John's Blog

More cracks in the base?

So posted an interesting analysis of 20th century 2nd term presidents on Sept 29th. Since President Bush is not going to end up in the Teddy Roosevelt-Calvin Coolidge group, they ask:

whether he eventually will join the class of failed presidents (Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Nixon) or whether he will belong to the relatively successful group who simply had problems along the way (FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton)? We should point out that the question is not how they look in retrospect. Many would argue that Truman was a successful president in retrospect. That may or may not be the case, but he certainly would not have been re-elected president given the perceptions of his performance at the time. The question is whether, at the time, these "failed" presidents had lost public confidence so fully that they no longer could govern.

But here's the interesting part:

All four failed presidents were reviled by the end of their second terms. But so were FDR, Reagan and Clinton. Even Eisenhower, though it is hard to recall now, was treated with extreme contempt by the press and others for his perceived personal, intellectual failings -- however, the level of animosity was neither as deep or as broad as with the others. The intensity of feeling against all eight men during their second terms was enormous: All faced a substantial group of vitriolic, irreconcilable opponents. At various points, this group expanded to constitute a majority. But the core issue -- the key differentiator between the two groups of "failed' or "troubled" presidents -- was this: Among the troubled presidents, at no point did their own base of support crack. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were reviled and at times on the defensive, but at no point did their own core supporters waver significantly.

The failed presidents, on the other hand, all failed not because their opponents reviled them or even because those opponents became a majority, but because their own base of political support lost basic confidence in them.

Regarding Iraq and Katrina, Stratfor asks if Bush's center will hold. And then they dropped this little gem.

In the four failed presidencies, it was the sudden, wrenching realization among core supporters that the president they were defending was unworthy of defense that made all the difference. The fact that Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton never reached that moment with their own supporters is what made them successful.

Now, remember that this was published on the 29th. What Stratfor didn't consider, probably since they are a foreign policy/international relations site, is how the republican base would react to Bush's second Supreme Court nomination. Of course, I don't think anyone suspected he'd allow cronyism to supercede credentials after Mike Brown. If you spent anytime at redstate.org yesterday, you'd know the base is seriously pissed off. Checking the reader "speakout" page at Fox suggests the same thing. And the Foxnews posts are tame compared to the scathing criticisms at redstate.org. Here's just a couple:

In the days after 9-11, Bush said "I can hear you. The American people can hear you. And the people who did this to you will hear all of us soon."

Well Mr. President. "I hear you. The pro-Constitution movement hears you. And the Republican Party will hear all of us in 2006!

I will say once again that Bush did what he intended all along, to put pro-corporation justices on the court. How a justice may rule on social issues is not as important to Bush as it is to most here and it is also much harder to gauge how someone may vote on those issues once seated. As a former corporate attorney Bush was probably very confident he could trust how she would vote on those issues and not make the social ones a priority.

If she'd graduated #1 in her class from SMU like Rehnquist did from Stanford, not only would she be a more qualified pick, but she would also have had a much more distinguished career that might have led to a LEGITIMATE nomination to SCOTUS. Absent impeccable academic credentials, one must have established a steller career deserving of SCOTUS consideration. SOMETHING SHE DOES NOT HAVE!

I'm with Manny Miranda - this is the least qualified nominee to the Supreme Court since LBJ put HIS personal attorney on the high court, Abe Fortas. I'm an embarrassed Texas Republican right now. And my Senators won't even stand up for what other their constituents believe and oppose her nomination.

Either way, I see where the President's allegiances are and I will not support this man or this party one minute longer! I was already falling off the fence with this administration's stances on illegal immigration and spending but this is absolutely the final straw! The Constitution party and the Libertarians will receive all of my financial support from now on.

We as conservatives have taken a lot of lumps for this president and solid conservatives being appointed were all that we asked in return. Confirmed or not, we wanted to know that the president would stand by us. This shows that he will not, thus I will no longer stand by him.I am so disappointed, feel so betrayed and am so outraged at this pick that I can't even put it into words. This is the final straw!

Certainly, some posters are rallying around the President, and the President's press conference this morning may still work in terms of damage control, but it looks like the base may just be cracking. Only time will tell.

---