President Bush in free-fall (BARF ALERT!)

Hill News ^ | 7/23/03 | Dick Morris

[areafiftyone]

It is incredible how rapidly President Bush’s job approval ratings have fallen in the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein. In 60 days, they have dropped from the high 60s and low 70s to the mid-50s! In the Clinton administration, despite daily pounding and actual impeachment, his job rating did not drop below 60 percent from early 1996 until the end of his second term.

Bush seems to have no firewall to arrest his drop. His ratings seem to depend on yesterday’s news. Because the empowerment of the Republican Party in all three branches of government masks the demographic shift to the Democratic Party, when things get rough, there is nothing to hold up the ratings of a Republican president.

In the immediate sense, Bush’s decline is due to charges that he lied in his State of the Union speech. Having sought to distract the nation from its unity of purpose in opposing terror ever since Sept. 11, our pernicious national media have, at last, found traction in the accusation that we were misled by accusations that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction. Although I believe there are such weapons and that we will find them, those attacks are just the superficial reason for Bush’s fall.

The more basic reason is the daily drip of casualties among our forces in Iraq. At times, it seems that we have conquered Iraq in the same sense that the flies conquer the flypaper.

But the deepest reason for Bush’s decline is his success in extinguishing his main issue: terrorism. Polls show only 9 percent of Americans citing terrorism as the major issue confronting the nation.

Presidents lose because of their successes, not their failures. Johnson was elected to pass the civil rights program. He did. By 1968, the civil rights issue was nowhere to be seen. Carter was elected to restore integrity to the government. He did. When Reagan defeated him in 1980, integrity was not a key issue.

Bush, a two-issue president, is victimized by success in cutting taxes and fighting terror. He may have accomplished so much that he has worked his way out of his key issues.

Bush’s decline will be reversed only when the president seizes control of the national agenda. He should emphasize how the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire is a direct consequence of the fact that Saddam no longer writes checks to extremists and Iran and Saudi Arabia hesitate to do so.

He should also challenge Iran more aggressively by enforcing the long-neglected D’Amato amendments that require sanctions against foreign companies who help Iran develop its oil resources. Those powerful sanctions were waived by Clinton after he signed the bill with great fanfare. Bush should revisit them to keep momentum up in battling terror.

The president should focus aggressively on passing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, demanding that Congress work through August to pass the bill. He should not go to Texas for his vacation — however richly this hardworking man deserves time off — but should focus on passing that legislation to regain the initiative.

Remember what Henry Kissinger said: “A statesman’s duty is to bridge the gap between his vision and his nation’s experience. If he gets too far out ahead of that experience, he loses his mandate. If he sticks too close to the conventional, he loses control over events.”

Sending troops to Liberia in the middle of their civil war and forcing our military to be the civil administration in Iraq may be examples of the former. But letting the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency take the lead on Iran and the Chinese take it on North Korea may be examples of the former.

Finally, the Clintons will not tolerate a Democratic victory in 2004 unless the candidate is Hillary. If Bush continues to falter and his job approval drops below 50 percent, he may find himself facing Hillary as an opponent, not the nine dwarves now seeking his office.

Remember the history of Kennedy and Johnson in 1968. Robert F. Kennedy, who held the same seat Hillary now occupies in the Senate, hung like a shadow over the Johnson administration, all the time adamantly denying the would run for president. Deeply believing Johnson would win renomination, Kennedy refused to enter the primaries against him. When Johnson faltered in the wake of a challenge from Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy, Kennedy reversed field, entered the race and forced Johnson to surrender.

Could history be about to repeat itself?

[nevergore]

There is a reason staffers in the Clinton Whitehouse called him "Little Dick Morris" behind his back.....

NeverGore :^)

[mhking]

Please stop posting Dick Morris' drivel! He is nothing but a handy whipping boy, and likely to stab us all in the back. Don't believe him; don't trust him. He stabbed the Dems when it was convenient, and he'll do the same to us, and go running back to Hillary! grovelling on his hands and knees.

[Semper Paratus]

Never forget Dick Morris is a democrat who was a main architect of his x42's 1996 re-election.

[ken5050]

Sometimes I wish Fox would ask its viewers which pundit they'd most like to see eliminated..

