Bush, the Miserable, Pathetic Failure
Click on the chart above to see it in full detail. The chart is courtesy Pollkatz.
Study the chart and then note the four times Bush’s poll numbers have risen. Note when they happened. 9/11 gave Bush a huge bump, when the nation was in shock, needed a strong leader, and lacking one, created one out of whole cloth. Note how steadily the illusion faded after that.
The second bump came at the start of the Iraq War; there’s not much like a war and big news of our soldiers fighting to give a huge boost to the president’s ability to shelter himself from criticism and paint himself as a strong leader. Still, not so big a bump as 9/11 provided. And again, note how quickly the facade crumbled.
The third bump, much smaller, came when Saddam Hussein was captured. That was good for about 5 percentage points for a few months.
And then the fourth bump, in late 2004. Note the difference in quality there. This was not a flash news story, not a sudden emergency to give Bush a quick jump. This was a slow rise, like a struggle to raise a weighted corpse–in short, the infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign spending by Bush and his surrogates. It took that much to slowly give Bush just enough of an artificial rise to barely clear Bush over the 50% mark.
Such spending cannot be sustained, of course. Therefore, the most recent slump.
But that’s the pattern. Without unsustainably massive spending, or a big news story about a war or terrorist attack, Bush’s numbers always fall. Always. It’s his natural state. Had there been no 9/11 (and as a result, no Iraq War), Bush’s numbers would simply have fallen into the wastebasket much earlier.
Bush has never gained popularity through his own achievements, he has always had to leech popularity from something else, something outside of himself. And now, it is questionable as to whether anything could bring him up out of this slump. Another terror attack might, but it just as easily might hurt him, as he wouldn’t be able to blame Clinton for it, and couldn’t say that no one saw it coming or that there were excuses for being unprepared. The public might not rally around a miserable failure. As for another war, that’s even more unlikely: our military is overextended. Bush has sapped it to the point where we could not invade another country–especially not one as big as Iran–without severe tire damage.
But it gets even worse for the Bushies. Nothing enrages a Bushie like Clinton. Mention Clinton and they go into an apoplectic rage, almost like instant Tourette’s Syndrome. Everything was Clinton’s fault, Clinton was a liar, Clinton was the anti-Christ.
And yet, a new poll out by CNN shows that the American people wish nothing more than to have Clinton back in office. The poll showed that Americans believe Clinton did a better job at everything–the economy, ordinary problems, natural disasters, foreign affairs, and taxes (those five by a large margin), and even national security–which, of course, Clinton did way better on, but Bush had 9/11 and tremendous national fear to bolster his numbers. Americans even believed that Clinton was more honest, despite the right-wing’s media-assisted eight-year bashing spree on Clinton, contrasted with the media’s war-weary kid-gloves handling of Bush. And, unsurprisingly, more than twice as many Americans saw Bush as a divider, and not a uniter.
Is a Bush approval surge possible? Yes, but then, it’s also possible that gas could fall to a dollar a gallon again; you just can’t expect it to happen. The trend clearly shows otherwise. Don’t be surprised if the other polls follow Harris into the 20’s, and who knows, maybe even farther. As Tim pointed out, there’s the domestic phone spying scandal, added to Rove and Abramoff and Wilkes and Cunningham and now prostitutes, all tied in with Bush in one way or another.
Cc made the argument that if the GOP doesn’t get too badly pasted this November, then Bush’s numbers could rise–but again, that would buck the trend. Look at the tracking chart again–Bush’s ’04 election rise came before November, not after. After winning even a presidential election and holding on to both houses of Congress, did Bush get a rise then? No, he immediately started to decline, as campaign commercial spending stopped. So how could Bush be expected to jump in the polls simply by the GOP not losing too badly in ’06? Far more likely that Republican losses could trash Bush even more thoroughly.
What we’re seeing here is not just a bad week for Bush, or even a bad year. This is his natural state. This is the man behind the curtain. And that once-luxuriant curtain of war and terror is getting mighty tattered. The pathetic loser of a man standing behind it is showing more and more, even to the point where stalwart conservatives are getting sick to see him and what he’s done.
What an honor, to be in a blog entry!
It’s not exactly surprising. People think that Clinton did better on the economy because they aren’t paying attention to the steady growth that is happening. Plus gas prices are a major issue for people right now and that is overshadowing any other success in economic news. Besides that, Clinton was President in a relatively calmer and more peaceful time in our history, globally speaking. And he didn’t have a disaster on the scale of Katrina to deal with. They are beneficiaries of the times they were/are in office, for good or for ill. So none of this surprises me at all.
You left out the other thing that gave Bush his bump in 2004.
Terror alerts.
