Books reviews, current events, and other musings

I've been puzzled for a while about why Bush remains so popular, despite the fact that his policies are failures across the board. Clearly, I'm much more liberal than most Americans and I follow the news more closely. Still, you'd expect that the administration's right-wing policies, 3 million lost jobs, skyrocketing deficit, lack of Iraqi WMDs, and chaos in Iraq to hurt Bush's standing among moderate voters. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll provides some insight into the situation. It asked which party can better handle various major issues, with these results.

2004 Jan 9-11 (sorted by "advantage")	Republican Party	Democratic Party	Republican Advantage/ Disadvantage
	%	%	%
Terrorism	60	30	+30
The situation in Iraq	53	37	+16
Foreign affairs	51	40	+11
Gun policy	48	39	+9
The economy	44	48	-4
Taxes	44	48	-4
Education	41	50	-9
The federal budget deficit	39	49	-10
Healthcare policy	34	55	-21
The environment	35	57	-22

The public prefers Democratic policies on all domestic issues besides gun control. However, they prefer the Republican approach to Iraq and foreign affairs. Most significantly, twice as many Americans would select the Republican approach to fighting terrorism over the Democrat's. Those factors are presumably what drives much of Bush's appeal.

The 9/11 attacks was a major psychological blow to most Americans. The Bush administration has adroitly played up those fears while positioning the fight against terrorism as a good vs. evil struggle. The Republicans orchestrated a noisy, aggressive response: overthrowing the Taliban, implementing prominent airport security measures, and creating the Department of Homeland Security. The Iraqi regime was presented as another threat to the US, because of terrorist ties and possession of WMD, and the war against Iraq successful overturned that regime and captured Saddam.

This is a powerful emotional package to people who don't follow the news closely and who aren't instinctively hostile toward Bush. There are numerous counterarguments to the Bush administration story. Car crashes, heart disease, street crime, industrial accidents, etc. are for greater threats to most Americans than terrorism is. Any administration would have increased anti-terrorist funding after 9/11, and many of Bush's programs curtail civil liberties without any significant gains in fighting terrorism. Iraq did not possess WMD and did not have ties to anti-American groups. Nonetheless, the strength of Bush's terrorism / Iraq narrative convinces many Americans who don't know better that he can best keep them safe.

At least attitudes regarding domestic policies help the Democrats. Plus, the terror & Iraq factor will become less of an advantage for Bush as American soldiers, sadly, continue to die in Iraq and as more time passes since 9/11. The latest New York Times article about Bush's popularity (from Daily Kos) includes some interesting statistics.


W's disapproval ratings are greater than any of the previous four Presidents facing re-election (though technically it's still an open question whether he was elected in 2000). And his approval rating exceeds his disapproval rating by only 5%, a smaller margin than Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton. Considering that events of the last two months have been surprisingly good for Bush, he'll definitely be beatable in November. And the chart demonstrates the polarized opinions regarding Bush; 95% of the interviews expressed approval or disapproval.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of Dean stories as the Iowa primary approaches. Salon mentions the TV news slant on Dean, which mirrors what I've observed in the print media (from the Columbia Journalism Review Campaign Desk).

Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

The New York Times has a profile of Judith Steinberg Dean, Howard Dean's wife, who is continuing her medical practice and avoiding campaign appearances (from Cursor).

Finally, Howard Dean is doing well among the superdelegates, Congressmen and other luminaries who can vote independently at the Democratic convention.

• Dean - 137
• Gephardt - 74
• Kerry - 64
• Clark - 40
• Edwards - 28
• Lieberman - 27

I suspect that top Democratic believe that Dean will become the nominee, and want him to wrap up the nomination as soon as possible.

posted by Julian at 10:15AM

It looks like the Democrats will fight Schwarzenegger's budget.

Senate President Pro Tem John Burton of San Francisco assailed the Republican governor's fiscal strategy, which he said amounted to reducing the car tax to help the rich and then calling for deep cuts in programs for the poor, aged and blind.

Raising the top state income tax brackets to the levels they were for much of the past three decades -- 10 and 11 percent -- could generate between $2 billion and $3 billion, Burton said, staving off the worst cuts.

