31%
I don't normally watch individual polls, but I do try to watch the trends, and the USAToday/Gallup continues the six month Bush slide with another "lowest of his presidency." 31% approval - 65% disapproval.
For some reason I find myself thinking of inertia and Newton's first law.
Afterthought: At some point, these low poll numbers are going to begin to strike some fear in me. A president in the low 30's acts within limitations because he believes the numbers can be turned around, but at some point, if they're low enough and considered unsalvageable, attention may be turned out of the present and towards the legacy. And if there is no concern about polls, no limiting factor of contemporary public opinion, an action towards the legacy, no matter how unpopular, could become more attractive after the 2006 midterms. And the possibilities of that scare me a little.
It's not like this administration hasn't pushed the envelope before, and then, they were concerned about the politics.
For some reason I find myself thinking of inertia and Newton's first law.
Afterthought: At some point, these low poll numbers are going to begin to strike some fear in me. A president in the low 30's acts within limitations because he believes the numbers can be turned around, but at some point, if they're low enough and considered unsalvageable, attention may be turned out of the present and towards the legacy. And if there is no concern about polls, no limiting factor of contemporary public opinion, an action towards the legacy, no matter how unpopular, could become more attractive after the 2006 midterms. And the possibilities of that scare me a little.
It's not like this administration hasn't pushed the envelope before, and then, they were concerned about the politics.
posted by mikevotes at
1:20 PM
13 Comments:
It would take some good news for him to change the velocity and direction. That seems like discovering some unknown planet or asteroid.
By
Lynn, at 1:52 PM
Yeah, I just find this slow collapse mindboggling. To think that the President who recorded the highest approval in history just 4.5 years ago is now flirting with some of the lowest.
And, beyond a meteor, a terror attack, military action, disrupted terror plot, capturing Bin Laden.....
There are a lot of things that could positively impact his numbers that are somewhat within his control, and some that aren't.
But on the other side, you have a Tet-type offensive in Iraq, another terror attack, Rove indictment/other scandals, an attack on Iran.
He's just at a precarious point where public opinion is such that only something drastic will significantly shift the numbers, and maybe not in the right way.
Frankly, I see these poll numbers as limitations on him right now. One of my unspoken fears is that they will get low enough that he will decide they are unsalvageable and will take "unpopular" action because the polls no longer matter, and his concern is legacy.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:29 PM
That *shouldn't* happen.
His low poll numbers are a problem for the whole party, not just him. Perhaps there is a point where his unilateral actions do get stopped by his own party's instinct for survival.
I would only see that scenario a danger if Dems don't win back one house of Congress. But then you'll have a Republican running for President .....
And on and on .....
I know they haven't exercised oversight so far. But someone in the 20's is just asking for impeachment, no matter who's in majority.
By
Greyhair, at 2:54 PM
Allow me to pose a scientific question to you, the liberal intelligensia elite: what happens when the "inertia" of sagging poll numbers slams head-on into the immovable object of a war-mandated repeal of the 22nd Amendment?
I believe this inevitability, er, I meant "possibility," was raised in the Patriot Act. If not, well, it should have been!
By
Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, at 3:04 PM
...what happens when the "inertia" of sagging poll numbers slams head-on into the immovable object of a war-mandated repeal of the 22nd Amendment?
William Jefferson Clinton is reelected to his third term in a landslide!
By
Anonymous, at 4:29 PM
Yeah, greyhair,
that "analysis" just kind of bobbled out. You make a very good point about the Dems winning because then the Repubs can attempt to blame the "failure" on the Dems not following through or whatnot.
And, as to rash action, the only reason I see this as a possibility is because this admin has already showed that they're willing to do some crazy stuff. You're probably right that within the cycle of elections and within the constraints of the Republican party, such things are pretty unlikely, but, I do think a president in the 20's does make gambling on such things more likely. Remember Reagan's october surprise?
And, Rex, I don't think the 22nd amendment will be a problem. If that's the plan, I just don't see them holding elections. Even with fixed voting machines it would be hard to hide a 31-65 vote against.
I think at this point, the Republican "in crowd" would love to have an election today to replace this guy so long as they got another republican. The kind of a parliamentary maneuver not available under the US constitution.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 4:36 PM
Good points Mike.
By
Handsome B. Wonderful, at 4:54 PM
Thanks.
I'm petty, compliments are nice.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:31 PM
As usual, Mike, you raise important questions. I've had some of the same fears. Bush is unlike any other unpopular president in recent memory, in that he thinks he receives guidance from God Almighty. He has little interest in governing, but a keen desire for an historical legacy. He has already publicly stated that he doesn't want to leave the Iran issue to the mercy of a "weaker" future president. And with the prospect of an imminent Democratic majority in the Congress, I can easily see him bypassing a Congressional Act of War and using his fancied wartime presidential powers to launch an attack against Iran by executive order.
No-one ever went wrong by underestimating the good sense, morality or wisdom of George W. Bush.
By
Motherlode, at 5:56 PM
Do you appreciate the irony that Bush doesn't want to leave the thing that's not a problem yet, Iran to a weaker president, while at the same time seems perfectly willing to leave the thing that's a problem today, Iraq, to a future president?
I think there's something profound in there about the Bush presidency, something about their interpretation of their place relative to other administrations and detachment from reality.
(By the way, I've read that about Iran as well, and I thought this comment would make a good post, but I tried to google the Iran side and couldn;t find it anywhere. If you have a link easy at hand.... if not, don't bother.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:32 PM
I'm having the same and darker thoughts Mike. I see this as one more step towards martial law. How better to enforce the unitary executive's will? And how easy to justify it with a major catastrophe of some kind? Even if you don't believe they had anything to do with 9/11, I'm afraid it's not that difficult for me to imagine them engineering something now, when as you say -- it's all about the legacy.
By
Anonymous, at 10:58 PM
Yeah, Mike, it was in a New Yorker article written by Sy Hersh. The money quote is:
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
By
Motherlode, at 2:52 AM
Thanks a ton, Motherlode. If there's space today, I'll probably put that post up.
And Libby, I don't know, that's just some speculation and fear from a dark part of my mind, that if all looks hopeless, this sort of thing becomes less of a gamble because there is far less for the administration to lose.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home