Saturday, November 26, 2005
Time to declare defeat? Get de-feet out of Iraq
In view of the recent swell of calls by Rep. Murtha, followed by many other Democrats and then Senator Joseph Biden, I thought I'd republish something I wrote in September, 2004,-- 14 months ago:
Breakfast with Bwana
September 21, 2004
To Everything There Is A Season -- Time To Declare Defeat:
In Lovedale, there is a school that was once known as The Major
General Sir Henry Lawrence Royal Memorial Military School. It is now
knows as The Lawrence School. The School's motto is "Never Give
In." Lovedale is a tiny little hill station at an elevation of
7,000+ feet MSL, between Ooty and Coonor. In some ways, the change
of name was a declaration of defeat, it was a "giving in" of sorts.
The move was perhaps an accommodation to a new sense of brevity (not
one of my problems!) but more likely, was a reflection of a
politically correct approach in a newly independent nation whose
government had effectively "nationalized" the institution while
retaining its character as a public school. "Public" school in the
Indian (and British) context means a snooty "private" school. It
probably wouldn't have done at all to have a "Royal" school in a
newly independent nation. As y'all might have guessed, I didn't go
to school in Crawford -- I went to Lovedale. In the parlance of my
schoolmates, I am an Old Lawrencian, an "OL," a member of the "OLA"
(Old Lawrencians Association).
Putting aside the inevitable disclaimers about Alzheimer's and
arthritis that the term "Old Lawrencian" prompts, I have always been
intrigued by the school's motto "Never Give In" because, from the get
go, I thought it foolish.
Our President seems to be suffering a case of terminal Never Give In,
or, more likely, of Never Let Go.
For months, I have watched, as you all have, the unfolding horror in
Iraq and wondered just what do we think we are doing. Then it hit
me ... we really are not doing what we think.
For a moment, I'd like to look at the problem of Iraq from outside
the box of partisan politics, putting aside the question whether the
President misled the nation about weapons of mass destruction, or had
other hidden agendas, and putting aside the question whether we
should have been in Iraq in the first place.
The fact is, we are in Iraq. But the fact is that we should not be
in Iraq in our present capacity which is a sort of police presence
without police powers, a sort of military occupation without martial
law, and a sort of friendly invader without friends.
After the initial bombardment of Iraq designed to "soften" any
resistance, it was no surprise that the US and British forces had an
easy entree into Iraq. For a moment, despite some recusance, it
appeared that the Iraqi people did welcome the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein, or at least the toppling of his statue. I think our mistake
was to treat the Iraqi joy at being rid of Saddam Hussein as the
equivalent of joy at the prospect of having the US maintain a
presence as an occupying force.
I think it is probably reasonable that we tried to be an army of
occupation with the lofty goal of rebuilding the infrastructure and
setting the stage for democratic elections. Yet, on second thought,
it is clear that one of the purposes of our occupation was to prevent
the Shiite majority from gaining control and forming a fundamentalist
Islamic state. There is also no question that we sought to preserve
the territory of Iraq without having considered seriously how the
Kurds, Sunnis and Shia would get along without a supervening
dictatorial structure that was intolerant of autonomous leanings.
Although there are rumblings of a solution with three separate
autonomous regions, we have clearly not resolved how these three
factions will form a nation state of their own volition.
The eruption of violence -- disdainfully characterized by the
spinmeisters of the Administration as an "insurgency" has made the
rebuilding of the country's infrastructure a distant hope and
obviously cast doubt on the viability of even staging an election,
never mind having the election be an accepted declaration of the will
of the Iraqi people. President Bush even went so far as to suggest
that our initial overwhelming success allowed the insurgents to melt
into the populace, regroup, and come back at us. The Administration
has also suggested that the insurgents are outsiders sponsored by Al
Qaeda. Here's what President Bush said in an interview given to Time
Magazine:"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the
consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast
that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped
and lived to fight another day."
"OK." Yes, I understand. It's perfectly clear. You don't get it?
You don't say.
It is clear to me that we have no prospect of control over the
insurgents given our extant view of how much military force we are
willing to deploy. Part of the reason may be that while most Iraqis
may not support the "insurgents," they certainly get some perverse
sense of satisfaction in tweaking the nose of the American military.
This all leads me to express what, at least to me, has been an
obvious point -- the American system of governance, with its checks
and balances for a free people, is not the kind of system that works
with a people not yet free and not cognizant of the value of checks
and balances. That will all come, we hope, in due time. Meanwhile,
there is, in my view, little hope that the US military can control
the violence without becoming a repressive, brutal and ruthless
occupation force. Not only is there no will in the US leadership to
have the military assume such a role, it is not in the psyche of this
nation. It just simply cannot happen that we will use military force
to impose martial law type of control. Moreover, we may not have the
forces to commit to such a course.
There is, however, in Iraq, as there was in Iran, a force that can
impose control and eliminate the violence overnight. That force is
the authority of the clergy. Oh yes, I know that everyone will
immediately shrink back in horror and say that we cannot let the
mullahs and the ayatollahs take control. Yes, we can. Let us go
back to our initial goals: a. get rid of Saddam Hussein, b. rebuild
the infrastructure, c. set the stage for a democracy while not
permitting a democratic choice to be a fundamentalist Islamic
Republic. Well, we have accomplished a, and cannot do any more of b,
until we have some sort of stage that is stable. I think that if the
military were to withdraw and we were to cease all work on rebuilding
the infrastructure until there is stability, the clergy would fill
the vacuum and bring about a sense of order. Our message would be
simple: 1. we will not work on rebuilding the country if our
soldiers and workers are being attacked, and 2. while we are ceding
control to the clergy, we stand by at the ready to take action if
there is any attempt to create a dictatorial fundamentalist Islamic
state.
This plan would get us out of the business of being a police force
without police powers, remove us as an occupying force, and give the
people a stake in promoting stability and tranquility without which
we cannot rebuild their country and its infrastructure. Without a
defined enemy -- the American soldier -- to attack, the insurgents
must attack fellow Iraqis or cease their destructive actions. It
seems to me that if the Islamic clergy can rally the populace to put
a stop to the violence, it will be stopped. There is little chance
that the clergy will exert such influence on behalf of American
occupation forces, but to protect the Iraqi people .... well, that's
a different story.
The problem is that President Bush likely won't do this and Senator
Kerry has not thought of it.
It's time to give in and declare defeat in respect to a portion of
the task we should never have undertaken. We should simply admit
that we have no business being a local police force and have no
ability to force the populace to cooperate with us in preventing more
attacks.
Do you all think it's hopeless? Well, don't give up just yet. There
is hope. As Sir Henry Lawrence said: "Never Give In."
Cheerz.....Bwana
___________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
September 21, 2004
To Everything There Is A Season -- Time To Declare Defeat:
In Lovedale, there is a school that was once known as The Major
General Sir Henry Lawrence Royal Memorial Military School. It is now
knows as The Lawrence School. The School's motto is "Never Give
In." Lovedale is a tiny little hill station at an elevation of
7,000+ feet MSL, between Ooty and Coonor. In some ways, the change
of name was a declaration of defeat, it was a "giving in" of sorts.
