Indictment Resources

Don't miss any of these:

Full text of the indictments

Timeline of the leak and coverup

Dean statement on the indictments

Archive of quotes from Republicans on perjury

Vote New Members for City Council in November!

It’s almost time to go to the polls this November to vote in City Council elections.

We have two good Democrats running this time in Rixner and Jensen. Let’s get behind them in a big way, as we usually don’t have such an opportunity!

Above all, we need to shake up City Hall by voting out the incumbents, Dave Ferris and Karen Van De Steeg!

We need a City Council that’s not a wholly owned subsidiary of the local Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party. Don’t forget that during the last presidential election campaign cycle, then-Mayor Ferris was very conspicuous at Bush-Cheney rallies, but somehow could never find the time to welcome John Kerry to town despite Kerry’s repeated visits to Sioux City. Isn’t the Mayor supposed to at least pretend to represent all Sioux Cityans, even Democrats?

We also need a City Council that’s not always so smugly self-congratulatory. We need council members who won’t simply pat themselves on the back for bringing ever more service-oriented minimum wage employment to town, while the housing sector stagnates and young people flee town for real jobs paying living wages elsewhere.

We need City Council members who will actively debate issues and disagree with one another once in a while, rather than: a) reflexively approve items unanimously, or b) keep deferring items for further “study” until unanimous agreement can be forged behind the scenes.

We need a City Council that demonstrates its interest in the citizens of Sioux City, regardless of economic status, race, or sexual orientation. When was the last time City Council made any significant overtures toward Sioux City’s fast-growing minority communities? Witness how quickly our current Council abandoned the Neighborhood Meetings for supposed lack of interest. Isn’t it in part their job to drum up that interest, rather than place the burden of responsibility on the people?! And how much longer must we put up with Council’s patronizing “Some of my best friends are gay. Really!” rhetoric when opposing the Human Rights Commissions’ recommendation to add language about sexual orientation to the city’s discrimination ordinance? [kudos to Karen, though, for bucking this trend].

We need a City Council that seeks out the best-qualified candidates and some racial/ethnic diversity, rather than simply stacking its commissions and committees with like-minded friends and business associates. Let’s put an end to cronyism!

We need a City Council that respects the citizens of Sioux City. It was only a few months ago that a self-important Dave Ferris and the City Manager needlessly requested police back-up, all because a former resident and vocal Council critic showed up and sat quietly through the tail end of a council meeting in hunting fatigue pants (but an ordinary t-shirt).

More than anything, we need a City Council that trusts the citizens of Sioux City to make informed decisions themselves! If we want to take in a Rob Zombie concert in town, who is to try and stop us (besides holier-than-thou Dave Ferris)? If we want to shop at Doctor John’s or Francis Canteen, why shouldn’t we be able to? Why must Council needlessly play morality cop for Sioux City by trying to rewrite the laws on the books and restrict free trade? What is the point other than empty moralistic grandstanding? I mean, would Council be pleased if a private citizens’ group publicly launched a campaign against unhealthy fast foods such as fried chicken (tasty stuff, fried chicken, but “just about the fattiest food on the planet” according to a January/February 1998 issue of Men’s Health magazine)?!

Dave Ferris got his special new traffic light near his place of business (as well as increased public exposure for said business), and Karen Van De Steeg got a trip to Japan. Service to the city has been good to them, as it has been good for the city sometimes, but it’s time to move on.

Vote for Democrats instead! Vote for change! Vote Rixner and Jensen in November!

Peace!
Historian

Life is Better Now that I Am a Republican

Guest Editorial from a local Democratic wag:

Life is so much better now that I have become a Republican. When I see the scenes from Florida where people are standing in front of the Orange Bowl asking for a government hand out of food and water it just makes me ill. When I think about how much better that money could be spent. The fact the they are wasting time with these people instead of fixing the damaged light poles at the Orange Bowl so the Miami Hurricanes could get better national TV game time exposure it is sickening. Lets hope this doesn't degenerate into round the clock New Orleans type of coverage. The liberal media wastes time covering these people who didn't have sense enough to leave when Katrina was coming. Hell almost all my new Republican friends had sense enough to go to their second homes like Kennebunkport or something similar. Why these folks didn't immediately head out to their second homes is beyond me. It boggles the mind to think what we are spending on food and water when that money should be spent revising our guide books to National Parks so they are consistent with "Intelligent Design." How else could we enjoy the Grand Canyon if we didn't know this erosion took place less than 6,000 years ago?

