Bush's Stubbornness Is Costing Him

by DemFromCT

Or as USA Today puts it:

Bush refusal to bend is break for Dems

WASHINGTON — President Bush's re-election set the stage for a new Republican revolution. Voters elected a president with big ideas and strengthened Republican control of Congress. "I earned political capital ... and now I intend to spend it," Bush said on Nov. 4.

...

The contrast with Bush's first term is striking. Four years ago, he was elected without winning the popular vote. His party had a nine-vote majority in the 435-member House and the Senate was deadlocked. Even so, his two big initiatives, tax cuts and changes in the way public schools are run, passed in his first year.

So why isn't Bush doing better on Capitol Hill now?

The bottom line, according to political veterans and analysts: Republicans in Congress have to run again. Bush doesn't.

Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who served in the Senate leadership and is a friend of the Bush family, says the president's "uncharacteristic rigidity" on some issues is causing heartburn for Republicans. "They're thinking re-election and the president is asking them to go over a cliff," he says.

Bush's job-approval rating, 47% in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last week, doesn't help, says Charlie Cook, publisher of the non-partisan Cook Report. "When a president's job approval numbers stay consistently below 50%, he starts losing support on Capitol Hill," he says. "Members of his own party feel free to distance themselves and members of the opposition party are emboldened to attack."

The man's stubbornness is legendary, and  no, it's not steadfastness. Go back and read what Simpson said. When it comes to stem cell research, Bolton, Iraq and issues Americans care about (and some that they don't) it's my way or the highway.Well, there's really nothing wrong with Dems saying no to that. Nor will there be a price to pay from a lame duck and unpopular President.

That unpopular bit is another stubborn fact that the WH is going to have to get used to. But that's exactly what he is.

Comments

[Crab Nebula]

Karl and George have a different idea of how to best acquire 'political capital' is than, say, Bill Clinton. Clinton as I see it believed that you acquire it with a show of effectiveness to voters; you make voters believe that you're getting things done, and compromises and changes in direction are a necessary part of that. The ability and willingness to persuade is part of that. Like them or not, voters respond to the "microinitiatives," regardless of why he had to resort to employing them.

Karl and George see it as much more character based; you impress voters with your steadfastness. Bush doesn't like to try to persuade; he likes to try to show leadership and expect people to fall in line. (e.g. the SS roadshow) "Asking" in any form shows weakness. Many voters may like this aspect of Bush in a military context, but not in a public policy context. I suspect that whenever Bush does change direction, it's painful to him.

I think the Clinton way is superior, assuming you have the interpersonal skills. You don't have to be charismatic, you just have to be willing to listen and have the guts to change direction. Regarding capital, Bush's style may be better for channeling already extant feelings among voters because it appears that he's taking directions from nobody.

Yes, I'm asserting that Bill Clinton was more willing to take risks, and therefore more fearless, and tougher, than Bush. I know most partisans wouldn't buy this argument. Think about it; look at his "errors" - Clinton had the balls to go up and challenge the military on gays, and had the balls to tell people that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." Sure, both of these were mistakes, but damn, the guy took risks.

This is obviously pure speculation: I bet Bush didn't see Iraq as that big of a risk. I think he thought military victory was assured, and that after conquest nation building wouldn't be that difficult because the Iraqis would just fall into line. Kind of like the way they think US voters would fall in line with shows of "leadership."

[Mike S]

Some people call it "rigidity." Some call it "Bull Headedness."

I call it the actions of a spoiled brat who's spent his whole life getting what he wants. He's that kid in the store that throws a tantrum because mom won't buy him candy until she relents because she doesn't want to cause a scene.

[Kagro X]

Karl Rove is already at work making Bush's stubbornness an asset again. It's no mistake that he mouthed off the way he did about 9/11. He knew full well it would result in calls for an apology.

Tit-for-tat pettiness, they'll say. Besides, only liberal weenies like Durbin apologize. We Republicans are a resolute bunch. We stand pat and are unafraid, when we speak the truth.

Poor Durbin catches the one-two sucker punch combo.

[DemFromCT]

Only if they flinch in calling out Rove. Reid calling on him to resign is great.

Rove's too clever by half with the majority of the country tired of the road show. Do they think they can keep the car bombs off the news that way?

