Polls Vs. Clout

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
Clout wins.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007220
Back to Business
President Bush had a rough summer. That doesn't mean he's in for a fall.

BY FRED BARNES
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

This summer hasn't been kind to President Bush. Persistent terrorism in Iraq continued to drive up the toll of American dead. The media transformed Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, into an anti-Bush celebrity. On top of soaring gas prices, devastation from Hurricane Katrina gave the president a huge, new crisis and a deluge of criticism to deal with. Naturally, his job approval rating, measured relentlessly in polls, sank to a new low.

Yet two things remain true about the Bush presidency.

Mr. Bush knows how to win elections. And he knows how to drive his agenda, especially in Congress. Last winter, bills curbing class-action lawsuits and reforming bankruptcy law--both favorites of Mr. Bush--were enacted. Then, during a two-week span in July and August, he won congressional approval of the controversial Central America Free Trade Agreement, overdue energy legislation and a highway bill slimmed down to meet his specifications. The day Cafta passed, thanks to aggressive lobbying by Mr. Bush himself, his job rating was at 44% in the Gallup Poll, the lowest point of his presidency.

Now, as Congress returns for its fall session, Mr. Bush has reason to feel burdened but still optimistic. He's been politically bruised by his administration's response to Katrina but hardly crippled. He promptly named the conservative he'd already nominated for the Supreme Court, John Roberts, to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died Saturday. Judge Roberts is likely to be confirmed in time for the court's opening day in October. That leaves the seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who resigned in June, still vacant. If the president follows his instincts, picks another conservative, and gains confirmation, he will have succeeded in tilting the ideological balance of the court to the right.

Meanwhile, prospects for eliminating or slashing the federal estate tax, or death tax, took a hit when Majority Leader Bill Frist postponed a vote so the Senate can concentrate on Katrina-related legislation. But the estate tax remains a ripe target. At the end of September, Mr. Bush's tax commission will recommend a tax reform plan that will allow him to embrace--or at least to elevate--the tax issue, always a winner for Republicans. And his proposal to bring immigrants to the United States as "guest workers" looks to win passage as part of a broader bill to curb illegal immigration.

Mr. Bush's management of the recovery from Katrina is a wild card. His critics--mostly Democrats, the media and Louisiana officials shifting the blame from their own shortcomings--accuse him of failing to respond with the urgency and strong presidential leadership he showed after 9/11. They're right. But Katrina, though a catastrophe, isn't 9/11. Louisiana and Mississippi weren't attacked by enemy forces. Americans break along normal partisan lines in judging Mr. Bush's performance in coping with Katrina, an ABC News poll found. Only a minority (44%) fault him personally. Even so, his approval rating may slip a bit.

But the simple fact of governing in Washington is that popularity is not a measure of power. In the late '90s, President Clinton's approval rating stayed well above 60%, even after he was impeached. But Mr. Clinton had almost no clout. True, this was partly because he faced a Republican Congress. A Bush aide was accurate (if self-serving) in drawing the distinction this way: "The difference is between polls in the 40s and changing history and being in the 60s and twiddling your thumbs. We'll take the 40s. That's our motto."

Despite weak poll numbers, Mr. Bush insisted on nominating a conservative to replace Justice O'Connor rather than appease Democrats by picking a moderate. And while under fire for Katrina, he promptly selected the same conservative to succeed Rehnquist. Now he is being urged to find a consensus nominee for the second court vacancy. This, we're told, would rally America post-Katrina. Such calls are typical fodder from the party out of power, and it would be out of character for Mr. Bush to go along, thus abandoning his promise to name conservative judges.

Democrats haven't given up on blocking Judge Roberts. But his confirmation hearings, scheduled to begin Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, find them divided and confused. Mr. Bush's choice of Judge Roberts, a man of quiet conservatism and amiable demeanor, has proved to be disarming. Some Democrats fear belligerent opposition would harm them, not the president. What's more significant is that Mr. Bush's dip in popularity has had no effect on the Republican coalition. It hasn't splintered. With few exceptions, Republican senators are enthusiastically pro-Roberts.

Wiping out the estate tax is another cherished conservative goal that Mr. Bush has not balked at pursuing. This fall, the Senate may decide whether to abolish it permanently. The House has already voted to do so. If elimination fails in the Senate, Mr. Bush and his allies, led by Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, have a fallback position that appeals to moderate Democrats. It would repeal the tax for estates of less than $5 million and cut the rate to 15% from 55%.

Later this month, Mr. Bush's tax panel will report its recommendations on reforming the tax code. Those familiar with the panel, headed by former Sens. John Breaux of Louisiana and Connie Mack of Florida, expect it to urge the replacement of the federal income tax with some kind of consumption or value-added tax. The president has instructed the panel only that it must preserve the home mortgage and charitable deductions. Whatever it comes up with, Republicans hope it will spark a national debate on tax reform, leading to legislation next year.

Immigration is the most troublesome issue for Mr. Bush because he is at odds with many Republicans. He is passionately pro-immigrant, while they are fixated on securing America's southern border. The president has little influence on Republicans on immigration and wouldn't have it even if his approval rating were 20 points higher. Instead, congressional Republicans are responding to grassroots pressure to stop the flow of illegal aliens.