Now to make matters worse, the tree huggers are going on TV saying some of our weather problems are being caused by environmental problems have created ourselves. I just get furious when I hear that we Republicans do not have an energy policy. I guess you haven't been looking at energy companies bottom line profits. Look at the wonderful job congress is doing passing a highway bill that has new roads going everywhere and costing billions and billions of dollars. At least we are not spending billions and billions of dollars on tree hugger programs such as alternative fuels or new 21st century transportation systems.

Another good thing about being a Republican is that I have learned to get 9/11 into any question I am asked. The other day I was walking down the street and someone asked "How you doing" I answered "Better than I was 9/11." Some friends asked how the Hawkeyes or Cornhuskers were going to do this season. My answer "In this post 9/11 atmosphere I think if they can win their games down the stretch they will get a very good bowl bid." Just the other night someone called and asked if I was in the mood to grab something to eat. My answer: "Based on the 9/11 experience how about pizza and beer."

The biggest thing that makes me mad since I have become a Republican is how the liberal media never shows our successful programs. Like the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, which shows how much better can the laws of government can work. It allows credit card companies to continue their predatory lending practices while also allowing major corporations the right to screw their employees out of benefits they have spent a lifetime earning. And here is the best part: any money that is spent of these workers is paid for by the government.

Which brings me to my final point. The screaming by some Democrats about the deficit which they say is out of control. When I hear some pointy headed Nobel prize winning economist using fuzzy math saying the deficits are caused by tax cuts for the nations richest 1% and pork barrel special interest spending to reelect Republican congressman, I really wonder if they have any grasp on reality. At least the 2004 election gave me some hope. The American people spoke loud and clear that they understand the real reason our children and economy are in peril: "The deficits are caused by homosexual marriage."

Steve King is Still a Hypocrite!

Yeah, what else is new?

Strangely enough, the Sioux City Journal alerted me to a story that points out another example of the sort of rank hypocrisy concerning spending and spending priorities practiced by so-called “fiscal conservatives” such as Steve King.

Yesterday (10/20/05), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report entitled “Reserve Forces: Army National Guard’s Role, Organization, and Equipment Need to be Reexamined” (available on the GAO website). In its report, the GAO found that: “As of July 2005, the Army National Guard had transferred over 101,000 equipment items to units deployed overseas, exhausting inventories of some critical items, such as radios and generators, in non-deployed units. Non-deployed units now face significant shortfalls [of equipment].” That is, non-deployed units such as those remaining behind in the States to cope with natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, and whose efforts are now hampered by the abovementioned lack of vital equipment!

But what really got my attention was the following sentence, in which the GAO highlighted yet another example of the Department of Defense’s financial malfeasance. Some 64,000 pieces of equipment valued at over $1.2 billion has been left behind for forces deploying later, the GAO noted, and of that amount the U.S. military “cannot account for over half of these items and does not have a plan to replace them” [emphasis mine]! At my place of employment, they expect me to keep receipts and account for the supplies I use. My employer also expects me to use equipment responsibly. Is it asking too much to request the U.S. military do the same? I don’t expect miracles, but losing half one’s equipment valued at how many tens of millions of dollars seems excessive to me.

And I ask again, where’s our lunatic local Representative Steve King when such egregious government waste is exposed? Still AWOL. Got to make sure we don’t waste money on the desperate and dying in New Orleans, I guess, but let’s just piss away our national prestige and wealth in the Bush Administration’s Iraq folly. Steve King, loyal foot-soldier to the end, will likely not utter a peep about this actual example of the government throwing good money after bad (he’d rather ‘tilt at windmills’ over disaster relief spending).

PS- Three cheers for Dave Yoder of the Sioux City Journal who yesterday wrote a superb editorial eviscerating King for his “McCarthy as hero” comment!!! The heck with McCarthy, Yoder is my hero!

