"Coming Home"? Or Did They Ever Leave?
I just finished reading
this John Podhoretz article titled 'Coming Home', focusing on the polling that's now showing Republicans "coming home" this fall. What's amazing to me is that JPod still worries that President Bush's approval ratings rise might not be that helpful. I strongly disagree with that opinion. Here's a JPod observation:
I think that the thwarting of the terrorist attacks on August 10th was when people remembered why they didn't trust Democrats. As I said in Events, Dear Boy, Events, big events shape elections. Let's remember that there were three things that changed the shape of this fall's elections in dramatic fashion: Anna Diggs-Taylor declaring the NSA intercept program unconstitutional, the thwarting of the London plots and Ned Lamont's primary victory in Connecticut.
Democrats' reaction to Taylor's ruling told the nation that they didn't believe in giving the President the tools he needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The American people understood that the President had used the NSA intercept program to keep them safe. They weren't fooled when Reid and Pelosi said that the court's ruling told the President that he'd overstepped the bounds in trying to claim the power for warrantless intercepts. They might have been more believeable if they hadn't told everyone in the next sentence that they were willing to pass legislation that would grant him that power.
The NSA intercept program also came into play when it was reported that it was used to thwart the London terrorist plots. I'd bet that the American people took comfort knowing that President Bush utilized the NSA intercept program to prevent an attack that people inside the intel community describe as a plot as big as 9/11.
The third straw in this puzzle is the Lamont primary victory over Joe Lieberman. The American people saw this as proof that the most vocal group of Democratic Party supporters either didn't put alot of thought into the importance of a multi-leveled, comprehensive anti-terror strategy or that they were too consumed with Bush hatred to care about the consequences of automatically opposing President Bush for purely ideological reasons.
There's one thing in Mr. Podhoretz' column that's undeniably true:
Being that negative that often simply on the most important issues of the day doesn't work in politics.
Posted Monday, September 25, 2006 8:51 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
The key indicator that Republican voters may be returning to the fold is the change in President Bush's approval rating. He was scoring in the low to mid-30s in early August according to all polls. Now he appears to have stabilized at a higher level, somewhere in the low 40s, a marked if not colossal shift. The primary reason for the change? An increase in support for Bush from Republicans. Late last week, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted: "Eighty-five percent of Republicans now offer their approval. At its low point earlier in the year, just 66 percent of the GOP faithful approved of his job performance."You'd think that a 20 point jump would bring a smile to the GOP faithfuls' faces. Mr. Podhoretz sees a dark cloud in that sky:
"The improvement in Bush's ratings appears to result from a more positive evaluation of him from all party groups, rather than a short-term shift in more basic party loyalties," writes Joseph Carroll of Gallup. That may be nice for him, but when it comes to the new structure of American politics, Bush doesn't need support from voters "of all party groups."I'd agree with Mr. Podhoretz in any other year but I won't this year because I think the realignment we saw in 2004 is continuing this year. The reality is that Democrats just aren't taken seriously on national security issues. That fact was accentuated this weekend when Bill Clinton came unhinged on FNS. Clinton's coming unhinged underscores the lack of attention the Clinton administration paid to terrorism and national security.
I think that the thwarting of the terrorist attacks on August 10th was when people remembered why they didn't trust Democrats. As I said in Events, Dear Boy, Events, big events shape elections. Let's remember that there were three things that changed the shape of this fall's elections in dramatic fashion: Anna Diggs-Taylor declaring the NSA intercept program unconstitutional, the thwarting of the London plots and Ned Lamont's primary victory in Connecticut.
Democrats' reaction to Taylor's ruling told the nation that they didn't believe in giving the President the tools he needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The American people understood that the President had used the NSA intercept program to keep them safe. They weren't fooled when Reid and Pelosi said that the court's ruling told the President that he'd overstepped the bounds in trying to claim the power for warrantless intercepts. They might have been more believeable if they hadn't told everyone in the next sentence that they were willing to pass legislation that would grant him that power.
The NSA intercept program also came into play when it was reported that it was used to thwart the London terrorist plots. I'd bet that the American people took comfort knowing that President Bush utilized the NSA intercept program to prevent an attack that people inside the intel community describe as a plot as big as 9/11.
The third straw in this puzzle is the Lamont primary victory over Joe Lieberman. The American people saw this as proof that the most vocal group of Democratic Party supporters either didn't put alot of thought into the importance of a multi-leveled, comprehensive anti-terror strategy or that they were too consumed with Bush hatred to care about the consequences of automatically opposing President Bush for purely ideological reasons.
There's one thing in Mr. Podhoretz' column that's undeniably true:
Bush will have demonstrated that he has the longest coattails of any president in modern history, even though polls still suggest he is among the most unpopular of modern presidents. This is a conundrum we're going to have to examine pretty deeply if things go the GOP's way in November.The conundrum is solved by remembering that Democrats went so far off the deep end that Republicans were apt to be cast in a positive light by comparison. I'd also suggest that, while it's true that President Bush has been magnificent in building up the GOP during his turn in office, it's also true that Karl Rove took advantage of the Democrats' ineptitude and their willingness to oppose every Bush national security proposal. There were lots of times when I kiddingly said that Democrats would complain that President Bush didn't consult the 'meteorological community' before declaring that the sun set in the west.
Being that negative that often simply on the most important issues of the day doesn't work in politics.
Posted Monday, September 25, 2006 8:51 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
