The Price of Losing Credibility

by DemFromCT

So the President of these United States, unpopular and sinking in the polls, gives a moderate speech on immigration, trying to split the pinata/baby, and attempting to shore up his standing with the restive conservatives — all the while pressuring the House to go along with Bush and the Senate on a guest worker program that the President deems necessary to make border security work. Everyone acknowledges this is consistent with Bush's career stance on immigration. Some even call taking his own party on as 'leadership'. But balancing the tough stance on border security is the move to woo the Latino and Hispanic vote toward the GOP, a long term Bush goal. So how'd he do? Well, let's put it this way... not so good.

Hispanic voters, many of whom responded favorably to President Bush's campaign appeals emphasizing patriotism, family and religious values in Spanish-language media in 2004, are turning away from the administration on immigration and a host of other issues, according to a new survey.

At the same time, separate polls show that conservative white Republicans are the voting group most hostile to the administration's support for policies that would move toward the legalization of many undocumented immigrants.

Cumulatively, the data underscore the perils for Bush and his party in the immigration debate churning on Capitol Hill, one that threatens to bleed away support simultaneously from the Republican base and from Hispanic swing voters, whom Bush strategists had hoped to make an important new part of the GOP coalition.

A survey of 800 registered Hispanic voters conducted May 11-15 by the nonpartisan Latino Coalition showed that Democrats were viewed as better able to handle immigration issues than Republicans, by nearly 3 to 1: 50 percent to 17 percent. Pitting the Democrats against Bush on immigration issues produced a 2 to 1 Democratic advantage, 45 percent to 22 percent.

The poll findings indicate that Republicans are likely to have a hard time replicating Bush's 2004 performance among Latino voters. According to 2004 exit polls, Bush received the backing of 40 percent of Hispanic voters, up from 34 percent in 2000. Other studies have put the 2004 figure somewhat lower, although there is general agreement that Bush made statistically significant gains from 2000 to 2004.

Even if the GOP does maintain Bush's margins among Latinos in 2008, another study found that Democrats are likely to achieve a net gain in future elections, simply because Hispanics are growing as a share of the electorate.

Part of the problem is that Mr. 29% doesn't have the credibility to pull this off. While he argues Iraq has turned a new corner, the Iraq civil war continues, unabated by PR drivel about this 'new' government being yet another milestone. And the lack of credibility about Iraq certainly feeds the lack of credibility about immigration (Katrina didn't do anything to help, of course). So why would anyone care what Bush says, anymore?

It's interesting because Bush has become something more (or less) than simply a lame duck. He's become an irrelevent item. And all of that, as Charlie Cook put it, makes Americans hit the mute button when Bush speaks.

Republican pollsters say that moderates and women are Bush's biggest problem -- at least in terms of his plunging scores. His numbers on the war in Iraq haven't moved, but the broader issue of "competence" -- which surfaced after Hurricane Katrina -- has combined with high gasoline prices to take a real toll on his standing. The pollsters say that even though only liberals and Democrats actually blame Bush for the prices at the pump, the unhappiness about high gasoline prices is so souring the public mood that it's undermining Bush's already low ratings.
 
The president must do three things, GOP strategists argue. First, change the subject -- shift the public's attention away from problems that are dragging the poll numbers down. They acknowledge, however, that could well be Mission Impossible. Second, make real changes. Bush needs to do more than replace some White House aides whom most voters have never heard of with other unknowns. Third, the president's team must find some way to deal with the fact that Americans seem to have just grown tired of the current Bush. Arguably, the public saw one George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, another during his pre-9/11 months in the White House, and a third ever since 9/11.
 
Americans eventually hit the mute button on President Carter, whose floor in the Gallup Poll was 28 percent approval. Have they also stopped listening to Bush?

In any case, alienating both Hispanic/Latino voters while chasing away conservatives and Republican moderates is the real trifecta. Even Dr. Frist, Mr. Competent Personality, would have trouble pulling that off as deftly as Bush has. And Americans are not going to let Bush change the subject, nor is Bush going to allow change.

I wonder why Republicans are worried about 2006?

 

 

 

 
 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

The reason for courting Hispanics is demographic--because the non-white population is growing faster than the (non-Hispanic) white population, the GOP coalition can't attain true majority status without expanding. Put that together with the fact that they seem to be on the wrong side of history on many issues, like gay marriage, science, stem cells, global warming, you name it, the future of the current GOP seems much less bright than Rove would have people believe.

In addition, Rover and Bush are experiencing the flip side of governing by 50+1, or the majority-of-the-majority. That is, when you lose even a sliver, you lose period.

I tend to agree with the analysis I read somewhere that people projected onto Bush the strength they wanted to see in their leader after 9/11. They voted for him agian in 2004 with some trepidation. Katrina was so devastating because it revealed that Bush was both incompetent and feckless--he nbot only didn;t know what to do, he didn't care about anything but himself and his patrons. That was an eyeopener for those who had supported him.

Having seen the error of their ways, no wonder they are tuning him out. There is an anti-incumbent fever that will redound to the Dems' benefit, to the extent they portray themselves as interested in bringing about change in the name of the comon good.

I could see the Dems winning 35, even 40 House seats and 7 Senate seats, if they play their cards right.

[bleh]

Jeez, one comment, and already that's pretty much everything I wanted to say.

I will add one thing: I think the Dems have a big advantage right now simply in being The Other Guys, standing for "change," attacking the incompetence and corruption of the Republicans, etc. But I don't think that's enough, on its own, to pull off a 1994-type power-shift.