Peace!
Historian

Representative Steve King is a Hypocrite!

OK, you knew that one already, too.

Apparently, Steve King is fine with massive financial waste and fraud, so long as it’s undertaken as part of a man-made disaster (as opposed to a natural one like Hurricane Katrina).

In a fascinating recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report dated September 21, 2005 (and available on the agency’s website), the government’s own financial watchdogs criticize the Department of Defense (DOD) for its surprisingly lax accounting procedures while fighting the so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT). Despite having already spent some $191 billion on GWOT over the course of the past four years, DOD apparently still hasn’t gotten around to regularizing and updating its procedures for reporting costs associated with the conflict. The GAO, for instance, cited cases where DOD “materially overstated” costs or committed “inadvertent double counting” of costs. Due to DOD’s overall failure to update its spending reporting system in light of current hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, GAO notes, “neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing and details on how appropriately funds are being spent, or have historical date useful in considering future funding needs” [emphasis mine].

In other words, the kids are in the cookie jar and nobody is making much of an effort to stop them! Granted, the kids are heavily armed, and their parents are making a financial killing through their investments in Cookies, Inc….

And where is our Representative Lunatic Steve King to ride to the rescue and vote against such financial irresponsibility? AWOL, alas.

King can vote to uphold principle when it involves America’s minority poor suffering from a natural disaster (Hurricane Katrina), but King seems quite willing to jettison his supposed principles when the disaster is a man-made one (the Iraq War) courtesy of his beloved Bush Administration. But maybe I’m being too hard on him. After all, he wouldn’t be the first (or last) elected politician to prove a brazen hypocrite. Moreover, after his show vote for fiscal responsibility over Katrina Relief, I suspect he’s busy burning the midnight oil drawing up that perfect disaster relief spending plan he complained was so lacking. Of course, it has been a month, and Katrina’s victims are still waiting…

Peace!
Historian

The GOP has become the party of treason

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog, with a must read:

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot.

We're at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war? That's exactly what they're doing. On numerous news shows today, Republican surrogates, their talking points ready, issued variations of the following concerning White House chief of staff Karl Rove's outing of a covert CIA agent as part of a political vendetta:

• It's the criminalization of politics
  
• Is this 'minor' leak really worth all this?
  
• Political payback is common and should not be criminalized
  
• Mis-speaking or mis-remembering is not a crime

Yes, the Republicans are now making light of an intentional effort to expose an undercover CIA agent, working on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, no less, while we are at war in the Middle East on that very issue.

The GOP has become the party of treason.

It would be one thing for a senior adviser to the president to put the nation's security at risk during a time of war. That could be explained as an aberration - a quite serious one, no doubt - but a fluke nonetheless. But when the president himself refuses to keep his own word about firing that aberration, and when the entire Republican party rallies around that fluke and tries to minimize what is usually a capital offense during wartime, something is seriously wrong with that party and its leadership.

Mid-Term Democratic National Convention?

Walter Cronkite suggests an interesting idea "by which the Democratic Party could command the greatest public attention for its positive agenda: It could within weeks call an extraordinary midterm convention to draw up its platform."

"The convention would not need to be expensive. The delegates could be those who attended the 2004 convention. Their meeting would be open to the public and of course the press."

"In sharp contrast to the secrecy of the Bush administration, it would let the public, if only remotely, share in the construction of the Democratic platform."

Update: Robert Reich made a similar suggestion four years ago.

Banana Republicans

50% Now Say 'Impeach Bush'

If the President & Vice-President lie, and lead our nation into a disastrous war, what's the remedy?

According to a new poll, just out, the American people say "impeachment".

That's good -- that's what the Constitution says, too.

50% of adult Americans agreed with this statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

39% agree strongly.
72% of Democrats favor impeachment. 56% of Independents do, too.
Even 20% of Republicans (is the cult crumbling?).

The poll was conducted among 1,001 adults last week (10/3-6), by the respected, nonpartisan firm of Ipsos Public Affairs, and sponsored by www.AfterDowningStreet.org, where there are many more details.

Can you hear us now?

A Presidency On Life Support

John Kenneth White is a Professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America. He is the author of The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition (Congressional Quarterly Press, 2003).

