Bush In Retreat

by DemFromCT

Two stories, different in their substance, but together in their implications, will dominate the next week of politics. One is about the exploding Abromoff scandal:

The Justice Department's wide-ranging investigation of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has entered a highly active phase as prosecutors are beginning to move on evidence pointing to possible corruption in Congress and executive branch agencies, lawyers involved in the case said.

Prosecutors have already told one lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), and his former chief of staff that they are preparing a possible bribery case against them, according to two sources knowledgeable about the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The other is about the Iraq non-debate (are we losing or are we losing? - apparently an important distinction for some), which Josh Marshall sums up:

We've just witnessed a ferocious two weeks of attacks over the future direction of our policy in Iraq. And in that brawl, the White House and its surrogates have launched all manner of attacks against those who would 'cut and run' before 'our job is finshed' in Iraq,

Now comes this article in Saturday's Los Angeles Times which reports that said turbo-testicular worthies have reviewed the situation and -- surprise, surprise! -- our job appears to be almost done. 

Once again, as I wrote yesterday about the WaPo 'analysis' of conventional wisdom, we're witnessing the convergenge of well-known themes here presented to the public in unmistakable form. Bush's Iraq policy is in tatters, and despite the defense of such intellectual luminaries as Melvin Laird (see yesterday's piece for details), it's time to stick a fork in the well-done idea that we're sending the wrong message by withdrawing troops. Bush is doing this because he has to, not because he wants to. And when timid Democrats get back from their meet-n-greet recess, they may get an inkling of how far behind public sentiment they are on Iraq.

But because of the Abramoff scandal, the Bush defenders, the slime and attack boys in Congress, may be hamstrung in their ability to pull a Mean Jean in a public forum over the war or anything else. That all gets back to trust. Negative campaigns (and that's what this is, not governance – this bunch doesn't know how to do that) don't work when your own trustworthiness is in the toilet.

My blogmate, Mimikatz sent me this SFgate article about the regretful Bush voter that sums up the coming crisis for the faith-based bunch in DC.

"And then he goes with that woman for the Supreme Court (Harriet Miers). 'I know in my heart she's a good person'  --  what the hell does that got to do with it? That's just stupid. That's just plain dumb. It seems like with Bush lately, whatever he touches turns to crap. And now we're saddled with this guy for three more years. The only thing you can do is to get the Republicans out of Congress next year.''

I wanted to make sure I had heard him correctly.

"I never thought I'd say this, but I wouldn't vote for any Republican, even from Florida," he said. "We got to get the Republicans out and the Democrats in. We got to make sure they control Congress so Bush can't do whatever the hell he wants. You got to get the Democrats in there to knock his brains out so he'll just be a token figurehead.''

He said that in retrospect he should have thought about last year's election in a different way. He said he should have considered that a vote for John Kerry, whom he strongly disliked, was a vote not for an individual but for a Democratic administration. We needed a Democratic administration, he said, to keep in check a Republican Congress.

He said he had to hang up. He was going to be late for Mass. I asked if he would be offering up prayers for Bush's wisdom.

"I believe in the power of prayer,'' he said. "But it can only do so much.''

Amen. The Lord helps those who help themselves, and 2006 seems like a good time to do the good deed at the polls. Get a Democratic Congress to watch these characters, or we'll be looking at more of the same. And with voters like the one noted above having Bush remorse out the wazoo, it's not as far-fetched as one thinks.

Interestingly, in a recent National Journal 'insider's poll' (subscription only), Republicans thought the odds of a Dem Senate or House were remote (a 2 out of 10), whereas the Dem insiders gave it an even chance (5 out of 10). That's before the Abramoff scandal plays out, mind you. The R's are counting on their gerrymandering strategy as their only defense. Potent though that defense is, the two stories above will strike at their base harder than anywhere else, if only because they've already lost the rest of us.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

I see the NY Times has noticed the same thing.