The move was perhaps an accommodation to a new sense of brevity (not
one of my problems!) but more likely, was a reflection of a
politically correct approach in a newly independent nation whose
government had effectively "nationalized" the institution while
retaining its character as a public school. "Public" school in the
Indian (and British) context means a snooty "private" school. It
probably wouldn't have done at all to have a "Royal" school in a
newly independent nation. As y'all might have guessed, I didn't go
to school in Crawford -- I went to Lovedale. In the parlance of my
schoolmates, I am an Old Lawrencian, an "OL," a member of the "OLA"
(Old Lawrencians Association).
Putting aside the inevitable disclaimers about Alzheimer's and
arthritis that the term "Old Lawrencian" prompts, I have always been
intrigued by the school's motto "Never Give In" because, from the get
go, I thought it foolish.
Our President seems to be suffering a case of terminal Never Give In,
or, more likely, of Never Let Go.
For months, I have watched, as you all have, the unfolding horror in
Iraq and wondered just what do we think we are doing. Then it hit
me ... we really are not doing what we think.
For a moment, I'd like to look at the problem of Iraq from outside
the box of partisan politics, putting aside the question whether the
President misled the nation about weapons of mass destruction, or had
other hidden agendas, and putting aside the question whether we
should have been in Iraq in the first place.
The fact is, we are in Iraq. But the fact is that we should not be
in Iraq in our present capacity which is a sort of police presence
without police powers, a sort of military occupation without martial
law, and a sort of friendly invader without friends.
After the initial bombardment of Iraq designed to "soften" any
resistance, it was no surprise that the US and British forces had an
easy entree into Iraq. For a moment, despite some recusance, it
appeared that the Iraqi people did welcome the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein, or at least the toppling of his statue. I think our mistake
was to treat the Iraqi joy at being rid of Saddam Hussein as the
equivalent of joy at the prospect of having the US maintain a
presence as an occupying force.
I think it is probably reasonable that we tried to be an army of
occupation with the lofty goal of rebuilding the infrastructure and
setting the stage for democratic elections. Yet, on second thought,
it is clear that one of the purposes of our occupation was to prevent
the Shiite majority from gaining control and forming a fundamentalist
Islamic state. There is also no question that we sought to preserve
the territory of Iraq without having considered seriously how the
Kurds, Sunnis and Shia would get along without a supervening
dictatorial structure that was intolerant of autonomous leanings.
Although there are rumblings of a solution with three separate
autonomous regions, we have clearly not resolved how these three
factions will form a nation state of their own volition.
The eruption of violence -- disdainfully characterized by the
spinmeisters of the Administration as an "insurgency" has made the
rebuilding of the country's infrastructure a distant hope and
obviously cast doubt on the viability of even staging an election,
never mind having the election be an accepted declaration of the will
of the Iraqi people. President Bush even went so far as to suggest
that our initial overwhelming success allowed the insurgents to melt
into the populace, regroup, and come back at us. The Administration
has also suggested that the insurgents are outsiders sponsored by Al
Qaeda. Here's what President Bush said in an interview given to Time
Magazine:"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the
consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast
that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped
and lived to fight another day."
"OK." Yes, I understand. It's perfectly clear. You don't get it?
You don't say.
It is clear to me that we have no prospect of control over the
insurgents given our extant view of how much military force we are
willing to deploy. Part of the reason may be that while most Iraqis
may not support the "insurgents," they certainly get some perverse
sense of satisfaction in tweaking the nose of the American military.
This all leads me to express what, at least to me, has been an
obvious point -- the American system of governance, with its checks
and balances for a free people, is not the kind of system that works
with a people not yet free and not cognizant of the value of checks
and balances. That will all come, we hope, in due time. Meanwhile,
there is, in my view, little hope that the US military can control
the violence without becoming a repressive, brutal and ruthless
occupation force. Not only is there no will in the US leadership to
have the military assume such a role, it is not in the psyche of this
nation. It just simply cannot happen that we will use military force
to impose martial law type of control. Moreover, we may not have the
forces to commit to such a course.
There is, however, in Iraq, as there was in Iran, a force that can
impose control and eliminate the violence overnight. That force is
the authority of the clergy. Oh yes, I know that everyone will
immediately shrink back in horror and say that we cannot let the
mullahs and the ayatollahs take control. Yes, we can. Let us go
back to our initial goals: a. get rid of Saddam Hussein, b. rebuild
the infrastructure, c. set the stage for a democracy while not
permitting a democratic choice to be a fundamentalist Islamic
Republic. Well, we have accomplished a, and cannot do any more of b,
until we have some sort of stage that is stable. I think that if the
military were to withdraw and we were to cease all work on rebuilding
the infrastructure until there is stability, the clergy would fill
the vacuum and bring about a sense of order. Our message would be
simple: 1. we will not work on rebuilding the country if our
soldiers and workers are being attacked, and 2. while we are ceding
control to the clergy, we stand by at the ready to take action if
there is any attempt to create a dictatorial fundamentalist Islamic
state.
This plan would get us out of the business of being a police force
without police powers, remove us as an occupying force, and give the
people a stake in promoting stability and tranquility without which
we cannot rebuild their country and its infrastructure. Without a
defined enemy -- the American soldier -- to attack, the insurgents
must attack fellow Iraqis or cease their destructive actions. It
seems to me that if the Islamic clergy can rally the populace to put
a stop to the violence, it will be stopped. There is little chance
that the clergy will exert such influence on behalf of American
occupation forces, but to protect the Iraqi people .... well, that's
a different story.
The problem is that President Bush likely won't do this and Senator
Kerry has not thought of it.
It's time to give in and declare defeat in respect to a portion of
the task we should never have undertaken. We should simply admit
that we have no business being a local police force and have no
ability to force the populace to cooperate with us in preventing more
attacks.
Do you all think it's hopeless? Well, don't give up just yet. There
is hope. As Sir Henry Lawrence said: "Never Give In."
Cheerz.....Bwana
___________________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Crepuscular and Feckless - Mean Jean and Cheney to get Thanksgiving Pardon
__________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
NOVEMBER 23, 2005
CREPUSCULAR AND FECKLESS –
MEAN JEAN AND CHENEY TO GET THANKSGIVING PARDON:
Happy Thanksgiving!
As Americans ungratefully anxious for the arrival of Thursday so that we might express our thanks that Black Friday is nigh upon us, we have the great tradition of the Presidential Thanksgiving pardon.
In a display of the essential kindness and nobility of the American spirit, the President – I mean no less than the President himself – grants a pardon to a turkey or two. See last year’s comment on this subject; I have included a copy below. Last year’s commentary came on the heels of the spat created by Vice who was then SOB (short of breath) having displayed his feckless tendencies – he told Senator Patrick Leahy to feck off.
The bird that Vice showed to Leahy was not a turkey or even one with Avian Flu, but he had his finger on it.
I have not seen this year’s pardon ceremony. Perhaps the President has been busy while off in Asia, with his open palm extended as if begging for acceptance of his world vision like some sort of latter day gaberlunzie. Why, even the Mongolians were fair game for the Presidential stopover.
