Bush's Approval and the Presidential Ve-to
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published May 2, 2007, 3:17 pm in News, Voting & Partisanship, Rhetoric.
Today, let's talk about approval ratings. The New York Times has a great article by Janet Elder called "For Most Bush Voters, No Regrets After Two Years." The title says it all. We're not talking here about the president's overall approval rating, which is hovering around 32%. That statistic is telling in itself, and it doesn't bode well for the next Republican candidate. Next time, I will pose some reasons why I think the Republican candidates for 2008 are composed of those individuals currently running. Yes, I think there's a reason, and it has to do with Bush. But let's focus on Bush's approval rating among those who actually voted for him in 2004. So this is not the entire population, but only about 50% of it.
Among this group, 9% enthusiastically approve of the Bush administration, 58% approve but are not enthusiastic about their approval, 26% are dissatisfied, and 6% are angry. About Bush specifically, 66% approve of him, 21% disapprove, and 13% are unsure.
First, let's talk about this category of people who are "unsure" about Bush. Doesn't that go against everything Bush stands for? The whole thing behind Bush was that he's the decider, the guy with "sticktoitiveness." He makes up his mind, and that's the end. For some reason, 13% of the people who voted for him don't follow the same rule. They just can't decide whether they like Bush or not. Perhaps they should have voted for John Kerry instead? Besides, how can someone not like or dislike Bush? He's the most devisive president I can certainly remember, and people get really upset on both sides--they either love him or hate him. But then there's this 13% of his former supporters who don't know what to do with him.
But let's quickly move to the people who disapprove of him and his administration. Why have these people changed their minds about Bush? Because of Iraq, specifically. According to the New York Times article, one Republican who voted for Bush said, "'I voted for Bush in 2004 because I hoped he would call the soldiers back, but he didn’t,' he said. 'We’re losing so many lives with the car bombings and everything. I wouldn’t approve of him again unless he stopped the war in Iraq.' But why did this guy think that Bush would bring the troops home? What did Bush do that made him think that Bush would do this? Wasn't that his whole schtick, even then? Leave the troops in Iraq until the mission is accomplished? Nevertheless, this guy says that he "wouldn't approve of him again unless he stopped the war in Iraq." That statement is really telling, for it says that the people who supported Bush want to continue supporting him. They want him to be their president. If he brought the troops home, they would again approve of his presidency. The first problem is that Bush will not bring them home during his presidency. The second is that these people still think it was a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place.
Meanwhile, another 28% of people who voted for Bush in 2004 say that they think the invasion was a bad idea from the beginning. Wow, if that's the case, perhaps Bush should do one simple thing. I mean, imagine if 28% of his former supporters think that, how many of his opponents think it? That means that all of these people want one thing from Bush: an apology. Let's have our president with sticktoitiveness come out and say, "I was wrong. We should not have invaded Iraq."
Whoa, would that be a revolutionary idea. I know I would respect it. To me, the sign of intelligence is that someone can change his or her mind based on new information or new arguments. The sign of intelligence is not that someone is too stubborn to admit that he or she was wrong. I call that bullheadedness, not a good thing by any means. So Mr. Bush, just come out and say it. Most of us think it, so it won't hurt anything. It doesn't even mean that the troops have to come home right away. All it means is that you admit you were wrong. But wait, this is the guy who doesn't have any regrets...
For me, this kind of apology would make all the difference. It would tell me that Bush was intelligent, that he understood the people that he represents, that he isn't just a bully flexing his muscles and telling the rest of the world to bear it. As I said, it wouldn't mean that the troops have to come home. I have said it in previous columns, but I really think we can't bring the troops home just yet:
We cannot invade a country, put it in turmoil, and then leave it in a terrible mess--that's wrong.
So leave the troops there, but admit that it was a mistake in the first place. If Bush did that, heck, I might support him.
The Veto that Rocked the Congress
Not really, of course, because Bush kept saying that he would do it, and by golly, he did it. The House has now tried to override the veto, but they don't have the numbers, naturally. What I keep wondering is what the Democrats will do now. Prominent members have said that they won't let this go. These guys want to do whatever they can to end the war or force Bush to change his strategy. But what can they do? For one, they can say no to the spending bill, but this is political suicide. What you can't do, even now, is not fund the troops at all. They need their body armor, after all, and Bush is willing to play chicken with the Democrats and the soldiers' lives. Let's say, for instance, that the Democrats refuse to pass another spending bill. What will Bush do? He has two choices: one, bring the troops home because there's no more money to fight the war. Two, leave them there and let them fight without proper supplies or food, etc. Which one would he do? I honestly can't say. I imagine him leaving them there to make the political statement that the Democrats are killing our soliders. I hope he's not that cruel, but it's possible. It doesn't matter, though, because the Democrats have to find a way to fund the troops, and I'm sure they will. This whole veto thing was just a stunt, after all. They had to tell everyone that they tried, and now they can go back to their real work, which is to find a way to negotiate with the Republicans. The question is whether Bush is willing to negotiate. How far is either party willing to go, for that matter? Neither of them wants to back down, but they have to accomplish something to allow the troops to be funded.
All I forsee is the Democrats giving in and funding the troops altogether. After all, no one is really listening to that Alaska guy who says that funding the troops is bad altogether, that you don't disagree with a war and yet keep funding it. Heck, that guy says it should be against the law to send money to them. What a loon.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment