a feeling that these Johnny-come-latelys may be Bush’s worst nightmare. Nobody likes to be unmasked as a gullible fool.

  • Now that his approval is in the 20’s, why don’t these polling folks start asking, “if the president refuses to listen to the people or work with Congress, do you think he should resign? Or be impeached?”

    We don’t have a parlimentary system so what else is to be done? Honestly, I think many people are starting to feel really scared by this guy. I live in Texas so if it seems like that here, I know it must everywhere.

  • A WSJ poll (1/17-1/20) http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll-01-22-07.pdf asks the following question:
    Who do you want to see take the lead role in setting policy for the country–G.W.Bush or The Congress?

    The results are telling:
    Bush: 22%
    Congress: 57%
    Shared equal: 16%
    Neither: 3%
    Not Sure: 2%

    At this point Bush could not successfully lead a nature hike much less the world. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy, IMHO.

  • “…the only people who were surprised were them…flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want, makes him look . . . like [he’s saying], ‘I’ll listen to you, but I’ll do what I want anyway.’”

    What’s so amazing is that Republican operatives, pundits, and the few who still support Bush believe that he ever has or ever would listen to anyone save Cheney, Rove and his mom.”

    George Bush is the man who ultimately took this country to war, in the absence of any real evidence of WMD in Iraq, because he knew is his gut that Saddam Hussein had nukes. He has continued to run the world based on his ill informed intestinal fortitude, sending Condi out into the world to fog up the mirror and run the smoke machine.

  • While it would be gratifying to many of us to see the Democrats turn their backs to Bush, or give him the finger, or moon him, or whatever, such actions would represent throwing the Imbecile in Chief a life preserver. The story wouldn’t be the inanities of Bush’s speech; it would be the “unseemly” behavior of the Democrats. Remember that the DC press corps(e) above all else values decorum–certainly more than policy substance. They’re all basically royalist toadies.

    No, let the Democrats sit on their hands and stay quiet. Let the public hear Bush’s speech, full to the brim with BS and haltingly delivered by a man who like as not couldn’t define many of the words written for him, in all its meaninglessness. As CB implies, the more Bush gets in front of the populace, the more the public is disgusted with its tragic mistake.

  • Concerning whether or not the Democrats should either not applause or leave the chamber, I think they should just take a cue from the soldiers at Bush’s Ft. Benning speech: Polite applause, only because they feel they have to at least show respect for the OFFICE of President of the United States.
    Just like they tell enlisted soldiers about officers:
    “you have to respect the rank, but you don’t have to respect the person.”

    Okay, I’d really like to hear Leahy yell “go fuck yourself!”, but I’m sure that’s way below his character.

  • ***Remember that the DC press corps(e) above all else values decorum–certainly more than policy substance. They’re all basically royalist toadies.***
    ———dajafi

    This is the moment in which the story—and the control of the story—can be torn away from those “toadies.”

    ***“you have to respect the rank, but you don’t have to respect the person.”***
    ———–2Manchu

    I doubt that “george” can court-martial anyone for refusing to sit through his pending “offensive oratory.” Imagine, if you will, that Hamlet—in the midst of his commentary to Horatio governing the late Yorick—is suddenly beset by the jester’s skull hopping from his hand, and then waddling away across the cemetary. It’s comical, yes; but even more so, it is a pure-and-simple death-blow to the entire play. Such an overt act of peaceful demonstration—walking out on “his royal decidererness” could by just such a “play-wrecker” for the mismanaged stage-production that is the Bush presidency. It may also incite others to commit similar acts of non-violent protest—and the full weight of the anti-war protests during the Viet Nam era didn’t come about until those protests began occurring in places where even “the DC press corps” couldn’t simply “look the other way….”

    Now, I’m not trying to pick a fight with either of you, but it is possible for a house to be so infested with filth, disease, and waste that the final remedy is not “respect for the house,” but rather, demolition of what has become nothing more than a decrepit, beyond-hope-of-restoration structure. Personally, I think that “george” has brought just such a fate to the Office of the Presidency, and the only “remedy” to this “defiled office” is to take the proverbial wrecker’s ball to the ” entitled respect” that it no longer warrants….

  • I wouldn’t even go with polite applause. There’s respect for the office – which I’d describe as showing up and not mooning the guy – and then there’s making yourself a partisan political prop for him, which is what *any* applause for Bush or right-of-center political arguments would be construed as.

    Just sit there with cold little smiles. Then go tell the media that there wasn’t much there for the average American to be happy about, so you didn’t want to embolden Bush any further. The man’s already out of control and ignoring the public; why should we act like these are any kind of good things?

