He's not running in '08, but history shows his bad ratings can swamp the GOP.

[G_j]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein18jul18,0,1460632,print.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

RONALD BROWNSTEIN
Bush the albatross
He's not running in '08, but history shows his bad ratings can swamp the GOP.
Ronald Brownstein

July 18, 2007

AMID ALL THE frenetic early maneuvering in the 2008 GOP presidential race, Republicans may be missing the elephant in the room: namely that the head of the herd is bleeding to death on the carpet.

That would be President Bush, whose approval rating scraped new lows last week. Bush won't be on the ballot in 2008, of course, but throughout American history, outgoing presidents have cast a long shadow over the campaign to succeed them. And when a departing president has been as unpopular as Bush is now, his party has usually lost the White House in the next election.

There's no guarantee that history will repeat itself. But the weight of experience suggests that Republicans in Congress and in the presidential race are vastly underestimating the challenge of escaping the undertow Bush is creating. If he cannot recover at least somewhat, or if the party does not separate itself from him more effectively — or both — the GOP may be dragged under.

In the elections to replace departing presidents, weakness seems more contagious than strength. Outgoing presidents with a high job approval rating haven't always succeeded in passing on the White House to their chosen candidates. Ronald Reagan did in 1988, but, in two nail-biting contests, Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 and Bill Clinton in 2000 could not.

Unpopular departing presidents, though, have consistently undercut their party in the next election. Democrats lost the White House in 1952 and 1968 after Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson saw their approval ratings plummet below 50%. Likewise, in the era before polling, the opposition party won the White House when deeply embattled presidents left office after the elections of 1920 (Woodrow Wilson), 1896 (Grover Cleveland), 1860 (James Buchanan) and 1852 (Millard Fillmore). The White House also changed partisan control when weakened presidents stepped down in 1844 and 1884. Only in 1856 and 1876 did this pattern bend, when the parties of troubled presidents Franklin Pierce and Ulysses S. Grant held the White House upon their departure.

..more..

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. What? Our "Popular wartime president"? How can this be?

[Kagemusha]

2. Mainly because his war isn't popular.

If it wasn't for the war, a war that will surely last beyond Bush's term, the albatross effect would be much less pronounced.

As it is, Bush's war will make Bush's legacy extremely relevant.

[G_j]

4. the war, and that fact everyone now knows he lied us into it

no going back, once you are considered a bald faced liar!

[Kagemusha]

7. Nah, the lying isn't relevant at all.

If he lied us into a war that the US won, a war that stayed won, that had major positive benefits for the country, a lot less people would care. That's different from an open arterial wound.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I saw this article today in the LA Times...

And read it with great joy!

How I hope it holds true for the upcoming 2008 election......

Ronald Browstein seems to be consistently non-partisan, a true observer of the political scene....

I so hope he's right.

[calimary]

5. I remember a post here several years ago talking about how the only way

some of these people will get the message would be to get the snot beaten out of them. Looks like we may finally have a chance to savor that possibility. Hopefully BIGTIME.

Dear God, I want to see these bastards SO shamed next November. SO shamed. SO set back it will take them at least a generation to recover. Which is probably about how long it'll take the rest of us to fix what they've broken, undo the damage they've done, and reverse the disgraceful policies they've set in motion.

[saltpoint]

6. Juicy stuff from Brownstein. Nicely put together, too. A talented

writer.

On Pierce: his own party denied him re-nomination and went with Buchanan instead. As weak as Pierce was, Buchanan somehow managed to be even worse. No small feat.

Brownstein makes strong points. We'll still have to keep at it as hard as we can, but history is not favoring a Republican White House in 08.

[G_j]

8. kick