Analysis: Can Bush Bounce Back?

Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser (Julia Ewan -- The Washington Post)

Washington Post associate editor Robert G. Kaiser was online Thursday, July 6, at noon ET to answer questions and provide analysis on recent political news. Can Bush help save the Republican majorities in House and Senate? Or is the bad news going to sweep them away? How does the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo detainees affect his position in the war on terror?

The transcript follows.

__________________

Robert G. Kaiser: Hello to all. We talked about the topic of this chat a few days ago--who knew what would happen in the interim? Troubles is too weak a word. We are facing some really grave problems, including some new ones that hadn't been fully anticipated.

Crises are opportunities for presidents, at least in theory. I can imagine a good summer for Bush in which the international community comes together around the American and Japanese positions on North Korea, in which the Iranians finally make concessions, in which the situation in Iraq stabilizes and starts to improve. I can IMAGINE all of those, but I have to say I do not expect them. More likely, I fear, is bad outcomes on all three of those fronts. But that is an analytical judgment, it could easily be wrong.

Lots of provocative questions already so I will get to them.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I know that Republican candidates are willing to accept visits from Bush for essentially closed-door fundraisers. Is there any sign that endangered Republicans would be willing to be up front with support the Bush-generic Republican team, in other words sink or swim with the president?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question, too soon to answer it. There is no way to minimize the problem Republican candidates in tight races will have if they try to embrace Bush. We have a deeply unpopular Republican administration and a deeply unpopular Republican-controlled Congress. How can you run away from them? Not easy.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: Have the Bush Administration and Republican party so successfully "managed" the news that Americans will be unable to make informed voting decisions?

Robert G. Kaiser: No. I see lots of evidence that people across the country are skeptical about this GOP. I remain intrigued by the fact that when the Pew Center poll asked people for one word to describe the Bush administration a couple of months ago, the word that came up most often was "incompetent."

As their behavior demonstrates very clearly, the Republicans know they are in a very difficult situation.

_______________________

Beltsville, Md.: What are the risks that the new elected President will face when he or she take office in fall 2008?

Robert G. Kaiser: If you haven't read this powerful analysis, I highly recommend it--from today's front page.

The next president will face a truly daunting array of problems at home and abroad. The list is quite imposing: Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran, Somalia abroad, just to list the Class A international crises; budget deficits, partisan rancor, unaddressed problems of many varieties at home. Who'd want this job anyhow?

Aha, lots of people. It will be quite a presidential race.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Mr. Kaiser, thank you for taking my question.

I was pleased with the SCOTUS decision re: Hamdan and wonder if you think that the Republican controlled Congress will roll over for the administration yet again or follow the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution and in the many Conventions we are signatory to? I have been appalled at the lack of oversight in this Congress with regard to NSA wiretapping, torture, rampant fraud and abuse in military contracting, etc. and their seeming blind trust in the Unitary Executive.

Robert G. Kaiser: Here's the URL for a good column by David Broder from this morning's paper.

This is a big test for Congress. I agree with you that oversight has been woeful, and not just on the issues you mention, but on really most of the big problems we face.

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you expect GOP attack ads to hit a new low in this election, with the Democrats being forced to return volley by mentioning the Dubai Port Deal, and our quagmire in Iraq as a failed occupation without an exit strategy?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think Karl Rove and the Republican leaders in Congress have clearly telegraphed their initial tactics for this year's Congressional elections. They will paint themselves as the realistic party that understands the true import of 9/11 on the world and on the country; they will depict the Democrats as idle dreamers who can't face up to the security threats the country faces, and have no plan for Iraq, and want to raise taxes besides.

Can this meal be sold to this country this year? I won't try to predict today, but it's obviously an inviting target for resourceful Democrats to attack. If there are any resourceful Democrats.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: It seems clear to me that Hamden shred Bush's argument based on the war authorization and Art.2 which underlies many of his secret programs. In fact, Bush's position is even worse since not have these programs been authorized by Congress, but Congress has specifically forbid what Bush is doing, i.e. FISA, telecommunications act, etc. Doesn't this mean that he and Cheney have been routinely and repetitively committing felonies? Isn't this clear grounds for impeachment?

Robert G. Kaiser: I read this is a largely rhetorical question, but will try to answer it yesterday, since I have received many calls for impeachment this morning.

My answer is no, I don't think it is clear that Bush and Cheney have committed "felonies." What law are you thinking of that they are violating?

Bush and Cheney staked many of their key policies in the "war on terror" on legal propositions that the Supreme Court has now bluntly rejected as false. That means, I think, that the administration will have to change those policies or get new legal authorization for them from Congress. Failing to do one or the other might become grounds for a real constitutional crisis in the future, but it's premature to predict it now.