There's a solution. By joining his guest-worker plan with beefing up border protection, Mr. Bush and Republicans have a good chance of enacting an immigration bill. In this case, a bipartisan measure supported by Sen. Edward Kennedy could emerge. Sens. Kennedy and John McCain are co-sponsors of an immigration bill that may be closer to Mr. Bush's thinking than a rival bill authored by Sen. Kyl and Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.

Compromising with Democrats is not a Bush habit. His doggedness in sticking to his own agenda has contributed to political polarization in Washington and to his tumble in popularity. After Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, Democrats expected him to seek their input. He hasn't. And this, in turn, has exacerbated Democratic hostility, frozen partisan feelings and caused his polls numbers to fade.

It's a trade-off that Mr. Bush readily accepted. Republicans have bucked him only once on a significant issue. They've stayed away in droves from his Social Security reform proposal. This year, he's begun cleaning out the cupboard of stored-up legislation and frustrated goals. The bankruptcy bill had been stalled for nine years, the energy bill for four, the creation of a more conservative Supreme Court for decades. Now Mr. Bush intends to continue that job this fall and the odds on success, Katrina notwithstanding, are in his favor.

Mr. Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
 
immigration is the most troublesome issue for Mr. Bush because he is at odds with many Republicans. He is passionately pro-immigrant, while they are fixated on securing America's southern border. The president has little influence on Republicans on immigration and wouldn't have it even if his approval rating were 20 points higher. Instead, congressional Republicans are responding to grassroots pressure to stop the flow of illegal aliens.


Hmm in a republic public sentiment should have some say .

The sellout to mexico, the creeping in of spanish as a second
language. Maybe its my German roots but it feels wrong.

Does it help to enable the dems, nope bigger sellouts.

Still one country on language (yes lets ignore switzerland (histoical context))
 
nosarcasm said:
immigration is the most troublesome issue for Mr. Bush because he is at odds with many Republicans. He is passionately pro-immigrant, while they are fixated on securing America's southern border. The president has little influence on Republicans on immigration and wouldn't have it even if his approval rating were 20 points higher. Instead, congressional Republicans are responding to grassroots pressure to stop the flow of illegal aliens.


Hmm in a republic public sentiment should have some say .

The sellout to mexico, the creeping in of spanish as a second
language. Maybe its my German roots but it feels wrong.

Does it help to enable the dems, nope bigger sellouts.

Still one country on language (yes lets ignore switzerland (histoical context))


I have to agree with you on illegal immigration. I think he will be unable to avoid that fight, the people want it and 'all politics are local.' The legislators must listen to an ennervated constituency. He may just settle for 'letting his plan sit, but not sure the people will go along with that.'

At the same time, he does seem very able to get the big things done he wants, for the most part. No doubt, it's easier to focus on the 'misses' such as immigration and so far, social security. But Roberts may well get the SCOTUS position by October and like what Bush's doing or not, he got through many tax reductions, changes in enviromental laws, too much in education laws, etc.
 
I am not a fan of any courts.

I prefer politicans decide, as biased as they
are then unelected assholes.

When the court support my oppion I might be happy but
I would hope the senate would take the position of common sense
and decency.
 
nosarcasm said:
I am not a fan of any courts.

I prefer politicans decide, as biased as they
are then unelected assholes.

When the court support my oppion I might be happy but
I would hope the senate would take the position of common sense
and decency.

Oh the courts have their place, just shouldn't be making laws. Congress should be stepping up to their responsibility, whether making laws that can stand judicial scrutiny or declaring war.
 
they well might interpretate law,but when they make up new
policies, they have no mandate.

While I can live with the abortion compromise that pretty much
copies old europe, (which was subject to a political compromise there
mostly) they just put it down the peoples throats here.

Being that the US is more religiously fundamental it might
not represent the peoples will.

Not ok in my book.
 
nosarcasm said:
they well might interpretate law,but when they make up new
policies, they have no mandate.

While I can live with the abortion compromise that pretty much
copies old europe, (which was subject to a political compromise there
mostly) they just put it down the peoples throats here.

Being that the US is more religiously fundamental it might
not represent the peoples will.

Not ok in my book.

Exactly, Roe V Wade MADE law, bad law. There has been a ton of journal articles on the very topic. Here's one:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL2.98/kmiec298.html
 
I think the article has the immigration issue. I don't know any Republican conservative that is Anti immigration. We are just anti ILLEGAL immigration. I'm very pro immigration. I think we need to cut alot of the red tape for those we know aren't threats to this country. Especially Mexican immigrants. They want to come here. Let them just allow them to come here through the proper means and secude the dang boarder.

I still think the simplist solution for the mexican illegal problem is to annex mexico. It's obvious that they want to be part of the US. The Mexican President isn't doing anything to help their problem. Let's annex Mexico. Open up investment opportunities south of the boarder. It would open a whole new labor and investment market to the American economy. Plus it would significantly shorten our southern boarder making it alot easier to maintain. I mean we are after all The United States of America, and Mexico is part of America. So why not let them unite with us? The Constitution provides a way for other states to be annexed. Why complicate things with red tape?
 

Forum List

Back
Top