Even Supporters Doubt President as Issues Pile Up

Leesa Martin never considered President Bush a great leader, but she voted for him a year ago because she admired how he handled the terrorist attacks of 2001.

"I don't know if it's any one thing as much as it is everything," said Ms. Martin, 49, eating lunch at the North Market, on the edge of downtown Columbus. "It's kind of snowballed."

Her concerns were echoed in more than 75 interviews here and across the country this week, helping to explain the slide in the president's approval and trustworthiness ratings in recent polls.

Many people who voted for Mr. Bush a year ago had trouble pinning their current discontent on any one thing. Many mentioned the hurricane and the indictment of a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, which some said raised doubts about the president's candor and his judgment. But there was a sense that something had veered off course in the last few months, and the war was the one constant. Over and over, even some of Mr. Bush's supporters raised comparisons with Vietnam.

"We keep hearing about suicide bombers and casualties and never hear about any progress being made," said Dave Panici, 45, a railroad conductor from Bradley, Ill. "I don't see an end to it; it just seems relentless. I feel like our country is just staying afloat, just treading water instead of swimming toward somewhere."

Mr. Panici voted for President Bush in 2004, calling it "a vote for security." "Now that a year has passed, I haven't seen any improvement in Iraq," he said. "I don't feel that the world is a safer place."

[KdmFromPhila]

Josh Marshall argues, correctly in my view, that withdrawing troops from Iraq in '06 is yet another cynical ploy to influence the elections. I'm sure that some voters will be relieved that our soldiers are returning, but I wonder if Bush has lost so much trust that any decision about Iraq will reinforce the growing sense that Bush is dishonest. That is, if he keeps the troops in Iraq, he will signal to voters that he does not have a plan. If he pulls troops out while the security of Iraq remains dire, he will admit that he is not serious about making Iraq a stable pro-American state.

[emptypockets]

off-topic, other than "Bush failed": the Times today notes that students in Tennessee and elsewhere are passing state proficiency tests and failing federal tests. The angle in the piece is that states are giving easy tests to secure more funding under NCLB. (Funding is tied to the fraction of students who pass the state test.)

I think that view is simplistic and mostly wrong. I think what we'll find as we increase standardized testing is that for any set of tests written with different standards, students will pass the one they're trained with and fail the others. That's because we have begun teaching test-taking, and diminished teaching material.

It is like if you went to cooking school and learned a few recipes and then were tested on a different menu. Standardized tests encourage teaching formulaic approaches, which is not learning. What is helpful to learn are the underlying principles -- eggs as binding agents, the difference between dry heat and moist heat.

Education is a wonderful thing, if the goal is to understand the mechanism by which the world around you works, but if the goal is to pass a test we may as well just put them all in vocational schools after they can read, write, and multiply. Questions about "which test is better" are missing the point.

[DemFromCT]

why is that off-topic to 'Bush failed"? NCLB is his bill. Add to it the military recruiters getting your kids' names (a major suburban source of angst, along with traffic), and you have another nail in the coffin of 'unease about Bush'.

what's interesting is the Times article saying that to Bush supporters, they see chasrges of corruption as 'plotical theatre', but they do not see that about issues with their local schools, i promise you. I wish the Times had asked them if they thought watergate was political theatre.

[Mimikatz]

Joan Ryan's column from the SF Chronicle, which Dem linked in the main post, was a subject of discussion at our Thanksgiving table. My Republican brother-in-law (the only R in the family) asked if I had read it. He identified with Ryan's father, who is quoted in the post. I don't think he voted for Bush, but he commented that there was no room in the party for moderates any more. I said I thought the Dems would make good headway adopting the mantle of fiscal responsibility, and that people now didn't associate the Dems with giving their hard-earned tax dollars to the "undeserving", something that turned folks off in the '60s. Instead it was the GOP who was giving money away to the undeserving rich. He agreed.