Or perhaps, this latter day saint of Crawford sees the irony in pardoning the turkey as a show of conservative compassion even while Vice calls for torture, and even as John Bolthead the UN Ambassador gives formal notice that we are formally renouncing our obligations as a signatory to the 1988 Rome Treaty of Rome, the Rome Statute to set up the International Criminal Court. Perhaps Bolthead will have time for a cup of Kofi flavored with corrupt beans.
Whatever, the cause, it is clear that the President might need some help in locating a suitable turkey or turkeys. Last year, his pardon of “Biscuits” and “Gravy” set in motion the hope that multiple turkeys would be eligible for pardoning in the future. I mean, we have only four more Thanksgiving days under this President (2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008) – and thanks for that – so there is some need for expanding the scope of the pardon eligible.
The Republican right wing nominators have suggested Rep. John Murtha as an eligible Turkey for gobbling up a lot of media space. However, Vice had to backtrack and refer to him as a “friend, a patriot and a marine.” I mean, you can’t call a guy who is an “f, p, and m” a turkey now, can you?
Some suggested Senator Ted Kennedy for saying what many won’t or can’t – that Vice says with a straight face something that is boldfaced, or that the Administration and its cronies have trouble grasping the truth. They suggest that the Senior Senator from MassaBLUEsetts has no standing. The Junior Senator whose campaign left him with the blues but wishing there had been more of ‘em especially in Ohio, came to the rescue by suggesting that the Administration could make some croniesberry sauce for Thanksgiving. Apparently, it contains Ketchup (Heinz, of course) to simulate the red flowing from casualties and maiming and wounding and bombs and IEDs. (N.B. Heinz is Republican as all get out, but one does not bite the hand that feeds one).
As a digression, I might point out that a friend – 64 year old gynecologist – was called up with his Army Reserve unit and spent 5-6 weeks in Iraq recently. The female GIs are getting pregnant but not allowed to have abortions since Army hospitals cannot provide that service.
IEDs all over but no condoms for AIDS and no IUDs for maids.
Okay, back to Vice CHEstpaiNEY. I don’t know if you all remember that he recently had a minor surgical intervention for an aneurysm behind his knee. I was tempted to change his moniker to CHEkneEY but we might then miss the idea that he is still SOB (short of breath).
Other than that, he is usually in an undisclosed location, presumably in the torture chamber at Gitmo with that snarly upturned lip of his, grinning that rotweiler grin as prisoners are informed that John Bolthead just told the UN to feck it.
Of course, what the doctors missed was that the area between his chest and his knee, where his brain resides was in need of attention. Alas, he suffered a brain asseurysm (or, as the Aussies say in Oz, a brayn arseurysm) when he spouted off about revisionist history.
But last week, Vice made one of his crepuscular appearances even as the light at the end of the tunnel was getting decidedly dimmer for the Administration. Why, it looks like the twilight of the great campaign to make the “Great Campaign” sound like it really was a great campaign.
Here are excerpts from Vice CHEstpaiNEY’s latest – imagine, the SOB (shortness of breath, that is) allowing for some dramatic discharges of hissing air as he intones:
My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"
One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof.
What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
So, he apologizes, sort of. But, notice that he defended the President – he forgot to mention that he himself is charged with misleading the American people. He has not denied that. But then, after backing of the “dishonest and reprehensible charge” he’s right back repeating it in the same speech.
For being feckless once again (Feckless: Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective; Careless and irresponsible) I nominate him as the first turkey for this year’s fecking pardon by the President.
My next candidate is Mean Jean. That’s Representative Jean Schmidt of Cincinnati, Ohio. She is one who used the word “coward” in an apparent effort to denigrate Rep. John Murtha’s call for an end to the presence of the US military in Iraq.
What was missed and got lost in the gloaming was his point that the military has done all it can do in Iraq. Of course, that is correct. Policing Iraq is not a military issue. Obviously, if we pull out now, there is the danger that Iraq will become a part of Greater Iran. But, more on that another time.
Jean, like Vice SOB CHEstpaiNEY also has a brain problem. It’s called Bird Brain Flu (foolish lips unleashed).
She is my second candidate for a fecking pardon by the President.
Cheerz….Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
Last year's comment:
Breakfast with Bwana
NOVEMBER 17, 2004
THANKSGIVING PARDON:
In a time-honored tradition, President Bush today pardoned the Thanksgiving Turkey named Biscuits. What was barely noticed, however, was that President Bush kept a pretty firm grip on the bird's neck while posing for photographers immediately after the announcement of the pardon. Those who pay attention to such things will recall that three years ago, a then less experienced Prez was the subject of a pretty good peck by that year's feckless recipient of the Rose Garden benediction.
The President dismissed speculation that the bird from three years ago was a Democrat but pondered, briefly, whether all Democrats are turkeys. In a show of goodwill, not to be mistaken for rapprochement, he pardoned another turkey named Gravy.
Dick Cheney, still short of breath (SOB) was at the President's side. Not a man to be impressed by shows of kindness to the enemy, he was seen hovering over Biscuits and overheard saying under his short breath "Feckless turkey, feck you." Upon being informed of this, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont promptly announced that he would support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attila General. "But Judge Gonzales is no Attila the Hun; he's far from that, and he's a more uniting figure" said Leahy. It should be remembered that Senator Leahy had been the subject of a feck by SOB Vice earlier this season.
The Presidential pardon ceremony prompted other supplicants to emerge.
The Save the Skeets Foundation sent in a petition to save Ann Veneman's job as Secretary of Agriculture. Titled "PULL! for Ann" the scroll featured pictures of a soybean, a tomato, and a potatoe ... make that potato. Ann was off on a quail hunting trip, just to get away from it all.
Alan Greenspan lurked in the shadows holding a letter asking that the turkeys be renamed "Inflation" and "Hedge" but never had the nerve to present it. "It is increasingly clear that the lack of clarity of fiscal policy is clouding the effects of monetary policy as anecdotal evidence of confusing signals begins to emerge from the statistical data that are as yet unresolved," he said in a forceful show of Greenspeak. Vice spat and said "Feckin' hell. What was that all about?"
The senior senator from Pennsylvania sought to be forgiven for his trespasses. "I should not have waded into waters too deep to row" he said, in seeking a pardon. Senator Leahy, already the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee expressed indirect support for Senator Specter's bid to be the next to fall into the open hatch to the committee chairmanship. Vice said "Feck, that."
Meanwhile, the Prez, relieved of the national security problem of having to hold on to the Democratic turkey's neck, said to Vice, "You know, Dick, the problem with Allen is that he can't spell and we have the spectre of him for a long time. I think I'm going to have to get someone who gets the spellings right." Vice shook his head and said, "Mr. President, I think his name is Arlen, but you know, it's brilliant to appoint someone named Spellings to the education post. That'll serve 'em fecking right."
The pardoned turkeys are to spend the rest of their lives at a farm in Virginia or West Virginia. It is not clear whether that is the same location where Martha Stewart is ensconced. Her petition for a pardon, arrived just as Gravy let go on the President's sleeve and was hastily used to wipe up after him. See, if the petition doesn't get there when it absolutely, positively has to, that's what brown can do for you. Sorry, Martha.
