WaPo‘s Colbert I. King has an article Dems need to think about, if we want to create a party that can actually play offense, instead of limp defense. King’s “Democrats Are on the Wrong Battlefield” (July 23 edition) brings a needed reminder that tunnel vision focused on Presidential campaigns has not served Dems well. King says Dems invest too much energy and resources in the race for the white house to the detriment of other important elections:

Self-designated as a government in exile, Democratic Party activists have spent recent election cycles working their fannies off for that glorious day in January when they, as victors, could show the door to a vanquished Republican administration. For members of Washington’s Democratic administration-in-waiting, winning the White House has been the only game in town. The presidency, in their view, is the instrument to make the way straight and easy for all who wage war against the heathen right.
So, lo these many years, they have been spending millions of dollars and consuming time and energy treading the primary roads that they hoped would take them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Meanwhile, far beyond the presidential trails, Republicans have been picking off Democrats on the Hill one by one, making it possible for George W. Bush to fulfill his upfront pledge to govern America from the right, where tax cuts, changing the face of the federal judiciary and making liberals perfectly miserable every waking moment remain the order of the day.

King says neglect of important congressional races has made it easy for Republicans to dominate, not only legislative struggles, but judiciary confirmation battles, such as the filibuster “compromise.” And, if you doubt King’s point about presidential campaign tunnel vision, ask a Democratic friend to please name five key Senate races slated for next year. If King is right, re-routing more energy and resources into congressional, state and local campaigns, leadership development and training could prove to be a worthy investment in a Democratic future.

On Friday, I discussed two of the main supports of the Bush presidency–public views of Bush’s character and the role of Karl Rove–that have been seriously weakened, as revealed by the new Pew Research Center poll.
But the most important support of the Bush presidency is, by far, the war on terror and the public’s belief that Bush and his policies are keeping them safe. That belief now appears to have eroded considerably.
Start with the Iraq war. Right now, Bush’s approval rating on Iraq is down to 35 percent with 57 percent disapproval. That’s the lowest his rating has ever been in this poll.
That’s bad, but the really significant news here is that the public is now concluding that the Iraq war has had a negative effect on the war on terror and on their safety from terrorist attacks. For example, an 8 point plurality in the poll (47-39) now believe the Iraq war has hurt, not helped, the war on terror. This is the first time views have been so negative about the Iraq war’s effect on the war on terror. And the public now believes, by 2:1 (45-22) that the Iraq war has increased, rather than decreased, the changes for terror attacks on the US.
Reflecting these views, Bush’s approval rating on handling terrorist threats has sunk to 49 percent, only the second time that his approval rating in his premier area has dipped below 50 percent. It is unlikely to be the last time given how the public is starting to view the Iraq war.
Pew provides an interesting table comparing different groups’ views from today and about a year ago on Iraq war’s effect on the war on terrorism. Scrutinizing the table it is clear that white women, as opposed to white men or nonwhites, are mostly driving the overall public move toward the position that the Iraq war has hurt the war on terror. This is particularly significant because it is white women, primarily on the basis of security issues, who moved the most toward Bush in the 2004 election and provided much of his victory margin in that election.
If these voters are starting to conclude that the GOP is not doing a good job protecting them and may, in fact, be making them less safe, the implications for the GOP in 2006 and beyond could be profound.

