http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1994070 The day Bush lost the 2004 election? By DAVID S. BRODER If George Bush fails to be re-elected, we may look back on last Thursday, July 10, 2003, as the day the shadow of defeat first crossed his political horizon. To be sure, Bush looks strong. The CBS News poll released that evening had his approval rating at 60 percent, with solid support from his own party, a 26-point lead among independents and a near-even split among Democrats. Two-thirds of those surveyed could not name a single one of the nine Democrats vying for the right to oppose him. But The CBS Evening News that night was like Karl Rove's worst nightmare, and the other network newscasts -- still the main source of information for the largest number of Americans -- were not much better. The headlines announced by John Roberts, substituting for Dan Rather on CBS, were: "President Bush's false claim about Iraqi weapons; he made it despite a CIA warning the intelligence was bad. More Americans say U.S. is losing control of Iraq. Also tonight, food lines in America; they're back and getting longer." Brian Williams, filling in for Tom Brokaw on NBC, began: "War zone. Two more Americans dead in Iraq, and now the general who led the war says the troops could be there four more years." Peter Jennings on ABC gave the administration a break, opening the broadcast with the words: "The secretary of state says there was no attempt to deceive the American people about the case for war in Iraq." But then he described Colin Powell's press conference as "damage control," an effort to explain "why the president used some false information in his State of the Union address to justify attacking Iraq." All of them -- and cable news as well -- cited the dissonant voices from within the administration blaming each other for Bush's using a report, which the CIA had long since discredited, claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium for a nuclear weapons program from the African country of Niger. Even after CIA Director George Tenet tried to take responsibility for the foul-up, the White House faces a credibility gap that reaches down into the nondiscovery of the weapons of mass destruction Bush and his top associates said Saddam Hussein was amassing to threaten the United States. And the doubts don't stop there. Two and a half months after the president proclaimed victory in Iraq -- "mission accomplished" -- CBS reported only 45 percent of the public now believes the United States is in control of events there. On the weapons of mass destruction credibility question, 56 percent more say Bush administration officials were hiding important elements of what they knew or were outright lying. The next day, The Washington Post-ABC News Poll reported that while Bush's approval score was still at a healthy 59 percent, there had been a 9-point drop in less than three weeks in both his overall rating and confidence in his handling of Iraq. Ominously, it found a dramatic reversal in public tolerance of continuing casualties, with an 8-point majority now saying for the first time that the losses are unacceptable when weighed against the goals of the war. Eight out of 10 in the Post-ABC poll said they were very or somewhat concerned the United States "will get bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission." And this was before the networks showed Gen. Tommy Franks telling Congress the troops would be there for years to come. If Iraq looks increasingly worrisome on TV and in the polls, the economy is even worse. CBS found jobs and the economy dwarfing every other issue, cited by almost four times as many people as those who cited Iraq or the war on terrorism. On that black Thursday for the administration, first-time unemployment claims pushed the number of Americans on jobless relief to the highest level in 20 years. And the most troubling pictures on any of the three broadcasts were those of a line of cars, stretching out of sight down a flat two-lane road in Logan, Ohio -- jobless and struggling families waiting their turn for the twice-a-month distribution of free food by the local office of America's Second Harvest. The head of the agency said, "We are seeing a new phenomenon: Last year's food bank donors are now this year's food bank clients." Said CBS reporter Cynthia Bowers, "You could call it a line of the times, because in a growing number of American communities these days, making ends meet means waiting for a handout." Some may say: Well, it's one day's news, or dismiss it all as media bias. But that does not dissolve the shadow that now clouds Bush's bright hopes for a second term.
It is like 1991 all over again. The war is (sort of) over, the economy is in the toilet, and real Americans are starting to see, a bit over a year before the election, who W really is and what his administration is really about.
You can vomit all you want, but the fact is that the tide really is turning. You may not want to see or accept that a Republican could do wrong, but every time you turn around, there are those pesky facts staring you right in the face.
All along I have maintained that Americans can eat patriotism till November 2004 and will reelect Bush. Even with 10% unemployment probably 95% of the voters, who are generally in the top half economically, are employed. However, I'm starting to have my doubts as the trend starts to go against Bush..
Well there's the paybacks in tax cuts and tax breaks for upper income folks for one, and the easing of regulations on heavy polluters for two, and a core right wing true believer for three. That's probably enough sources of fund raising there to make reelection possible.
