As we all know, Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, and about to be flushed.
How bad is it?
Well, Tom Van Dyke of The Reform Club puts it all in perspective:
Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet
So sayeth the NYT headline. OK, though a bit ho-hum. Another day, another drop in the polls. Down to 31%. Buried in the last paragraph, I mean the last, folks, are some other interesting approval ratings: Al Gore, 28%. And in the next-to-last, John Kerry, 26. 28, 26.
Y tu mamá también. Thank God Dubya stole those elections.
Over in the UK, where he just won another term while promising to quit before it's over (how perverse!), Tony Blair is at 26%, too. And I can't even imagine how low the heinous, corrupt Chirac regime has slipped, especially among those who got their Citroens all burned up in the recent, um, civil unrest.
The Battleaxis of Evil, Hillary Clinton, who says little and does nothing of value, only has an approval rating of 34%, and all-around good guy centrist John McCain is at 35. There's a pattern here.
In this day and age of 24/7 bad news here in the western world, all things considered like the (un)popularity of his previous crap opponents, his political ally in another country, and senators who have no real responsibility, Dubya is lookin' pretty danged good.
Well, maybe.
And, one must keep in mind that the Bush approval rating polls, themselves, are bullshit. They are being conducted by "AP-Ipsos" which means they are the polls of a French company that is used for nothing, in the American media, other than polling on Bush's approval rating.
Here's a link to a previous CUANAS article explaining just who AP-Ipsos is.
But now, let's go in a different direction with this.
I don't doubt that Bush's real approval rating is extremely low. The man's duel agenda of making war and, at the same time, granting citizenship to illegal aliens smacks of cognitive dissonance at a level the world has rarely seen.
So, if Bush's approval ratings are truly in the low 30's, then what does that mean for his agenda?
What do you think would happen if Bush decided to bomb Iran at this point? You know, what if he decided to use his dwindling authority to order a major military attack, on the foundation of his 31% approval rating?
Would he be able to get the military to do it? That might sound like a crazy question, but think about it, at a certain point, an unpopular President wouldn't have any authority at all. What is that point? And, where does he lost his authority first? It seems to me he first loses his authority in Congress, and then gradually the military would follow. I don't think even the military can afford to follow the orders of a President if he has no support.
The military is not an entity unto itself. It is interlocked in the whole political world.
Political power is a beast that a strong man learns how to ride. It is not a force which resides in the heart of an individual. Bush is not policially powerful within himself. He does have some personal charisma, based on personality, and ideology, which allows him to control political power, but he does not carry the power within himself.
So, does Bush have the authority to pull off an attack on Iran at this point? And, at what point would he lose such authority?
7 comments:
Pastorius,
The man's duel agenda of making war and, at the same time, granting citizenship to illegal aliens smacks of cognitive dissonance at a level the world has rarely seen.
Exactly! And I maintain that this dual agenda is eroding GWB's base.
I cannot communicate strongly enough my disappointment with our President's second term. And I know many, many lifelong Republicans who feel the same way!
"That might sound like a crazy question, but think about it, at a certain point, an unpopular President wouldn't have any authority at all."
That would make it a coup.
Civilians give the orders, the military follows.
Popularity is a not a metric for making the right decision.
Epadinondas,
My point is that AT A CERTAIN POINT he will lose the ability to get anyone to do anything he wants. I know we haven't reached that point yet. But, at what point would it be.
I'm afraid we aren't that far away.
And, yes, that would be the equivalent of a coup.
I am a strong Republican and I too am very disappointed with Bush's second term. That doesn't mean I would vote for a Dhimmicrat, however.
I am most disappointed with Bush completely ignoring the illegal immigration problem and his failure to champion a realistic energy policy, one that would require new drilling and new oil refineries.
I am also disappointed with his failure to clearly articulate who our enemy is and his self-delusion about the nature of Islam.
Finally, I think that he is politically inept, unable or unwilling to counter the Leftist propaganda of the MSM.
No, he does not have the political capital to attack Iran, and he won't. Iran will get the bomb while we bicker among ourselves.
If you're prez, you are.
If I gave an order and it was not carried out, I'd fire the lot. If that's construed to be some kind of abuse (as when A Johnson fired Edwin Stanton) IMPEACH HIM ..That's constitutional authority --ours, he's wielding. If the military gets it in their heads, orders from the prez are optional -we have a banana republic. I'd get my guide's license, a bottle of very fine cognac and c ya
If the order is lawful, it gets carried out. If the military wants to refuse every gd general had better be ready to quit in order.
You're talking rational, Epa. We are not living in rational times.
But, maybe I am wrong. I sure as hell hope I am.
Bush will not order an attack. Domestic politics have boxed him in. The military would do it if ordered but the political costs are too high. Bush is a lame duck in every sense of the word: politically, intellectually, etc. We are already living in the post-Bush era. The best he can do is run out the clock and hope the coming House investigations don't uncover anything ugly.
In an election year, the situation being as bad as it is for Republicans, Bush will not order any pre-emptive action. Without Iran acting first, any US attack would only boast support for anti-war Dems this fall.
From Bush's point of view there's a big difference between a Democratic House with a small majority and a Dem landslide that gives them a comfortable majority. The later is much more likely to hold serious hearing and possibly debate impeachment, especially when the bodies of Iranian civilians are displayed on international tv.
We are entering the long, dark lull before the storm.
Post a Comment