Support for Bush on Iraq stabilizes War, deficit fuel deep partisan divisions, though By Dan Balz and Claudia Deane THE WASHINGTON POST Aug. 13 — Support for President Bush on Iraq appears to have stabilized after a precipitous drop earlier this summer, but three months after the end of major combat in the Persian Gulf region, the public is again sharply divided along partisan lines over the war and other key aspects of Bush’s presidency, according to a new Washington Post Poll. THE RETURN to a polarized political climate, coming so quickly after a period of relative unity during the height of the fighting in Iraq, foreshadows a contentious reelection campaign for the president. The public mood also carries risks for the president’s Democratic challengers, who are attempting to appeal to the strong anti-Bush sentiment within their party without jeopardizing the need to attract independent and swing voters in next year’s general election. A solid majority (56 percent) of those surveyed approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, and six in 10 said the war was worth fighting. Those evaluations had been dropping earlier in the summer, but are not significantly different than in a poll taken a month ago and suggest the downward slide may have halted, at least for now. DOMESTIC DOUBTS Bush receives poorer marks on the domestic scene, with 45 percent approving of the way he is handling the economy and 41 percent saying they approve of the way he has dealt with the federal budget, despite a deficit that will hit an estimated $455 billion this fiscal year, a record. Only a third of those surveyed said the state of the economy was good or excellent. About the same percentage said things were getting better as said things are getting worse (32 percent vs. 29 percent), which, while not impressive, was a more optimistic appraisal than at the beginning of the year. Asked whether they were better off since Bush became president, 17 percent said they were doing better while 25 percent said they were worse off. Bush’s net negative rating on that question is the worst in any Post poll since President George H.W. Bush, whose poor ratings on the economy led to his defeat in 1992. Still, 14 percent of those surveyed said Bush bears primary responsibility for the state of the economy, with twice as many blaming the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Overall, 59 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job. While his approval rating has dropped 18 percentage points since early April, his current level of support represents a good foundation as he begins the campaign year ahead. Behind all these numbers is a country that views Bush and his policies through very different lenses, depending on party affiliation. Throughout much of Bush’s presidency, Democrats and Republicans have been at odds in evaluating him, particularly on the economic and domestic issues, but at times of crisis have rallied behind the president on issues of national security On the day Baghdad fell in April, when Bush’s approval rating was at 77 percent, 95 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Democrats said they approved of his handling of the presidency. In the new poll, GOP support is statistically unchanged, but Democrats have turned sharply negative in their assessments, with 64 percent saying they disapprove. POLARIZING ISSUE In other areas, the two parties are mirror opposites of one another, with 80 percent of Democrats disapproving of Bush’s handling of the economy and 77 percent of Republicans approving. On the federal budget, 76 percent of Democrats disapprove of Bush’s handling of the issue, while 71 percent of Republicans approve. Independents give Bush positive ratings on his overall handling of the presidency and also on Iraq, but net negative ratings on the economy, taxes and the budget. The Post poll was conducted among 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, who were interviewed by telephone Aug. 7-11. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll shows that Iraq has again become a polarizing issue, as it was in the months before the war began. Roughly two in three Democrats disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq, compared with 86 percent of Republicans who approve. Other issues bring similarly disparate assessments of the war. A majority of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting, while majorities of Republicans and independents say it was. Roughly three in four Democrats say the level of casualties has been unacceptable, while a solid majority of Republicans say the casualties are acceptable. On the issue that has roiled Washington this summer, whether Bush exaggerated the evidence of Iraq’s pursuit or possession of weapons of mass destruction, a strong majority of Democrats say they think he overstated the case, while just as strong a majority of Republicans say he did not. AGREEMENT ON HUSSEIN The one area where the two parties come together is in their assessment of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who is judged by majorities of Americans to be a bad character and whose capture or death is seen as essential to declaring victory. That view is shared by roughly three in five Republicans, Democrats and independents. Democrats are divided over the U.S. presence in Iraq, with 56 percent supporting a continuation of troop strength there and 39 percent disapproving — 29 percent strongly disapproving. Iraq has touched off a growing debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) charging that former Vermont governor Howard Dean’s opposition to the war makes him an unacceptable nominee to challenge Bush. Lieberman also has criticized Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), claiming Kerry tried to have it both ways by supporting the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force but then criticizing Bush for rushing to war. Lieberman has argued that Democrats need a candidate who strongly supported going to war in Iraq to attract swing voters. In the poll, independents solidly support the U.S. presence in Iraq and say the war was worth fighting, but a majority believe Bush exaggerated the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and half said the level of casualties has been too high. Asked whether they would vote for Bush or a Democratic nominee if the election were held today, 48 percent said Bush, 40 percent said the Democrat. On that question, eight in 10 Democrats said they would support their party’s nominee, and nine in 10 Republicans said Bush. Independents split 43-39 percent in Bush’s favor. © 2003 The Washington Post Company
It would be great timing for Bush if they caught Saddam a few weeks before the election. It would boost all his numbers again. If they don't find him before the election, that 56% is certainly going to be far lower after a whole year of US casualties. Americans aren't exactly patient with that kind of thing.
I've been thinking about how the public movement seems to be more instant than it used to be. Things take less time to happen. That may sound strange, but it's true. The public used to take longer to become informed. Things would happen. The media would cover it. Those who read newspapers and watched the news were aware. Discussions followed. Public opinion moved more slowly and deliberatively. Now it's fast paced. It's overexposed, so that what happened yesterday becomes the ONLY thing that matters. The sound bites are repeated 100 times a time, and the compulsion to have a new story to play with is like watching an addict chase drugs. Because we are a TV society, now accustomed to HIT shows, government has become entertainment, and reality bites when Iraq is a dead GI a day, while millions at home look for jobs that aren't there, and states cut programs because the federal deficit spending has cut them off at the knees. I don't think we can know what will happen next election, because the collective attention span and memory is down to a month or two at best.
