by DemFromCT
Since the start of his second term, George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped almost 20 percentage points, including declines among key demographic groups. A Gallup analysis shows that Bush has lost the most support over this period from moderate and liberal Republicans, with most of this change coming in the last several months. Conservative Republicans remain solidly behind Bush, although their level of support for him has declined somewhat from the near-universal support they gave him at the start of his second term.
Bush's overall approval rating averaged 33% in the three most recent Gallup Polls, conducted in late April through mid-May. This is down from a 43% average in three polls conducted in January 2006, and a 52% average in three polls conducted in January 2005, as Bush began his second term in office.
So why were they supporting him in the first place? People like Mike Bloomberg have nothing in common with this crowd of radical wingnuts.
Distancing himself from national Republicans and the Bush administration, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday urged an end to the political manipulation of science, which he said had been used to discredit the threat of global warming and undermine medical advancements in areas like stem-cell research.
In a speech to graduating students of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Mr. Bloomberg railed against what he sees as ideologically motivated arguments that have fueled debate over hot-button issues like teaching evolution in public schools and the Terri Schiavo case.
"Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agenda," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it 'political science.' "
Who would want to be associated with Mr. 29%? Only Chris and Nora, I suppose. Well, me, I like Mike on this one.
Mr. Bloomberg chose friendly territory as a backdrop for the comments, among the most politically charged of his tenure. He attended Johns Hopkins as an undergraduate, has given the university hundreds of millions of dollars over the years and spoke before an audience who might tend to identify with his views.
But beyond the halls of the university, the comments were sure to ruffle feathers and again illustrate the widening gulf between Mr. Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat before his run for mayor, and the Republican Party to which he now belongs.
Having won re-election last year in New York by a decisive margin and with no clear future political ambitions, Mr. Bloomberg, 64, appears to be reveling in his freedom to say what he wants without worrying about the consequences within the Republican Party.
They used to say about Nelson Rockefeller: ain't it great to have a Republican so rich he doesn't have to steal? Well, in this case, having a Republican who isn't beholden to the Dobsonites in DC has its reward as well. He doesn't need a pardon and he doesn't need a job. How refreshing is that? Well, anyway, it's better than this stinker Bloomberg delivered on 2004:
I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
The president deserves our support.
(APPLAUSE)
We are here to support him.
(APPLAUSE)
And I am here to support him.
(APPLAUSE)
Sigh. What people say and do for money.
Only the rabid wingnuts support him. Even nutjob conservatives like Viguerie are nailing Bush.
Check out his WaPo op-ed:
Bush's Base Betrayal
"Conservatives are beginning to realize that nothing will change until there's a change in the GOP leadership. If congressional Republicans win this fall, they will see themselves as vindicated, and nothing will get better.
If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done. We're like a union that agrees never to strike, no matter how badly its members are treated. Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat. If Ford had won in 1976, it's unlikely Reagan ever would have been president. If the elder Bush had won in 1992, it's unlikely the Republicans would have taken control of Congress in 1994."
Maybe there is a lesson here for liberals too! Change in Dem leadership???
Posted by: ab initio | May 26, 2006 at 21:30
Ruy Texeira also wrote about this a few days back. Yet, over and over, TV pundits talk as if Bush's main job is, still, keeping the far right happy -- they make endless suggestions for how he can do that and solve all his problems. Why do so many people do analyses that fly clearly in the face of facts?
Not that I mind. I'll be thrilled to see the Republican party finally pay for its descent in wingnuthood.
Posted by: demtom | May 26, 2006 at 22:38
The November 2006 elections could be a watershed moment in U.S. political history, although we won't realize it until much later.
The Rove strategy, although somewhat baffling to outsiders and political pundits, makes some sense. The Congressional Republicans are faced with a large loss in the House and a smaller but significant loss in the Senate. One strategy for Congressional Republicans would be to move to the center as quickly as possible to bring the center-right voters back to the Republican fold come November. This is a very risky strategy in that the Republicans might lose both the center-right voters and their stolid social conservative base. An alternative strategy would be for Congressional Republicans to heave to so as to stave off the approaching voter storm. In this strategy, the Republicans stay the conservative course and rally the conservative base. It's what they are left with at this time. This is a far less risky strategy. It's the "dance with the one who brung you" strategy. Conservatives have no place to go but they could stay home. So, the trick will be to rally them to the polls. There are three groups of conservatives: movement conservatives (Goldwater remnant, paleocons), fiscal conservatives and social conservatives (Christian Right). The largest voting block is the social conservatives. They have to vote and do so in large numbers. Or the Republican Congressional gooses are cooked. It's probably the best strategy the Republicans have at this point. It's too late in the game for them to move to the center by moderating their positions. And even if they did, they'd lose the conservative base.