This article appears in the October 10, 2005, edition of The Polling Report.

A Presidency On Life Support
by John Kenneth White

The George W. Bush presidency is on life support. At first, these words seem harsh and overstated. For starters, Bush has more than a thousand days left in office. He can nominate Supreme Court justices and get them confirmed, as the 78 to 22 Senate vote for John Roberts so easily demonstrates. He also wields other important constitutional powers, including the veto which he can use to impose his will on a recalcitrant Congress. Finally, he retains considerable diplomatic and war powers at his disposal. But for the remainder of his presidency, George W. Bush will govern without the consent of the governed.

That last fact has been underscored by a flurry of recent public polls. In nearly all of them, Bush’s job approval is hovering at 40%. Behind the job approval numbers are many other signs of a presidency in trouble. A Democracy Corps survey finds 58% want to go in a significantly different direction away from Bush; 56% believe he is "in over his head;" and 44% say they are "finished" with him.

Two years ago, pollster John Zogby and I penned an article dubbing Bush "The Fifty-Something President." For the foreseeable future, we wrote that Bush’s job approval rating would flutter around 50% -- a forecast that held true on Election Day 2004, when Bush captured 51% of the ballots. After defeating John Kerry, there was every indication that the President could maintain the overwhelming Republican support that kept him at 50% in the polls. In fact, the near-unanimous backing from the GOP rank-and-file and members of Congress gave Bush a unique second term opportunity. After claiming victory, Bush told reporters he had acquired "political capital, and now I intend to spend it . . . [on] Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror." This accumulation of capital was evident in a Gallup poll taken two weeks after his second inauguration: 57% approved of Bush’s performance, 40% disapproved. As of mid-September, those figures were reversed: 40% approved of Bush’s job performance, while 58% disapproved, according to Gallup. Just nine months into his second term, Bush’s political capital is all but spent. If he were a bank, he’d have to declare bankruptcy.

A look behind the polls explains why. Not only are Bush’s overall approval ratings low and doubts about his leadership growing, but on a variety of issues he has been judged seriously deficient. A Zogby International survey gives Bush poor marks on a host of domestic and foreign concerns (see Table 1, below). Overall, the ratio of poor-to-excellent scores ranges from a low of 1:1 (managing the war on terror and Hurricane Rita) to a high of 8:1 (handling gasoline prices). If this were a parliamentary system, there would be a vote of no confidence and a new election held.

Even on Bush’s two signature character issues -- strong leadership and a reputation for honesty -- opinion has turned negative. A mid-September Gallup poll finds just 49% think Bush is a strong and decisive leader; in 2001, 61% thought so. Moreover, only 47% say Bush is honest and trustworthy; four years ago, 64% did. The Bush family’s reputation for high-minded public service traces its roots to Prescott Bush’s tenure as a U.S. senator from Connecticut and George H. W. Bush’s lengthy resume. This reputation for virtue was a powerful asset that George W. Bush brought into the 2000 campaign following the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Bill Clinton’s impeachment. On the campaign trail, Bush earned standing ovations with these words: "When I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."

One President, Two Images
In the television age, presidencies are remembered by the images associated with them. Often, the pictures resemble a split television screen: on one side a flattering photograph; the other, a darker visage. Thus, there is John Kennedy’s vigor in becoming the youngest person ever elected president and the horror of his assassination. Or, Lyndon Johnson’s mammoth 1964 victory and his haggard appearance upon leaving office. Or, the "New Nixon" admonishing Americans to "lower our voices" and "stop shouting at one another" and a woeful, teary-eyed Nixon announcing his resignation. Or, a happy Gerald Ford toasting his English muffins and a grim president announcing the Nixon pardon. Or, the erstwhile peanut farmer Jimmy Carter arguing for a government "as good, honest, and decent" as its people and an aged Carter declaring a "crisis of confidence." Or, a triumphant George H. W. Bush following the Persian Gulf War, and a befuddled president standing in front of a storefront scanner seemingly out-of-touch with what he was seeing.