Cheerz...Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
NOVEMBER 23, 2005
CREPUSCULAR AND FECKLESS –
MEAN JEAN AND CHENEY TO GET THANKSGIVING PARDON:
Happy Thanksgiving!
As Americans ungratefully anxious for the arrival of Thursday so that we might express our thanks that Black Friday is nigh upon us, we have the great tradition of the Presidential Thanksgiving pardon.
In a display of the essential kindness and nobility of the American spirit, the President – I mean no less than the President himself – grants a pardon to a turkey or two. See last year’s comment on this subject; I have included a copy below. Last year’s commentary came on the heels of the spat created by Vice who was then SOB (short of breath) having displayed his feckless tendencies – he told Senator Patrick Leahy to feck off.
The bird that Vice showed to Leahy was not a turkey or even one with Avian Flu, but he had his finger on it.
I have not seen this year’s pardon ceremony. Perhaps the President has been busy while off in Asia, with his open palm extended as if begging for acceptance of his world vision like some sort of latter day gaberlunzie. Why, even the Mongolians were fair game for the Presidential stopover.
Or perhaps, this latter day saint of Crawford sees the irony in pardoning the turkey as a show of conservative compassion even while Vice calls for torture, and even as John Bolthead the UN Ambassador gives formal notice that we are formally renouncing our obligations as a signatory to the 1988 Rome Treaty of Rome, the Rome Statute to set up the International Criminal Court. Perhaps Bolthead will have time for a cup of Kofi flavored with corrupt beans.
Whatever, the cause, it is clear that the President might need some help in locating a suitable turkey or turkeys. Last year, his pardon of “Biscuits” and “Gravy” set in motion the hope that multiple turkeys would be eligible for pardoning in the future. I mean, we have only four more Thanksgiving days under this President (2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008) – and thanks for that – so there is some need for expanding the scope of the pardon eligible.
The Republican right wing nominators have suggested Rep. John Murtha as an eligible Turkey for gobbling up a lot of media space. However, Vice had to backtrack and refer to him as a “friend, a patriot and a marine.” I mean, you can’t call a guy who is an “f, p, and m” a turkey now, can you?
Some suggested Senator Ted Kennedy for saying what many won’t or can’t – that Vice says with a straight face something that is boldfaced, or that the Administration and its cronies have trouble grasping the truth. They suggest that the Senior Senator from MassaBLUEsetts has no standing. The Junior Senator whose campaign left him with the blues but wishing there had been more of ‘em especially in Ohio, came to the rescue by suggesting that the Administration could make some croniesberry sauce for Thanksgiving. Apparently, it contains Ketchup (Heinz, of course) to simulate the red flowing from casualties and maiming and wounding and bombs and IEDs. (N.B. Heinz is Republican as all get out, but one does not bite the hand that feeds one).
As a digression, I might point out that a friend – 64 year old gynecologist – was called up with his Army Reserve unit and spent 5-6 weeks in Iraq recently. The female GIs are getting pregnant but not allowed to have abortions since Army hospitals cannot provide that service.
IEDs all over but no condoms for AIDS and no IUDs for maids.
Okay, back to Vice CHEstpaiNEY. I don’t know if you all remember that he recently had a minor surgical intervention for an aneurysm behind his knee. I was tempted to change his moniker to CHEkneEY but we might then miss the idea that he is still SOB (short of breath).
Other than that, he is usually in an undisclosed location, presumably in the torture chamber at Gitmo with that snarly upturned lip of his, grinning that rotweiler grin as prisoners are informed that John Bolthead just told the UN to feck it.
Of course, what the doctors missed was that the area between his chest and his knee, where his brain resides was in need of attention. Alas, he suffered a brain asseurysm (or, as the Aussies say in Oz, a brayn arseurysm) when he spouted off about revisionist history.
But last week, Vice made one of his crepuscular appearances even as the light at the end of the tunnel was getting decidedly dimmer for the Administration. Why, it looks like the twilight of the great campaign to make the “Great Campaign” sound like it really was a great campaign.
Here are excerpts from Vice CHEstpaiNEY’s latest – imagine, the SOB (shortness of breath, that is) allowing for some dramatic discharges of hissing air as he intones:
My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"
One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof.
What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
So, he apologizes, sort of. But, notice that he defended the President – he forgot to mention that he himself is charged with misleading the American people. He has not denied that. But then, after backing of the “dishonest and reprehensible charge” he’s right back repeating it in the same speech.
For being feckless once again (Feckless: Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective; Careless and irresponsible) I nominate him as the first turkey for this year’s fecking pardon by the President.
My next candidate is Mean Jean. That’s Representative Jean Schmidt of Cincinnati, Ohio. She is one who used the word “coward” in an apparent effort to denigrate Rep. John Murtha’s call for an end to the presence of the US military in Iraq.
What was missed and got lost in the gloaming was his point that the military has done all it can do in Iraq. Of course, that is correct. Policing Iraq is not a military issue. Obviously, if we pull out now, there is the danger that Iraq will become a part of Greater Iran. But, more on that another time.
Jean, like Vice SOB CHEstpaiNEY also has a brain problem. It’s called Bird Brain Flu (foolish lips unleashed).
She is my second candidate for a fecking pardon by the President.
Cheerz….Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
Last year's comment:
Breakfast with Bwana
NOVEMBER 17, 2004
THANKSGIVING PARDON:
In a time-honored tradition, President Bush today pardoned the Thanksgiving Turkey named Biscuits. What was barely noticed, however, was that President Bush kept a pretty firm grip on the bird's neck while posing for photographers immediately after the announcement of the pardon. Those who pay attention to such things will recall that three years ago, a then less experienced Prez was the subject of a pretty good peck by that year's feckless recipient of the Rose Garden benediction.
The President dismissed speculation that the bird from three years ago was a Democrat but pondered, briefly, whether all Democrats are turkeys. In a show of goodwill, not to be mistaken for rapprochement, he pardoned another turkey named Gravy.
Dick Cheney, still short of breath (SOB) was at the President's side. Not a man to be impressed by shows of kindness to the enemy, he was seen hovering over Biscuits and overheard saying under his short breath "Feckless turkey, feck you." Upon being informed of this, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont promptly announced that he would support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attila General. "But Judge Gonzales is no Attila the Hun; he's far from that, and he's a more uniting figure" said Leahy. It should be remembered that Senator Leahy had been the subject of a feck by SOB Vice earlier this season.
The Presidential pardon ceremony prompted other supplicants to emerge.
The Save the Skeets Foundation sent in a petition to save Ann Veneman's job as Secretary of Agriculture. Titled "PULL! for Ann" the scroll featured pictures of a soybean, a tomato, and a potatoe ... make that potato. Ann was off on a quail hunting trip, just to get away from it all.
Alan Greenspan lurked in the shadows holding a letter asking that the turkeys be renamed "Inflation" and "Hedge" but never had the nerve to present it. "It is increasingly clear that the lack of clarity of fiscal policy is clouding the effects of monetary policy as anecdotal evidence of confusing signals begins to emerge from the statistical data that are as yet unresolved," he said in a forceful show of Greenspeak. Vice spat and said "Feckin' hell. What was that all about?"