We here have discussed the fact that in the '80s and '90s the Dems essentially abandoned their commitment to help the poor, concentrating instead on the middle class and in some ways even more on the upper middle/lower upper. Paradoxically, however, it was the sight of all those mostly poor people suffering in New Orleans after Katrina that really tipped the balance against Bush.

I think the country as a whole was happy to see the end of the War on Poverty and "welfare as we know it" but didn't realize how many people were really left behind by the very uneven prosperity of the '90s and '00s. Now our growing income inequality is really taking a toll on everyone below the lower upper class, but especially on the lower middle and poor. Like torture, it really goes to the core of who we think we are as nation. So apart from the exposure of Bush's incompetence and the GOP failure of governance, Katrina really seared the nation's psyche, I believe. Hence the feeling that the GOP needs to be turned out of Congress at the very least. The 2008 election is something else altogether, though.

[DemFromCT]

Re 2008, depends who runs. Again via the Nat Journal, McCain and Lieberman are the cross-party figures most admired. But R's hate McCain and D's despise Joe (except in CT). Only 56% of R's would want McCain campaigning for them (insider's poll). he does better wqith National than R polls. he'd be a formidable candidate in the general elction, but can't win in the R primaries.

Rudy is the current R darling, but he's pro-choice. The conservative R's are trailing badly right now in R polling (Allen, Brownback, etc).

On the D side, it's all Hillary, who I'd hold my nose and vote for, but not with enthusiasm. Not after seeing how she approaches Iraq.

Rudy may be untainted by iraq and may be the R choice, both bec ause he's non-Iraq and because he's anti-Katrina. Wouldn't that be interesting? I know the guy from NY and we can do better but probably won't. We can also do worse (Bush).

my hopes are on Congress, not the WH.

[jonnybutter]

I had dinner last night with my 'bellweather' right wing friend (he's one of the 'Fuck You Boys', who could perhaps be more precisely called the 'Resentment Boys'). We were watching the fairly cheesy series 'The Presidents' on the so-called History Channel. Reliving the glory daze of Vietnam, Watergate and resignation, he commented that we could be headed into the same kind of thing now. He may be a Resentment Boy, but he reads the papers, knows about the Abramoff stuff, knows how much of a mess Iraq is, etc. etc. The bluster is gone. I don't rub it in or say 'I told you so'. He knows.

There's obviously nothing scientific in these kinds of antecdotes, but they do mean something. My friend is a very familiar type: an anti-Nixon and anti-Vietnam war kind of a semi-hippie, who became 'conservative' (reactionary) in his 40s-50s. There is a huge contingent of those. If their resentment turns fully onto the modern Republicans, watch out!

[Roosevelt Democrat]

I'm not for Hillary, and I won't vote for her in 2008 no matter what, but she does seem to understand the dynamics of where the electorate will be in the next presidential election. The voters will still be voting for their safety and security. Many Democrats, in their zeal to be anti-war, cannot see that the only way a Democrat can win in 2008 is for the candidate and the party to be perceived as more trustworthy and tougher on national security and defense than the Republicans. Democrats start off at a decided disadvantage in the public perception. We are perceived as weak, and have been so perceived for decades. That perception is what most killed the war-hero Kerry candidacy in 2004, although many Democrats are still in denial that the public sees us as the milquetoast party and like to blame Kerry alone. And, what do we do now? We continue to single out our anti-war and/or anti-military candidates and wax poetic over them. Read the comments in the introduction above. All of the Republicans voted for Bush in 2004 based on security. Security trumped all other issues in the voting booth. Now they are having buyer's remorse, but not because they are any less interested in security. No, they are having remorse because they don't feel safer. Does this help Democrats in 2008? Not necessarily. If we take the lack of support for Bush as a mandate for less emphasis on national security and defense and use it to pick candidates that are anti-war or who would generally be considered soft in their support for a strong military presence in the world, then we will have made a grave mistake. Somehow, though, I suspect we have to go through the anti-war dance on the way to the nomination yet once again, and that will almost insure that another Republican will be elected president in 2008 if we do so. Time will tell if we are learning the lessons of the Iraq War correctly, or if we are just as out of touch on the left of the national security issue as the Bush administration has become on the right.