Bush may very well get his Supreme Court nominee through without much trouble. But that’s likely to help him only marginally, because the Pew Research Center has just released two new reports on their latest poll, “Republicans Uncertain on Rove Resignation” and “More Say Iraq War Hurts Fight Against War on Terrorism“, which together show that the main political supports of Bush’s presidency have become seriously weakened.
Character
Bush has benefitted during this presidency from positive public perceptions of his character, which have seemed relatively immune to fallout from his many policy failures. No longer. Public views of Bush’s character have apparently taken a nose-dive since the last time Pew asked in people for their impressions of Bush’s character.
In fall of 2003, 62 percent said Bush was trustworthy and just 32 percent said he was not, a 30 point positive margine. Today, however, it’s almost an even split–49 percent say he’s trustworthy and 46 percent say he isn’t. Similarly, he’s slipped from 56 percent he does/38 percent he doesn’t on “cares about people like me” to 48/49 today.
The biggest shift has been on “able to get things done”, which has fallen from 68/26 to 50/42 today. And even characteristics like “a strong leader” (68/29 to 55/41) and “warm and friendly” (70/23 to 57/37) have declined substantially.
Across the board, those stellar character ratings which supposedly meant Bush could weather any political storm have become mediocre to poor. And he’s lost the most ground among independents, only 38 percent of whom now believe Bush is trustworthy or cares about people like them. Even more amazing, less than half (48 percent) of indepedents now think Bush is a strong leader, which is a massive 24 point decline since Pew’s previous measurement.
And how about this: in February of this year, the two leading one word description of Bush were “honest” and “good”, cited by 38 percent and 20 percent of the public, respectively. Today, honest has declined to 31 percent, closely followed by “incompetent” (26 percent, up from 14 percent) and “arrogant” (24 percent, up from 15 percent).
Karl Rove
Another mainstay of Bush’s presidency has been Karl Rove. But he’s starting to seem more a liability than an asset. As ABC News reported the other day, only a quarter of the public think the White House is cooperating fully in the investigation of the “outing” of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame (married to Bush critic Joseph Wilson). Rove is a central target of that investigation and administration attempts to shield him are just contributing to the erosion of public trust in Bush and his administration.
Right now, more believe Rove is guilty of a serious offence than not (32-23) and more believe he should resign than not (39-23). But many haven’t heard enough to have an opinion, so the percentage of the public calling for his resignation still is not that high.
However, among the half of the public that has been following the story closely (which makes this story roughly as big as the Trent Lott resignation and much bigger than the Delay ethics controversy), almost three-fifths (58 percent, including 69 percent of independents) call for Rove’s resignation, compared to just 26 percent who don’t. Similarly, those who think Rove is guilty of a serious offense rises to 47 percent among the attentive public (54 percent among independents), with 29 percent dissenting.
More on “Main Political Supports of Bush Presidency Seriously Weakened” tomorrow…..

As reported below, opinion polls indicate healthy majorities oppose overturning Roe vs. Wade and want Supreme Court nominees who will honor majority opinion on this issue. Beyond that, polls reveal confusion and misinformation among many Americans regarding abortion-related issues, as Matthew Yglesias points out in his TPM Cafe post “Abortion and Public Opinion“:

Strongly anti-choice claims like “abortion is murder” have quite strong public support. At the same time, strongly pro-choice claims like “the choice should be left up to the woman and her doctor” have even stronger support…Taking a more fine-grained look, people say they support Roe v. Wade but then also say they support all kinds of restrictions on abortion’s availability that would go against the current understanding of the Roe precedent.

Yglesias gets his conclusion from Karlyn Bowman’s in depth American Enterprise Institute study “Attitudes About Abortion,” which explores public opinion concerning broad range of abortion-related issues over the last 33 years. Bowman’s study, which afffirms overwhelming support for the Roe decision, should be required reading for all Scotus justices and nominees, as well as candidates for office and policy wonks.

If Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts is confirmed, it is quite possible that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned, given the current balance on the court and his track record on the issue. (His wife, Jane Roberts’ involvement in “Feminists for Life of America,” a strongly anti-abortion group is another factor). But Democrats who are willing to give Roberts an easy pass should take a look, at least, at the most recent opinion polls, which show overwhelming support for keeping Roe vs. Wade and strong opposition to criminalising abortion in most cases.
A CBS News poll, conducted 7/13-14, for example found that only 3 percent of respondents believe abortion should “never” be legal, and 59 percent agreed that Roe vs. Wade was a “good thing,” compared to 32 percent who said it was a “bad thing.” A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted 6/24-26 found that 24 percent of respondents believe abortion should be “always legal,” 55 percent said “sometimes legal” and 20 percent said it should be “always illegal.” The poll also found that 65 percent of respondents wanted a new Supreme Court justice to “vote to uphold” Roe vs. Wade, with 29 percent wanting a new justice to “vote to overturn” the decision. A Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted 6/8-12 found that 63 percent of Americans did not want Roe overturned, while 30 percent did.
Abortion will remain a difficult issue for Democrats, and the Roberts nomination will likely heighten debate within the Party over the issue. While keeping an eye on public opinion, Democratic leaders should continue exploring potential common ground to build a broader consensus between constituencies who disagree on abortion rights.