The senior senator from Pennsylvania sought to be forgiven for his trespasses. "I should not have waded into waters too deep to row" he said, in seeking a pardon. Senator Leahy, already the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee expressed indirect support for Senator Specter's bid to be the next to fall into the open hatch to the committee chairmanship. Vice said "Feck, that."
Meanwhile, the Prez, relieved of the national security problem of having to hold on to the Democratic turkey's neck, said to Vice, "You know, Dick, the problem with Allen is that he can't spell and we have the spectre of him for a long time. I think I'm going to have to get someone who gets the spellings right." Vice shook his head and said, "Mr. President, I think his name is Arlen, but you know, it's brilliant to appoint someone named Spellings to the education post. That'll serve 'em fecking right."
The pardoned turkeys are to spend the rest of their lives at a farm in Virginia or West Virginia. It is not clear whether that is the same location where Martha Stewart is ensconced. Her petition for a pardon, arrived just as Gravy let go on the President's sleeve and was hastily used to wipe up after him. See, if the petition doesn't get there when it absolutely, positively has to, that's what brown can do for you. Sorry, Martha.
Cheerz...Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
Friday, November 04, 2005
Nightcap with Bwana - explanation/clarity/apology(?)
_________________________________________________________________________________
NIGHTCAP WITH BWANA
This morning, I commented on a report from The Washington Post on the President’s poll numbers. My comments provoked the following emails from two friends who are both very bright (ergo not morons) and still support Bush (well, one wholeheartedly, and the other, up to a point).
The comments were:
__________
Bwana:
What makes you think that the “moron base” is not really the “smart solid based” and the so-called “smart” negative base is the “desperate crazy fringe?”
You undoubtedly recall (because you studied American history more than 30 years ago and don’t think the Civil War took place in the 1930’s in an early athletic arena called the Dust Bow) that Lincoln looked like an absolute political loser; but then Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea cutting the Confederacy in half and Democratic candidate Gen. George “let’s not fight, let’s just bugout” McClellan became the John Kerry of his times.
On the other hand, one can always be wrong and find that turning the country over to Chuck the Schumer, Barbara the Boxer and Ted the Great Swimmer is a winning idea.
______
To this, I replied:
It seems to me that when 70% of the country believes that we are on the wrong track it is pretty hard to sustain the argument that the “moron base” is a “smart solid base.” But, my Republican friends do take comfort in two out of three – (i) smart (ii) solid (iii) base.
As for Bushie, it is clear enough that he will see resurgence in the polls. That is the American way and many missteps by the modern-day McClellans are sure to follow. Of course, the modern-day McClellan has had the recommended sex change operation and renamed hisself Hillary.
On the subject of whether the country should have been or should be turned over, my friend Clxxxx, a right wing yahoo like yourself (!), reminds me that we don’t have choices, we have alternatives, and on that score, we probably chose the better alternative at the time.
Alternatives do, however, have pluses and minuses, so like an alternating current, we will see phases when the negative outweighs or overrides the positive.
______
and the second comment was:
as you read the following, please understand I agree with your assessment of the job of this President. But I take issue with your characterization of certain of his supporters.
Is not calling people morons harsh? Simply because you are in the 33.3% who are at the other end of the spectrum does not make you correct (though you may be) in your political views. I find it just as reprehensible for either extreme to vilify the other. As educated as you are, surely some other form of demeaning those who disagree with would be more fitting.
I enjoy your stuff!
_______
to which I replied:
No offense taken and I’m sorry you took offense.
I think, if you read carefully, I point out that he has support among “independents” and also among “Democrats” and “And when you consider that he has lost a substantial amount or Republicans while retaining but a handful of Democrats, it would appear that the more or less “guaranteed” one-third, is not guaranteed at all in his case.”
The point is not that everyone who supports Bush is a “moron” but that the guaranteed one-third on either end of the spectrum do tend to be morons.
One of my friends, whom I constantly rib by calling him a right-wing-redneck-yahoo, quickly assured me that he was not a moron although he still loves Bush – mostly because the “alternatives” were and remain horrible. I probably agree on that in many respects.
So, perhaps I’ll send an explanatory note and also point out that some of the reaction is understandable and predictable.
Hope this makes you think I haven’t totally lost objectivity. I am NOT a Democrat. I voted for Bush the first time around. I truly believe he has either taken a wrong turn or been misled, probably the latter. I do believe that he has set us back 50-100 years socially and economically. But, as these things go, terrorism remains the number one priority and he may be still the best person on that front because, at a minimum, he understands the problem.
_____
and my friend responded:
I do, indeed, note that you point his support form independents and Democrats. But that support, as you know, is weak for the most part. He is losing support on all fronts, it seems.
Like you, I think Bush has been misled. And like your friend, I think the alternatives to Bush were worse. I committed the sinful act of voting for him a second time, because I could not buy into Kerry at all.
I agree with your assessment that this President has set us back economically by at least 50 years. My support has waned because of the issues of economics more than any other. (Lately, the integrity issue has become one for me as well, but the cynic in me leads to pass much of that off as politics as usual.)
Anyway, your points as always well taken.
Thanks!
_________________
Okay, what is going on here? Well, first, I did not call anyone and everyone who supports Bush a moron. I was merely pointing out that, in my view, on any question one will find one-third on either end of the spectrum. Some might argue that these fringe elements are only 10, 15, or even 20% but not fully a third. My point is that these extremes, which I call the “moron base” on any subject, exist on ALL issues, Democratic Republican, Religion, Abortion, Sports, you name it.
What I was trying to emphasize is that George Bush has suffered a horrific erosion of his “moron base.” The fact is that the one-third who would have said yes to any question in support of Bush has eroded while the one-third who would have said no to any question about Bush remains steadfast and even imbued with a sense of righteousness.
It is important to recognize that of the 39% or so who believe that he is doing a good job as President, we have 78% of Republicans supporting him, along with 11% of Democrats and 33% of “independents.”
Not all of the Republicans, Democrats and Independents fit into the guaranteed one-third. Therefore, there has been erosion of his “moron base.”
As I pointed out to my friend, when 70% of the country believes we are on the wrong track, there is perforce erosion of the one-third in his guaranteed base, and surely, the 30% who believe we are still on the right track include many who are intelligent, thoughtful people. I disagree with them, but that is a different issue from the point I was addressing.
One other point to ponder is: I am prepared to bet that if my thesis is correct that one-third on each end forms the “moron base” for any proposition, 80% of Americans would, nevertheless say they fit in the middle third!
Ah well …
Cheerz….Bwana
_________________________________________________________________________________
NIGHTCAP WITH BWANA
This morning, I commented on a report from The Washington Post on the President’s poll numbers. My comments provoked the following emails from two friends who are both very bright (ergo not morons) and still support Bush (well, one wholeheartedly, and the other, up to a point).
The comments were:
__________
Bwana:
What makes you think that the “moron base” is not really the “smart solid based” and the so-called “smart” negative base is the “desperate crazy fringe?”
You undoubtedly recall (because you studied American history more than 30 years ago and don’t think the Civil War took place in the 1930’s in an early athletic arena called the Dust Bow) that Lincoln looked like an absolute political loser; but then Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea cutting the Confederacy in half and Democratic candidate Gen. George “let’s not fight, let’s just bugout” McClellan became the John Kerry of his times.