WHY DO THOSE MAKING UNDER 100k VOTE REPUBLICAN. .Here's a common explanation for the working class Houstonian who votes Republican. My wife has a family of in laws who grew up in a housing project. They all vote Republican because as the father told me. "Bush is for what I'm for and against what I'm against". Me: "OH?" Yea, he's for the death penalty and so am I; he's against abortion and so am I." Note they go to a North Houston church where I they have this preacher I call the Reverend Billy Bob. Seems to be a racist as he was told my in laws to quit door knocking in their neighborhood as they were bringing too many Blacks to the church. I've met him several times at weddings. (Only time you'll get me there.) Seems like a used car salesman on one of those independent car lots where your job is your credit and you can buy a $500 dollar wholesale car for only $300 down and $100 per month for two years. Here's another real life example from my brother's wife in Denton TX , who's a nurse and works in a care facility. "Why do the minimum wage aids vote for Bush?, she asks. "He's from Texas". That's about as much as they've though about it.
glynch -- why do you find it necessary to group together others who don't agree with you and label them as idiots? this has been my one consistent gripe against you from the day you started posting here. it's one thing to disagree with someone...quite another to do what you do here. I just don't understand why that's necessary. by the way...my earliest memories of your posts were in the wake of the 2000 election...you told us all that W. was absolutely, positively a one-term president. you were quite vigorous about that...we'll see.
Madmax, always trying to sterotype me as a compulsive stereotyper. I don't think for intance you are an idiot for being such a staunch Bush defender instance and we don't agree that often on politics it seems. I do think that from a purely economic point of view you are more rational in voting Republican than the minimum wage nursing assistants I cited above.
glynch -- can you really not see that you do that?? you basically say that anyone who makes under $100K and votes Republican is an absolute idiot...someone who can't make a wise decision....who clearly is brainwashed. you've labelled me from the first time we started speaking...as you recognize, this isn't the first time i've pointed this out. you know my feelings on abortion...or i'm guessing you do...how strongly i feel about that subject...i'm telling you right now...if the dems were on the other side of that issue and the republicans on the other...i'd be voting dem. that's just the truth.
The similarities between his father's presidency and his are really amazing. I'm just happy right now that people aren't afraid to criticize the administration-- thats a big accomplishment from the way things have been the last couple of years.
-oops, can't derail a thread; can't start a new thread- one of these days I'll ask about the history of the court (for my own edu-ma-cation); constitutional scholars prepare themselves.
Max, I'm not so sure why you take this all so personally. We are all a product somewhat of our environment. I was raised by two parents who are left wing democrats in a different state and partly in Central America. I do think that you tend to sterotype also by thinking that all Republicans for instance are as moderate as you and that there are relatively few followers of David Duke, Rush Limbaugh, devotees of fundamentalist preachers like Jerry Falwell . What can I say? I think that you can make a strong case that anyone who votes Republican with a family income of under $100k is not rational from an economic point of view. I don't think this is stereotyping. I can certainly appreciate your stance of conscience on abortion as I went to a Catholic grade school, highschool and undergraduate school. It must be frustrating for you to vote Republican on just that one issue, though it does seem to me you pretty much support Bush's foreign policies. BTW I first began posting more than once or twice right after 9/11. I do remember thinking that Bush had no chance of winning reelection until he profitted politically from the 9/11 tragedy. After that it has only been in the last few days that have I thought that perhaps remotely the Democrats can overcome Bush's patriotic themes , his claims to alleviate the fear of terrorism that he constantly fans and the record smashing $200 million dollar campaign treasury.
Glynch, I think you see a lot of right-wing conservatives because you are viewing them from the left side. Therefore, the left-wing nuts seem a little more 'normal' since they're closer to you, and the right-wing nuts seem all the more extreme because of where your idea of center lies. I think that right now the right-wing extremists are just a lot more vocal due to the center shifting towards the right over the past few years (though I think it is in the process of shifting back towards the left - why the Dems have a good shot in '04) and the leftist extremists are a little less vocal for the same reason. If you don't think there are a ton of people that vote Dem because "my parents vote Dem" then you're off the deep end, my friend. There are a ton of uneducated voters out there. That said, I do think you are right about Bush's chances, I just don't think he'll be able to win by the time the election rolls around. Like I said in another thread, unless he does an about-face on his fiscal policy (comes up with a good plan for pushing down the deficit and debt) then he won't get my vote. And abortion for me is a bigger issue for me, so any Dem that overly embraces the pro-choice crowd won't get it either, because my morals outweigh my wallet.
I'm not taking this particular instance personal...though you've just labelled some of my family and friends as idiots with your post above. Only when you make it personal do I take it personal. Like when you say something like, "you're just another white middle class protestant"...you've absolutely said that..or something very close. That undermines the individual...it undermines my experiences and my viewpoints...it undermines everyone's experiences and viewpoints. There are liberals and conservatives among all of us. I don't know about you, but I don't identify entirely with any one political party...and I don't like being grouped in like that. As for abortion...I would hold my nose and vote Dem if the parties had opposite positions on that issue than they do today. Even if I disagreed with foreign policy...even if I disagreed with fiscal policy. I view it as an evil...like slavery before it...something that, the more we learn about, the more we'll say in future generations, "My God, how did we ever allow that to happen?" (no need for a new abortion thread to discuss that...i'm just using this as an example...i'm not married to the republican party..they just happen to be, in my opinion, right on this very important issue)