[tulip]

Funny, I've been expecting Bush to declare victory & withdraw for some time now. Suspected that all the outrage over Murtha was really over the fact that he ruined their show, recasting any withdrawal as retreat, defeat, mistakes-- all the stuff that GWB is viscerally unable to tolerate. Now, however, that the tweaks and leaks seem to indicate the ponderous gearing up of the immense Rovian factories -- hooray! we won! we can go home! Missioned their asses! -- I have begun to have doubts.

This is based on nothing but the experience of being lied to, you understand, for five long years. I find myself thinking, nah, they'll never give up the oil or let Iraq melt into Iran, as the Shia region seems to want. I am beginning to suspect we're in for some real theatre-- a highly publicized initial homecoming, lots of promises, a great big extravaganze of a dumbshow until the elections are over-- and then, if hook or by crook the R's retain their hold on Congress, then the number of forces deployed in Iraq will stealthily and secretly climb right back to where they are now. Unless, of course, Rumsfeld goes. In which case, the numbers will go higher.

Lying is their specialty. Gulling the American public, denying their real intentions, pretending that their minds are not made up-- these seem to be the only thing they are competent at.

Post Thanksgiving Sturm & Drang, perhaps (PTSD?) Tulip
s two cents.

[Mimikatz]

I've been saying forever that the troops would be coming home in significant numbers in the latter half of 2006. I think Tulip is right about the GOP's ire at Murtha, although I also think they just can't restrain their attack impulses. The execrable Deborah Orin on Hardball mentioned that there was a hypothesis floating around that Murtha's comments were orchestrated by the Dem party to outflank just such a move by the R's. I don't believe that, but I do think that the pullout is on the way, and am grateful that at least one major Dem besides Feingold got in front of it.

Roosevelt Dem: The American people want to be safe, but we can't discount a desire for competence on that front. On that score, Giuliani would be a formidable candidate, although I see more of a coalescence around McCain. Dems don't have to be pro-war to be strong. They have to advocate smart and appropriate uses of force, and project a sense that they are tough enough to do it. That will come first from standing up to the GOP, and standing up to some special interests. It may also hinge on whether the Dems govern competently if they get power back in Congress.

But who? That is still the question. I think it is whoever steps out and distinguishes himself by showing some real leadership, first on Iraq and then on returning us to competence, community and real security.

[Roosevelt Democrat]

Mimikatz, I agree with your last paragraph. The Democrat who will dare to step forward and present a believable plan for Iraq that does not stay the course or cut and run (Americans like neither of those options), and who has a credible national security and defense resume to back up the plan, will be able to distinguish himself with the American people. The big question remains, though. Will he be able to get the Democratic nomination without acquiring all of the anti-war baggage that evokes doubt in the mind of voters every four years? Time will tell.

[LindyH]

Milquetoast party? I always saw the Dem party as the Labor party until maybe the last 20-30 years or so. When I was growing up in a small southern town, most everyone was Democrat, and many of the adults in my community remembered Hoover's presidency. "We almost starved. Remember that and don't ever vote Republican." These were farmers, lumberjacks, carpenters, mechanics, factory workers. There is nothing sissy about these hard-working people and they believe in a strong military for defense. In fact, many of them enlist out of high school and their parents support their decision because they feel that it's a chance for their children to be exposed to the wider world (perhaps the only one they will get) and good discipline and will prepare their children to become productive members of the community when they return. With this war it's different. Not many of them trust the President and his administration, and they don't encourage their children to participate in this war-for-oil-and-water.

I was heartened to see some of the labor unions involved in the anti-iraq war protests. I think that if more of them were involved, we'd make more progress. I also think that the "anti-iraq" war part can be the meeting point for the left and the more moderate-to-right democrats for our immediate purposes. There is a lot of honor in DEFENDING your country. There is none to be had in wars of aggression for whatever reason.