With the 2006 midterm elections fast approaching, I predict that we will see at least two, and possibly as many as four, instances of the terror alert level being raised to “Orange” between now and early November.
What’s more, I expect we’ll see more of the types of “alerts” where they don’t actually raise the level, but they do stuff that makes it look like things are going bad anyway.
Paul
Seattle, WA
Cc: Maybe they aren’t paying attention to the “steady growth” that’s happening because that “steady growth” is leaving them behind. In a jobless recovery where wages are depressed, the wealthy or those only focused on numbers will notice things, but if someone still isn’t getting paid any more, if their personal financial sitiuation is bad, they’re not going to praise Bush because corporate profits are up. Bush may talk a good game about “ownership society,” but if only 1% of the population are the “owners,” then don’t expect the masses to be joyous at their windfall. Plus, people may be reacting to the fact that the economy sagged for years under Bush, and even the jobless recovery took far longer to come than recoveries usually take.
Or hey, it might be because the economy was booming under Clinton, but I am not too surprised that you overlooked that small detail, nor that you will probably find a way to completely disassociate Clinton from that, whilst crediting Bush for the recent “steady growth” but not blaming him for the years of poor economic performance.
As for the “relatively calmer and more peaceful time in our history,” mind backing that up? The Balkans were not exactly quiet then, and terrorism was no less a threat. It just happens that where Clinton averted a terror attack (the Millennium plot) Bush failed to stop 9/11, despite having the intel and time to react had he only followed Clinton’s counterterrorism methods. Had LAX been bombed along with other targets in early 2000, the war in Afghanistan might have started two years earlier. Had Bush been paying attention and stopped 9/11, there would have been no wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Therefore, the fundamental, or starting-point challenge for both presidents was very similar in regards to the “war on terror.” The end result was a direct consequence of how each handled counterterrorism, along with elements of chance–but was not a result of “more peaceful times.”
So aside from the two Middle East wars which were not a quality of the times but rather a result of presidential performance and chance, what is intrinsically “calmer and more peaceful” about right now compared to the 90’s?
As for Katrina, that was less about the storm and more about Bush’s response to it–unless you would like to claim that FEMA or the White House’s Katrina response was well-managed, or that Bush did the best job he could have on that storm. FEMA’s failure was a result of Bush’s mismanagement, as this explanation points out. There’s an excellent and detailed analysis here.
“Had LAX been bombed along with other targets in early 2000, the war in Afghanistan might have started two years earlier.”
Woah, I’m confused here! If it was bombed, are you crediting Clinton with giving us two years without a 9/11? Or, if you’re saying the opposite, Bush wasn’t in office till January 20th.
“Had Bush been paying attention and stopped 9/11, there would have been no wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.”
This is perhaps true, but if you are blaming Bush for not preventing the attacks, let’s remember who was in office longer while al-Qeada was plotting this attack. Osama bin Laden had declared war on us long before Bush entered office. To his credit President Clinton did acknowledge (in a minimalist fashion) the threats of both al-Qeada and Saddam Hussein. But he also failed to do anything major about the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The blame is on both Clinton and Bush for failing to recognize the signs of a real threat to the United States. However, Bush was in office a mere 8 months when the attack was played out. The intelligence community only picked up scattered activity, which pointed to overseas interests rather than domestic targets for the most part. This activity also quieted down somewhat a few months before the actual event. So no one knew to expect an attack. If they did, I very much doubt they would have done nothing about it. (part of the problem with the pre-9/11 intel, as we all know, was that the agencies weren’t sharing information. this is part of the reason for Bush’s order to rearrange and condense the agencies under the unbrella of Homeland Security, as well as the passage/repassage of the Patriot Act).
Woah, I’m confused here! If it was bombed, are you crediting Clinton with giving us two years without a 9/11? Or, if you’re saying the opposite, Bush wasn’t in office till January 20th.You said Clinton had an easier time to preside over than Bush; I am showing that Clinton faced the same challenges, that the times were not easier–Clinton just handled them better.But he also failed to do anything major about the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.Now I’m confused–or more likely, you just didn’t look up the facts. Ten conspirators in the bombing were arrested and convicted to 240 years in prison each. What did the Clinton administration fail to do? Are you suggesting that Clinton should have invaded the Sudan? Need I remind you that no one was calling for such a thing, and that Republicans probably would have accused him of massive overreaction had he done so?
As for the USS Cole, the mastermind for the bombings was captured and is now in US custody; another was sentenced to death in Yemen, and others were imprisoned there. Or are you suggesting that the US should have invaded Yemen? Or Afghanistan? Again, the Republicans would have gone nuts, this time accusing Clinton of trying to affect the 2000 elections. And again, I do not recall anyone suggesting an invasion at the time, nor any all-out war against al Qaeda or terror in general.
