Bush's Slide Continues

by DemFromCT

Even the press – our press – can't help but notice. From the WaPo:

As the president passed the 100-day mark of his second term over the weekend, the main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment.

Instead, some political analysts say it is just as likely that Washington is witnessing a happens-all-the-time phenomenon -- the mistaken assumption by politicians that an election won on narrow grounds is a mandate for something broad. In Bush's case, this includes restructuring Social Security and the tax code and installing a group of judges he was unable to seat in his first term. This was the error that nearly sank Bill Clinton's presidency in his first years in office in 1993 and 1994 when he put forth a broad health care plan, and that caused then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich's Republican "Revolution" to stall in 1995 in a confrontation over cutting spending for popular domestic programs.

Don't expect confirmation from Bushies; they never admit a mistake. But the papers are full of others doing it for them. From the Weekley Standard on Social Security:

With only one of the 44 Democratic senators willing to cooperate on Social Security, it's hard to see how a reform measure can pass. This is particularly true since none of the Democrats faces pressure at home to work with the president on the issue. Instead, Democrats

have been able to oppose Bush's reform drive, offer no alternative, and do so with impunity. Many congressional Republicans are understandably leery of embracing the issue this year.

Meanwhile, Bush's focus on Social Security reform has exacted a political cost. The president's foreign policy has become stunningly successful and the economy is strong and growing despite soaring gas prices and a shaky stock market. Yet his job performance rating in nearly every poll is 50 percent or less. What's the reason? It's certainly not Bush's limited involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. And gas prices have been stuck at about $2.00 a gallon for only a few weeks. No, it must be Social Security.

If Bush is forced to accept defeat on Social Security, it's important he do it the right way. If he's petulant, it will only make things worse. And if he says the fight isn't over yet and he's going to try again in the next Congress to push through a reform measure, it will only make life easier for Democrats. They've become completely reactionary and have nothing to campaign on in 2006. Keeping Social Security reform alive would give them an issue to run on--or rather against.

Business Week chimes in, too:

One hundred and one days into his second term, President George W. Bush is near the low point of his four-and-a-half-year Presidency. His party is struggling mightily, too.

It's not just us who recognize when a car's a lemon. Conservatives can talk all they want about the virtues of lemonade, but this Social Security fiasco is setting up the other upcoming battles over Bolton and DeLay as even more crucial for Bush than they otherwise would be. And nothing good is coming out of Iraq despite the delusional thinking that the Iraqi election changes everything. Even Blair's troubles are getting play in the evening news now.

My, that duck in the White House is looking mighty lame.

Comments

[Newsie8200]

" The president's foreign policy has become stunningly successful and the economy is strong and growing despite soaring gas prices and a shaky stock market. "

What's the Weekly Standard smokin?

Economy is strong? Tell that to the average American.

Foreign policy is stunningly successful? On what grounds can they make this statement?

Elections in Iraq went better than everyone thought they'd go, but there's practically no security. Americans see violence. Violence in Iraq is reported every single day. It's not biased either. You can't bias something like "Today, 4 Americans were killed in an insurgent attack in Mosul."

Social Security has hurt Bush, but the Weekly Standard is missing crucial aspects. Consumer confidence is down. More and more people feel like he lied to get us into Iraq. The Bush administration were so confident about their stunningly successful foreign policy, that they tried to hide the fact that terrorist attacks have gone up in the last year.

[DemFromCT]

That would be Fred Barnes, and if that's what the Bush supporters think, it's more evidence they're so out of touch with reality that it'll hit them especially hard. But you have to understand that for ther top 1%, the economy's okay.

It's the rest of us that pay for gas while the rich get their tax cuts and estate planning taken care of.

They really do want to do away with the New Deal.

[Kelly Miller]

What's the Weekly Standard smokin?

The same thing they are always smokin'. The Weekly Standard is a right wing opinion magazine, headed by William Kristol and Fred "the memo story turns out to be yet another instance of crude liberal bias" Barnes. So, Weekly Standard criticizing the Bushies is a "man bites dog" story.

[DemFromCT]

Thanks, Kelly; that is the point. Business Week, while more mainsteam, isn't exactly Democratic Underground, either. When these folks say it's time to bail on SS 'reform', it's time to bail. Although, I haven't caught Kristol saying it.

[Crab Nebula]

What are they smoking? They really, truly have no idea how likely it is that there will be a recession, a technical one, with negative gdp growth stretching over (what is it?) 3 quarters. Or, best case, growth in the sub-3% range, which will feel like a recession to most people. (like it did just a few years ago)

This "reality" is a liberal wish fantasy to them, because their economic policies are fail safe. It's gonna be a shock.

I'm not an economic expert by any stretch, but I'm trying to figure out how we'll be able to grow enough in the longer term without the perfect storm of unsustainable debt stimulus and speculation we've had in the last ten years.

[demtom]

A week or two back, Krugman wrote a column about this delusion some Republicans have re: the economy -- he says they actually refer, without irony, to a "Bush boom". His conclusion was that they speak only to one another (all wealthy shareholders), and have no awareness of how bad the job market is/has been for Bush's entire term. I agree with Crab Nebula, too: worse times are coming -- worthless growth at best, real recession at worst. You can imagine where public attitudes will go then.

As for Iraq, the GOP and the DC pundit class unilaterally bought into the "purple fingers trump all" thesis. I don't think they've quite processed the past week or so yet, which has seen that theory come crashing to the ground. Note, however, from the polls: Americans on the whole never bought into this idea, and certainly not in light of recent events. Iraq is an unholy mess, getting unholier and messier.

Almost the most amazing part of the Post story was the idea that anyone took the '04 election results as evidence of realignment. A 2.4% victory (following a .5% loss)? A hair's-breadth margin in the EC? Gains in the House based only on extraordinary re-districting? The best case would be in the Senate, but even there, it was close races in GOP-favoring states that brough the result. What caused anyone sane to promote this concept to begin with? Is it just because Karl Rove started pushing the idea prior to 2000, and people feel obligated to make themselves believe it?

[DemFromCT]

Good points, demtom. As you know, i thought the realignment stuff was mythical from about 11/3/04 onward, including in the semate. but those that win the wars write the history.

Until reality catches up, of course.