The strategy of "heaving to" might work because the Democrats have failed to carve out the political territory that could result in an election "tsunami" come this November. The Rove strategy might be the right one come November because if you listen to average voters talking now you will hear a sense of "we're on our own" meaning that they don't expect either political party to hold up for them. As I've been listening to voters lately, I've noticed a shift. I hear more voters talking about why they should even bother voting because the "politicians in Washington" are in the pockets of the rich and the corporations. This is not good news for Democratic hopes of a huge win in November. Although the generic ballot question puts the Democrats significantly ahead of the Republicans, this won't translate into large wins come November if the average voter decides to sit it out. Right now, I haven't heard a clear and consistent message from the Democrats on why they are the solution. Voters may know and agree that the Republicans are the problem but I don't think they believe that the Democrats are the solution. In fact, I get the feeling that a lot of voters don't think there is a solution. This sense of powerlessness could be a forewarning of an electorate so fed up, but so disgusted with both sides of the aisle, that they decide to sit it out.
Today's vote on Gen. Hayden for the CIA is an example of the mixed message that confuses the average voter. If you listen to average voters, they've been talking about the NSA spying and how it is illegal and why it makes no sense for the government to spy on average Americans. The average voter sees the issue as a no-brainer, it's expensive and it won't amount to anything. It doesn't make sense is a common refrain. But, when I was talking to some voters today, they mentioned that the Democrats voted to put a military guy in charge of the CIA and this was wrong because he was involved in the NSA spying and they thought that a military man wasn't supposed to head the CIA. Even though they didn't know the specifics, they had picked up the essence of what the media had reported about this issue over the past week. So, once again, in their mind, the NSA spying and the choice of the head the CIA were conflated in their minds and since the Democrats voted for the guy then there wasn't any difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. For them, it was just one more confirmation that no one in Washington, D.C. really represents the "little guy."
It's a very strange election season. While there is passion and anger on the left of center and there is passion and anger on the right of center, the average voter may be coming to terms with the fact that no one in Washginton, D.C., really represents them. Whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats, they're all bought and paid for by the same special interests and the same lobbyists and the same corporations. This may be the reason why the Democrat strategy of "keeping their powder dry" might turn out to be the most missed opportunity in modern political history. If you don't stand for something before the election season rolls around, can you really expect voters to believe that you stand for something as you campaign? ;-) Did you ever wonder why the Republicans are quick to point out that the Democrats approved of this or that or knew of this or knew of that? It's the Rove master strategy. For his "back to the base" strategy to work in November, he has to convince voters that the Democrats were complicit or acquiescent in everything. In other words, the Democrats did it too. So don't blame us for it. If it works, it's the most brillant political strategy in modern political history. But it can only work because the Democrats have let it work by "keeping their powder dry." It will be interesting to see what the cost of all that dry powder will be come this November.
Posted by: Jon | May 27, 2006 at 01:17
The November 2006 elections could be a watershed moment in U.S. political history, although we won't realize it until much later.
The Rove strategy, although somewhat baffling to outsiders and political pundits, makes some sense. The Congressional Republicans are faced with a large loss in the House and a smaller but significant loss in the Senate. One strategy for Congressional Republicans would be to move to the center as quickly as possible to bring the center-right voters back to the Republican fold come November. This is a very risky strategy in that the Republicans might lose both the center-right voters and their stolid social conservative base. An alternative strategy would be for Congressional Republicans to heave to so as to stave off the approaching voter storm. In this strategy, the Republicans stay the conservative course and rally the conservative base. It's what they are left with at this time. This is a far less risky strategy. It's the "dance with the one who brung you" strategy. Conservatives have no place to go but they could stay home. So, the trick will be to rally them to the polls. There are three groups of conservatives: movement conservatives (Goldwater remnant, paleocons), fiscal conservatives and social conservatives (Christian Right). The largest voting block is the social conservatives. They have to vote and do so in large numbers. Or the Republican Congressional gooses are cooked. It's probably the best strategy the Republicans have at this point. It's too late in the game for them to move to the center by moderating their positions. And even if they did, they'd lose the conservative base.
The strategy of "heaving to" might work because the Democrats have failed to carve out the political territory that could result in an election "tsunami" come this November. The Rove strategy might be the right one come November because if you listen to average voters talking now you will hear a sense of "we're on our own" meaning that they don't expect either political party to hold up for them. As I've been listening to voters lately, I've noticed a shift. I hear more voters talking about why they should even bother voting because the "politicians in Washington" are in the pockets of the rich and the corporations. This is not good news for Democratic hopes of a huge win in November. Although the generic ballot question puts the Democrats significantly ahead of the Republicans, this won't translate into large wins come November if the average voter decides to sit it out. Right now, I haven't heard a clear and consistent message from the Democrats on why they are the solution. Voters may know and agree that the Republicans are the problem but I don't think they believe that the Democrats are the solution. In fact, I get the feeling that a lot of voters don't think there is a solution. This sense of powerlessness could be a forewarning of an electorate so fed up, but so disgusted with both sides of the aisle, that they decide to sit it out.
