The President Lacks Support

by pyrrho

Bush is, as you most likely realize, polling very poorly in terms of the standard approval rating polls. The point of this post is not to mull over these low numbers (around 35%?!), but to ask for a reality check. There are many ways to interpret such numbers, but the most common way (on the left, right now, at least) is to see this as a "weakened" presidency.

I won't deny he's "weakened" in some sense, but it's a sense far less potent than supposed. For example, I've heard people say, "don't worry, we won't attack Iran, not with approval numbers like this".  As far as I know there is nothing in the Constitution about approval polls. The American people seem to think the public gets what it wants if only it's together enough to say what it thinks.  How naive that seems to me.

For example, in the case of Iran, the president can bomb the hell out of it, he can, frankly, send in ground troops too, covert ops may already be there according to many reports the last few years. He needs congress to declare war, but he can do all that without declaring war. We forget, for a politician to yeild to particular interpretations of poll numbers is a voluntary thing.  And it's also a matter of interpretation. To Rove a low approval might just as likely itself be a reason to go to war as to not go, that depends on the interpretation of approval... is it something you need in order to act, or something you act in order to get?  I do know the actual powers of the president has nothing to do with approval, they are outlined in the Constitution and other federal law.

Do you see what I'm saying?  Does anyone agree that low approval ratings are political theater, one element, to be sure, but not nearly as important, NOR as POWERFUL, as people seem to automatically suppose?

Nor as powerful, especially that.

Comments

[Averroes]

What his low poll ratings really show is that things aren't going well and tht he is a president who doesn't think much about politics.

From what i see, now that he is a second term president, he will do what he thinks is right even if his numbers go to zero. Only desperate intervention from other Republicans have any hope of changing that. I wouldn't expect that, however.

Bush is an idealist, and an idealist in power can be a dangerous thing. especially when he isn't running for anything.

I must note this recitation from the Gospel:

To Rove a low approval might just as likely itself be a reason to go to war as to not go, that depends on the interpretation of approval... is it something you need in order to act, or something you act in order to get?

This is as silly as accusing Clinton of sending off missiles just to take the country's attention off of monica.

Besides, this discussion of iran is pointless. Remember, last January, the one in 2005, Sy Hersch awsured us that the Iran war would start in June, the one in 2005. he made a grand tourr, sometimes accompanied by Scott Ritter, announcing the fact. In July, 2005, when asked what happened to his prediction, he responded by saying, "what makes you so sure that the war didn't start.

So there you have it. We are ALREADY at war with iran, and have been for 10 months.

[pyrrho]

>>To Rove a low approval might just as likely itself be a reason to go to war as to not go, that depends on the interpretation of approval... is it something you need in order to act, or something you act in order to get?

>This is as silly as accusing Clinton of sending off missiles just to take the country's attention off of monica.

The word "might" appears a lot in gospel where you're from? What I said is that we cannot assume the affect of low poll numbers is to act less boldly, there ARE reasons and theories that argue the opposite. I made NO, NONE, assertions, exactly NONE, regarding to how Rove thinks about these polls.

My point he is the polls are besides the point, and though you seem to agree, you manage to also appear to disagree.

[Averroes]

I made NO, NONE, assertions, exactly NONE, regarding to how Rove thinks about these polls.

No, you made an assertion as to possibility. personally, i thought the remark was just more mindless drivel, made because it could plumb the negtative feelings for Rove, than for any actual rational purpose.

You response confirms it.

Spometimes there is a subtext behind what one writes.

Even for one so honest as me.

So......

What I said is that we cannot assume the affect of low poll numbers is to act less boldly, there ARE reasons and theories that argue the opposite.

And that is all you needed to say. Or, you may have added, "Just as Bill clinton responded to his position of weakness by lobbing missiles in a distant land, the Bush administraion . . ."

[pyrrho]

don't tell me how to say what I have to say please.

I don't care if you are hypersensitive about speculation into Rove's minds. It's not off limits.

[Averroes]

don't tell me how to say what I have to say please

I didn't.

My, my, aren't we on the rag today!

I don't care if you are hypersensitive about speculation into Rove's minds. It's not off limits.

See how advacedyou are as opposed to me? I thought that like me, and every one else I've met, rove had one mind.

I am not hypersensitive about speculation into Rove's minds, as you woould put it. what i am hypersensitive, as you will, about, is basing arguments on mindreading ithout acknowledging that one is doing so. It has nothing to do with whose mind is being read.

It is an intellectually dishonest tactic.

As for mindreading being off limits, i agree with you. It is not off limits. But one should do it above board.

