<$BlogRSDURL$>
WaxWorks
|
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
 
Enormously Unpopular

After 9/11, Bush's approval rating shot to an artificially high number as the American people rallied behind its leader in a time of great national unity? Remember how Karen Hughes and Karl Rove then, in the dozens of months that followed, implanted in the American public (and more importantly, the media) the sense that Bush was an "incredibly popular" President?

Well, Bush's latest approval rating is 33%. It is consistently in the low 30s in all major polls.

Isn't it time that every single discussion of Bush mentioned the fact that he is enormously unpopular right now? (And, for that matter, when Republicans attack Democrats as being blinded by their dislike of this President, aren't the Democrats speaking for the overwhelming majority of the American people?)

Democrats lead by 16% in the latest generic Congressional ballot, their biggest lead since 1982. Yet the pundits in the MSM still argue that the public won't support the Democrats until they put forth their own agenda. Anybody remember when the GOP unveiled the Contract for America? Six weeks before the November 1994 elections, on September 27, 1994. Until that time the media was fine with them attacking Clinton non-stop without putting forth a positive agenda. The time will come for the Democrats. Until then, it's fine to let the Republicans continue to do themselves in.

|
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
 
Time for the Religious Right But Not for Al Qaeda

I was reading an interesting article in the New Yorker concerning the Bush Administration's politicization of science, and the fact that they have caved to the religious right in almost all aspects of their approach to and funding for science, particularly in the area of stem cell research.

I then remembered that Bush made his major address on stem cell research in August 2001, in which, out of deference to the religious right, he limited federal funding for stem cell research to only the existing lines (which he pegged at 60, but in actuality are only around 30). Bush gave his speech on August 9, 2001, but it is clear that he was dealing with the issue and how to handle the religious right throughout his vacation:

The issue Bush grappled with was whether to stand by his previous
statements opposing federal funding for any embryonic stem cell research, or to
reverse course and support the position backed by many of his closest advisers,
including Thompson, Vice President Dick Cheney, Chief of Staff Andy Card and
White House counselor Karen Hughes, according to sources.

Among those who recommended against any change in position, these sources
said, were strategist Karl Rove, the top White House liaison to conservative
Republicans....

But the president came under heavy pressure to reconsider and had grappled with the issue for more than two months, holding dozens of meetings with medical and scientific experts, ethicists, religious leaders and others....

White House officials said Bush reached his decision since arriving in
Texas for his working vacation and decided Wednesday he wanted to announce it on
Thursday in the nationally televised address. These officials said he had made
clear he wanted to be the first to disclose it.

So, in the days before August 9, 2001, I think it's safe to say that Bush spent a fair amount of time dealing with and discussing the issue of stem cell research. And, in particular, how not to anger the religious right.

But what did Bush receive on August 6, 2001? That's right, the infamous PDB entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." It is undisputed that Bush did nothing in response to this PDB.

So, true to form, Bush ignored the urgent threat of a potential terrorist attack on U.S. soil while he focused his precious free time during his vacation to not alienating the religious right.

|
Monday, March 13, 2006
 
Straight Talk?

I think Paul Krugman is right on today, noting the fact that John McCain circa-2006 is not the same as John McCain circa-2000. McCain has such a love affair with the Main Stream Media that they are unlikely to notice the difference, but Krugman makes some good points:

It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate.
He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker
he claims to be.

Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition
to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support
a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among
us."

But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the
case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to
shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on
dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while
mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the
2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the
"Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called
for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no
imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North
Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed
willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain
why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits
such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq?
We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he
rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success
requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year,
"then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the
overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops.

When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson
and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year.
Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right.
Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South
Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.

The spokesperson went on to say that the senator would have taken "the
appropriate steps under state law" to ensure that cases of rape and incest were
excluded. But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law
has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even
for victims of rape or incest.

The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard
right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting
record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.

What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact
that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush
administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when
signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to
disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are
apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership
Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.

And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a
while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns
to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.

The way McCain handled the election in 2004 proved to me that, like Bob Dole in 1996, he is simply willing to do anything and sell out his previous principled stands just to become president. When the Swift Boat Liars came out, rather than condemning them and challenging Bush to disassociate himself from them (as Kerry did in 2000 when a Bush surrogate attacked McCain's service next to Bush during a campaign event), McCain made a mild rebuke of the group itself, and that was it.

There's not much talk today about McCain's opposition to the 2001 tax cuts because this is a different McCain. He's doing a bit of tightrope right now, however, He's trying to stay close to Bush to gain support from the base but also show that he is a maverick to get support from independents. We'll see if this can be successful.


Powered by Blogger

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com