Bush’s job approval ratings now officially suck. As of August 22nd, 36% of the American public approves of the atrocious job Bush is doing leading this country. Fifty-eight percent rightly believe Bush is a loser. When it comes to the piss-poor economy, only one in three Americans are blinded by the right-wing media wurlitzer, while fully 62% correctly think Bush is a damn fool.
When it comes to independents, 72% think Bush is part chimpanzee, while only 18% can see nothing wrong with sending us to war based on a campaign of disinformation (collectively known as a ‘pack of lies’), with no support (sorry Poland), no plan, and no exit strategy.
Even the dumbest and immoral of the dumbest and immoral (the GOP) have begun the first steps in the twelve-step kicking kool-aid program. For the first time in Bush’s residency the Goopers are only 77% behind looting, thuggery, and torture.
I can’t wait until it comes time for the Goopers to ‘make amends’.
I’m all for a little gloating (Lord knows, we’ve earned it), but to throw in a little reality sandwich here…
As you say, the Repugs have the Bush anvil around their necks. But we (real) Dems have the DLC anvil trying desperately to choke the life out of the party.
For me, it feels like the DLC has morphed into a “3d party”, a party more focused on denigrating and marginalizing grassroots Dems while simultaneously having absolutely no adverse effect on the Repubs at all.
These craven DLCers are more of a threat to the Democratic party than the Repubs are, and I think we need to firmly grasp this reality and proceed accordingly.
You’re both right. I think Ignatius’ column on Friday nailed it well. He’s late, but accurate, and he has a national audience.
I used to like David Ignatius more before he returned from Europe.
While I agree with many of his points in this recent op-ed, I disagree with his condemnation of Dems not coming forward with clear proposed solutions for the problems we face, (many of which were caused by the insanity of the Bush regime’s policies).
Here’s why I disagree. In order for the Dems to propose solutions to the major problems we face, they first need to be able to help more people realize that what they identify as problems are in fact the problems that need to be addressed. David Ignatius says this;
Now, in order for the Dems to get traction in providing solutions for these problems, the people have to first acknowledge that these are accurate descriptions of the problems and that the Bush regime’s approaches are faiures. It’s only recently that more people are finally realizing that the Bush regime is failing America on a massive scale, but I believe the public disillusionment with Bush, the public’s realization that they’ve been lied to with impunity by a self-serving and incompetent Bush administration; that all this kind of public sentiment and outrage needs to become more pronounced before a meaningful message from Dems about how to address these problems effectively will have resonance.
The Bush gang needs to self-destruct more before Dem alternatives can take root in the public mind. Proposing concrete solutions too soon can simply be turned against them by the wingnut propaganda machine.
Proposing concrete solutions earlier may very well have gained them the WH. If they can’t face down the propaganda machine they have no business being in business.
I agree with you on a couple of points you raise. Certainly it’s possible that had Kerry been able to say that had he known then what he knew now about the absence of WMD that he would have never voted to relinquish authority for Bush to wage war, he might indeed have made it to the WH. But he caved in on that at the precise moment when he could have stood up for that view to maximum effect. (I remember vividly that when I saw him make those absurd statements while standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon, I knew he was finished asa credible candidate for the Dems. I voted for him anyway, but I had nodoubt he’d not win by a sufficient margin to prevent the repub cheating with the voting results from overturning a victory).
Anyway, Kerry blew it, and rightly so, he no longer had any business being in the business of seeking the presidency.
But that opportunity for victory as a result of Democratic initiative passed, and the resultng increased hijacking of the public discourse by the Repub propaganda machine has made such an opportunity now even more difficult to attain.
Added to this further erosion of truth and accuracy in the public debate is the unfortunate problem that DLC types like Clinton and Biden and a few others dominate the public dialog coming from the party and they are all either outright political cowards or they are playing their assigned roles as “Repub-Lite” types, going along with the Bush agenda just enough to keep their own ambitions moving forward.
And these pathetic hacks cannot speak out forthrightly about the Iraq debacle because they all voted for it, and because they lack the integrity that would allow them to admit they’d made a mistake about all this in the first place. So these dirtbags say nothing.
But, part of why the Bush numbers are plummeting, is because the Bush propaganda machine is having a harder time blaming others for the problems they’ve created, and it is precisely the silence of the Dems that helps this along. Bush is being forced to “own” more of the problem.
I don’t know what position you think a Democrat might need to hold on the Iraq war, for instance, in order for you to think that person worthy of your support and your vote. From my perspective, a Dem has to make the case strongly that his position on Iraq is substantively different from the Bush regime’s, and I don’t see how such a strong difference can be articulated unless it’s based on the idea of a complete withdrawl as soon as possible, regardless of what state the Iraqi internal situation is. A Dem will need to abandon the rhetoric of “getting it right” in Iraq and replace it with the understanding that we are making things worse the longer we remain.