A number of media observers predicted that a rally effect would significantly boost the popularity of Bush and his agenda after the July 7 London bombings. That does not appear to have happened, based on a number of public polls that have been released since then. Instead, these polls suggest little positive effect on Bush’s popularity and agenda, as violence continues in Iraq and the Rove scandal at home grabs the headlines.
Job Approval. Gallup is the only firm to have polled close to and then right after the July 7 bombings. They found a modest three point rise in Bush’s popularity, from 46 to 49 percent. With other public polls, one has to compare the post-July 7 poll with poll from early June or even May. Based on this comparison, Pew and CBS News found Bush’s popularity up 3-5 points to 47 percent and 45 percent respectively and Ipsos-AP and NBC News/Wall Street Journal found Bush’s popularity down a point to 42 percent and 46 percent, respectively. In the case of the latter two polls, these are actually the lowest job ratings Bush has ever received.
The Economy. Bush’s economic approval rating was 42 percent in the Ipsos-AP poll (a point down from the previous poll reading), 40 percent in the CBS News poll (a point up) and 39 percent in the NBC News poll (four points down). Moreover, a July 13 Gallup report notes:

The Gallup Poll’s first read on consumer confidence after last Thursday’s London terror bombings shows little positive or negative change. Americans remain generally pessimistic about the economy, only about a third rate the current economy as excellent or good, and a majority say that now is not a good time to be looking for a quality job.

Social Security. The Ipsos-AP poll finds Bush’s approval rating on Social Security dropping to 35 percent. And the NBC News poll, which asks now finds its lowest number ever, 33 percent, saying it is a “good idea” to change the Social Security system to allow workers to invest their contributions in the stock market, compared to 57 percent who term it a bad idea. And, as we have seen before, those who believe it’s a bad idea say they’re unlikely to switch (by 62-36), while those who believe it’s a good idea say they’re open to switching by essentially the same margin (62-37).
Iraq. As I noted in an earlier post, the Gallup poll taken right after the bombings showed no evidence that reaction to the bombings had increased support for the Iraq war. The other post-bombings public polls tell the same story. Bush’s Iraq approval rating remains mired at 40 percent in the Ipsos-AP poll, and 39 percent in both the CBS News and NBC News polls. Moreover, the CBS News poll finds the following:
1. More than half the public (52 percent) says that US involvment in Iraq is creating more terrorists, compared to just 17 percent who think our involvement is eliminating terrorists.
2. As for how the Iraq war has affected the terror threat to the US, 44 percent now say that war has increased that threat (another 41 percent say there has been no effect), while only 13 percent believe it has decreased the threat.
3. Half the public says that Iraq is not part of the war on terror, compared to 37 percent who it’s a major part and 9 percent who say it’s a minor part.
4. Most Americans (54 percent) continue to think things are going badly, not well (44 percent), for the US in Iraq.
5. By an overwhelming 63-28 percent, the public says Bush does not have a plan for dealing with the Iraq situation.
6. And, finally, by 55-40, the public says the US should set a timetable for bringing the troops home from Iraq. This underscores the developing interest among the public in a timetable for leaving Iraq, despite Bush’s adamant refusal to consider such an option.
In short, Bush’s problems today look pretty much like Bush’s problems before the London bombings. Those problems were serious then and they’re still serious now. Indeed, with Karl Rove now in the crosshairs of the national press as the current scandal continues to unfold, they could easily become much worse.

The debate over the importance of “framing” gets re-energized in Matt Bai’s “The Framing Wars” in the Sunday New York Times Magazine. Bai argues, among other points, that the Democrats used creative framing to stop the GOP ‘nuclear option’ and he tells an interesting story:

In January, Geoff Garin conducted a confidential poll on judicial nominations, paid for by a coalition of liberal advocacy groups. He was looking for a story — a frame — for the filibuster that would persuade voters that it should be preserved, and he tested four possible narratives. Democratic politicians assumed that voters saw the filibuster fight primarily as a campaign to stop radically conservative judges, as they themselves did. But to their surprise, Garin found that making the case on ideological grounds — that is, that the filibuster prevented the appointment of judges who would roll back civil rights — was the least effective approach. When, however, you told voters that the filibuster had been around for over 200 years, that Republicans were ”changing rules in the middle of the game” and dismantling the ”checks and balances” that protected us against one-party rule, almost half the voters strongly agreed, and 7 out of 10 were basically persuaded. It became, for them, an issue of fairness.
Garin then convened focus groups and listened for clues about how to make this case. He heard voters call the majority party ”arrogant.” They said they feared ”abuse of power.” This phrase struck Garin. He realized many people had already developed deep suspicions about Republicans in Washington. Garin shared his polling with a group of Democratic senators that included Harry Reid, the minority leader. Reid, in turn, assigned Stephanie Cutter, who was Kerry’s spokeswoman last year, to put together a campaign-style ”war room” on the filibuster. Cutter set up a strategy group, which included senior Senate aides, Garin, the pollster Mark Mellman and Jim Margolis, one of the party’s top ad makers. She used Garin’s research to create a series of talking points intended to cast the filibuster as an American birthright every bit as central to the Republic as Fourth of July fireworks. The talking points began like this: ”Republicans are waging an unprecedented power grab. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game and attacking our historic system of checks and balances.” They concluded, ”Democrats are committed to fighting this abuse of power.”

Bai notes that not everyone considers the filibuster compromise much of a victory for Democrats. But he makes a persuasive argument that a conscious strategy of re-framing the debate did give the Dems some leverage.
Bai provides a broad summary of the theories and still-rising popularity of framing guru George Lakoff, who now has a new DVD “How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions From George Lakoff.” Bai also runs the 2004 Presidential race through a Lakoffian filter:

From Day 1, Republicans tagged Kerry with a larger metaphor: he was a flip-flopper, a Ted Kennedy-style liberal who tried to seem centrist, forever bouncing erratically from one position to the other. They made sure that virtually every comment they uttered about Kerry during the campaign reminded voters, subtly or not, of this one central theme. (The smartest ad of the campaign may have been the one that showed Kerry windsurfing, expertly gliding back and forth, back and forth.) Democrats, on the other hand, presented a litany of different complaints about Bush, depending on the day and the backdrop; he was a liar, a corporate stooge, a spoiled rich kid, a reckless warmonger. But they never managed to tie them all into a single, unifying image that voters could associate with the president. As a result, none of them stuck. Bush was attacked. Kerry was framed.

To show that Dems have been equally ineffectual in projecting their agenda, Bai quotes Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and a strong proponent of framing:

I can describe, and I’ve always been able to describe, what Republicans stand for in eight words, and the eight words are lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values…We Democrats, if you ask us about one piece of that, we can meander for 5 or 10 minutes in order to describe who we are and what we stand for. And frankly, it just doesn’t compete very well. I’m not talking about the policies. I’m talking about the language.

Bai’s article includes blistering quotes from Lakoff’s critics, but concedes that Lakoff’s theories have been oversimplified by many of them — “the cartoon version of Lakoff,” according to Peter Teague of the Nathan Cummings Foundation. Meanwhile, Katha Pollitt’s article “If the Frame Fits…” in July 11 edition of The Nation, offers a different take on Lakoff missed by Bai and other Lakoff critics:

I keep thinking that reframing misses the point, which is to speak clearly from a moral center–precisely not to mince words and change the subject and turn the tables. I keep thinking that people are so disgusted by politics that the field is open for progressives who use plain language and stick to their guns and convey that they are real people, at home in their skin, and not a collection of blow-dried focus-grouped holograms.

Bai concludes his article more on the side of Lakoff’s critics than not and he gives the Republicans too much credit for substance in their message. Still, his article has some usefull insights on ‘frames’ and the importance of a clear and unified message for Dems.

In his Bullmoose post today, “Reviling Rove,” Marshall Wittmann makes a couple of important points Dems should heed in focusing their energies on punishing Karl Rove for his role in Plamegate:

Democrats can’t merely be the party of “no” – or “we hate Karl”. While we are seething with our justifiable anger, the Republican Chairman is making serious overtures to the African-American community. And what kind of effective out reach is the Democratic Party making to groups that have been estranged from the party in recent years?
The politics of scandal do not always pay off for the opposition party. In the 1988 campaign, Iran-contra did not doom an incumbent Veep with ties to the scandal. And Democrats actually made gains in 1998 in the midst of the Lewinsky frenzy.
Surely the donkey should pursue Rove, but Democrats should not be consumed with him.