Like these presidents, George W. Bush has two distinct images that are embedded in the mystic chords of public memory. The first is his 2001 stance atop the ruins of the World Trade Center holding a bullhorn and telling a crowd of firefighters: "I hear you; the rest of the world hears you; and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." A second image has now come into focus: Bush’s viewing of the Hurricane Katrina damage from the luxury of his Air Force One cabin high atop the immense suffering in the city of New Orleans below.

It is unlikely that Bush can replace this negative second image with a more favorable one. His repeated visits to the devastated Gulf region are attempts to do so. While voters give him higher marks for handling Hurricane Rita, he has yet to find a compelling image that might restore his battered prestige. In many ways, Bush’s inability to stage a recovery stems from his 2004 victory. Bush won because 93% of Republicans backed him, whereas only 11% of Democrats bolted their party’s ticket, according to exit polling by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. The lack of crossover party voting stands in sharp contrast to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. In 1980 and 1984, Reagan got the votes of one in four Democrats; in 1988, Bush Sr. received one in five Democratic votes. Reagan and Bush Sr.’s ability to win crossover votes put the Democrats on the defensive. For years, the party was preoccupied with finding ways to win back the so-called "Reagan Democrats."

After the 2004 election, there were virtually no "George W. Bush Democrats." Now with a presidency besieged by the wreckage of two hurricanes and an unpopular war, Bush has almost no hope of winning any substantial Democratic backing. The September 29-October 2 Zogby poll finds just 12% of Democrats giving Bush an excellent or good job performance rating; 88% think he is doing a fair or poor job --i.e., no change from the 2004 Democratic vote. For the remainder of his presidency, Bush has given the Democrats their own take on the post-September 11th bumper sticker slogan: "United We Stand."

Given his inability to cross party lines, George W. Bush would lose hypothetical contests to Reagan and Bush Sr. John Zogby reports in a September poll that Bush would win just 20% of the votes to Reagan’s 59%; Bush Sr. would capture 41% to his son’s 34%. Interestingly, Reagan would win 53% backing from Democrats, while the elder Bush scores 52%. Both former presidents have become something the younger Bush has long aspired to but is unlikely to achieve: "A uniter [sic] not a divider."

The Lost Center
By itself, George W. Bush’s inability to capture significant Democratic backing is not crippling to his presidency. But his failure to win support from independents and moderates imperils his Administration’s future. Until 2004, it was believed that these two groups were crucial to winning elections and establishing a governing coalition. Bush has proved this maxim requires rethinking. According to the 2004 exit poll, John Kerry won 49% backing from independents to Bush’s 48%. Among moderates, the Kerry advantage was even more decisive: 54% to 45%. Knowing that the president could not count on independents and moderates, Bush campaign strategist Karl Rove decided he had to find more Republicans and get them to the polls. The so-called "72-Hour Task Force" Rove designed masterfully accomplished this objective, and sent Democrats off trying to replicate it.

But the limits of Bush’s strategy are apparent. Since winning reelection, Bush has continued to shed independent and moderate support. On nearly every major issue presidential disapproval among independents and moderates is higher than the national average (see Table 2, below). By reducing his base of support to hard-core Republicans, Bush has insured that the politics of polarization will continue. As historian Arthur M. Schlesinger once observed (in The Cycles of American History), ideology is the curse of public affairs "because it converts politics into a branch of theology and sacrifices human beings on the altar of dogma." Independents and moderates believe they are being sacrificed by an ideological president and a Congress that fails to provide the concrete results they crave.

There is an old rule that says, "How you win determines how you govern." For five years, Bush’s governing base has relied exclusively on GOP support. Now, with mounting deficits, an unpopular war, and Republican Senate candidates struggling in the polls (notably Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, Jim Talent, and Katherine Harris), that once-firm base of Republican support no longer seems quite so secure. This insecurity is likely to intensify as Democrats widen their lead in the 2006 prospective generic ballot question. In the September 19-21 Democracy Corps poll, for instance, Democrats have a 9-point advantage. Moreover, Republicans seem on the verge of a vigorous intra-party squabble between economic conservatives (who are appalled by the gargantuan deficits Bush has accumulated) and the social conservatives (who remain loyal to Bush as long as he is steadfastly faithful to them). Today, social conservatives find their faith in Bush tested by the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court, while economic conservatives are disgruntled by the size of the deficit and promised federal spending following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A recent American Enterprise Institute report showed Bush to be a profligate spender in the mold of Lyndon Johnson. In his first term, Bush’s increase in discretionary spending totaled 30.2%, as compared to LBJ’s 33.4%.