And, as yet, I don’t think the public is yet to the point where the majority would be able to openly support such a withdrawl, such an admission that the entire Bush policy was a complete piece of shit from the very beginning. This is why I say the Dems need to allow Bush & Co to hoist themselves by their own petard. I say this not because I think they should avoid a tough confrontation with the wingnut smear machine, but because I just don’t think the public is ready to embrace a complete extrication from Iraq on those terms. They still need to come to the conclusion that the Bush regime has insulted their intelligence by lying to them with impunity. More importantly, emotionally, they need to begin to accept the fact that the dead lost their lives for the ambitions of a group of ideological crazies who hijacked the White House and the Pentagon. (I view this collision with reality as similar to how hard it must have been for parents to finally acknowledge that what their child’s been telling them about being molested by the parish priest is true. The public psyche here in the US is still not quite able to overcome their denial).
In the meantime, the DLC Dem hopefuls will never adopt this position. They’ll continue to do the country and the Dem party a disservice by continuing to mouth the platitudes about “completing the mission”, and “getting it right”, etc. And they will continue to vote for more money to fund this crime in Iraq without hesitation.
This is a bit of a disorganized rant, but I hope my intended meaning comes across. There’s a time in all conflict where one achieves much more good by allowing one’s opponent to self-destruct. For the battle between Dems and the Bush regime, now is the time for the Dems to let Bush & Co run with the bit between their teeth. They will own the entire catastrophe in the eyes of the public before too much longer.
9 billion “lost” in Iraq, 10 billion given to Haliburton without any bids and Halliburton is still at the government teat without any let up. Afghanistan is still unstable, Iraq is close to complete civil war and all the Bush group can say is “we’ve turned a corner”! And no dem has said to the budget “hell no, no money untill we check out what was done with the last batch of gravy we sent you.” They are too afraid of being tarred with the term “obstructionist” or “traitor”. No offense, but where did integrity go? Where did courage go? Where did their balls go?
What kind of amends are you imagining?
Shit! This is so great … you covered it yesterday, BooMan … the Robinson story.
Pat “Thou Shalt Kill” Robinson is being covered obsessively on the news … CNN has been on it forever today.
Hate to correct you of all people but it is Robertson, not Robinson Susan.
Ah man .. blew my punchline, huh. Leave it to a heathen … and just this morning I was snickering at a speaker who kept referring to Valerie Palm. That’ll teach me to point a finger.
IT’S:
PAT “THOU SHALT KILL” ROBERTSON
I strongly recommend Pat Robertson Must Die .. in the recent diaries list.
I too welcome the decreasing approval for this regime’s insane and dangerous agenda.
However, I do not see that “we” are kicking their asses, if “we” refers to those of us on the left. Quite the contrary, the Bush regime is “kicking it’s own ass” by virtue of their inability to connect with the reality of their own actions. We on the left are energized, and we’re making progress as far as redefining the terms of the public debate in the blogosphere. We’re even having some small effect on MSM news reporting. But we have not been instrumental in stopping even one single thing that the Bush regime has wanted to do.
I agree with you, but you really have to admire their (the Repubs) perfecting the art of predicting what has already come to pass. Just one of a million examples:
“If we withdraw too early, we’ll be sending the wrong message [to the terrorists].”
Chris Wallace was foolish enough to say this on the Daily Show last night.
If you put any trust in the polls, it won’t be too long before they kick their own behinds into Kingdom Come. I wonder what they’ve got simmering on their back burners to serve up as distractions to the credulous. You can bet they’re cooking.
Cheney and his diabolical pals have absolutely no intention of withdrawing the troops from Iraq any time in the foreseeable future.
The argument that announcing a date for withdrawl will help the insurgents because they’ll just wait til we leave is a specious one. After all, the insurgents could just stop attacking now, and rely on the public pressure in the US resulting from the calm to force the Bush regime to withdraw sooner. Then the insurgents, (if they wanted to), could start up again.
Chris Wallace and all his pals use this argument in one form or another all the time, despite the complete illogic of it. Sadly, it works for them as part of the whole stupid propaganda campaign.
Worse than Poppy!
Waa-a-a-a-y worse than Nixon!
Definitely worse than Clinton, who will get all the blame.
So, what is the Democratic strategy to take advantage of the chimp’s fall from his bike?
Well of course it will be the typical Dem stategy of let’s wait and see.
I don’t recall the Democratic leadership having endorsed the “wait and see” strategy yet. I know there was some discussion about a WaS proposal at the exec comm meeting, but it got tabled.
So I just want to point out that any talk about a “wait and see” policy from Democrats is highly premature. We may end up pursuing a strategy with those general outlines, but that’s far from clear yet. Let’s not muddy the message, mmmkay?
“Bush administration officials today disavowed Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson….”
a new purge coming on.
it did make me throw up in my mouth alittle.