The Dems simply have got to stand FOR something, and not just a watered-down version of what Bush and the Republicans want. For example, they could stand for a prompt, just, and stable resolution of our military involvement in Iraq, based on a clear, achievable set of conditions under which we would begin to rapidly reduce our commitment of men and money. They could stand for a reasonable, market-compatible solution to the health insurance crisis that has left over 40 million Americans without any insurance and is impoverishing many of those who still have it. They could call for a massive investment in technology to reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 50% in less than 10 years, paid for by reducing our military expenditures (over a billion dollars a week) in Iraq. And they could commit to repairing our broken public-education system and restoring American education to its formerly pre-eminent position in the world.

Yeah, they would be roundly attacked, in the slimiest and most underhanded way, by the Rovian spin machine and its barking-head mouthpieces. And so what? If they fought back, giving as good as they got, they'd finally be perceived as standing for something, instead of diving back under the bed every time a Republican growls at them.

THAT, imho, is what would get us 35-40 seats.

[DemFromCT]

bleh, that's a matter of timing. but until they come out with something, they'll be hammered - and deservedly, and in a different way then the way they'll be hammered after.

[Mimikatz]

Well, the Right sure isn't happy. This screed by a very unhappy Richard Viguerie could, with a few changes, have been written by a Lamont-ite. Maybe, if we have a dual revolt of the footsoldiers, we will have three parties--the conservatives, the progressives and the corporatists. That would be interesting.

[DemFromCT]

what a screed from viguerie:

In 2004, Republican leaders pleaded with conservatives -- particularly religious conservatives -- to register people to vote and help them turn out on Election Day. Those efforts strengthened Republicans in Congress and probably saved the Bush presidency. We were told: Just wait till the second term. Then, the president, freed of concern over reelection and backed by a Republican Congress, would take off the gloves and fight for the conservative agenda. Just wait.

We're still waiting.

Sixty-five months into Bush's presidency, conservatives feel betrayed. After the "Bridge to Nowhere" transportation bill, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and the Dubai Ports World deal, the immigration crisis was the tipping point for us. Indeed, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found last week that Republican disapproval of Bush's presidency had increased from 16 percent to 30 percent in one month. It is largely the defection of conservatives that is driving the president's poll numbers to new lows.

Emboldened and interconnected as never before by alternative media, such as talk radio and Internet blogs, many conservatives have concluded that the benefits of unwavering support for the GOP simply do not, and will not, outweigh the costs.

The main cause of conservatives' anger with Bush is this: He talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative.

For all of conservatives' patience, we've been rewarded with the botched Hurricane Katrina response, headed by an unqualified director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which proved that the government isn't ready for the next disaster. We've been rewarded with an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. We've been rewarded with a war in Iraq that drags on because of the failure to provide adequate resources at the beginning, and with exactly the sort of "nation-building" that Candidate Bush said he opposed.

No one likes the war. Take note. Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan.

[mamayaga]

Maybe, if we have a dual revolt of the footsoldiers, we will have three parties--the conservatives, the progressives and the corporatists.

Would be an interesting test – to see if the People or the Money has more rights under our system of government. One of the fascinating things about Bush's dive in approval is that it breaks the heretofore unbreakable link between what people think and how much money has been spent to get them to think that way. Bush is tanking despite the huge resources put solidly behind him by corporate media, which until recently has been largely unwilling to report anything negative about the guy. I've been thinking that the slide towards fascism in this country has been very much our own fault as citizens, the majority of whom have been content to vote according to what they learn from 30-second spots on the teevee (or to not vote at all). Increasingly it looks like the American citizenry may be willing and able to entertain other sources of information. What will Big Money do when it is unable to dominate those other sources?

[Gold Star for Robot Boy]

"First, change the subject -- shift the public's attention away from problems that are dragging the poll numbers down."
What if the problems are everywhere, and everything?

[DemFromCT]

that's why it's Mission Impossible.

[Marysz]

Bush's confused immigration message is leading to even more suffering:

"Mr. Calderón said his native town of Churintzio had been nearly emptied by migration to the United States. He himself had gone back and forth across the border for much of the last two decades. But he said he had spent the last five years in Mexico, trying to start his own restaurant.

His son, on the other hand, had made enough money working in restaurants between San Antonio and Corpus Christi to return to Michoacán and build a home. Now the two of them were off to the United States again to seek more work, this time in California.

Mr. Calderón said he had heard that President Bush "is going to give work permits, and so I have come to get one."

He would not, however, get one this day. Border Patrol helicopters buzzed overhead. A few minutes later came the trucks. And without much of an exchange, Mr. Calderón and his son were taken away."

Desperation on Unforgiving Arizona-Mexico Border

[Dan Robinson]

This immigration issue was blessed by Karl Rove in part to divert attention from the lack of effort on port security. Immigration, from the Administration, was addressed in terms of national security. It became the national security issue for them.

Democrats need to reshape this discussion by keeping port security in the discussion.

[bling]

I'm finding the administration's approach to the latest political news out of Iraq really interesting. Since the occupation began, they've used every tiny event to mount a huge PR push. We caught Sadam! Major pr offensive. We've handed over sovereignty! Another one. On and on. This time - seemingly the biggest news yet - and what are they doing? Not much. You really have to wonder what's up with that. I'm betting that their focus groups are telling them that
a. All their blather about "milestones" in the past have completely erased their credibility.
b. Whatever they have to say about Iraq is regarded as bad by the huge majority of the populace.