_______________________

West Coast: The next president, especially if re-elected, will be facing the rapid decline of our planet's fragile eco-systems. By failing to mention that, you help point out the low priority it has in D.C.

COMMENTS?

Robert G. Kaiser: I hope not, but perhaps you're right, in the sense that I didn't immediately think of global warming and its consequences as one of the pressing crises the next president will face. But I will certainly agree with you that it is. A friend of mine who works on these issues pointed out the other night that with global warming, we may be leaving our children a crisis not just that we have ignored, but to which there is no good response. That is a sobering thought.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Bush's un-brilliant terror war legal strategy flamed-out "big-time" with the Supreme Court conferring Prisoner of War status on so-called enemy combatants. The Supremes' decision made it tougher for Congressional Republicans to rubber-stamp the Bushies shoot-from-the-hip, fly-by-night policy of developing a new military tribunal system for terror war prisoners. If a prisoner of war is suspected of war crimes, the Geneva Conventions (post Nuremberg) require that person be submitted to the same criminal procedures applicable to a nation's own soldiers -- i.e., national courts-martial. The Republican see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil rubber-stamping cult will be seen by Americans and the world as setting King George above the law if they permit his unusual tribunals.

Submitting war prisoners suspected of war crimes to military courts-martial continues to offer a timely solution, unless Bushies launch another un-brilliant strategy of withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions. Now stranger things have happened. In the face of unmitigated fear, National Security always trumps civil liberties in the U.S. What else explains the forcible internment and property confiscation of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry after Pearl Harbor was bombed 7 December 1941? More than two-thirds of internees were U.S. Citizens. After 9-11, Bush became fear monger in chief.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting. I don't think simply re-authorizing the tribunals is a viable option for Congress. Republicans there will have to take serious account of the Supreme Court decision. Withdrawing from Geneva would be a way to do that, I grant, but oy, what a devastating effect that would have on America's image in the world.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: It seems like everyone is calling for the NY Times head on a pike for their story on the U.S. government tracking international bank transactions, claiming that this revelation helps the enemy in a time of war. Is this a double standard?? Where were all these calls for treason when every and all media outlets report that only 2 percent of containers coming into U.S. ports are actually searched? It seems like that is just as big of a "revelation," does it not? It seems like it would be treasonous to report to the enemy that they have a 98 percent chance of getting whatever they want into this country through U.S. ports? It would seem that it would be better to keep that number under wraps and keep the enemy guessing exactly how much of a chance they have to sneak something, anything, into the U.S. through the ports. How come those who are calling for the NY Times to be tried for treason for their banking story haven't come out and done the same for the multiple instances where the percentage of checked containers in U.S. ports are discussed?

Robert G. Kaiser: Thank you for an excellent comment. I absolutely agree with it. And your example is only one of many. We've reported in The Post how John Snow, the just-departed Secretary of Treasury, repeatedly bragged about how much we were doing to interfere with international terrorist financial networks.

Arguably, the real piece of sensitive intelligence about the war on terror is that we have no idea how to fight it. But I'm offering that as a hypothesis, not a fact.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: What impact, if any, would a Lieberman defeat in August have on Hillary Clinton's Iraq war position if she decides to pursue the Democratic party's nomination for president?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. Lieberman now says he will run for reelection as an independent candidate if he loses the Democratic primary in Connecticut next month. If he does that and WINS, the situation would look quite different than if he eventually is tossed out of the Senate, don't you think?

Hillary Clinton does have an Iraq problem, just as Lieberman does. But I don't think we can say yet how big the problem is, or what its impact will be.

_______________________

New Jersey: I don't think Bush can recover. The events occurring now are consequences of earlier decisions and actions, not bad luck, nor the effectiveness of his US opposition. Bush pretty much has gotten what he wanted.

What is happening now is the delivery of the consequences, one after another, at his feet. There are more coming.

You know, I don't think Bush really worries about his legacy (unlike other members of his administration). I think his goals now are simply to get his majority one more election, which will make his life easier, then he'll retire and no longer take any part in the country's political life. If we had a parliamentary system and his government fell now I don't think it would greatly bother him.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting. I'd love to hear an analysis from someone who thinks the opposite. And I promise to post it if I do.

_______________________

Gainesville, Fla.: Hello Robert,

Following up on your reply about Republican tactics it seems like the Republicans themselves are the one who are out of touch when you look at the grand scheme of things. A lot of people I have talked to say that we are vulnerable on so many fronts and that a lot of it has to do specifically with the actions or lack thereof of this administration.

If the Rovenator and the rest of his cohorts insist on this line of attack do you see an opportunity for the Democrats counter with basically the same arguments?

Thank you.

Robert G. Kaiser: sure

_______________________

Hopkinsville, Ky.: When are the Decrats going to announce what they are for? I know they've convened informally and mumbled something about student loan rates and federalized health care, but if the DNC thinks it can win on Gitmo and Dubai ports, well, Karl Rove's grandmother could get elected President.