Gads! Announcing a gratuitous pro-war position in the context of current events is a pretty ghastly exercise.
This little part is particularly yukky!
I actually supported the US action to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan , while at the same time understanding that war is inherently bad, that war is a function of fear and weakness, not strength. Sadly I recognize that we are not civilized enough as a species to do without war, but I’m no more a “war pragmatist” any more than I’m an “earthquake pragmatist”. I was even a hippie who protested the Vietnam war and I will always feel good about that effort. I even “visualize peace” on occassion, though perhaps not in the context Kos seems so contemptuous of.
I recognize the value of and support the military, but I do believe that the best and most responsible warriors are those who know intuitively that war is bad. Just as I believe the fact that a person wants to be a judge should disqualify him from becoming one, so too I believe that a person who enjoys the idea of killing an enemy is a less honorable soldier than one who does so effectively but reluctantly.
So that Kos would have a chance to defend himself. Not that he needs to. He’s always right. Teenage boys always are, you know.
My comment from DKos:
Kos served in the US Army but never saw combat during Gulf War I.
I was in the British Army at roughly the same time–serving as a captain, not enlisted personnel–and did see combat during that war. If one had seen the slaughter–and that’s what it was–of the hapless Iraqi forces during that time, they would hesitate before supporting ANY war for ANY reason.
Simply put, when one has gazed upon a desert strewn with the broken bodies of what used to be human beings, and finds that most of them have been blasted by bombardment and by the heat of the sun’s rays almost beyond recognizable human form, the phrase “I support war on a practical basis” becomes ashes in one’s mouth. What many of us saw in that “good war” was a vision plucked straight out of hell…and yet it pales in comparison to Afghanistan and Gulf War II in the scale of their violence.
What’s more, the dead in that war were soldiers. In this war, the dead are civilians–in both the “good” war of Afghanistan and the “bad” war of Iraq–men, women, and children.
Once again, a good point–one needn’t be opposed to the use of force and violence on philosophical grounds to oppose Gulf War II, or whatever the hell it is we’re calling it–gets lost in clumsy language (for the record: attacking “hippies” is about as difficult as hunting dairy cows with hand grenades).
However, there are other matters to consider:
First, was the invasion of Afghanistan a “good thing”? The Taliban haven’t been dislodged but arre in fact resurgent; Afghanistan is a situation as bad or even worse than Iraq from a military and political perspective (that’s why British troops are being redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, because the coalition forces there are on the brink of a meltdown). What “pragmatic” purposes have been served by the American-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
Second, to support war is to support state-sponsored terrorism. That doesn’t mean one cannot support war in certain cases, but let’s at least be honest and call it what it is, terrorism. Here’s a handy definition of terrorism:
“the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
The source for this definition? A United States Army manual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
By this definition, the “shock and awe” used in Afghanistan and Iraq is terrorism. The fact that the terrorism was done to accomplish something of which Kos approves makes it “good terrorism” no doubt, but terrorism nonetheless.
Innocent civilians have been killed and are being killed in Afghanistan–not by the dozens nor the hundreds nor even the mere thousands, but by the tens of thousands. The US and its allies have made conditions far worse in Afghanistan due to their invasion, and Afghanis are dying not only from bullets but from hunger and lack of medicine and sanitation.
As far as Kos’ experience in El Salvador–well, that was a slaughterhouse created by the United States and a clear example of the Reagan-Bush Administration’s enthusiastic use of terror in Central America in the 1980s. I find it simply amazing that Kos cannot see the connection between El Salvador, Afghanistan, and Iraq, because all three come from the same viewpoint–problems are to be solved through violence.
I suppose it all comes down to this: some people think a war is “good” if they won’t have to fight in it. Others, like me, think that war ought to be the very last option, whether or not we have a personal stake in it (and with friends and relatives of mine in both the Iraqi and Afghani theatres, I do have a “personal stake”, thank you very much).
Yes, I fully realise that Kos’ online TonTon Macoutes are going to descend upon me with their rating machetes and hack at me for daring to question the Great and All Powerful Kos. And no, I simply do not give a damn. Troll rate away; I’ve had far worse from far better.
I cross-posted my remarks above at DKos also, for the sake of direct response.
I agree with everything you say here, but for the record I want to clarify something in my ost above, just in case it’s not clear.
I said I supported the US efforts to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan, but this is not to say that I supported the war in Afghanistan. In no way did I support the “invasion of Afghanistan per se. Had our forces stayed the course in pursuit of bin Laden and his henchmen we would very likely have wound up not further destroying that country’s chances to decide it’s own fate. I was even in favor of including those who protected the bin Laden gang as targets forour attention.