On the other hand, one can always be wrong and find that turning the country over to Chuck the Schumer, Barbara the Boxer and Ted the Great Swimmer is a winning idea.
______
To this, I replied:
It seems to me that when 70% of the country believes that we are on the wrong track it is pretty hard to sustain the argument that the “moron base” is a “smart solid base.” But, my Republican friends do take comfort in two out of three – (i) smart (ii) solid (iii) base.
As for Bushie, it is clear enough that he will see resurgence in the polls. That is the American way and many missteps by the modern-day McClellans are sure to follow. Of course, the modern-day McClellan has had the recommended sex change operation and renamed hisself Hillary.
On the subject of whether the country should have been or should be turned over, my friend Clxxxx, a right wing yahoo like yourself (!), reminds me that we don’t have choices, we have alternatives, and on that score, we probably chose the better alternative at the time.
Alternatives do, however, have pluses and minuses, so like an alternating current, we will see phases when the negative outweighs or overrides the positive.
______
and the second comment was:
as you read the following, please understand I agree with your assessment of the job of this President. But I take issue with your characterization of certain of his supporters.
Is not calling people morons harsh? Simply because you are in the 33.3% who are at the other end of the spectrum does not make you correct (though you may be) in your political views. I find it just as reprehensible for either extreme to vilify the other. As educated as you are, surely some other form of demeaning those who disagree with would be more fitting.
I enjoy your stuff!
_______
to which I replied:
No offense taken and I’m sorry you took offense.
I think, if you read carefully, I point out that he has support among “independents” and also among “Democrats” and “And when you consider that he has lost a substantial amount or Republicans while retaining but a handful of Democrats, it would appear that the more or less “guaranteed” one-third, is not guaranteed at all in his case.”
The point is not that everyone who supports Bush is a “moron” but that the guaranteed one-third on either end of the spectrum do tend to be morons.
One of my friends, whom I constantly rib by calling him a right-wing-redneck-yahoo, quickly assured me that he was not a moron although he still loves Bush – mostly because the “alternatives” were and remain horrible. I probably agree on that in many respects.
So, perhaps I’ll send an explanatory note and also point out that some of the reaction is understandable and predictable.
Hope this makes you think I haven’t totally lost objectivity. I am NOT a Democrat. I voted for Bush the first time around. I truly believe he has either taken a wrong turn or been misled, probably the latter. I do believe that he has set us back 50-100 years socially and economically. But, as these things go, terrorism remains the number one priority and he may be still the best person on that front because, at a minimum, he understands the problem.
_____
and my friend responded:
I do, indeed, note that you point his support form independents and Democrats. But that support, as you know, is weak for the most part. He is losing support on all fronts, it seems.
Like you, I think Bush has been misled. And like your friend, I think the alternatives to Bush were worse. I committed the sinful act of voting for him a second time, because I could not buy into Kerry at all.
I agree with your assessment that this President has set us back economically by at least 50 years. My support has waned because of the issues of economics more than any other. (Lately, the integrity issue has become one for me as well, but the cynic in me leads to pass much of that off as politics as usual.)
Anyway, your points as always well taken.
Thanks!
_________________
Okay, what is going on here? Well, first, I did not call anyone and everyone who supports Bush a moron. I was merely pointing out that, in my view, on any question one will find one-third on either end of the spectrum. Some might argue that these fringe elements are only 10, 15, or even 20% but not fully a third. My point is that these extremes, which I call the “moron base” on any subject, exist on ALL issues, Democratic Republican, Religion, Abortion, Sports, you name it.
What I was trying to emphasize is that George Bush has suffered a horrific erosion of his “moron base.” The fact is that the one-third who would have said yes to any question in support of Bush has eroded while the one-third who would have said no to any question about Bush remains steadfast and even imbued with a sense of righteousness.
It is important to recognize that of the 39% or so who believe that he is doing a good job as President, we have 78% of Republicans supporting him, along with 11% of Democrats and 33% of “independents.”
Not all of the Republicans, Democrats and Independents fit into the guaranteed one-third. Therefore, there has been erosion of his “moron base.”
As I pointed out to my friend, when 70% of the country believes we are on the wrong track, there is perforce erosion of the one-third in his guaranteed base, and surely, the 30% who believe we are still on the right track include many who are intelligent, thoughtful people. I disagree with them, but that is a different issue from the point I was addressing.
One other point to ponder is: I am prepared to bet that if my thesis is correct that one-third on each end forms the “moron base” for any proposition, 80% of Americans would, nevertheless say they fit in the middle third!
Ah well …
Cheerz….Bwana
_________________________________________________________________________________
Inside the Polls - Erosion of the Base
_________________________________________________________________________
I have long maintained that if you take a poll, one-third will say yes, one-third will say no, and the middle third will make the decision.
Therefore, if Bush were to hit 33-34% positive in whatever, it’s a pretty fair bet that anyone with a brain has recognized him for the disaster that he is for this country. And we still have almost 39 months of him left. That’s almost as long as some of those 39-month car leases.
Here is an article from TWP about the latest daily (!) poll.
Note that 39% “approve” of the job he is doing as President. So, of the middle one-third, we have about 5.67% (of the whole) still thinking goofy. 40% view him as honest and trustworthy – consistent with the foregoing.
What should be scary for him is that 58% question his integrity. So, putting aside the one-third who would have said so anyway, he has lost 2/3 of that middle group … and there was a 13-point drop in the past 18 months.
There is no comfort in thinking this is a recent phenomenon or related to Scootah.
To prove the validity of my first observation, the article reports: “Beyond the leak case, Americans give the administration low scores on ethics, according to the survey, with 67 percent rating the administration negatively on handling ethical matters, while just 32 percent give the administration positive marks.”
There’s your one-third hard core moron base. One cannot make too much of 1.33 percentage points, but even the one-third of the moron base has started to show erosion.
Who said there’s no hope for the morons?
The article also reports: “The dissatisfaction with Bush flows in part out of broad concerns about the overall direction of the country. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 68 percent -- believe the country is seriously off course, while only 30 percent are optimistic, the lowest level in more than nine years.”
So, there you have more evidence of erosion in the moron base.
Actually, things are a lot worse than even those superficial counts show: “Among independents, Bush's approval has plummeted since the beginning of the year. In the latest poll, 33 percent of independents approved of his performance, while 66 percent disapproved. In January, independents were evenly divided, with 49 percent approving and an equal percentage disapproving.”
As if to prove my point about one-third always saying “yes” on any poll, the number of independents approving of his performance is 33%. This tells us two things: first, he has lost the entire middle … a truly frightening development for any “leader” and well deserved in this case; second, since 39% overall approve of his job performance, either 33% of independents represents 5.67% of the total, or he has lost even more of his original moron base than we think. And when you consider that he has lost a substantial amount or Republicans while retaining but a handful of Democrats, it would appear that the more or less “guaranteed” one-third, is not guaranteed at all in his case. He has truly ventured into quicksand while denying that he is up to his waist in it.
In any organization, a CEO with this kind of performance would be fired, would have resigned, or had a sex change operation and renamed himself Carlton Fiorina.