[Kagro X]

I think the opposite, or at least, that's my first inclination. The harder we push, the more they toss their heads back and laugh, pretending it makes them look tough.

[Kagro X]

But that doesn't mean we don't push. I don't mean to say we've fallen into a trap here. Just that there's nothing to do but push, and Rove knows it, and is counting on it. It doesn't hurt us with our folks, nor does it hurt him with his.

[DemFromCT]

here's what I think matters, Kagro:

Faced with rising criticism of the war, Bush hopes to persuade Americans to stay the course in Iraq.

But many experts believe that events now enormously outweigh arguments in shaping U.S. attitudes about the conflict. That means that unless security in Iraq improves, Bush may find it extremely difficult to reverse the steady erosion of support for the war evident in recent public opinion polls.

"If you look historically at polling numbers on [extended] military operations — leaving aside the second World War, which had sustained high support — the long-term trend is deterioration," said Eric V. Larson, a senior policy analyst at the Rand Corp. and author of a new study for the U.S. Army on public opinion and war.

"It is hard to imagine that long-term trend being reversed anytime in the immediate future [on Iraq], particularly based solely on rhetoric. "

[demtom]

But what about the folks that are neithers ours nor his? However much we hear that this group has shrunk, it still exists, and the reaction of this group to remarks like these matters.

I wonder if Rove believes his own publicity a bit too much -- thinks that his drumming up that extra evangelical vote was truly the key to 2004, when, really, the wooing of enough "give me security, screw the rest" voters (the Ron Silver crowd) was what carried the day.

Lest there be any confusion, let me add: I thought Durbin was a fool to apologize, and I do think the GOP will circle the wagons around this Rove remark -- we'll be lucky to get a tepid "Maybe he could have chosen his words better" from such alleged saints as Chafee and McCain -- and, politically, that is a smarter response stategy. But I think what Rove said was enough over the line that it will reinforce the doubts already being expressed in polls by those voters not part of the GOP cult.

[Kagro X]

I don't think they're watching. Nor do I think they'll have anything to watch, as the media covers it as thought it were a game.

I don't think it saves their polling numbers. But I don't see us getting an apology out of Rove or anyone else, and that leaves us holding the bag. Which makes the whole thing a non-story for the media.

[DemFromCT]

let it be a non-story. A non-story doesn't help Bush.

[Kagro X]

Not directly. But it contributes to the frothing up of Democrats who will spend the next week tearing their hair out that Durbin was pilloried while Rove got off scot-free.

It was a no-lose for him. At worst, he gets to play tough guy/martyr. At best, some observers buy into the meme that not only do Democrats not have any ideas of their own, they can't even come up with original ways to attack their political opponents. Somewhere in the middle, he gets a chance to demonstrate to Republicans that the magic still works, and that, inexplicable as it may seem, they can say pretty much anything they want without serious fear of punishment so long as they refuse to acknowledge any embarrassment, while Democrats will be doomed by their own squishiness into facilitating their own keel-hauling.

[emptywheel]

I agree with you guys that, for the most part, folks are going to back Rove. (Perhaps it'll be a nice opportunity for one or two "mavericks" to buck the system, but if you're planning on running for POTUS--John McCain, I'm looking at you--you're not even going to do that.)

I have one teeny minor question about that. How is it going to affect politics in NY and NJ. NY is already lost for the next cycle, granted. But NJ?

And it seems like it's a good way to kiss off one of the advantages that Giuliani has.

[DemFromCT]

I disagree. I think they're playing a spent hand. we will see. and Bush is extremely unpopular in NY; that's Hillary country. It's NJ he has residual support.

[mgh]

Bush is extremely unpopular in NYC, but if our Democratic mayoral candidates are awake today this kerfuffle will put a squeeze on Bloomberg to repudiate the White House. And if they ate their Wheaties this morning, they'll make sure that no matter what he says it will not be enough.

(On the other hand, in the city today it's a beautiful afternoon for a nap so who knows what they'll do.)

[demtom]

Kagro, I have to say, you're starting to remind me of the people in my office -- Dems all -- who came in the Monday after the Saturday Night Massacre loudly proclaiming there was no way Nixon would ever suffer for it.

