A Reality Check from My Readers

Ron Fournier writes for the Associated Press: "More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency. . . .

"The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency." Here are those poll results.

Philip Shenon writes in the New York Times: "The chief of an Indian tribe represented by the lobbyist Jack Abramoff was admitted to a meeting with President Bush in 2001 days after the tribe paid a prominent conservative lobbying group $25,000 at Mr. Abramoff's direction, according to documents and interviews."

Blogger Josh Marshall keeps asking what sort of "intelligence services" the White House got for the $254,437 it paid to Washington defense contractor Mitchell J. Wade's company. Wade has pled guilty to corruption charges, including bribing former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning."

And Helen Thomas writes in the Nation, in an excerpt from her forthcoming book: "Of all the unhappy trends I have witnessed -- conservative swings on television networks, dwindling newspaper circulation, the jailing of reporters and 'spin' -- nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out -- no questions asked. . . .

"Why did the Washington press corps forgo its traditional skepticism? Why did reporters become cheerleaders for a deceptive Administration? Could it be that no one wanted to stand alone outside Washington's pack journalism? . . .

"It is past time for reporters to forget the party line, ask the tough questions and let the chips fall where they may."

The Readers Write

WheelsBU writes: "As a so-called 'down state' resident of the state of Illinois, I have found it very interesting to see how the Bush Administration's actions have played out in this very red part of the state. To Dan's point about how the President's strong arm tactics play here, I'd say it plays well in Peoria. Literally. Most people that I encounter here are so rabid in their support of Bush that it would take a Watergate-style event to change perceptions. People here simply tune all of this debate out. We were attacked on 9-11, and President is protecting us in the best way that he can. He knows better how to protect us, even amid the torrent of information coming to light that contradicts this assertion, than do Democrats. . . .

"Finally, I find it a bit funny that Dan asks for 'red' state input, given that most red staters wouldn't read the WP to begin with, especially if they are Fox watching conservatives who really do believe that the LAT, NYT, and WP are mouthpieces for the liberal left."

Peter writes: "I live in the reddest city in the country, Colorado Springs, Colorado. I think that most Bush supporters here really believe that he is divinely inspired and should have unlimited power. They have no conception that his policies are anti-democratic and will ultimately lead to a complete loss of our democratic system. And, probably most naive, they also have no idea that the Republicans will ever lose power. I have found that the fastest way to shut them up is to ask a simple question. . . . 'What would you do if Hillary Clinton was president?' It sets their hair on fire and makes their heads explode. Bottom line, yes, they do want this unlimited power in the hands of the president as long as he's their guy. Once it shifts to a Democrat, or almost anyone else, they back off."

shooter242 found my questions disingenuous. "Sir, I think I have made the case that it's not Bush making up a reality, but you. Snide insinuations, careless associations, and gratuitous patronizing make up the wrapping you provide for the issue. One need not even consider the facts for you have provided the verdict already. This is nothing more than a show trial, something you have in common with the average strongman. . . .