What really explains Bush's implosion?

The Coffee Shop
1

I am putting this out there as a sincere question. I am not putting this out there as an excuse to bash Bush. Basically, I find it genuinely interesting that the wheels have fallen off for Bush so quickly. Last fall, he had lots of self-proclaimed “political capital.” A year later, he is pratically a lame duck. What explains the change in fortune.

Here are some obvious factors:

A) Iraq: If you ask why Bush is suffering in the polls, most will point to Iraq. But I have to wonder what has really changed since last year. Bush ran on Iraq last November and won. The situation is no worse today, and arguably it is better. So why the change in opinion vis-a-vis the war? Is it the fact that we expect serious progress, and there has not been enough? If that is so, I only have to ask, was there that much progress during the two years before his re-election? Some, but not much. The whole thing has moved slowly, and that seemed to be built into expectations. (As an aside, I wonder how much time until Rumsfeld leaves office.)

B) Katrina. The federal government stumbled there, and so did the state and local governments. Should Bush take that much heat for that? Perhaps it was not this isolated failure that mattered. Perhaps it was the fact that American power seemed to fail a second time. It is hard to argue that we haven’t managed the situation in Iraq like we all first expected, and we let an American city get stranded in a way we never expected. Perhaps Americans got upset with Bush when we didn’t live up to our own expectations twice.

C) Corruption: For whatever reason, I am not sure that the scandals and potential scandals (Rove, DeLay, First, etc) matter that much. Maybe they give folks one more reason not to like Bush, but I am not sure that too many people are paying attention.

D) Rising gas prices: I have to wonder whether this is not a very big factor, as sad as that reality might be. Is Bush losing popularity because disposible incomes are being eaten up by $3 gas? I have to give this factor some weight. His popularity dipped sharply as gas prices went up. If that is the main cause, it is pretty sad.

E) All of the above – Is it just too many things are going wrong in a short amount of time, and it all starts to add up, especially during a second term, when no one has a real stake in the president’s future? That all could be true.

All thoughts on this are welcome.

2

“Rising gas prices”

Don’t think it’s this. Saw on the news that gas prices are only 3 cents higher on average than before Katrina.

3

A) Iraq

Lets face it, roughly half the country despises him for it. That hasn’t changed all that much.

B) Katrina.

If it did anything, it reinforced an already present image of him being out of touch.

C) Corruption

Frist & Delay maybe not so much… I mean stock and fundraising shenanigans dont really incite a lot of passion (given Delay’s charges go further). But I wouldn’t discount the Rove/ Libby of having real impact. Bush and company were busy talking about false yellowcake stories, got called on it, and then these two outed a CIA agent for revenge. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush loses a lot of support from moderate Republicans over this.D) Rising gas prices

Dont think so

I’ll add E) Miers - coming so soon after the Brown/FEMA fiasco, it makes him look like he’s rewarding cronyism rather than merit.

4

Miers is the only factor that’s changed any minds about Bush recently. Which is to say, it’s the only factor that a portion of his base has turned against him for.

5

His poll numbers were way down before Miers. I agree that Miers has hurt him with this conservative base and has continued the bleeding. But centrists started turning against him earlier. Late August seemed like where things really started to go wrong.

6

I don’t think its the corruption or gas prices. The corruption, outside of the White House at least, is more a product of Republican control and resulting hubris than particular qualities of Bush. And gas prices are simply a matter of supply and demand, although I do think that citizens feel the right to blame Bush for it, even if it is a little misguided.

No, I think his problems are much deeper, and frankly, have been well-known for a long time.

This is a guy who has never managed any venture with any demonstrated competence, seems to make it a point of pride that he doesn’t seek out information, doesn’t read the papers, and shows little if any intellectual curiosity. These would be dangerous traits in a CEO, much less a President who actually holds people’s lives in his hand. He seems to believe that the basic act of consideration and analysis is evidence of ambivalence or waffling, while most people would consider it just “thinking”.

And part and parcel with this is his simple incompetence and inability to manage processes with any integrity, intellectual or otherwise. Where has he developed coherent policies and strategies regarding anything, much less Iraq? Where has he directly managed his subordinates and held them accountable for failures, as well as successes? Where has he shown that he is aware of developing situations and frankly, where has he shown that he is even interested in knowing? He keeps a cabal of people around him over time whose primary competence appears to be loyalty to him, despite the fact that they will be faced with problems which require specific experience which they do not possess. And we pay for it.

But we knew this going into it. The fact that it’s played out this way is not a surprise. It was simply a matter of time. Poor managers manage poorly. There was always the chance that he could get lucky and that things would all turn his way. But we don’t hire a President for good times. We hire him because we’re afraid of crises and want somebody there who can both assemble thoughtful policies that will avoid crises, as well as deal with them as they occur. He has failed on both counts.

So why are people surprised? Who did they think he was before this?

7

The corruption, outside of the White House at least, is more a product of Republican control and resulting hubris than particular qualities of Bush.

I’m not sure I entirely agree with that sentiment. I’m pretty sure that a lot of Democrats don’t. (I mean, I guess the corruption outside the White House is sort of by definition not Bush’s responsibility. But a lot of corruption (perhaps too strong a word- cronyism, maybe?) can be connected with Bush’s obssessive penchant for personal loyalty.

I don’t know why the polls started to slide at the moment they did, but I do think that Bush enjoys little support from what people would consider his base. The reason for that is pretty simple- he keeps selling them out. He isn’t conservative at all, and I don’t think he can count on the support of a lot of groups that are serious about their causes. What support he has is pretty much entirely based in mere partisianship, imo.

So why are people surprised? Who did they think he was before this?

I guess a lot of people thought he was a conservative, and they were wrong. On the other hand, I think attributing an eternal incompetence to him is a bit unfair. He managed the 9/11 crisis pretty well up until hubris took over and he decided to take down Iraq. So it isn’t as if he’s never done anything well.

9

“it isn’t as if he’s never done anything well.”

It’s also not like he doesn’t have people around him with experience. Whether you like him or not, Rumsfeld’s got experience out the yin-yang. i do think the Pres relies too much on personal loyalty, perhaps because he’s those who don’t hold any specific ties to him have contradicted him. An example might be Powell as SecState. This cronyism is one of his chief faults, and it’s something that doesn’t play well in the press. As people go down, there is no way to distance himself from them because they are all “his guys.” When he nominates someone for something, the first question is whether or not their qualifications extend past being the President’s buddy.

On top of that, he’s a miserable conservative, and he’s pissing off most of his base, and I think they’re just finally getting so tired of it, and a little scared off by impending scandal or indictment that they are beginning to distance themselves so they can start getting set up for the next guy.

10

Casey, you’re sounding like a liberal. Are you sure you’re on the right :slight_smile: You couldn’t have summarized the left critique any better.

11

Here are some obvious factors:

A) Iraq: Is it the fact that we expect serious progress, and there has not been enough? If that is so, I only have to ask, was there that much progress during the two years before his re-election?

People like timelines. People like to see things change. It’s not that easy and you can’t force the situation. Our own government went through several iterations before we ended up with what we have now. Why should Iraq be any different? Except that our society wants what it wants right now and has no patience to wait. We have not even been in Iraq as long as we participated in WWII. What would have happened had we bailed out of that conflict after two years?

B) Katrina. The federal government stumbled there, and so did the state and local governments.

Passing the responsibility on to the government drives me nuts. People need to learn to take care of themselves. If you live somewhere that is threatened by hurricanes then you sure better have a plan to vacate when one comes. If you don’t then you have been grossly negligent on a personal level. People are too poor? I’m not buying. How many of these “too poor” people have TVs and pay for cable? That’s several hundred dollars a year, which is plenty to come up with a good survival kit that you can throw in your car and leave town. I wonder how many people who were stuck in NO were there hoping up until the last minute that the storm would not hit them. If you want to blame the government for Katrina then you may as well blame it for the Earth being round and life not being fair.

D) Rising gas prices: I have to wonder whether this is not a very big factor, as sad as that reality might be. Is Bush losing popularity because disposible incomes are being eaten up by $3 gas? I have to give this factor some weight. His popularity dipped sharply as gas prices went up. If that is the main cause, it is pretty sad.

This is a hilarious explanation. For years Americans have bought bigger and bigger vehicles and assumed gas would always be the same price. It’s not like this hasn’t happened before, but we didn’t learn our lesson.
We didn’t do enough to develop our own resources, nor did we put much of a premium on building cars that didn’t rely on oil. When gas prices are low we are not willing to sacrifice to provide a solution for the next time they are high.