[Averroes]

btw, pyrrho, and just between you and me, bdlow, two correspondents accused the administration of trying to mislead by calling the Niger material in the NIE a "key judgment." Many days ago, Fitzgerald issued a correction on his filing, indicating that this was never said.

Since then I have been waiting to see which, if either, of hese two "gentlemen" have the honesty to issue a retraction. You know, like the kind we read every issue in scientific journals.

So far, not a peep.

Pssst! Keep this under your hat.

[pyrrho]

what do you mean "on the rag"?

no, but you did try to tell me how I could have put it... instead of mind reading, and you will not retract your claim that I was mindreading to begin with, when I didn't say how Rove was thinking, merely that we should not believe he's bound to be quivering in fear over poll numbers, and especially not that those poll numbers force any particular restraint on Bush.

That's the actual topic of this post, whatever you would like to pretend it is instead.

Do you EVER take the point at hand on? Or is it too tricky for you?

It's not my fault if you think Rove has just one mind.

[Averroes]

you did try to tell me how I could have put it

Yes. I made a suggestion. but you responded by telling me what i dould and couldn't say!

[pyrrho]

get over it.

yeah, I'll tell you what to say if what you have to say is telling me how to make my point before you have even demonstrated you understand or are interested in it.

Once again, I happen to know you, right? I've talked to you for years, I know that you don't have to differ with me on my point that "approval poll numbers don't mean as much as people think and bear ZERO direct impact on presidential behavior, it is entirely up to the President how much it impacts his decisions, and 'not at all' is certainly on the table."

btw, you've been quite the good citizen at MLW, I'm impressed.

[darkhorse]

Back from visiting family over Easter.Read about the Fitzgerald retraction. His retraction invalidates criticisms I made referencing his original statements, however widely disseminated.

[JD]

Personally, I have never understood the dynamics of polling, nor have I particularly followed the results of same.

I fall into the category of people that feel as though the only "polls" that matter are the results of the voting every other November, and in between, our elected leaders should take action as they determine appropriate, not as the polls deem appropriate.

It is an interesting topic that you raised, in regards to a second term President, and their not having to worry in the least about polls, since there is no chance that they will be standing for re-election. I would think that in a first term, public opinion would drive action moreso than in a second term.

[JD]

I would prefer one term Presidents, and Congresscritters. Not having to stand for re-election would free them from campaigning, casting votes based on the political winds of the time, and just generally make the political arena a little less messy, and more of a citizen legislature.

But, I do realize that this is off topic, and for that, I do apologize.

[Averroes]

pyrrho, you can take it that if i don't argue with your conclusion, I don't necessariily disagree with it. I was discussing something other than your conclusion.

I assume you will be retracting that "good coitizen" award soon.

but maybe you can explain the rules to me over there. I mean, i simply respond on point, I get one guy putting words in my mouth and then calling me a horrible person for saying them, which i didn't, and the other guy tells me that my on point, never mean comments are "beyond the pale, but never tells me why, and then calls me names and wishes my demise, at least for the board, and, somehow, I'm the bad guy!

[Averroes]

darkhorse, you're a man!

Of course this makes my parsing attempt look a little silly.

But you knew that.

[Averroes]

JD, i've always had a certain fondness for the mexzican system, especially when there was one party rule. I mean party loyalty pover a lifetime was rewarded with the one-term, six year presidencyt, and everyone understood that you had six years to make your fortune!

[pyrrho]

av, yeah you stressed it a bit... however I can't explain them to you.

They won't like the parts where you speak in absolutes about them, such as "absolutely false", but if you have no other way to put it, I don't know what to say.

I think I may post on this here soon, not you, but on the site and some others.

[Averroes]

I think i use "absolutely false" rarely. Funny thing is, i used it on a c0omment about jazz, and sice then, I've actually rethought what i said. I think I might have missed the exact point. It'll be interesting to see what the gentleman responded.

On the other hand, the board members themselves speak in absolute terms on a regular basis, and they do it without explanation. I at least tried to explain my statement.

It's the double standard that gets me there.

But, what the heck, I'm just a little punk of a man, anyway.

[JD]

With poll numbers this low, President Bush's chances at re-election are incredibly low.

I may have to re-think my support of the President.

[JD]

pyrrho : For whatever reason, I cannot enter comments on your post about My Left Wing.

[JD]

And, for the record, I do not have a left wing. Two right wings, yes.

[Winston Smith]

That can't be facilitatin' any dependable straight-line transportation for ya.

[pyrrho]

cause it wasn't posted... I didn't finish it!

I guess everyone saw it anyway... might as well publish it.

[JD]

Winston, my 1969 Harley Davidson FLH with a jockey shifter is a bit difficult to operate with two right hands, but I have managed to overcome.

pyrrho - Then ... publish it !