Had we deposed and rendered ineffective the murderous Taliban regime I think that would have been a good thing, but like our efforts with bin Laden, we refused to accomplish the destruction of either him or the Taliban. Instead we installed a puppet, empowered warlords, refused to provide the resources necessary to repair the damage we ourselves wrought there, and we’ve ensured that Afghanistan will remain an unstable and violent piece of geography for decades more to come.
So, getting bin Laden and his helpers, yes, (except we didn’t do either).. Occupying and re-engineering Afghanistan at the point of our guns? No way.
I also supported going into Afghanistan to “get” OBL and his lieutenants, but not as it was done.
I said then what I say now: what was done with a sledgehammer ought to have been done with a scalpel. British SAS (Special Air Services), along with their American and Canadian counterparts in special services, could have and should have gone into Afghanistan and gotten these chaps one way or the other.
Notice that my way did not entail killing tens of thousands of Afghanis and occupying their country. But my way was designed to be effective and doesn’t fit into the neocon imperialist design.
I am in complete agreement!
So–should we stock up at the Froggy Bottom Cafe?
:<D
I rarely go to Kos anymore, being tireder and tireder of the military-macho bullshit he spouts. What I’ve gotten most out of the joint lately is that it’s probably assinine to put much hope in the Dem party instead of genuinely revolutionary perspectives. We’re too far down the toilet to have the luxury of settling for another Clinton, or, for that matter, a Kos-approved neo-aggressive.
The Democrats haven’t made a dent in Bush.
Bush’s worst enemies have been activists outside the Democratic Party organisation (see: Sheehan, Cindy) and himself.
Especially himself.
Wrong: “We” are “kicking their asses”
The falling of Bush’s approval ratings is not a function of any single organization or movement but rather a cumulative process as multiple parties have chipped away at Bush’s credibility. The bad news from Iraq and skyrocketing gas prices at the pump have as much to do with Bush’s lower approval numbers as anything, and “we” had nothing to do with either. I’m not even sure who “we” are, but if anybody has undone Bush’s approval ratings, it’s been Bush himself and not his opposition.
Wrong: Bush’s approval ratings are at 36%. Actually, the latest Rasmussen Poll–widely considered to be one of the most accurate in gauging presidential approval ratings, among other things–puts Bush at 47%. This fits in with Shadowthief’s Maxim of Minimum Support, which states:
“Bush’s approval rating would not fall below 45% even if he beat a sweet little old lady to death with a bag full of cute puppies live on national television.”
Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
I find it difficult to believe that two-thirds of the American people have turned against Bush, given that his supporters believe in him with a religious fervour. Nixon never had that level of religious commitment, and faced a far more hostile media environment, not to mention a far more powerful and united opposition party.
Wrong: Bush is “falling apart” and nothing can save him. With a solid 45% base of support, his hands on all three branches of the federal government, three years remaining in his presidency, an instinct for absolute ruthlessness, and a divided opposition (particularly on the issue of the occupation of Iraq, where Democrats are badly split), Bush is not exactly “sitting pretty” but neither is he a doomed man. Bush has shown himself to be tenacious and ruthless in the past, and I see no sign of him tucking tail and running. “We” all assumed that the people would turn wholesale against Bush in the 2004 election and no such thing happened–and I’m sorry, but I have been assured so many times of Bush’s imminent political demise that you may forgive me if I say such warnings have lost their power to rouse me.
Remember, one single major terrorist attack on American soil, and we are right back to Square One with Bush. Republicans and Democrats both will rally behind him, Bush will “strike back” at the terr’ists, etc. Approvals ratings in the 60s or 70s, not to mention a convenient excuse for a “state of emergency” that would quiet these rumblings in the body politic for awhile.
In other words–I don’t expect Bush to go down quietly. Even if the Democrats take back one or both Houses of Congress in the 2006 elections–and there are no indicators at this time that they are poised to do so–that is merely a recipe for gridlock, not for the toppling of a king.
You’re a ray of sunshine.
Good thing you caught me on an optimistic day.
I have an alternative, pessimistic version in which toads rain from the sky.
You get a 4.
Especially on the impending attack on a civilian US target. If his rating stays below 40% for any amount of time, I’d stay off the trains.
I’m sad to say that I think you overrate the Republicans. These are the people who supported Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan in the arms for hostages crimes. They continue to support those criminals and their crimes. They only occassionally feel beaten down enough so that they support the criminals in silence.
Their silence is not abandonment of the crimes and anti-constitutional behavior of their politicians. It is only silence in the face of general rejection. They will never understand why others think they are wrong.
As before, even if they are beaten down somewhat, they are only silently awaiting their return.
unless Jeb has figured out a way to cook the poll books there. Wonder if it is the oldsters? Or the exiles? What if you took a poll and left Florida out, how much farther down the slippery slope would Bush’s political capital have fallen?
I have this uneasy feeling that Al Qaeda is going to ride to the rescue of Bush with another attack, the only thing that can save him now.