  • You do have a point. Civil disobedience helps to remind those in power that this is not a monarchy or a dictatorship. And like I said, if someone yells at Bush “fuck off, assclown”, I would be happy.

    My big worry, however, is that the MSM will blast the Democrats about their “crass and rude” behavior at the SOTU address. Then spend the next week talking about what Pelosi wore.

    The wretched hive of scum and villany that is the US Congress does need a massive dose of Clorox and Lysol. Can’t agree any more on that. I hope the Democratic leadership keeps up the cleaning.

  • I have a devil’s advocate thought to throw out there as an exercise:

    Preface: Yes, Bush is a moron of the highest order. Yes, the buck should stop somewhere (to quote a former fellow Independence, Mo., resident). Yes, he certainly helps shape quite a bit of policy. And yes, I have never hesitated to blast The Decidicator on pretty much everything.

    Question: But how much of the current debacle is directly his fault? Seriously …

    I’m not trying to defend the guy. Just saying that the war was shaped and led by Rummy (as well as the likes of Kristol, Wolfowitz, et al). A lot of policy decisions are made by The Dick. And the GOP Congress certainly had a great deal to do with piss-poor policies, votes and laws (Medicare, the Energy Bill, all the wedge issues).

    Bush has always been a “hands off” kinda guy, letting those around him do most of the hevay lifting. So should more of our ire be directed at those who are actually doing the damage, rather than the one guy who is the public face of such failures?

    Just a thought …

  • Another idea—bring a book to SOTU, and read through the entire speech. It would be a hoot if “george” were to ask someone who’s reading a book, “Whut’s that y’all ahr doin’ whilst Ah’m speechifying mah fellow ‘Murricans?”

    It would prove that the man has no idea as to what “reading a book” is about—and on a global broadcast uplink, at that….

  • Won’t Pelosi be sitting right behind him? I’m sure she’ll be a model of tranquility and refinement but I bet it will rattle the shit out of him.

    As for applauding/booing/mooning. I vote for polite applause, as appropriate. Then go back to the job of beating his sorry ass for the next two years.

  • Taio (#21)–
    I agree that booing/mooning would be inappropriate. But since most of the SOTU is utter crap full of “ideas” that will never happen, applause is also inappropriate.

    What I would LOVE to see/hear is stone cold silence.*

    Think about it … the speech will be littered with those pauses all SotU’s have — the ones in which the Prez waits for applause. Can you imagine what a mindfuq it would be for more than half of those come across as just awkward silence?

    I think the dude’s head would implode.

    *Note: I’d rather have a kabob of broken glass repeatedly shoved into my inner ear canal than hear Bush speak. So I’ll be playing Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando on the PS2 instead of listening/watching.

    🙂

  • I suspect that any display of overt rudeness would be harped upon endlessly by the Republicans and the press, and would be unpopular with a sizable fraction of the population. However, it is tempting to imagine a scenario where most Democrats simply failed to show up, and later said ‘when he listens to us, we’ll listen to him’.

  • The worst insult for W’s SOTU speech will be watching the poll numbers drop again after he speaks, as they have done after every major speech he has given for some time.

    Now that his poll numbers have made it into the twenties, how about a shot at the teens? You know you have it in you George, all you have to do is be yourself.

  • I’m with Unholy Moses (@22); dead silence is best. That way, he’d know that, it’s “to myself only and the muses I sing…” Even if the “pregnant pauses”(waiting for applause) are not filled with the background sound of the lead balloons thunking, it’ll be unnerving and the guy doesn’t cope well with lack of adulation. Just watching him come unglued would be nice.

    Would be, because my stomach is far too delicate to, actually, watch and listen to him:)

  • I like Steve’s (# 20) idea of reading a book during the speech. I suggest rows of Democrats read “The Pet Goat.”

    As for Pelosi sitting behind Bush, I’m remembering old SNL shows when Chevy Chase would make faces and silently mock Jane Curtin while she was delivering an editorial.

    And then there’s the “Rocky Horror Picture Show” read-along of the speech.

  • Alibubba,

    One of those “Garfield the Cat” collections would work nicely, too. That “pet goat” book could be a morale booster for “george.” He’d be imagining that people were following his lead on literature. A cartoon cat that’s smarter than “george” and beats up on dogs could cause him a few problems—seeing that about half of his support-base now consists of “Barney….”

  • I love the 17% that “strongly approve.” That means that 11% of the 28 percent that approve are nuts and that 17% are on another planet.

  • Watch for my Rep. DINO Henry Cuellar at the end of the speech. Henry has been first in line to kiss Bush’s ass the last two SOTU’s. If he isn’t around this time, it means Bush has lost Henry, and if he’s lost Henry, he’s really in deep doo doo.

    28% today, maybe 26% tomorrow.

  • Comments are closed.