Cheerz…Bwana
_______________________
Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low
58 Percent in Poll Question His Integrity
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 4, 2005; A01
For the first time in his presidency a majority of Americans question the integrity of President Bush, and growing doubts about his leadership have left him with record negative ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.
On almost every key measure of presidential character and performance, the survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.
Virtually the only possible bright spot for Bush in the survey was generally favorable, if not quite enthusiastic, early reaction to his latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel A. Alito Jr. Half of Americans say Alito should be confirmed by the Senate, and less than a third view him as too conservative, the poll found.
Overall, the survey underscores how several pillars of Bush's presidency have begun to crumble under the combined weight of events and White House mistakes. Bush's approval ratings have been in decline for months, but on issues of personal trust, honesty and values, Bush has suffered some of his most notable declines. Moreover, Bush has always retained majority support on his handling of the U.S. campaign against terrorism -- until now, when 51 percent have registered disapproval.
The CIA leak case has apparently contributed to a withering decline in how Americans view Bush personally. The survey found that 40 percent now view him as honest and trustworthy -- a 13 percentage point drop in the past 18 months. Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- said they have doubts about Bush's honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity.
The indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, in the CIA leak case added to the burden of an administration already reeling from a failed Supreme Court nomination, public dissatisfaction with the economy and continued bloodshed in Iraq. According to the survey, 52 percent say the charges against Libby signal the presence of deeper ethical wrongdoing in the administration. Half believe White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, the president's top political hand, also did something wrong in the case -- about 6 in 10 say Rove should resign.
Beyond the leak case, Americans give the administration low scores on ethics, according to the survey, with 67 percent rating the administration negatively on handling ethical matters, while just 32 percent give the administration positive marks. Four in 10 -- 43 percent -- say the level of ethics and honesty in the federal government has fallen during Bush's presidency, while 17 percent say it has risen.
Faced with its cascade of recent setbacks, the White House is hoping the latest court nomination can rally disaffected conservatives and score the president a victory akin to the one he enjoyed in the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Alito begins the confirmation process with the support of 49 percent of the public, while 29 percent say he should not be confirmed, the poll found. One in 5 Americans -- 22 percent -- did not yet know enough about him to make a judgment.
The dissatisfaction with Bush flows in part out of broad concerns about the overall direction of the country. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 68 percent -- believe the country is seriously off course, while only 30 percent are optimistic, the lowest level in more than nine years. Only 3 in 10 express high levels of confidence in Bush, while half say they have little or no confidence in this administration.
Just 35 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as either excellent or good, with 65 percent describing it as not so good or poor. Although the government reported last week that gross domestic product rose 3.8 percent in the last quarter, despite the effects of Hurricane Katrina, 29 percent of those surveyed said they regard the economy as poor, the highest recorded during Bush's presidency.
Attitudes toward Bush are sharply polarized by party, as they have been throughout his presidency. Almost 8 in 10 -- 78 percent -- of Republicans support the president, while just 11 percent of Democrats rate him positively. Republicans long have been the key to Bush's overall strength, but Bush has suffered some defections since the beginning of the year, when 91 percent approved of the way he was handling his job.
Among independents, Bush's approval has plummeted since the beginning of the year. In the latest poll, 33 percent of independents approved of his performance, while 66 percent disapproved. In January, independents were evenly divided, with 49 percent approving and an equal percentage disapproving.
The intensity of Bush's support has changed since his reelection a year ago, with opponents deepening their hostility toward the administration. In the latest survey, 47 percent said they strongly disapprove of the way he was performing in office, compared with 35 percent who expressed strong disapproval in January. At the same time, the percentage who say they strongly approve of his performance has fallen from 33 percent last January to 20 percent today.
Iraq remains a significant drag on Bush's presidency, with dissatisfaction over the situation there continuing to grow and with suspicion rising over whether administration officials misled the country in the run-up to the invasion more than two years ago.
Nearly two-thirds disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation there, while barely a third approve, a new low. Six in 10 now believe the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, a seven-point increase in just over two months, with almost half the country saying they strongly believe it was wrong.
About 3 in 4 -- 73 percent -- say there have been an unacceptable level of casualties in Iraq. More than half -- 52 percent -- say the war with Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.
The same percentage -- 52 percent -- says the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, and only about 1 in 5 -- 18 percent -- say the United States should withdraw its forces immediately. In the week after U.S. deaths in Iraq passed the 2,000 mark, a majority of those surveyed -- 55 percent -- said the United States is not making significant progress toward stabilizing the country.
The war has taken a toll on the administration's credibility: A clear majority -- 55 percent -- now says the administration deliberately misled the country in making its case for war with Iraq -- a conflict that an even larger majority say is not worth the cost.
The president's handling of terrorism was widely regarded among strategists as the key to his winning a second term last year. But questions about Bush's effectiveness on other fronts have also depreciated this asset. His 48 percent approval now compares with 61 percent approval on this issue at the time of his second inauguration, down from a 2004 high of 66 percent.
Bush also set new lows in the latest Post-ABC News poll for his management of the economy, where disapproval topped 60 percent for the first time in his presidency. And 6 in 10 are critical of the way Bush is dealing with health care -- a double-digit increase since March. On gasoline prices, Bush's numbers have increased slightly over the past two months but still remain highly negative, with just 26 percent rating him positively.
The survey suggests a rapidly widening gulf between Bush and the American people. Two in 3 say Bush does not understand the problems of people like them, a 10 percentage point increase since January.
Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- doubt Bush shares their values, while 40 percent say he does, another new low for this president. For the first time since he took office, fewer than half -- 47 percent -- said Bush is a strong leader, and Americans divided equally over whether Bush can be trusted in a crisis.
Told of the poll results, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Bush will rally support through such issues as education reform, changes to the tax code, and a new energy strategy to show the public that he "will continue to push for changes in our government to serve the American people."
A total of 1,202 randomly selected adults were interviewed Oct. 30-Nov. 2 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
_____________________________________________________________________________
I have long maintained that if you take a poll, one-third will say yes, one-third will say no, and the middle third will make the decision.
Therefore, if Bush were to hit 33-34% positive in whatever, it’s a pretty fair bet that anyone with a brain has recognized him for the disaster that he is for this country. And we still have almost 39 months of him left. That’s almost as long as some of those 39-month car leases.
Here is an article from TWP about the latest daily (!) poll.
Note that 39% “approve” of the job he is doing as President. So, of the middle one-third, we have about 5.67% (of the whole) still thinking goofy. 40% view him as honest and trustworthy – consistent with the foregoing.
What should be scary for him is that 58% question his integrity. So, putting aside the one-third who would have said so anyway, he has lost 2/3 of that middle group … and there was a 13-point drop in the past 18 months.
There is no comfort in thinking this is a recent phenomenon or related to Scootah.
To prove the validity of my first observation, the article reports: “Beyond the leak case, Americans give the administration low scores on ethics, according to the survey, with 67 percent rating the administration negatively on handling ethical matters, while just 32 percent give the administration positive marks.”
There’s your one-third hard core moron base. One cannot make too much of 1.33 percentage points, but even the one-third of the moron base has started to show erosion.
Who said there’s no hope for the morons?