The increased tax rates kick in at very high income levels: 10% at $140,000 for singles and $282,000 for couples, and 11% at twice those thresholds. I'm optimistic that the Democrats will have some success at raising taxes and reducing the cuts in social programs. Ironically, they might have more luck with Schwarzenegger than they did with Davis, since 2/3 of the legislature has to approve the budget.

Last year, Republican congressman could block any new taxes and blame the resulting crisis on Davis. Now, Schwarzenegger needs Democratic approval before he can pass a budget. If he eventually compromises with Democratic demands, the Republican anti-tax zealots will be upset, but he can position himself as a pragmatic problem solver. That's a lot better than a never-ending budget struggle.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, this incident has received way too much attention.

Later, Dr. Dean flashed his much-talked-about temper at a town-hall-style forum here in a sharp exchange with a 67-year-old retiree, Dale Ungerer. Mr. Ungerer, who said he was a registered Republican but had sometimes voted for Democrats, challenged Dr. Dean to "please tone down the garbage, the mean-mouthing of tearing down your neighbor and being so pompous," questioning why the candidate spent so much time bashing President Bush.

Dr. Dean declared, "George Bush is not my neighbor." As Mr. Ungerer, stood up, Dr. Dean said, "You sit down. You've had your say, and now I'm going to have my say."

"I love my neighbor, but I want that neighbor back in Crawford, Tex., where he belongs," Dr. Dean said. "The president is always my president but the president is not my neighbor if he takes 500,000 kids off their health care benefits."

How is Dean supposed to handle a heckler? A Presidential aspirant should be able to take control of a conversation and convey his message. Though you can't judge Dean's tone from the article, his words sound totally appropriate.

Yet again, the media is portraying Democrats in unflattering terms. Clinton was too slick, Gore was too dull, and Dean is too angry. Ideally, a leader should have passionate beliefs and should express them in strong, clear language. And if expressing a modicum of anger is such a character flaw, why didn't the media vilify the Republican Party for their incessant hatred of Bill Clinton?

posted by Julian at 7:45AM

Yesterday, my wife and I had an enjoyable dinner with a serious Dean supporter who was visiting from out of town. And today I finally got around to putting Dean bumper stickers on our cars and sending a donation to Dean.

For a while, I was planning to defer any donations until someone won the nomination, since I'm vastly more concerned with kicking Bush out of office than in who the nominee is. However, the closer we get to the primaries, the more I want Dean to win. And the sooner Dean clinches the nomination, the sooner the Democrats can stop sniping at each other and start focusing their attacks on the real enemy.

posted by Julian at 7:35PM

Recent poll results have been rather inconsistent.

Newsweek, Jan. 8-9: Bush 51%, Dean 43%, Other/undecided 6%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup, Jan. 2-5: Bush 59%, Dean 37%, Other/undecided 4%
CNN/Time Poll, Dec. 30 - Jan. 1: Bush 51%, Dean 46%, Other/undecided 3%

The 22% gap in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll worried me. However, the gap of 5% to 8% in the other two polls makes me a lot more optimistic, considering that most Americans don't know much about Dean and that recent news events have favored Bush.

Schwarzenegger, as expected, proposed a budget that cuts social programs without raising taxes, if you don't count higher college tuition and increased fees. Naturally, the poor bear the brunt of the cuts.

The governor's plan cuts more than $4 billion in spending from a variety of services, but the biggest share - about $1.7 billion - would come from the state's health insurance plan for the poor and disabled and welfare programs.

It's frustrating that the funding cuts always seem to target the people who worse off. The Gropinator claims that the cuts are "painful", but in the end he views tax increases as more painful. Let's just hope that the Democrats resist the plan and that they can push through a compromise that raises some taxes and cuts fewer services. Schwarzenegger, who seems more pragmatic than most Republican officials, might accept such a deal.

Meanwhile, Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary, makes some revealing remarks in his recent book.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said he never saw any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- President Bush's main justification for going to war -- and was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

In excerpts from a new book chronicling his rocky two-year tenure and an interview with Time magazine, O'Neill said Bush balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

And these statements come from a right-wing former CEO of Alcoa, who I've always associated with extreme comments about abolishing Social Security, Medicare, and corporate taxes. Still, it seems that some conservatives, regardless of their opinions, have a clue about the real world; too bad the Bush administration refuses to listen to them.

posted by Julian at 5:00M