The Unpopular Republican Leader

by DemFromCT

In this case, I'm not referring to Denny Hastert, beloved of terrified Republican Congressmen (but not so much on Main Street), but rather George W. Bush. One of the major benefits of the media focus on the House scandal (hitting on kids is never a benefit, whatever the outcome for the GOP) is that Bush's agitprop is drowned out by the outrage.

Through disappointing polls and bad news in Iraq, intraparty squabbling over immigration and bipartisan broadsides on port security, President Bush has been able to use the megaphone of his office to shout above the din and shape the national debate.

But the Mark Foley scandal is rendering that megaphone practically useless, just as the president is trying to turn up the volume to help his party beat back Democratic efforts to take control of Congress this November.

A major theme is that the American public has turned on Bush's Iraq apologia. We've seen that with previous polls

The point that the three polls (CNN, WSJ/NBC and the Institute For Southern Studies) all make is that the Iraq civil war (the public agrees it is) is a mess that makes us less safe and is not a central front in the WoT^TM.

and a flurry of new polls reinforces this. First of all, the Pew poll reasserts:

Iraq has become the central issue of the midterm elections. There is more dismay about how the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going than at any point since the war began more than three years ago. And the war is the dominant concern among the majority of voters who say they will be thinking about national issues, rather than local issues, when they cast their ballot for Congress this fall.

Pew's latest nationwide survey finds 58% of the public saying that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is not going well, and a 47% plurality believes the war in Iraq is hurting, not helping, the war on terrorism. The poll finds extensive public awareness of a leaked intelligence estimate suggesting that the war is spawning more terrorism. More than third of Americans (35%) say they have heard a lot about the intelligence report, and these people are much more likely than others to say the war in Iraq is hurting the war on terror.

The bottom line is that the war remains unpopular, the rationale for the war (central front in the war on terror) is rejected, and Bush is held rsponsible. Bush remains at 37% in the Pew poll for the third straight month. The monthly poll missed the politically insignificant 2-3 point media bump surrounding 9/11, now dissipated.

Two more polls show a return to Bush's 30's ratings. The Ap/Ipsos poll is at 38 (-1) and TIME is at 36 (-2). This joins the 39 for CNN and the WSJ/NBC poll (-3). Goodbye, 40's and hello 30's. Professor Franklin at Political Arithmetik will be updading the aggregate within the next 24 hours.

All of this is really too early for the Foly-Hastert-Reynolds scandal (which needs a few more days to crest, and a few more to be measured). But what the polls do show is that Republicans were already in trouble in November (we knew that), the major rationale for continued Republican rule (Iraq is the central front in the war on terror) is rejected by the public, Bush remains exceedingly unpopular (even the bigotry of low expectations labels <40 as "toxic") and the Republican Administration is a miserable failure. The House leadership scandal is merely icing on the cake, and another reason the House will be a nationalized election. But if you want a hint of the Foleygate effect, check out the Mystery Pollster.

I usually hesitate to make too much of the often variable three-day rolling averages from automated pollster Rasmussen Reports, but one particular finding this week looks particularly ominous for the Republicans. Bush's "strongly disapprove" rating today sits at 46% after rising steadily from 39% a week ago (according to data on Rasmussen's premium site). It had averaged 39-40% during September and only registered as high as 46% on one other day this year

Stay tuned. This is one unpopular President, and he's presiding on an imploding party. Staving off Hastert's demise for appearance's sake hasn't solved a thing and the voters know it.

Comments

[ab initio]

I wonder if all these issues(NIE, Woodward, Foley) coming out at the same time actually accentuate each other or just create overload?

In any case I hope the Dem candidates get even more aggressive and push their media advantage even harder. The drumbeats for failure and lack of judgement need to rise every day leading to a crescendo before election day.

[DemFromCT]

click the "not so much" link in the story to see.

[Meteor Blades]

Just so we'll know where to hand out the ultimate kudos, DemFromCT, how many months ago did you start saying (based on your reading of the polls) that the key issue in the midterms was going to be Iraq?

ab initio, I couldn't agree more. The wonderful thing about blood in the water is that it turns out a lot of allegedly spineless Dems turn out to be sharks.

Interviewers are getting their heads handed to them, and Republican shills who used to get treated with such kid gloves are getting slightly tougher questions, while the Dems being interviewed for "balance" are cudgeling them with a message that essentially reads like what left wwwLand has been saying should be the case for a long, long time: Republicans mess up everything they get their hands on and they refuse to take responsbility for it. The tougher Dems may not sound quite like Keith Olbermann yet, but more of them seem to be leaning that way.

I personally think they should all take on a word Olbermann used last night. Not "lie" because that's been the word on Mister Bush for years. "Dishonor" is the right word, with the right tone. I like it because I think the Bush Regime sees nothing wrong in lying "for the cause," and neither do many of its supporters. But talking about "dishonor" turns their lies about their critics right back at them in a way that they can't repeat without reinforcing the Republicans-have-behaved-dishonorably theme. And that is delicious.

[DemFromCT]

I like that, MB. I like that a lot.

[Jodi]

Overload!

Three events become no more than one.

Better for the Democrats if these things had come on over a longer period of time.
Of course most were time for right before the election.

[DemFromCT]

''Overload!''

Nonsense. Those not paying attention hear something. Those paying attention hear everything. It's like that annopying headache nostrum.

[freepatriot]

three events become ONE BIG FAT REASON TO DUMP THE REPUGLICANS

happened at the wrong time ???

what fucking planet are you on ???

the repuglicans are eating their own, 30 days before a national election, how could the timing be better ???

the chickens came home to roost just as America begins to pay attention, and jodi says the "timing" is bad

bad for who ???

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

I mean that a too rapid sequence of events becomes just a blur to the human eye and mind. Sure you can try to keep track of them, and number them, but most or can't do do that.

But maybe you just said that, so we agree.

"Better for the Democrats if these things had come on over a longer period of time."

:)

[Jodi]

Oops.

"but most or can't do do that."

should have been - but most can't or don't do that-

Hurry, hurry, ... , mistake, mistake.

[freepatriot]

Hemmingway said it

gradually, then suddenly

I fail to understand how the repuglicans reaching the "suddenly" phase of their downfall right before an election is bad news for the Democrats

Haster is in serious trouble, bohner is barely hanging on, and skimkus looks like dead meat

and joezoe torturman made a fool of himself in this mess too

that's a twofer we can handle

but don't worry, things ain't so bad for the repuglicans that it couldn't get worse

hum the MASH theme song, and picture the evacuation of the Green Zone

it could happen before November