|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Buyer's Remorse for Bush |
Current rating: 0 |
by Pat Williams
(No verified email address) |
11 Mar 2006
|
|
Yep, Bush is in trouble here in the Rockies. He’s earned it. |
Here in the “purple states” of the Rocky Mountain West, President George W. Bush’s job approval ratings have fallen lower than a rattlesnake’s belly. In five of our eight mountain states, Bush approval has sunk well below 50 percent with his standing in Nevada at an all-time low of 39 and Montana at a rock-bottom 42 percent. Even in the most crimson, conservative states in America—Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho—the President’s 2004 election night approval has now collapsed by an average of 10 percent with a dizzying loss of 14 percent in Vice President Cheney’s home state of Wyoming.
It has become clear that the buyer’s remorse here in the Rockies is due to more than simple disagreement with Bush’s policies. Westerners have developed serious doubts about Bush’s judgment and character as well.
A look at westerner’s disagreement with Bush policy shows this: most Americans, 70 percent, disagree with allowing the United Arab Emirates to operate six critical American ports; so do we westerners. Americans, by 52 percent in the latest polls, oppose presidential telephone wiretaps without a warrant. In the West the disapproval of such unauthorized snooping is even higher. We, along with other Americans—by a whopping 60 percent—disapprove of how Bush is handling the overall energy situation. We are overwhelmingly opposed to Bush’s relentless efforts to push roads into our last wild places and westerners are also fighting the President’s effort to sell those public lands.
It is the President’s handling of Iraq, however, that is at the heart of the public’s disapproval. What is remarkable about the latest polls is that Bush is losing support, for the first time in five years, in his strongest base-Republican stalwarts, many of whom live here in the Rockies. More than a third of those who most likely voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 now disagree with the war in Iraq. Independents, who narrowly voted for Bush in 2004, disapprove of the way he has handled Iraq by a whopping 69 percent.
However, the Bush collapse among folks out here may have less to do with policy disagreements and more with growing concerns about George W. personally. Time is always required for people to take the measure of their leaders. The last three two-term presidents are Reagan, Clinton and now George W. Bush. Although westerners often opposed many of Ronald Reagan’s policies they continued year after year to support him personally. With Bill Clinton, we recognized his competence and a majority often agreed with many of his policies, however, we had more than ample evidence that to protect himself, he would lie to us. Here in the West that personal flaw did him in.
After watching Bush into his second term, westerners find much that concerns them. He seems halting, has to read every speech and even then bungles the words. Bush is demanding, preachy, stubborn, unable to admit even his most obvious mistakes. Even in supposedly unscripted public appearances—be they a teleconference with troops in Iraq or a healthcare meeting here in Montana—we are surprised to find out that Bush’s handlers had carefully pre-selected the crowd and then actually scripted the questions people were allowed to ask the President. Westerner’s prefer leaders who can stand on their own two feet and, when necessary, shoot from the hip—straight that is.
For a time we westerners seemed impressed by the tilt of the Bush Stetson. Then we learned that his “ranch,” purchased just in time for his 2000 presidential campaign, doesn’t have a single horse or cow. Real cowboys have cows. What they don’t have are unscuffed, tailor-made boots with embossed insignias; they don’t swagger, aren’t bullies, and try not to start brawls they can’t win. And they never declare “mission accomplished” until the other guy hollers quit.
Yep, Bush is in trouble here in the Rockies. He’s earned it.
Pat Williams served nine terms as a U.S. Representative from Montana. After his retirement, he returned to Montana and teaches at The University of Montana, where he also serves as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West.
Copyright © 1995–2006 Lee Enterprises
http://www.startribune.net |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
What Democrats Fear is Fear Itself |
by Richard Reeves
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Mar 2006
|
WASHINGTON - Even longtime critics of President Bush are surprised, even shocked, by the amount and the depth of Bush-bashing in this town.
"The administration lies ... unconscionable ... irresponsible ... vindictive ... inept" are the words used by one basher last week.
"You have to understand that the people in this administration have no principles. ... (Bush) is not a responsible human being," said another.
"The kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat (in Iraq)," said a third.
The first of these bashers was Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who served on the staffs of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He has just written a bashing book titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."
The second was Andrew Sullivan, the talented conservative blogger, who added an odd conflation to the national debate by saying that Bush was a socialist and that he considered the Bush agenda to be plain old Christian fundamentalism.
The third, speaking from conservative Olympus, was William F. Buckley Jr. The title of his weekly column was "It Didn't Work." The second paragraph began: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. ... The administration now has to cope with failure."
Rubbing salt in the wounds, Bartlett added: "If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton."
I could print some criticisms from Democratic politicians, but they are just too mushy to matter. Only Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania had the guts of a Buckley, saying we had to face the fact that we failed. Now with luck, Republicans will supplant the press as the loyal opposition to the disastrous administration.
After Bush "lost" New Orleans and Baghdad, ran the nation's budget and trade deficits to record levels, worked diligently in turning the United States of America into a police state using Soviet-style torture and "disappearing," and stretched our military beyond its strengths and capabilities, the best the Democrats have been able to do is slap at his wrists over the contracting of some port work to friendly Arabs.
Ironically, Bush was right about the port contracts. No matter. Congressional Democrats, quickly joined by Republican demagogues, managed to confirm suspicions that Americans have launched a crusade against Islam and helped to build up people who have been saying that all along -- for instance, the government of Iran.
The result of all this could be Democratic victories in this year's congressional elections. Maybe. But it will certainly mean that the White House will crank up fear as the favored Republican tactic until November. It might be said that the only thing Democrats have to fear in the few states and congressional districts actually in play is fear itself.
Republican candidates (and thinkers) have to decide whether to run with the Bush record, try to ignore it, or run against it. As one Republican pollster, Tony Fabrizio, told The Washington Post: "He (Bush) has no political capital. Slowly but surely it's been unraveling. There's been ... a direct correlation between the trajectory of his approval numbers and the -- I don't want to call it disloyalty -- the independence on the part of the Republicans in Congress."
So the political table of 2006 has been set. Democrats will stand back, as they have since the trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, and hope that the Republicans will continue to self-destruct -- a time-honored strategy that works more often than not. The Republicans, still led by the White House, have to crank up the fear issue, which they will do, I suspect, by trying to turn attention to "dangers" in Latin America, trying to make President Hugh Chavez of Venezuela into the Osama bin Laden of his region and generation. |
|
