Posted on 04/12/2006 5:06:55 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
April 12, 2006
On a light news day, why not run a generic piece on President Bush's low poll numbers and his assertedly bleak prospects for reviving them? That was apparently the thinking at the Today show this morning.
Today themed the segment "Can Bush Save Presidency?", and NBC White House reporter Kelly O'Donnell seemed to answer the question in the negative, kicking things off with this gloomy assessment:
"For President Bush, low poll numbers have not just been a dip or temporary rough patch but appear now to be a sustained pattern that is different than his predecessors of both parties who went through their own tough times." She continued: "His . . presidency appears to have a chronic case of the below-40 percent blues."
After David Gergen was shown suggesting that "presidents have sometimes broken out of slumps when they've had big, bold initiatives and unexpected victories - that often shake things up" O'Donnell reappeared to dump cold water on the notion that W could have any such luck:
"Looking back, some second-term presidents have been able to rebound. President Reagan's approval fell to 34 percent with the arms-for-hostages scandal. Pres. Clinton hit 41 percent around impeachment. But both bounced back up to the 60s as they left office. Analysts say the prospects for Mr. Bush are not as good because of the weight of ongoing events: Iraq, gas prices, the CIA leak case and hurricane response."
Gergen popped back up to pessimistically proclaim: "After a while those negative feelings really do congeal, they crystallize, they become firm and then it's very hard to break out."
O'Donnell: "political observers claim big speeches and staff changes won't turn things around and suggest the president may have to wait to seize on any good news."
Commentator Stu Rothenberg then observed: "If there is something he can brag about he needs to quickly then be able to go to the American public and make his case and drive home the point. But for now he simply doesn't have much ammunition at his disposal."
Count on Today and its MSM cohorts to do their best to keep things that way.
Yep. I think we can devise a multi-pronged approach to encourage illegals to leave on thei own. No cattle cars required.
It's not just the Bush/immigration threads. Civil discourse is waning. Reading an article on FR can be informative. It's just not as much fun weeding through the comments and trying to find a reply that is based on reason. This kills the conversational aspect of the thread, where everyone could learn from one another. Fewer and fewer facts are being posted, to begin with.
I agree.
Bush and his advisors need to realize that a lot of folks voted for him in 2004 despite his position on a guest worker program, not because of it. He is not up for re-election now, and he needs to quit damaging the chances of the GOP House members by continuing to push for his program.
9/11 should have changed everything. Sadly, it did not.
He was pushing that thing before 9'11, but kept it quiet for awhile for obvious reasons. The wound of 9/11 is not healed enough to convince people that having an open border and lax immigration policy is still a good thing.
Bush doesn't care. That's obvious. He's in his last term and he is going to do what he wants - even if it pisses off his conservative base and ushers in Demoncrats in place of Republicans in the next election.
Without a strong border enforcement plan and deportation plan for real criminal aliens and those who try to undermine any new plan, most people realize its just amnesty.
I think what happens with Iran will have a huge impact on this.
Saddam looks like a school boy next to this guy.
Many good points, friend. I feel your frustration. (I do disagree on your point about "rounding up" 11 million people, but you and I can disagree rationally.)
Happy birthday to your daughter.
Right on. There is NO EXCUSE for the Republicans when they've had complete control of government for years and still have accomplished barely anything. I am not mad at the House Republicans, but am steamed at the White House and Senate!
My concern is that with everyones continual concern over immigration and the extreme importance to it since 911, why in the world would they vote for Bush in an overwhelming fashion? Usually things die down as time passes but this issue has seemed to all the sudden become the main issue 4 years after 911. Had the concerned citizen's made this the main issue in '04 Kerry would be the President and may actually have done a better job at immigration because according to those concerned citizens he couldn't have done worse.
Only time in my recollection the media broke down numbers into "personal approval" and "job approval."
Two words: John Kerry.
Usually things die down as time passes but this issue has seemed to all the sudden become the main issue 4 years after 911. Had the concerned citizen's made this the main issue in '04 Kerry would be the President and may actually have done a better job at immigration because according to those concerned citizens he couldn't have done worse.
I don't think anyone is saying that. Most folks on FR who are getting after Bush for his pseudo-amnesty program loathe Kerry with the best of them, and worked to defeat Kerry.
But Bush needs to look at the realities on the ground. He will never again run for re-election. He may think he can now push forward with his proposal. But look instead at the pubbies who have to fight for re-election this year and look at the stances they are taking as a better gauge of the electoral realities that Bush's proposal represents. The GOP members of the House are not running against John Kerry, one of the most polarizing figures of the Vietnam era. Those in competitive districts will be running, for the most part, against moderate Democrats with competent staffs and plenty of money. Look at what those pubbies are doing.
"Most folks on FR who are getting after Bush for his pseudo-amnesty program loathe Kerry with the best of them, and worked to defeat Kerry."
Myself to the tee. For some reason, despite going to Florida in 2004 for a week to do poll watching, I am told I did not vote for GWB and am probably a RAT in disguise.
Go figure.
Gee, a choice between stupid and stupider. Is that what modern poltics has come down to?
Reid is the one who killed the Cornyn/Kyl Amendment that would have made lifetime, 3 time and hardcore criminals from being in the guest worker program so I'm not sure that all the yelling back and forth really has the consequences some are making it out to be for the Republicans.
If Bush was against a guest worker program instead of for it, no such program would have a chance in hell of passage.
I think it's more posturing than anything or there certainly would have been more than 200 people at the pro-immigration reform rally in Dallas.
The anti-illegal folks have day jobs.
"What do you think is the consequences for the Republicans going for a "Guest Worker" program with stipulations where as the Democrats believe in full Amnesty with no stipulations?"
It would be a disaster because most people know that the amnesty provisions would really be enforced whereas the stricter "stipulations" would not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.