Just because the GOP has had this unlikely (and relatively thin) winning streak is no reason to assume it can continue indefinitely. I think many will find this Rove set of comments over the line...and some of this group will be inclined to sit out the next election rather than further empower the Bush folk (and that's even absent further economic decline). Bush, please remember, barely slithered over the re-election line, in spite of a preternaturally united party and an economy that was, on paper, growing handily. 50.7% of the vote, in that context, is more rebuke than endorsement. All indicators are that their baseline has gone substantially south in the months since, and it's hard to see the news that's going to push it back in the opposite direction.

One caveat: this is assuming that Dems as a full unit have absorbed the lesson, that you don't give one more inch to these scum-buckets. I think today might be a final turning point on that score, as well.

[Mike S]

John Cole's reaction to this is great.

"A Modern Rorschach Test

You gotta just love politics. If you thought this was offensive:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Then pretty clearly you should be able to understand why this is being perceived as offensive:

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

One says that certain acts of abuse are reminiscent of tyrannical and murderous dictatorships (and admittedly over-the-top statement) but not as asserted, a smear of all American soldiers. The other claims that all liberals want to put our troops in danger, an outright smear and slur if there ever was one.

The hubris deepens."

[Kagro X]

Apples and oranges, demtom. Nixon was an elected official with a constituency, and subject to the constraints of operating within the Constitution. Rove is a political operative, hired to ferret out and create political divisions, and subject to no outside controls beyond the ballot box.

It has nothing to do with any "winning streak."

The contest isn't over whether or not Democrats will give an inch. They've set the bar at moving Rove back an inch, and there's no mechanism for forcing that.

There was recourse for the Saturday Night Massacre. Plus it was a damned sight more serious than liberal-bashing from a Republican consultant. Why, I've a good mind to demand an apology for your gross overstatment!

[demtom]

And I'll refuse to give it! (Hoping to set an example for all Dems)

[Kagro X]

Good move! Now, why do you suppose that will work for you, but not for Rove?

[DemFromCT]

But now demtom has to resign. Or re-sign. I get 'em confused.

[Kagro X]

Yes, he does. And I will force his resignation by displaying tall stacks of mailing lis... er, citizen petitions.

[Mimikatz]

As for Bauh's stubbornness, it plays well with his base, but the base is only about 25-30% of the country. Independents are pretty clearly growing tired, and that is why his support is bleeding away. Some more reasonable R's are also slipping away.

Rove's remarks say to me that emphasis on the lack of planning for the Iraq War as evident in the British documents and the "yellow elephant" campaign by Jesus' General and Kos and others are beginning to sting. After all, Rove accused the Dems of being soft after 9/11 and said that "Republicans prepared for War."

But they didn't prepare. Or rather, they prepared for what they thought was an easy war, but not the aftermath. And now they aren't willing to give real support to the war by urging people to enlist. (Remember "Uncle Sam Wants You!" posters?)

So Rove has to pretend to be tough and accuse the Dems of being wimpy. Why not? It worked in the past. But Rove isn't really tough in the John Wayne sense. He is devious, cruel, ruthless and shameless, but not really tough. Same with Bush.

[Kagro X]

I can buy into that, Mimikatz. And I think it hints at a possible response: Karl Rove is a clown, and he has never said anything that mattered, on any subject. He's said a number of things that are sad, transparent and pathetic, but nothing that's mattered.

The proof? After he finished his canned liberal-bashing shtick, he tried to tell you that conservatives "prepared for war." Meanwhile, anyone who's seen a newspaper in the last two years knows that just about the only thing conservatives didn't do, for all their bravado, was prepare for war. I can't for the life of me think of a single claim more laughable than that one right there. Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?

[Mimikatz]

Exactly. Classic Republican misdirection. Get attention off of their responsibility for a debacle that even his generals say isn't going away soon.

[demtom]

I was away for an hour; I hope my resignation wasn't fast-tracked.

Just to be more explicit: I certainly have no expectation Rove will apologize or, good god, resign. But I think keeping this set of remarks out there underlines the image his party is at last beginning to develop -- the one mimikatz refers to: a group catering to its red-meat base at the expense of everyone else. I think, contrary to the feeling of the past years, there's a price to be paid for ignoring the middle, and it can ultimately be a steep one.

The Families of 9/11 are asking for an apology. Anyone think that changes the calculus?