Blame Bush

Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The favorite American past time. I sometimes find myself defending Bush just because I feel kind of sorry for the man. I know that makes me a Bushbot but the recent approval numbers are not good.

Bush was up to about 40 on his approval rating a week or so aga, now he is down to about 35. Of course as always the numbers are all over the place ranging from 31 to 45 in the last few weeks, but over all the trend is down since the election. Rasmussen has him at 41.

Why? Iraq? Maybe. But then again it might be that Republicans are blaming Bush for the loss of the election. Over at JOM someone told me it was Bush's fault the GOP lost because he should have held their feet to the fire and made them act like conservatives because he is their leader.

Bush is not the CEO of Congress. The Congress made their Contract with America years before George Bush came to Washington from Texas where he had been known as a compassionate conservative. He could and did work with Democrats and his attitudes toward issues like education and immigration were well known. No, the Republicans in Congress do not work for Bush, they work for the People and the People fired them. As often happens.

Now the issue of immigration is raising its ugly head again and as AJ notes, these hardliners are just not getting it. After destroying the gains Bush had made in terms of the hispanic vote and alienating moderates they are trying to throw their weight around. That ship sailed, they should have come up with a tough compromise when they had the votes.

Who hurt who? Did Bush hurt Congress or was it the other way around? Well right before the election Hastert and Pelosi both had approval ratings lower than Bush's are now. What does that tell you?

Bush's numbers may have a chance of going up if he can find away to create a bipartisan consensus on the issues that face the country and if there is a sense of some stability coming to Iraq.

Right now people are more interested in stability than they are in democracy. Right now people just want some good news for a change.


Coisty said...

The decline in Hispanic GOP votes was minor compared to the decline in white votes.

Steve Sailer: relative to the bellwether white vote, the GOP did merely one percentage point worse among Hispanics versus the last midterm and four percentage points worse than in the last Presidential election.

Let's assume (generously) that four percentage points represents the drop in the GOP's Latino vote caused by House Republicans taking a (fairly) tough line on illegal immigration. What was the total cost to the GOP?

Well, a four percent decline times six percent of the electorate is 0.24 percent, or, say, a quarter of a percentage point.

If the GOP lost roughly five percentage points from 2002 and 2004 to 2006, then the Latino decline accounted for roughly one-twentieth of it.

If the GOP picked up merely one percentage point among whites due to immigration, that would have three times the size of this loss among Hispanics.

And here’s the kicker: Americans who want patriotic immigration reform aren’t convinced the GOP would deliver it.

Of course with MSM neocon ideologues like Fred Barnes and Michael Barone and their good friends on the far left spreading the nonsense that immigration cost the GOP the House, I suspect it will become the officially accepted view.

Bloggers should not just toe the MSM line. They should try to get to the truth otherwise how are they different from the MSM?

Rick Ballard said...

Sailer's got a lovely theory there. It's a shame that all three Tancretins ran second, otherwise some actual validation of his would exist.

I wonder why in the world immigration ran a distant fifth in the exit polls?

Syl said...

I think it's interesting what Webb said about the immigration issue. He said it was made up of three distinct parts: border security, guest worker program, and what to do about the illegals who are already here.

Webb said the three should not be conflated and that the best way to deal with the immigration issue was to deal with the parts separately.

And the first part that needs to be solved is, ahem, border security. Accomplish that, THEN tackle the other issues.

FWIW, that was the Democrat who said that, and won.

David Thomson said...

"Webb said the three should not be conflated and that the best way to deal with the immigration issue was to deal with the parts separately."

James Webb sounds like he has a few brains in his head. Knock on wood, I may soon be very glad that he defeated George Allen.

Skookumchuk said...


Greetings, ex-Tacoma dweller! :-)

Yes, Webb did say that. And good for him.

In my consulting practice, I've done some work on US-Mexico border transportation issues. I spoke with a Mexican friend in Chihuahua who told me the following story - of a Swedish photographer who was camping in Big Bend National Park and who, in the middle of the night, was accosted by armed men dressed in black and wearing balaclavas who wanted to know who he was. Our Swedish friend was terrified to death. You can imagine. Anyway, the border is often a lawless place. Go to Ciudad Juarez at night and see for yourself. Yes, enforcement first.

And I say this as a half-Hispanic who spoke both languages at home growing up and who is proud of the fact. Webb is on to something here...and we conservatives ignore him at our peril.

terrye said...

I think it was about tone myself. So many of the hardliners just turned people off.

In other words people responded to Bush's speech on immigration because he talked about border security and comprehensive reform. But when the hardliners refused any compromise I think they just pissed people off because I think most people felt that there was basic agreement that something needed to be done and the Tancredo people were actually obstructing the process because they had to have everything their way.

And then they got so ugly about it, it turned people off.

It just became one more thing they could not get it together to do.

terrye said...


The Minute Men lost in their own neck of the woods, they were wiped out. Finit.

terrye said...


There was never any doubt the wall and the border would be first. It is just a wall, a barrier..the kinds of programs they are talking about would take time to set up.

Coisty said...

The Minute Men lost in their own neck of the woods, they were wiped out. Finit.

The Democrats positioned themselves to the right of the GOP in many districts. Iraq and MSM-trumpeted corruption hurt the "Minute men".

In Arizona all the restrictionist and supposedly anti-Hispanic propositions passed by considerable margins. It was the stink of the Bush-led GOP that voters didn't like.

rick ballard - Sailer's got a lovely theory there. It's a shame that all three Tancretins ran second

You've fallen for the MSM neocon/leftist line that only the Arizona losses mattered.

Terrye - think it was about tone myself

The open borders lobby provoked it over a decade and a half by constantly shouting 'racist" at even the most moderate appeals to enforce immigration law. I guess you are still completely unaware of the hate-filled mass demonstrations by Mexican flag-wavers in spring that came complete with threats to Anglo-America.