Conason: Bush*s Worst Week

[CatWoman]

As more Americans die in Iraq and evidence piles up that the president rushed into war, even his right-wing allies are turning on him. Has the White House reached the tipping point?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason



April 20, 2004 | Under siege on many fronts, the "wartime presidency" of George W. Bush is facing grave and unexpected jeopardy. Although the traditional advantages of incumbency and money may ultimately protect him from electoral defeat in November, his administration suddenly looks exposed, divided, hapless and flailing. As public confidence wavers, influential segments of Bush's conservative coalition are openly voicing concern. Those who supported the war are furious that the president is turning toward the United Nations in his desperation, while those who opposed the war are convinced that he has committed a mistake of historic proportion.

From inside that big, powerful Republican machine comes the sound of things falling apart.


Signs of trouble are everywhere, from the president's unimpressive performance at his press conference last week to the terrible disarray in Iraq to the disturbing facts unearthed by the 9/11 commission. After spending more than $45 million on advertising in the battleground states since March, Karl Rove must be disappointed by the results: an intractable contest against Democratic challenger John Kerry -- and an electorate that still believes the nation is moving in the wrong direction. Even polls that show Bush with a slight lead over Kerry, like the latest Washington Post-ABC News survey, award the president an anemic approval rating that hovers around 51 percent -- well below that of incumbents who successfully faced reelection in recent years.

As a nonpartisan campaign finance expert told the Los Angeles Times, the Bush-Cheney media expenditures to date equal what previous presidential candidates laid out for an entire campaign cycle. And yet the effort to "define" Kerry hasn't improved Bush's image. Although the Republican treasury is far from exhausted, money alone will not undo the damage inflicted by the administration's lethal incompetence.


Caught in a maelstrom of negative news cycles, the Bush strategists have been unable to elevate him above the growing din of doubt. The national press corps that has indulged and coddled him all along is no longer averting its gaze from embarrassing facts. And with its loss of control over the "message" emanating from Washington, Baghdad and points around the globe, the White House is on the defensive with no immediate relief on the horizon.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/20/bush/

[Skittles]

1. HEY

respond to this before you start any mo' threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1033273&mesg_id=1033273&page=

:D

[CatWoman]

2. I should think all the doom sayers and chicken littles around here

would want to read this.

:kick:

[ElementaryPenguin]

3. But, but...corporate fascist polls say Bush's #'s are going up!!??WTF?

:puke:

:argh:

:mad:

[hippiegranny]

4. contradictory to what many may fear

the sky is not falling. bush is lamed and presents an easy target. nobody likes to back a loser. more and more that big red letter "L" on his forehead is becoming visible to other people and not just us!

[Brotherjohn]

5. Note the emphasis on the Woodward book. Who do you think will read...

... that?

It's going to be a much broader cross section than the typical audience for Al Franken's books, or even Clarke's or O'Neill's. Those, to an extent, were preaching to the choir.

But Woodward's readers include millions of conservatives -- Bush voters -- who already read "Bush at War", and liked the strong portrait it painted of Bush. They're going to pick this up to read the "sequel", and have their eyes opened somewhat. In light of the press coverage so far, they'll also be reading this one through a somewhat different lens than "Bush at War" (more open to skepticism re Bush).

This book possibly holds the promise of changing more minds than either the Clarke or O'Neill books.