Today's vote on Gen. Hayden for the CIA is an example of the mixed message that confuses the average voter. If you listen to average voters, they've been talking about the NSA spying and how it is illegal and why it makes no sense for the government to spy on average Americans. The average voter sees the issue as a no-brainer, it's expensive and it won't amount to anything. It doesn't make sense is a common refrain. But, when I was talking to some voters today, they mentioned that the Democrats voted to put a military guy in charge of the CIA and this was wrong because he was involved in the NSA spying and they thought that a military man wasn't supposed to head the CIA. Even though they didn't know the specifics, they had picked up the essence of what the media had reported about this issue over the past week. So, once again, in their mind, the NSA spying and the choice of the head the CIA were conflated in their minds and since the Democrats voted for the guy then there wasn't any difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. For them, it was just one more confirmation that no one in Washington, D.C. really represents the "little guy."
It's a very strange election season. While there is passion and anger on the left of center and there is passion and anger on the right of center, the average voter may be coming to terms with the fact that no one in Washginton, D.C., really represents them. Whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats, they're all bought and paid for by the same special interests and the same lobbyists and the same corporations. This may be the reason why the Democrat strategy of "keeping their powder dry" might turn out to be the most missed opportunity in modern political history. If you don't stand for something before the election season rolls around, can you really expect voters to believe that you stand for something as you campaign? ;-) Did you ever wonder why the Republicans are quick to point out that the Democrats approved of this or that or knew of this or knew of that? It's the Rove master strategy. For his "back to the base" strategy to work in November, he has to convince voters that the Democrats were complicit or acquiescent in everything. In other words, the Democrats did it too. So don't blame us for it. If it works, it's the most brillant political strategy in modern political history. But it can only work because the Democrats have let it work by "keeping their powder dry." It will be interesting to see what the cost of all that dry powder will be come this November.
Posted by: Jon | May 27, 2006 at 01:20
My apologies for the double post. When I hit the post button, my comment didn't appear so I assumed that it hadn't posted so I hit it again.
Posted by: Jon | May 27, 2006 at 01:21
Jon, we'll know in November, but I think that's only true if Dems 'keep their poweder rdy' until after the election.
Posted by: DemFromCT | May 27, 2006 at 07:37
Could some N'Yawkuh please remind me what brain fart it was that made Bloomberg become a Republican in the first place????
Proof that you can take the boy out of the Democrats, but you can't take the Democrats out of the boy.
Posted by: TCinLA | May 27, 2006 at 15:27
The Dem party in NYC sucks. he had a better chance to win as an R.
Posted by: DemFromCT | May 27, 2006 at 17:10
Jon, you've nailed it. We're in primary season here and voters at the doors just don't believe anyone gives a damn about them.
Posted by: janinsanfran | May 27, 2006 at 17:35
Jon, I am not sure if it is Rove's brilliance or the Dems keeping the powder dry for so long that it has coagulated. The current DC Dem establishment and their loser consultants have triangulated to losses for the past 15 years yet are unwilling to change course. They are as you point out part and parcel of the big money corporate interests.
That's why the primaries this summer are so very important. It's up to the Dem grassroots who go out and vote to help elect real Democrats those that are not afraid to stand up for principle and have courage of conviction and willing to fight the Repub power grab head-on without fear or compromise. We need to help candidates like Lamont & Tester defeat the Repub enablers. The conservatives have never shied away from putting up conservative candidates and backing them to the hilt even if that meant loss of the Repub candidate. Note Richard Viguerie's latest WaPo op-ed that i highlighted earlier in the thread. The progressive liberals have not held out in a similar manner, instead have fallen each time to we need to support the most "electable" and that meaning a definition of the DC establishment which translates to more sista souljah moments.
Until the liberal base is willing to risk loss and put up true progressive candidates and go all out to have them elected we will continue to have Repub enablers. The venue for that are the primaries. Of course we need to support a 100% the Dem nominee after the primaries as even a DINO is better than a corrupt Repub. I am encouraged that we are finding more progressive candidates running for office and the small efforts of the netroots to support those candidates. They may not win the primaries initially but over time can succeed if the intensity is increased. Personally, I am supporting in my small way challengers to Repub enablers in strong Dem districts and campaigning and voting for real progressives in my district. Although Dean lost the 2004 presidential primary that fact that there are milions of Dems wanting a change is heartening. I just hope that yearning for character can be successfully channeled into electoral victory in the not too distant future.
Posted by: ab initio | May 27, 2006 at 22:27
It's a mistake to expect the Democrats to quickly reinvent the party and its message, undoing decades of sloth and the other side's infrastructure advantage, just because an opportunity to win has come about this year. This takes a lot of time. It's like expecting a child to have the vocabulary of an adult within a year after learning to talk.
It's also arguable that even if D's had "the message" this year, that it would even be heard. It's going to take a Presidential campaign, where there is a nominee and a unified voice. And that voice has to be a savvy one. Lots of pieces have to fall together.
Posted by: Crab Nebula | May 28, 2006 at 09:52