E) All of the above – Is it just too many things are going wrong in a short amount of time, and it all starts to add up, especially during a second term, when no one has a real stake in the president’s future?

Once again, people refuse to look in the mirror and take personal responsibility. It is much easier to blame someone. So of course we blame the Pres. Do I feel bad for him? No. He wanted the job, so let him deal with it. That is why we pay him.

Chad

12

I think the Republicans have felt above the law and as long as they continue to cater to the Christian right, they could essentially do no wrong. I am part of the Christian right but am not blindly going by everything they say and others are starting to wake up to this.
What do you think of Bush’s attitude that he is doing what God tells him to do?

13

Here are some obvious factors:

A) Iraq: Is it the fact that we expect serious progress, and there has not been enough? If that is so, I only have to ask, was there that much progress during the two years before his re-election?

People like timelines. People like to see things change. It’s not that easy and you can’t force the situation. Our own government went through several iterations before we ended up with what we have now. Why should Iraq be any different? Except that our society wants what it wants right now and has no patience to wait. We have not even been in Iraq as long as we participated in WWII. What would have happened had we bailed out of that conflict after two years?

From the beginning, the Administration held out the timeline that this wouldn’t take very long. Six months was given as an outside limit. The oil revenue was supposed to be supporting the reconstruction within a year. Major fighting was touted as over after only a couple of months (“Mission Accomplished”). No sacrifice was asked of the American people (except the sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and their families).

Had real planning been done (actually, it was, but it was ignored), the Administration would not have been able to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people on the truth.

Your comparison to WWII is poor. We were fighting two major world powers who had conquered or attacked our allies (and indeed our own territories), had control over or were threatening enormous stretches of strategic areas (oil, rubber, etc.). The American people were told in no uncertain terms that great sacrifice was demanded of all. The Greatest Generation accepted it and followed through.

Despite being the cynic that I am, I still believe that if an American President asks for sacrifice from all, the people will deliver in spades. We are not the greatest f’in’ country in the world for nothing.

14

“From the beginning, the Administration held out the timeline that this wouldn’t take very long.”

Ken, that’s not true. The phrase “Long hard slog” comes to mind as just one of the things that was said to let people know we would be in this for the long term.

15

My guess is that you’re a white guy who makes a cushy lving and you’ve never spent a day near poverty. But maybe I am wrong.

Passing the responsibility on to the government drives me nuts. People need to learn to take care of themselves. If you live somewhere that is threatened by hurricanes then you sure better have a plan to vacate when one comes. If you don’t then you have been grossly negligent on a personal level. People are too poor? I’m not buying. How many of these “too poor” people have TVs and pay for cable? That’s several hundred dollars a year, which is plenty to come up with a good survival kit that you can throw in your car and leave town. I wonder how many people who were stuck in NO were there hoping up until the last minute that the storm would not hit them. If you want to blame the government for Katrina then you may as well blame it for the Earth being round and life not being fair.

17

I seem to recall statements to the effect that we’d have a stable, pro-American democracy in Iraq within a year.

I don’t know when the “long hard slog” phrase popped up, but it most certainly is not how the administration characterized what we would face in Iraq.

18

“From the beginning, the Administration held out the timeline that this wouldn’t take very long.”

Ken, that’s not true. The phrase “Long hard slog” comes to mind as just one of the things that was said to let people know we would be in this for the long term.
You realize that Rumsfeld’s comment was made in October, 2003, right? That’s what, seven months after the invasion?

19

**What do you think of Bush’s attitude that he is doing what God tells him to do? **

I think those comments just inflamed the Muslims and the last thing we want is a Holy war, because we cannot win, they are way more passionate and fanatical than we will ever be.

The atheists weren’t too thrilled, either.

20

One thing is for sure, Miers withdrawal is a clear sign that the wheels have fallen off the Bush train. I love seeing the establishment finally refuse to sign off on whatever cockamamy idea he has.

21

I understand that the “long hard slog” soundbite came after the start, but I don’t remember anyone saying we’d be in and out in 6 months. I agree that the Administration misread the potential reaction of the Iraqi people and the declarations that we would be greeted as liberators certainly didn’t seem to come to fruition, but I think it was made pretty clear pretty early that we would be in Iraq in some form or another for a long time.

22

**I think it was made pretty clear pretty early that we would be in Iraq in some form or another for a long time. **

More revisionism.