JULY 7, 2003
WASHINGTON WATCH
By Douglas Harbrecht
Is Bush a Shoo-In for '04? Not Yet | While his popularity seems unassailable now, any of several issues could still turn voters against the President if he isn't very careful
|
As a young political reporter trying to plumb the dynamics of voter behavior, I did an interview 16 years ago with a regular Joe Voter from Ohio that has stayed with me ever since. During the course of our chat, he wanted to know why the Iran-contra scandal was such a big deal inside the Beltway for then-President Ronald Reagan? I tried my best to explain: In secretly trading arms for hostages, the Reagan Administration had deliberately misled Congress and precipitated a Constituional crisis. But the puzzled listener just furrowed his brow: "Yeah, but Reagan is trying to do a good job," he blurted out. "Leave him alone."
That may not sound profound. But the more I followed politics over the years, the more I came to realize the man was posing the essential judgment most voters make in deciding whether to stick with their Commander-in-Chief. Not "Is he doing a good job?" mind you. "Is he trying to do a good job?" Ever since FDR, U.S. Presidents generally have enjoyed a deep reservoir of good will with the electorate -- even among those who didn't vote for them. Get on the wrong side of this question, however, and it's over.
Think about it: Incumbent George Bush was ousted in 1992 because voters thought he had stopped trying to do a good job -- he just liked the trappings of the office. Yet, Clinton won reelection handily and could have easily won a third term, despite the tawdry Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment by Congress. Why? As Clinton liked to say over and over, "I'm just going to keep trying to do the job that the people elected me to do." Most Americans agreed and scorned the tempest in Washington. Leave him alone.
SKY-HIGH APPROVALS. Now comes George W. Bush, the first President since 1876 to lose the popular vote and still win the office through the Electoral College. Granted, the 2000 election seems like a lifetime ago, and Bush's ratings soared to unprecedented heights post-September 11. Even today, after two wars, three years of a bear market, an economy that continues to sputter, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction still AWOL, and U.S. troops being picked off one by one daily by Iraqi guerrillas, Bush still commands polling heights even his father had lost much sooner after Gulf War I.
The average approval rating in the third year of every President's first term since Dwight Eisenhower has been 55% -- Bush's remain in the mid-60s. Almost two out of three voters are still sold on the notion that he's trying to do a good job.
Small wonder Bush's advisers are so smug about 2004 and Democrats so glum: According to a July 2 Gallup poll, three out of four American have concluded that the President is a "strong and decisive leader," and 65% think he's "honest and trustworthy." Those are bankable numbers in political terms, encompassing many voters who don't agree with his policies.
Never mind that Administration officials might not have been telling the truth about what they really knew about WMDs in Iraq in the lead-up to war. Forget the shameless accounting gimmicks in the tax-cut legislation Bush signed last month. He's widely seen as a strong leader trying to do a good job.
So Bush is a shoo-in next year, right? Hold on. While he enjoys decided advantages for winning reelection, the Bushies better not get too complacent. Here's why:
The Growing Mess in Iraq: No matter what the press reports, most Americans reject the idea that Bush deliberately exaggerated data about WMD in order to increase support for the war. According to a recent Harris poll, 55% of those polled still believe the U.S. government tried to be accurate. They probably won't ever be swayed to see the war as anything but justified. Democrats can pretty much shut the book on this issue.
The war's aftermath, however, is another chapter being written right now. And so far, the Bush Administration's handling of nation-building has been nothing less than inept. With every new day of sporadic blackouts in occupied Baghdad, water shortages, angry Iraqis throwing shoes at Gis instead of at Saddam's pictures and statues, and sweltering U.S. soldiers pinned down in a role they're not equipped or trained for, the perception grows that, when it comes to finishing up in Iraq, Bush isn't even trying to do a good job. Bad place to be politically (see BW Online, 7/1/03, Iraq's Destroyer Can Now Be Its Savior").
|
Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