The article also reports: “The dissatisfaction with Bush flows in part out of broad concerns about the overall direction of the country. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 68 percent -- believe the country is seriously off course, while only 30 percent are optimistic, the lowest level in more than nine years.”
So, there you have more evidence of erosion in the moron base.
Actually, things are a lot worse than even those superficial counts show: “Among independents, Bush's approval has plummeted since the beginning of the year. In the latest poll, 33 percent of independents approved of his performance, while 66 percent disapproved. In January, independents were evenly divided, with 49 percent approving and an equal percentage disapproving.”
As if to prove my point about one-third always saying “yes” on any poll, the number of independents approving of his performance is 33%. This tells us two things: first, he has lost the entire middle … a truly frightening development for any “leader” and well deserved in this case; second, since 39% overall approve of his job performance, either 33% of independents represents 5.67% of the total, or he has lost even more of his original moron base than we think. And when you consider that he has lost a substantial amount or Republicans while retaining but a handful of Democrats, it would appear that the more or less “guaranteed” one-third, is not guaranteed at all in his case. He has truly ventured into quicksand while denying that he is up to his waist in it.
In any organization, a CEO with this kind of performance would be fired, would have resigned, or had a sex change operation and renamed himself Carlton Fiorina.
Cheerz…Bwana
_______________________
Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low
58 Percent in Poll Question His Integrity
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 4, 2005; A01
For the first time in his presidency a majority of Americans question the integrity of President Bush, and growing doubts about his leadership have left him with record negative ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.
On almost every key measure of presidential character and performance, the survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.
Virtually the only possible bright spot for Bush in the survey was generally favorable, if not quite enthusiastic, early reaction to his latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel A. Alito Jr. Half of Americans say Alito should be confirmed by the Senate, and less than a third view him as too conservative, the poll found.
Overall, the survey underscores how several pillars of Bush's presidency have begun to crumble under the combined weight of events and White House mistakes. Bush's approval ratings have been in decline for months, but on issues of personal trust, honesty and values, Bush has suffered some of his most notable declines. Moreover, Bush has always retained majority support on his handling of the U.S. campaign against terrorism -- until now, when 51 percent have registered disapproval.
The CIA leak case has apparently contributed to a withering decline in how Americans view Bush personally. The survey found that 40 percent now view him as honest and trustworthy -- a 13 percentage point drop in the past 18 months. Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- said they have doubts about Bush's honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity.
The indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, in the CIA leak case added to the burden of an administration already reeling from a failed Supreme Court nomination, public dissatisfaction with the economy and continued bloodshed in Iraq. According to the survey, 52 percent say the charges against Libby signal the presence of deeper ethical wrongdoing in the administration. Half believe White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, the president's top political hand, also did something wrong in the case -- about 6 in 10 say Rove should resign.
Beyond the leak case, Americans give the administration low scores on ethics, according to the survey, with 67 percent rating the administration negatively on handling ethical matters, while just 32 percent give the administration positive marks. Four in 10 -- 43 percent -- say the level of ethics and honesty in the federal government has fallen during Bush's presidency, while 17 percent say it has risen.
Faced with its cascade of recent setbacks, the White House is hoping the latest court nomination can rally disaffected conservatives and score the president a victory akin to the one he enjoyed in the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Alito begins the confirmation process with the support of 49 percent of the public, while 29 percent say he should not be confirmed, the poll found. One in 5 Americans -- 22 percent -- did not yet know enough about him to make a judgment.
The dissatisfaction with Bush flows in part out of broad concerns about the overall direction of the country. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 68 percent -- believe the country is seriously off course, while only 30 percent are optimistic, the lowest level in more than nine years. Only 3 in 10 express high levels of confidence in Bush, while half say they have little or no confidence in this administration.
Just 35 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as either excellent or good, with 65 percent describing it as not so good or poor. Although the government reported last week that gross domestic product rose 3.8 percent in the last quarter, despite the effects of Hurricane Katrina, 29 percent of those surveyed said they regard the economy as poor, the highest recorded during Bush's presidency.
Attitudes toward Bush are sharply polarized by party, as they have been throughout his presidency. Almost 8 in 10 -- 78 percent -- of Republicans support the president, while just 11 percent of Democrats rate him positively. Republicans long have been the key to Bush's overall strength, but Bush has suffered some defections since the beginning of the year, when 91 percent approved of the way he was handling his job.
Among independents, Bush's approval has plummeted since the beginning of the year. In the latest poll, 33 percent of independents approved of his performance, while 66 percent disapproved. In January, independents were evenly divided, with 49 percent approving and an equal percentage disapproving.
The intensity of Bush's support has changed since his reelection a year ago, with opponents deepening their hostility toward the administration. In the latest survey, 47 percent said they strongly disapprove of the way he was performing in office, compared with 35 percent who expressed strong disapproval in January. At the same time, the percentage who say they strongly approve of his performance has fallen from 33 percent last January to 20 percent today.
Iraq remains a significant drag on Bush's presidency, with dissatisfaction over the situation there continuing to grow and with suspicion rising over whether administration officials misled the country in the run-up to the invasion more than two years ago.
Nearly two-thirds disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation there, while barely a third approve, a new low. Six in 10 now believe the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, a seven-point increase in just over two months, with almost half the country saying they strongly believe it was wrong.
About 3 in 4 -- 73 percent -- say there have been an unacceptable level of casualties in Iraq. More than half -- 52 percent -- say the war with Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.
The same percentage -- 52 percent -- says the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, and only about 1 in 5 -- 18 percent -- say the United States should withdraw its forces immediately. In the week after U.S. deaths in Iraq passed the 2,000 mark, a majority of those surveyed -- 55 percent -- said the United States is not making significant progress toward stabilizing the country.
The war has taken a toll on the administration's credibility: A clear majority -- 55 percent -- now says the administration deliberately misled the country in making its case for war with Iraq -- a conflict that an even larger majority say is not worth the cost.
The president's handling of terrorism was widely regarded among strategists as the key to his winning a second term last year. But questions about Bush's effectiveness on other fronts have also depreciated this asset. His 48 percent approval now compares with 61 percent approval on this issue at the time of his second inauguration, down from a 2004 high of 66 percent.
Bush also set new lows in the latest Post-ABC News poll for his management of the economy, where disapproval topped 60 percent for the first time in his presidency. And 6 in 10 are critical of the way Bush is dealing with health care -- a double-digit increase since March. On gasoline prices, Bush's numbers have increased slightly over the past two months but still remain highly negative, with just 26 percent rating him positively.
The survey suggests a rapidly widening gulf between Bush and the American people. Two in 3 say Bush does not understand the problems of people like them, a 10 percentage point increase since January.
Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- doubt Bush shares their values, while 40 percent say he does, another new low for this president. For the first time since he took office, fewer than half -- 47 percent -- said Bush is a strong leader, and Americans divided equally over whether Bush can be trusted in a crisis.
Told of the poll results, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Bush will rally support through such issues as education reform, changes to the tax code, and a new energy strategy to show the public that he "will continue to push for changes in our government to serve the American people."
A total of 1,202 randomly selected adults were interviewed Oct. 30-Nov. 2 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
_____________________________________________________________________________