Robert G. Kaiser: I think the literal answer to your question is, September. But I don't know for sure.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: No - Bush won't bounce back. I think we've hit the end of the road for this administration. They have no credibility and they spend too much of their time trying to divide the citizenry. I don't think anyone expects Bush to develop the intelligence, maturity (even at 60) or empathy to be a true leader. Listen to C-Span some morning - we're running on fumes.

Robert G. Kaiser: Still looking for a more optimistic view... Thanks for this one.

_______________________

Centreville, Va. 20120: Is it not a fact that among so many past presidents, they failed to act though they were aware of them like immigration, Osama bin Laden, India and Pakistan. It is this president who took the initiative not only to highlight the problems but is trying to solve them even at the cost of losing popularity. I think republican will have to identify themselves with the problems and the president. Only then in the longer time they will reap the benefits.

Robert G. Kaiser: Here's a stab at it. Thanks.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What are your thoughts about the Bush legacy and his standing in history? It seems to me that, immediately after 9-11, Bush was on the path to becoming one of America's great presidents. But then something went horribly wrong, and it seems likely that Bush will go down in history as one of our worst presidents. There are many reasons for this, including the apparent disregard for the Constitution and international law, the eroding of our international standing during a time when we had great international empathy, the rampant incompetence of senior members of his Administration, the willingness to go to war on the flimsiest of evidence, and the gross underestimation of the consequences and costs of that war.

I know that a lot can happen in two years, but it seems to me that a lot MUST happen if Bush is to salvage any type of positive legacy. What do you think?

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for this good question, which brings us back to the topic of the chat in a good way. Several questioners dismiss the significance of the query "can Bush bounce back?" as though we are wondering about his standing in the polls. But I'm much more interested in this question--can Bush still redeem a reasonable place in history?

Sean Wilentz, the liberal Princeton historian, wrote a powerful piece in Rolling Stone a couple of months ago arguing that Bush may well earn the title of worst president in American history. Personally I am shy about making such huge generalizations about a sitting president; we just don't have context yet to know with confidence how future generations may evaluate this administration.

If there is no happy ending in Iraq; if the situation in Afghanistan gets worse not better; if the Israeli-Palestinian problem only festers; if our budget deficits grow and grow and grow; if the baby-boomers reach retirement before there is any real fix made to the Social Security and Medicare problems, etc. etc., then Bush's chances in the courtrooms of history won't be good.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hey! I just realized, that no one has asked you the central theme of your discussion! CAN Bush bounce back?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well we just looked at that, but I'll try a shorter version:

Yes, but I don't expect it to happen.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Another devastating terror attack like 9/11 might cause the country to rally around the president as did before.

Robert G. Kaiser: Agreed

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I answered your question in my question. FISA clearly says it is a felony to wiretap U.S. nationals without a warrant from the FISA Court. I cannot evade a felony indictment by claiming I believed a bizarre theory of the law and neither can Bush.

Robert G. Kaiser: This is the reader who was earlier looking for impeachment proceedings. I don't know if he/she is a lawyer; I know I am not. I don't anticipate impeachment to begin over an issue of legal interpretation of this kind, though I personally agree that the FISA statute would seem to preclude the warrantless wiretapping we know has been going on.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Bush won't be able to turn anything around because he simply isn't good enough to do a better job. After five and a half years, we've had long enough to see what he can offer. This is it.

September 11th may have changed his focus, but it didn't alter Bush's underlying level of competence. Just look at Katrina (where years of post-9/11 planning, if anything, should have improved the response), Social Security (totally mismanaged), fiscal irresponsibility, etc.

Not to get too pessimistic, but I don't see how things will change anytime soon. The average American lives such a comparatively comfortable and stress-free life that this sort of political finger-pointing is really all academic. I honestly think that unless Baghdad-style car bombs start going off here, or American Idol is preempted mid-show week after week, or something else drastic and physically threatening starts happening, that things will continue on their present course. Too many ideologues have staked their claim to the status quo.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Ottawa, Canada: If Mr. Bush were able to run for a third term I'm almost certain that he could get re-elected. How, you ask? The same way he did it the last time. Take a key state like Ohio and play to the fears of the rural population. Last time it was gays wanting to get married. This time it could be, well, gays wanting to get married. Throw in his opponents weakness on terrorism and presto! you have enough Electoral College votes to win. What do you think? Possible isn't it?

Robert G. Kaiser: Is this analysis, or emotion? I think you're nuts, in a friendly sort of way. Bush's approval rating was low to get reelected last time; it hovered at or a few points below 50 percent. It's now under 40 percent, and there are no cases of a president getting reelected who is regarded as poorly as Bush is now.

