From a position of weakness

March 14, 2006

Yes, another national poll was released. Yes, Bush is still extremely unpopular. But the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday included one tidbit I hadn’t seen before. First, the overview.

President Bush’s “approval rating” has sunk to a new low according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released Monday.

The latest results show only 36% of those polled saying they “approve” of the way Bush is handling his job. Bush’s previous low was 37%, set last November.

Sixty percent of those polled said they “disapprove” of Bush’s performance. That matches an all-time worst rating hit last November and again two weeks ago.

Perhaps most importantly, when asked whether they prefer Democratic or Republican congressional candidates, poll respondents gave Dems a stunning 16-point lead, 55% to 39%. It’s the biggest advantage for the party in a Gallup poll since 1992, which, not incidentally, is the last cycle Dems won majorities in both chambers.

Also interesting, however, was a poll question that I hadn’t seen before. CNN’s Bill Schneider mentioned it on air yesterday.

The uprising over the ports deal and the Hurricane Katrina videotapes have hurt President Bush in another way; 51 percent now call Mr. Bush a weak president.

“Weak” is perhaps the one word Karl Rove fears most. The Bush gang can live with “unpopular.” They’re only mildly troubled by “incompetent.” But when a majority of the country believes the president is “weak,” it suggests Bush really has given up every advantage he’s enjoyed for over four years.

What’s behind the deteriorating support? It’s not the ports controversy (though that certainly didn’t help); it’s Iraq.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.

Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war — even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation.

That last point is probably the most politically relevant. Only 32% of Americans say they believe Bush has a clear plan for handling the war. Even fewer believe Dems have a clear plan — but when asked who’d do a better job managing the issue, Dems enjoy a sizable lead over the GOP, 48% to 40%.

It’s almost as if poll respondents were saying, “Dems may not have a plan, but given what we’ve seen, they’ve got to be better than the Republicans.”

“‘Weak’ is perhaps the one word Karl Rove fears most.” – CB

That is an interesting insight. I wonder if it is true. And if so, how might we best exploit it 😉

There is a very good reason why the American people don’t know the Democrats position on winning in Iraq. Our options are either:

1) Build up the forces there to stablize the situation, probably needing 300,000, which would require a real wartime commitment of national resources and probably a draft,

2) Withdraw to Kurdistan and Kuwait and watch the rest of Iraq split into two countries while keeping Iran and Saudi Arabia from intervening directly with their own forces (the Saudis would probably have to recruit forces from Egypt or somewhere).

Neither solution is really all that palitable.

  • Dems should start chanting “weak” all the time. If I were leadership, I wouldn’t let anyone put out a speech that didn’t link the words weak, and Bush in it at least a dozen times.

  • Anyone who uses “shtrong” as frequently the Shrub does has got to be weak.

    The only thing he’s ever been strong about is his insistence on curling up with “pilly” every night by nine.

  • This should tell Democrats what they need to do. Voters have become so jaded with Republicans that they want to believe in Democrats more than them.

    But in spite of the fact that Dems across the board have shown a willingness to think critically figuring out Iraq, and the GOP’s strategy is no deeper than a few jingoistic sounbites, ie “We need to stay the course,” “Freedom is on the march,” “Americans don’t cut and run,” (and, of course, labeling anyone who does think critically about Iraq the enemy,) more people still actually believe that the GOP has a more coherent plan than the Democrats. What is this the result of? The simple fact that the GOP is in power and has a leader to rally behind and the Democrats are fractured and producing 3 different plans for every 2 Democrats? Or is it a sign of a weaker party propaganda machine on the part of the Democrats? My money’s on the lack of party unity.

    That figure, 7% more Americans believe that the GOP has a plan for Iraq than those that believe the Democrats do, is going to be the soft spot that Karl Rove exploits, in spite of the fact that Democrats have constantly been sticking their necks out to charges of outright treason to produce all manner of different ideas for dealing with the problems Bush has created in Iraq.

  • Be sure to go to John Conyers’ website and sign his petition asking for investigations into possibly impeachable offenses.

    We all need to be heard weighing in on impeachment and on censure, especially today and tommorrow- and wherever we can.

  • “Which is why it may seem like a good time to amp up the rhetoric on Iran.” – shingles

    Iran just makes Bush look weaker because his unwise commitment of force in Iraq without developing additional forces and capabilities means we have nothing to take on Iran except air power, which we are too ignorant to direct in any meaningful way.

    Nope, Iran is not a subject the Administration should be bring up to make themselves seem “Strong”.

  • Rove wants to set the upcoming political debate as “pre 9-11 Democrats / post 9-11 Republicans”
    but “Weak and Strong” is what he fears.

