May 25, 2004 PERMALINK
Message: I Got Nothing
(posted May 25 1:15 AM ET)
Talking Points Memo said Bush was "down into Daddy territory" after a CBS poll pegged his approval at an awful 41%.
LiberalOasis won't go that far yet.
This is a reaction to recent events, not necessarily a fundamental shift away from 50-50 Nation.
In turn, a temporary lull in Iraq would likely allow Bush to tick back up. (The "Bush Cycle," Bush's historic gravitational pull towards the 50% mark, can work both ways.)
But there is one key way he appears to be like his father, why "Daddy territory" is Dubya's likely destiny.
Their refusal to propose new directions in policy when situations demand it.
Back in January 1992, Poppy Bush went up to New Hampshire, and tried to show he was in touch:
I think I've known, look, this economy is in free-fall. I hope I've known it.
Maybe I haven't conveyed it as well as I should have, but I do understand it.
But instead of proposing policy solutions and taking substantive action, all he could muster was uninspiring hope:
Without having it sound like Mrs. Rose Scenario, this is New Hampshire. You've done a lot. You've accomplished a lot.
And this State is going to pull out of this. This national economy is going to pull out of this.
You look back in history of this country. It always has, and it will.
To adhere to GOP ideology -- that the government has no business interfering with the glorious business cycle -- Poppy had no choice but to ride it out, and beg the public to do the same.
Last night, Dubya found himself in a similar situation: acknowledging at least a little bit of reality with typical Bush-family finesse:
There's likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty, and after the transfer of sovereignty.
And he also offered his version of uninspiring hope: "We will persevere, and defeat this enemy."
But Dubya added his own special twist.
Instead of simply refusing to propose any new direction in policy, he also lied about the current policy:
The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.
Sounds straight-shootin'. But, on CNN's Inside Politics, the occupation authority's chief spokesman was all spokesman-y:
JUDY WOODRUFF: So Iraqi leaders will be running Iraq. Will they have control, though, over U.S. forces?
Will they be able to determine whether U.S. or multinational forces remain in Iraq?
DAN SENOR: You know, I wouldn't focus so much on the word "control," as I would "partnership."
Later, on CNN's Newsnight, John King reported on what "partnership" really means:
If US troops stay in Iraq once there is a sovereign government, France and Germany and others want those troops to answer to the sovereign government.
The White House says no. There will be a letter of understanding, but no firm authority.
As most everyone saw through Bush's feints, the speech was essentially newsless.
And Fox News' Fred Barnes briefly stopping shilling an hour prior to the speech to make a spot-on prediction:
If [the razing of] Abu Ghraib is the big headline coming out this speech, then…I suspect Bush will have failed in his effort to change the political atmosphere in Washington [and] reverse the panic…
----
Reverse the panic? Is there a panic in GOP-land? :roflol:
|
/
Bush Approval Rating down again--41%