Then, there is Iraq. As long as George W. Bush could link the deposition of Saddam Hussein to the war on terror, support for the war held firm. Thus, in a March 2003 Pew Research Center poll, 74% believed the U.S. made the right decision to invade Iraq. But the linkage between deposing Hussein and the war on terror has long since frayed. Today, 59% say the U.S. made a mistake sending troops into Iraq (Gallup, September 16-18), and 53% think it was not worth going to war in the first place (Gallup, September 8-11). The Bush Administration’s "slam dunk" assertion that Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction has been upended.

Now the Iraq War has become so unpopular that it ranks just above gay marriage on Democracy Corps’ so-called "feeling thermometer" -- standing at a mean 35.8 degrees, to 32.7 degrees for gay marriage. Increasing numbers say that Iraq costs too much in money and manpower when both are needed at home: 54% believe the U.S. government should cut spending for the Iraq War after Hurricane Katrina, and 63% favor withdrawing some or all U.S. forces there (Gallup, September 16-18). Moreover, 75% say Bush has no clear plan for getting U.S. troops out (CBS News/New York Times Poll, September 9-13). In many respects, public opinion toward Iraq resembles attitudes about the Vietnam War circa 1968, with one difference: it took Americans more than a decade to conclude that Vietnam was unwinnable and their troops should leave; it has taken just two years for them to reach the same conclusion about Iraq.

The Failed Presidents
George W. Bush’s troubles are profound. But any beleaguered president often looks to his predecessors for guidance. At first glance, Bush can take heart from their experiences. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, other presidents have fared poorly in public opinion polls and recovered their standing. Harry S. Truman’s first term is a case in point. In 1946, Truman’s approval rating dipped to just 27% in a Gallup poll, as Americans were fed up with labor strikes, meat shortages, and Truman’s inability to cope. Nearly forty years later, Ronald Reagan was rocked by the Iran-Contra affair, and his approval rating, in Gallup polls, fell from 62% to 47%. Bill Clinton also took a similar tumble: he began his presidency with 58% support, according to Gallup, but by 1994 his approval rating fell to 41%. Clinton’s big government health care plan, and his "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy allowing gays to serve in the military gave voters reason to think that instead of electing a New Democrat, they might just have chosen George McGovern instead.

Yet, Truman, Reagan, and Clinton recovered because they could change the subject. Harry Truman’s failure to keep the Democrats in control of Congress in 1946, gave him a perfect opportunity to rail against the "Do-Nothing Congress" two years later. Suddenly, the focus was back to the domestic New Deal-Fair Deal issues that worked for the Democrats. And to everyone’s surprise, Truman kept his job.

Ronald Reagan learned from the Truman experience. While the Contras may have been important to Reagan in fighting communism, effecting a regime change in Nicaragua was never central to his presidency. What mattered to Reagan’s followers was reducing taxes and winning the Cold War. After the Iran-Contra scandal became public, Reagan dropped most references to the Sandinista regime and returned to familiar themes. Also sustaining Reagan was the public’s affection: at the height of the Iran-Contra affair, 75% said they liked Reagan personally, according to Gallup, while 18% did not.

Perhaps no president knew how to change the subject better than Bill Clinton. After the drubbing he took in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton ditched Hillary’s health care proposals and opted to enact bite-sized portions -- e.g., insuring the children of the unemployed. Gays in the military were also forgotten, as Clinton turned his laser-like attention to family and values issues, including the desirability of having children wear school uniforms. In 1996, Clinton famously noted that "the era of big government is over," and he signed a welfare reform bill over the objections of many Democrats. By echoing Reagan’s themes and keeping his focus on the middle class, Clinton won an easy victory over Bob Dole.

On the other hand, six presidents since FDR have failed to recoup their public standing: Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.