The other point Bullmoose could have made is that Rovism was around before Karl Rove and will likely be a cornerstone of GOP strategy and tactics long after he is gone. Rovethink is just a bent form of the same ruthless mentality embraced by Haldeman and Erlichman during the Nixon Administration, or Lee Atwater during Bush I. Democrats need to develop a more effective strategy for confronting dirty politics, regardless of who is behind it.
Rove should be held accountable for his role in the Plame affair, because endangering our intelligence personnel is a very serious transgression. But Rove-bashing, however richly deserved, will not do anything to inspire confidence in the Democratic Party. For that, we have to put more energy into developing strong candidates who know how to deliver a consistent, credible message that wins the support of swing voters.

It’s hard to tell if President Bush was much impressed by the boomerang effect of his nomination of John Bolton to be our next U.N Ambassador. But in light of Bush’s tanking approval ratings, Democratic strategists should take note of the findings of a new Wall St. Journal/NBC News poll conducted 7/8-11, in defining their stance on the next Supreme Court nominee. In his WSJ wrap-up, John Harwood notes:

Mr. Bush faces a Rubik’s Cube of shifting opinion as he copes with pressure from all sides on replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor…Fully 63% of Americans say it would be a move in “the right direction” to pick a justice who backs displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, a popular stance with the Republican Party’s conservative base.
Yet 55% of Americans also applaud the idea of a justice who would uphold affirmative action, a key demand of liberals. More problematic for the right, which for three decades has blasted the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, a robust 65% of Americans say the court shouldn’t overturn Roe.
Perhaps most hazardous for Mr. Bush’s other priorities is the prospect of protracted partisan warfare over Senate confirmation of a high court nominee. The recent fights over judges, Social Security and John Bolton’s nomination as United Nations ambassador have taken a toll on the public mood.

The poll also found that 55% of the respondents “disapprove of how Congress is doing its job” and 45% prefer that the 2006 elections produce a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared to 38% prefering Republican control. “This is a very difficult climate to begin that conversation” over a court vacancy, concludes Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “What the public perceives might only reinforce the notions of partisan fighting and lack of action.”
If Bush nominates a moderate conservative, Democrats have some tricky decisions to make in crafting their response. But, given the enormous stakes, if the President choses another in-your-face nominee, it’s clear Dems have little to lose in declaring their all-out opposition.

The lead to my post yesterday was: “As support for the Iraq war continues to ebb–and, no, I don’t think reaction to the London bombing will much of an impact on that support….”.
I swear I wrote those words before I saw the results of the latest Gallup poll. Here they are, showing no increase–in fact, a general decrease–in support for the Iraq war and Bush’s foreign policy after the London bombings.
1. In the Gallup poll prior to the July 7 bombings, 46 percent said it was worth going to war in Iraq and 52 percent said it was not. In the new poll, conducted July 7-10, 44 percent say it was worth going to war, compared to 53 percent who say it wasn’t.
2. In the pre-bombings Gallup poll, 44 percent said the war in Iraq has made the US safer from terrorism, while 39 percent said it has made us less safe. In the new poll, those figures have changed dramatically: 54 percent now say the war in Iraq has made us less safe, compared to just 40 percent who say it has made us safer. Most of this change appears to be attributable to people switching from the view that the war in Iraq has had no effect on the safety of the US to the view that the war has made us less safe.
In light of what just happened, one can see why these fence-sitters switched.
3. In the new poll, 52 percent say the war with Iraq has made the world less safe from terrorism, compared to 40 percent who say it’s made the world safer (question not asked in pre-bombings Gallup poll, so no recent comparison available).
4. As for who’s winning the war against terrorism, the view that the US and its allies are winning declined to 34 percent in the new poll, down 2 points from before the bombings, while the view that neither side is winning is up 3 points to 44 percent and the view the terrorists are winning is up a point to 21 percent.
5. Finally, those expressing a great deal of confidence in the Bush administration to protect US citizens from future acts of terrorism is unchanged at 23 percent from before the bombings. That 23 percent figure, however, is down from 38 percent in early February.
In short, it looks like the London bombings have simply deepened the political trouble the Bush administration faces from its Iraq policy and its increasingly vexed relationship to the overall war on terror.
How can Democrats take maximum advantage of that political trouble? I refer you to the excellent post below by Andrew Levison, who, I believe, has some very plausible suggestions.