On top of all that, Clinton did try to take bin Laden out with a missile attack. And guess what? The Republicans attacked him for trying to divert attention from issues they thought were important, specifically, Monica Lewinski’s dress.The blame is on both Clinton and Bush for failing to recognize the signs of a real threat to the United States.No, Clinton recognized the threat. He tried to take out bin Laden. He beefed up counter-terrorism. And he gave ample warning to the Bush administration, calling al Qaeda and terrorism the #1 threat facing America.However, Bush was in office a mere 8 months when the attack was played out. The intelligence community only picked up scattered activity, which pointed to overseas interests rather than domestic targets for the most part. This activity also quieted down somewhat a few months before the actual event. So no one knew to expect an attack.Sorry, that’s dead wrong. Clearly you did not read the posts I linked to above. It’s all there–and that’s just the intel we know about. We keep finding out about more stuff the administration knew and then hid to keep the people from knowing what a botched job they were responsible for.
“You said Clinton had an easier time to preside over than Bush; I am showing that Clinton faced the same challenges, that the times were not easier–Clinton just handled them better.”
Are you seriously saying he faced the same challenges?
Okay, whatever differences you and I have in these discussions, you cannot honestly say the two Presidents shared the same challenges. Yes, law enforcement was used in both the WTC bombing of 1993 and the U.S.S. Cole, but these and other events together (and i can list them all if you want) constituted a growing problem. President Clinton did not deal with a massave attack on U.S. soil and its aftermath. He didn’t have to deal with a War on Terror. This was as far from the minds of most Americans as can be imagined, at that time. I would also like to highlight the fact that I said “relatively” calmer, more peaceful time. This is absolutely true. The biggest perceived threat was the Y2k virus, which never happened. I don’t know if this is because of something Clinton did or not, but the fact that it never really reached a level of seriousness in most circles that I can recall is enough to prove that he did not face the same difficulties our society faces today. Having said that, there are some issues that seem eternal throughout many administrations, like what to do to improve education, the drug issue, Health Care, etc. I submit that President Bush has done as much, and in some cases, more than Clinton has in some of these areas.
“On top of all that, Clinton did try to take bin Laden out with a missile attack. And guess what? The Republicans attacked him for trying to divert attention from issues they thought were important, specifically, Monica Lewinski’s dress.”
Do you see any mention of Monica Lewinsky or even impeachment in the entire passage in my post about Clinton?
Personally I agree with you that Clinton was a better administrator. Bush Jr. seems to be finishing up what daddy started. I do agree that the leader with more tact was Clinton. About the Monica Lewinsky thing that would be just one of them. The net is crazy with George Bush scandals – drinking, lying under oath, affairs after he got married on so called business trips to L.A. It gets deliciously malicious as you go along google. As the saying goes, “Politics is the last resort of a scoundrel”
Was Bin Laden Bush’s golden goose?
November 29, 2009, 9:26AM
Was Bin Laden Bush/Cheney’s golden goose, the gift that just keeps on giving?
And was his escape from Tora Bora INTENTIONALLY ENABLED by Rummy and the boys in their smoke-filled back room, so they could sustain these wars-for-profit?
From the AP story on the TPM front page today;
“Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.”
Maybe they NEEDED Bin Laden alive?
Think about it: When you are down to one boogeyman and you are in the middle of two no-bid, big-profit wars, BOTH based on fear of that one boogeyman, you don’t want to kill your boogeyman.
At least not until that last no-bid billion has been wrung from the American taxpayer.
Still wringing…
Did Bush Let Bin Laden Escape?
Submitted by Bob Fertik on August 8, 2008 – 10:23pm. Osama Bin Laden
One interesting aspect of Ron Suskind’s revelations about former Iraq Intelligence Chief Tahir Jalil Habbush was the urgent need on the part of the Busheviks to keep Habbush quiet so no one would know that he told us before the invasion that Saddam had no WMD’s.
Habbush did nothing wrong, and in fact cooperated completely with the U.S. But Bush kept him hidden in Jordan (even though the only person he had to fear, Saddam Hussein, was also in U.S. hands) and paid him $5 million in “hush money.”
This week we also learned of another prisoner who cooperated fully with the U.S., but was also locked away – apparently for the sole purpose of keeping his story out of the media. His name is Salim Ahmed Hamdan, better known as Osama Bin Laden’s driver.
Hamdan was acquitted on charges of actual terrorism (despite John McCain’s lie) and convicted only on “material support” for terrorism. And even though he could have been sentenced to life in prison, a military jury gave him a light sentence of 6 years with credit for the 5.5 years he already served. Why such a light sentence?