In 1952, Harry Truman saw his job approval rating fall to a mere 22% in the Gallup Poll. By then, Truman had become mired in the Korean War. Day after day, U.S. soldiers battled the North Koreans and Chinese for control of one small hill or another, without either side winning a decisive victory. Americans tired of Truman and felt he had no plan for resolving the conflict, and they turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower -- especially after the World War Two general told voters, "I shall go to Korea."

Lyndon B. Johnson had a similar experience as he saw his landslide victory melt in the Vietnamese tropical heat. A Gallup poll taken in August 1968 found just 35% giving Johnson positive marks. In many ways, LBJ foresaw his political demise, telling columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak after the 1964 election:

I was just elected by the biggest popular margin in the history of the country, fifteen million votes. Just by the natural way people think and because Barry Goldwater scared the hell out of them, I have already lost two of these fifteen and am probably getting down to thirteen. If I get into any fight with Congress, I have already lost another couple of million, and if I have to send any more boys into Vietnam, I may be down to eight million by the end of the summer.

In 1973, Richard Nixon’s presidency was caught in the web of Watergate. Gallup showed Nixon with a dismal approval rating of 30%. Repeatedly, he tried to change the focus to other issues, at one point telling Congress in 1974, "One year of Watergate is enough." But the Watergate tape revelations only intensified the media and public focus on Nixon’s wrongdoing. By the time he left office, just 24% approved of his performance, according to Gallup.

Gerald Ford, too, suffered a crippling blow to his public esteem. Starting with a breathtaking 71% job approval, his support dropped 21 points in the Gallup Poll after his decision to pardon Nixon. Declaring that Watergate had been "an American tragedy" and "someone must write the end to it," Ford hoped the pardon would turn public attention away from Nixon and toward more pressing matters -- including high energy prices and a stubbornly persistent inflation rate. But, according to Louis Harris & Associates, 60% thought Ford was wrong to issue the pardon, and 62% said it condoned two standards of justice: one for the rich and powerful; another for the ordinary citizen. Ford could never fully escape the fallout from his unpopular act. A CBS News 1976 exit poll found 14% mentioned Watergate and the Nixon pardon as an important issue, and an overwhelming percentage of these disenchanted voters backed Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter was the fifth president to suffer a fatal blow in public support. At the onset of his presidency, Carter received a 66% job approval rating, according to Gallup. Yet, just three years later, Carter’s approval plummeted to 29% in the Gallup Poll. In response, Carter delivered his famous "malaise speech," declaring that there was a "crisis of confidence" in government. Voters disagreed, thinking the government mechanisms did work and that nothing was wrong with their character. Instead, they thought something was decidedly wrong with Carter’s leadership, and they ousted him in a landslide. Public disdain toward Carter persisted long after his presidency ended: a 1988 Harris poll gave Carter the dubious distinction of being first (with 46%) in the category "least able to get things done."

George H. W. Bush also suffered a fatal fall in public esteem. Shortly after the Persian Gulf War, the elder Bush won plaudits and an 89% approval rating, according to Gallup. But Americans are a restless people, and following the quick war the economy remained foremost on their minds. By 1992, voters thought Bush was inattentive to their concerns and he received a dismal 37% of the vote -- exactly his approval rating in a pre-election Gallup poll.

What unites these six failed presidencies is each man’s inability to change the subject. Harry Truman could not get the public’s mind off the Korean War. Lyndon Johnson could not get people to focus on anything else except Vietnam and race riots. Richard Nixon could not erase the airing of the Watergate tapes (even as he tried to erase them in fact). Gerald Ford could not ameliorate voter anger over the Nixon pardon. Jimmy Carter became identified with his malaise speech and the Iranian hostage crisis. And George H. W. Bush was a foreign policy president at a time when voters could have cared less.

George W. Bush is likely to share the fates of his predecessors for one reason: he can’t change the subject. Bush cannot take the focus away from the aftereffects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; Iraq continues to drain U.S. lives and resources with no end in sight; and (thanks to Iraq and the hurricanes) the fiscal crisis facing the next president has come four years early. Even when Bush has tried to refocus attention elsewhere, voters have answered with a resounding "NO!" For example, a Gallup poll taken in July found 62% saying they disapproved of George W. Bush’s Social Security proposals.