    If Dems will want to frame the issue,
    Weak Republicans / Strong Democrats,
    Why would I believe them?
    It is time for them to speak out and demonstrate strong leadership like Feingold and Murtha.
    Elected Dems will need to BE strong and able leaders to clean up the mess left by Bush.
    Wannabees who get into the whitehouse get exposed.

  • IS weak. And always was weak. And the Republican Congress is so weak they can’t even oversea a weak executive. Power at it’s lowest ebb.

  • Jeremy is right on target here — but I’d suggest an even better synonym for “weak”: WIMP.

    Remember, W. was his dad’s inside-politics attack dog, and W. seems to have been psychopolitically scarred by the “wimp factor” that did in dear ol’ dad.

    If we start a constant chant of wimp-wimp-wimp — with corroborating “moderate” evidence to back it up (draft-dodging, not living up to campaign promises, bubble-boy policies at rallies and in administration, blinkered Iraq planning, ad nauseam) — I think we could (a) drive Bush’s poll numbers into the 20s, (b) lash him firmly to GOP Congressional candidates (for supporting/enabling the Wimp-in-Chief), and (c) abso-freakin-lutely make Bush blow his stack.

  • I absolutely love this thread.

    Thanks Guys and Gals.

    “The W stands for Weak on Terror.”

    The W stands for Weak on Governance. (nah, too big a word)

    The W stands for Weak on Revenue (huge and growing deficits).

    The W stands for Weak on the Border.

    The W stands for Weak on Rights (NSA Spying, Torture).

    The W stands for Weak on his Friends (Robertson) and Employees (Claude Allen, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, etc.).

    The W stands for Weak on Human Compassion (not decrying the South Dakota Abortion Law forcing rape victums to carrying their rapist’s bastard devil spawn).

    The W stands for Weak on Competence (Katrina, anyone).

    The W stands for Weak on Work Ethic (always on vacation).

  • Wiley Wilting Weak Wrathful Whimpy Wasteful Wannabee Weepublican.

    I think it’s good to hammer home that George is a Republican.
    The Gop is going to try to distance themselves in 06 from this wraskal.

  • Rege (#18),

    I actually thought about “wuss” but it’s a synonym for “wimp”. I like “wimp” for George I because he certainly had the strength (economic, military, political) to act presidential; he just lacked the will, or couldn’t be personally bothered with the sorts of struggles ordinary Americans (at the cash registers) had to endure. He was too wimpy (other than driving Saddam out of Kuwait), to set a course and lead us through it (e.g., “read my lips” before the cave-in; puking up Japanese food).

    His son, George II, on the other hand, invaded a nation thoroughly defeated by George I, and contained thenceforth by Clinton, and captured the already-defeated “capital” with loss of only 139 troops (“mission accomplished”), and still wound up so “weak” that he couldn’t get bin Laden and left us in a quagmire which nobody knows how to get out off. He left the entire world hating us (or at least the George II administration). He somehow managed to tick of ALL of Islam (except the bin Ladens and the family Saud who invest with his Dad). He bankrupted our grandchildren. Etc., etc., etc. The man is too weak to do anything except curl up on “pilly” every night at nine. He can pretend to be “shtrong”, like when shows us his Texas “swagger” … like a baby with a full diaper.

    I tried to think of a one-syllable “W” word for Senator Prescott Bush, too, but couldn’t. Profiteer, quisling, traitor, pro-Nazi, Hitler’s banker … none of them is reducible to a one-syllable “W” word, at least none that comes to mind. Anybody?

  • (Ed S: re: Prescott Bush — I tried to make something of “Wallstrasse,” but it didn’t work.)

    Having read Dan Froomkin just now, I’m beginning to worry about W and Iran. Dan makes the same point I rave about — that Republicans (especially Bush) NEED enemies. Have to have them.

    Conventional wisdom, logic and plain common sense suggest that Bush will not “go military” with Iran. But we’re talking George Bush.

    During Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger cooked up the “crazy president” ploy to influence peace negotiations. But Bush really IS crazy. I’ve come to the point that I don’t put anything past him. Not because he’s so devious, he’s just an out-of-control nutcase. Along with those around him.

    And regarding Vietnam, I just began reading a “clearance sale” book entitled “Patriotism” which is a large collection of interviews with people on all sides of the Vietnam War. U.S. vets, Vietcong, protesters — everyone. It’s sad to see it on the bargain rack (6 bucks at Borders) because within the first few pages the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are striking. Yes, yes, the two are different in many ways, but the plod into the black hole of dishonesty and wasted of lives is a carbon copy. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution released an unpredictable genie. So has the Iraq Resolution.

    • Comments are closed.