_______________________

Shrewsbury, N.J.: What does Pres. Bush have to do to regain the support of the American people?

Robert G. Kaiser: At this stage of the discussion, I welcome this straightforward query. And it's interesting (to me anyhow) to contemplate some answers:

1) Alluded to above: if Bush could again, as he did after 9/11, lead the country through a response to another grim attack on our country, that might do the trick. But of course it might not--another grim attack might be the final nail in his political coffin, proof that his "war on terror" was ineffectual.

2) Achieve stability and a measure of democracy in Iraq, solidify Karzai's position in Afghanistan, reach breakthroughs on the Iranian and North Korean problems, help Israel and the Palestinians make a deal. These would all be great achievements. Any one of them would be extremely difficult to achieve on the basis of today's situations, I'd argue. What chance is there of getting all four?

3) Respond to a Democratic sweep in November with a whole new approach to governing: bi-partisan, realistic, facing up to the budget mess, negotiating deals with Congress on all the contentious security issues, etc. How likely is this--either the Democratic sweep, or the new approach? Your guess is as good as mine.

Anybody got more or better items for this list?

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Hey Mr. Kaiser, Didn't Harry Truman have awful low popularity rates and still get elected in '48? Because he fought like heck to get reelected? You don't see Bush as a fighter? Have you seen him lose an election yet? Watch and see.

Robert G. Kaiser: Truman ran in '48 against the "Do Nothing" Republican Congress, which proved a good gambit. Having written a book partly about Truman and actually lived (as a lad) through the Truman presidency, I do not see the parallel between Harry and W myself. But thanks for the post!

_______________________

St. Augustine, Fla.: I'm about finished reading American Theocracy by Kevin Philips. Do you buy his characterization of the Bush base as oil, evangelical/fundamentalist religion, and the financial sector? If so, is this base adequate to support a Bush recovery, even with the multiple crises already listed? If not, why not?

Robert G. Kaiser: Kevin is a friend of mine, and I love reading his books. I don't always agree with them. This time I worry that he has made a really complicated situation a little too simple. But this is not the forum for a book review.

Your question implies that oilmen, bankers and evangelicals could get together now and help Bush recover. How would that work? What sort of conspiracy do you imagine? Is the mess we're in susceptible to some kind of conspiratorial manipulation?

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Several radio talk show hosts are saying Clinton is responsible for the Korean missile launches... their blame tactic, even when there is very little basis, seems to always work. To me, this speaks loudly about our population in general. That is, 30 percent or so do not have the basic skills of inductive/deductive reasoning.

Robert G. Kaiser: I disagree with you. In my experience Americans are pretty sensible people, and, emphatically, the voices of conservative talk radio do not represent public opinion.

Americans today actually agree, in large numbers, that we have an incompetent government pursuing policies they disapprove of. A clear majority thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake. The president has extremely low approval ratings. I urge everyone interested in this to read, carefully, the details of the big polls, which are all available on line, beginning with our Washington Post-ABC polls which are available on this site. The Pew Center Web site also has a lot of wonderful information.

I get lots of questions in these chats from people like you who think their fellow countrymen are boobs easily fooled by the right. Yet every time I go out into the country to talk to voters, I come back with a much more optimistic appraisal.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Here's my proposed addition to your list:

Make good on his comment that we are indeed addicted to foreign oil. Promote the initiative being advance by both populists and neocons for promoting plug-in hybrids. Couple this with clean coal initiatives using coal gassification technology. It's a free-market homegrown, national security high-tech approach that might actually work.

Robert G. Kaiser: Good idea. Thanks.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Anybody got more or better items for this list?

Here's one. Through back channels, demand and/or accept the resignation of any of these members of his cabinet: Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, or Condeleeza Rice, and appoint a successor on their behalf with the integrity of a Howard Baker/Gerald Ford. Could go a long way to repairing damages with the public and Congress.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks. Incidentally, Rove is not a member of the cabinet.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: RGK: "there are no cases of a president getting reelected who is regarded as poorly as Bush is now."

Truman was at 36 percent in Gallup's polls in early 1948, before winning the election that November.

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, but in November he was at nearly 50.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I think it is too early to count this president out from bouncing back. The job of a politician---at least seen from that politician's eyes---is to get elected, get his party elected. At least from that standpoint, this president has been highly successful, and could remain so in historical terms.

There is your positive analysis.

Robert G. Kaiser: and thank you.

_______________________

Austin, Texas: To Washington, DC - Is that you Karl Rove?

Seriously, if another 9/11-type attack happens on Bush's watch, after we've declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, along with all sorts of other nonsense, do you think Americans will really think the "War on Terror" has made us any safer? Or will we blindly keep lashing out and creating yet more problems?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, I alluded to this myself.

_______________________

Robert G. Kaiser: Now that was a fast hour. Thanks to all for taking part.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.