In sum, Iraq, high gas prices, a so-so economy, and the aftereffects of the hurricanes will occupy public attention for the foreseeable future. Even a big news story -- be it the capture of Osama bin Laden, or another terrorist strike --probably won’t help Bush that much. A recent Gallup poll, for example, finds 55% believing Bin Laden will likely be captured or killed. This finding suggests that the public may have already accounted for this event. Still, were this to happen, Bush’s support would rise. Yet, each time something positive has happened to Bush, his opinion "bounce" has gotten smaller. For example, prior to Saddam Hussein’s capture, Bush received 50% approval; afterwards, his support rose to just 55%. Another spectacular terrorist attack is also unlikely to produce a reprise of the post-September 11th "let’s-rally-round-the-president" phenomenon. Rather, any assault would renew cries of the nation’s unpreparedness -- a criticism that has special resonance following Hurricane Katrina.

Democrats can’t take solace from Bush’s weaknesses. While they may win several of the off-year congressional elections by default, voters hardly see them in a favorable light. A CBS News poll (October 3-5) finds only 43% have a favorable view of congressional Democrats. One reason Bush was able to best Al Gore and John Kerry was the Democrats’ continued weaknesses on values issues. According to Zogby polling, Bill Clinton would beat George W. Bush by just two points, while John Kerry would lose again by one point. Moreover, the current Democracy Corps poll gives Democrats just 48% of the congressional ballots -- exactly the same percentages that Gore and Kerry received against Bush. As Stan Greenberg and James Carville write, "Democrats are leaving a lot of votes on the table."

As long as Democrats remain the party of Bill (and Hillary) Clinton, large numbers of southern and rural voters will view them as hostile to their cultural values. That means Democrats will struggle in presidential contests, since making the values connection is an essential prerequisite to getting a hearing on more tangible economic issues favorable to their cause. If Democrats cannot fix their values problems and Republicans continue to disappoint, voters may turn instead to a third-party candidate. There is reason to think that a credible third-party challenger can use the power of the Internet to revolutionize 21st century two-party politics. But that is another story.

What remains is that for the remainder of his presidency, George W. Bush will hover somewhere around 40% in his job approval scores. Americans will continue to be forever grateful for his leadership and resoluteness following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But, henceforth, he will govern without majority consent. Republicans may win important elections (like the 2005 Virginia governor’s race). But these victories will be in spite of George W. Bush, not because of him.

Forty-five years ago political scientist Richard Neustadt (in Presidential Power) noted that governing without consent has its consequences, as elites constantly gauge a president’s prestige: "[T]he prevalent impression of a president’s public standing tends to set a tone and to define the limits of what Washingtonians do for him, or do to him." The remainder of the Bush presidency will be more about limits, since his status has suffered a fatal blow. Consequently, the next three years will be marking time until another president with a popular mandate assumes the office.

TABLE 1 George W. Bush: Handling of Domestic and Foreign Issues, Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 2005
					.
			Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
			%	%	%	%
	Jobs and the economy		11	27	27	34
	Social Security and Medicare		8	22	26	39
	Education		11	31	28	28
	Environment		7	28	23	38
	Taxes		15	25	22	34
	Health care		6	28	24	38
	Hurrican Katrina		11	24	19	43
	Hurrican Rita		18	31	29	17
	Gas prices		6	17	23	51
	War in Iraq		12	24	18	45
	Foreign policy in general		13	27	25	32
	The War on Terrorism		23	26	19	31
					.
	Source: Zogby International poll, September 29-October 2, 2005
TABLE 2 Bush's Job Performance by Issue: National Score and Independents and Moderates Compared
					.
			Excellent/ Good	Fair/ Poor
			%	%
	Jobs and the economy
	All likely voters		38	61
	Independents		31	69
	Moderates		20	78
					.
	Social Security and Medicare
	All likely voters		31	65
	Independents		20	76
	Moderates		20	78
					.
	Education
	All likely voters		42	55
	Independents		42	54
	Moderates		31	66
					.
	Environment
	All likely voters		35	61
	Independents		24	71
	Moderates		24	74
					.
	Taxes
	All likely voters		41	56
	Independents		38	58
	Moderates		30	67
					.