[areafiftyone]

LOL - okay okay!!! Got toe? ;-)

[Puppage]

In the Clinton administration, despite daily pounding and actual impeachment, his job rating did not drop below 60 percent

President GW Bush had the HIGHEST approval rating for the the LONGEST time, than any other president in HISTORY.

Eat THAT, Dick.

[LS]

And that a mere two weeks ago Morris himself called Bush "invincible."

Dickie has to write columns. He has to have something to write about. I neither belive the Zogby poll that shows slippage in Bush's ratings, nor the Rasmussen poll that showed him beating generic Dems by only about 4-5% points.

There is a great column on Bush's summer doldrums, about how every summer it seems Bush drops; that his agenda flounders; and every year, by fall, he suddenly accelerates again.

[boomop1]

The little toe sucker is trying to become relevant, I pray for hitlary to run these people need to be shamed and their dishonesty and fraud brought forth again.

[tlb]

" Finally, the Clintons will not tolerate a Democratic victory in 2004 unless the candidate is Hillary. "


Morris certainly nails that one. The Bill Clinton call to Larry King undercutting the democrat contenders certainly proves that.

Morris doesn't get it right all the time but his overall average is pretty good. He certainly earned his keep in the Clinton White House.

His interlude with the prostitute is immaterial in judging his expertise. Disregard him at your own risk.

[areafiftyone]

Morris was a genius when it came to the Clintons but when it comes to Bush- he goes whichever way the wind blows. Not too long ago he was praising Bush to the high heavens. He is fickle! He must have drove the Clinton's crazy with his polling!

[Republican Red]

Sometimes I wish Fox would ask its viewers which pundit they'd most like to see eliminated

That would be a real tough question. I think my vote would go to Ellen Ratnor. Susan Estrich and Ellis Henican come in second and third. Morris doesn't bother so much. Most times Fox brings up his record on predictions to take the bite out of what he is saying.

[ken5050]

Thant's a real hard choice.....no Eleanor Clift?..methinks she's my choice....Rattner is superficial.....Estrich has recently made some sense, and given some honest commentary, about the dems...Hennican is a real snake..but Clift...she's vindictive..

[kjam22]

Could history be about to repeat itself?

It won't repeat itself. Timing is everything. Bush will play his 4th Ace during the eleciton year. And maybe even a Joker wild card that he's had up his sleeve since the bombing of Tora Bora.

[DrDeb]

I just e-mailed the following comment to "The Hill" (and an amended version the the NYPost):

If Dick Morris is going to engage in gross hyperbole, "President Bush in Free Fall", he needs to get his polling FACTS straight!

1.) Zogby uses an Excellent/Good--Fair/Poor schemata such that the President's current 53% Zogby rating actually translates into (AT LEAST) a 60% approval rating using the more traditional approve/disapprove scale. [During his PEAK years ('97-'00), Clinton earned Zogby ratings below 55% fourteen (14) of the 21 times Zogby polled during this period; he earned ratings above 60% ONLY TWICE! NOTE: This fact belies Mr. Morris' assertion that after 1996 Clinton's approval ratings NEVER again fell below 60 percent -- refer to http://www.pollingreport.com for additional polling stats from Gallup, Newsweek, Pew, and so on, that also reveal this assertion to be absolutely UNTRUE!]

2.) The most recent Gallup poll (7/18-20/03), puts the President's current approval rating at 59%, which is well within the margin of error (MOE) of a poll that Gallup took one month ago! Hmmmmmmmmm: NO statistical change during the last month? Where's the "free fall"?!

3.) The President's current ratings compare VERY favorably to past presidents. According to Gallup, Presidents Reagan and Clinton averaged 53% and 55% approval ratings respectively during their 8 years in office. And during the third year of their respective first terms both Reagan and Clinton had approval ratings in the 40s! However, despite these low ratings, both presidents experienced re-election victories a year later!

Deb Clark, PhD


SEPARATE COMMENT to Freepers: Morris may have a point about the demographic shift that has predisposed a "majority" of Americans to vote for Democrats.

For this reason, we Republicans must be smart (i.e., incremental) relative to the way in which we advocate/implement the conservative agenda or we, and the agenda, will go up in flames just as Newt did in '98(?)!