Further, labor has been losing ground that needs to be regained. Jobs are being sent overseas and farmed out for sweat-shop wages even though it does not help our economy (I remember that Bush-doctored report). THIS is an issue that dems can gain ground on, if we can get them to put down the chardonay and remember what it means to "earn your living by the sweat of your brow."

[DemFromCT]

Roosevelt Democrat, I think you're right about security, but don't overlook the Kerry "I dont like him" factor. Americans usally vote for the likeable candidate. Kerry wasn't at all likeable and yet he nearly beat a wartime president, which would have been astounbding.

[aquart]

Rudy is the man who brought his mistress into his wife's house. He was great on 9/11 and I will never let anyone diminish that. I was there. But he didn't build on it, except to guarantee his future income. He is certainly not a voice of conscience for America.

[Crab Nebula]

DemfromCt, check out Ruy Teixera's polling on Kerry's alleged "dislikeability." Very recent post in the last week. He was not as disliked as a lot of the smart blogosphere thinks.

I maintain that while far from charming, warm and loveable, Kerry was fairly decent...he just needed to be perfect to win. I am not advocating that he be the nominee in 08, though....I do wonder whether he'd be a better choice than Hillary, though. I have a gut semi-dislike of her personality and speaking voice, which is never a good sign.

And as for Roosevelt's dichtotomy between cut and run and stay the course, I really don't get it. I think there's an infinite set of nuanced places in between those, and the determinant will be what voters think of the authenticity of the speaker, not the specifics of the position. It will be his (or her) "perceived character", whatever the hell that is. I could offer up a few definitions, but it's mostly projection on the part of voters and symbolic performance on the part of the candidate. My money's on Mark Warner, by the way. His Iraq "answer" is unformed as of yet....but it doesn't have to be, so he's smart at avoiding commitment. The guy is smart and devoid of phoniness. I think he's a winner. But I should be posting this in 14 months, not now.....

[DemFromCT]

I'm not endorsing Rudy. As I said, I know who he is, elephant dung and all. But he's at the top of the GOP list right now, because to America he represents a blend of security and competence.

We'll have to see if he lasts. He's got vulnerabilities like you mentioned that McCain does not.

[DemFromCT]

crab, Ruy was arguing aginst the idea that someone other than Kerry in 2004 would have done better. He, like me, gives Kerry props for doing as well as he did. I don't think anyone other than Kerry could have necessarily won. I think Kerry could have done better and won, not the same thing. Imagine if he hadn't uttered 'I voted for it before I voted against it', or hadn't gone wind surfing, or (more to the point) was liked better by the press (which Ruy didn't measure).

[Dave Thomer]

I'm looking at this quote, and it seems to crystallize something that's been going in in my mind for a while:

"He said that in retrospect he should have thought about last year's election in a different way. He said he should have considered that a vote for John Kerry, whom he strongly disliked, was a vote not for an individual but for a Democratic administration. We needed a Democratic administration, he said, to keep in check a Republican Congress."

It's entirely possible that I'm trying to rationalize my way into feeling good about 2004, but I'm wondering if it might not be a good thing in the long run that Bush and the GOP won so big last year. I always thought that one thing that would come out of unified GOP control would be that Democrats could point to the results and say, "Look, here's what their agenda really accomplsihes - and doesn't." For that to work, it depends on the Dems making the contrast - which I do think they're starting to do - and on the results being clearly bad. I don't know if people were ready to see that last year, but they seem to be now. And I do wonder - if Kerry had won, and everything from 2000-2004 were still coming home to roost, would the GOP just find a way to blame Kerry for thwarting their agenda?

The downside to this idea is that it might prompt a lot of voters to think that divided government is the way to go again. And I doubt that's helpful to Dems in the long term.

[windansea]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2600745_pf.html