No wonder the voters are gagging. They don’t blame Bush for terrorism or the weak economy, but they sense that he’s adrift, that he has no exit plan for Iraq or solution for our economic woes other than letting the deficit mount.
The climate for Bush’s re-election is deteriorating. In back-to-back sessions with reporters this week, two pollsters reported findings that reflect Bush’s precarious position. Independent polltaker John Zogby shows only 40 percent of likely voters support Bush for another four years; anything below 50 percent is potentially career-ending. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg has 48 percent responding NO when asked whether Bush “seems up to the job.” The only other president in modern times to approach that precarious threshold was Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.
When Carter began his downward slide, NEWSWEEK did a cover story that asked, CAN CARTER COPE?
Bush is at the mercy of events that are out of his control, from events on the ground in Iraq to how Main Street views the economy. “This is a wounded president, and it’s hard for me to see him gaining control of enough of the situation to A) drive his numbers up and B) put him back into control,” says Zogby. Bush loyalists object to Zogby’s methodology of measuring attitudes as excellent, good or fair because too many voters gravitate toward fair, which has a negative connotation. Other pollsters ask for approval or disapproval. Zogby says he doesn’t define fair as failure, but then again, he can’t think of a politician who says, “Reelect me, I’m doing a fair job.”
Growing evidence of Bush’s vulnerability has Democrats desperate to come up with a candidate with the juice to beat the president. As journalist Michael Wolff writes in the current issue of New York magazine, “George Bush is toast, but for a toaster.” New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel signaled a seismic shift in his party’s thinking when he became the first prominent member of Congress to endorse retired general Wesley Clark for the presidency, a risky move since Clark is a political ingenue, never having run for elective office. Rangel and other congressional Democrats hope that by backing Clark, they will blunt Howard Dean’s drive for the nomination.
Clark must pose a threat to somebody because the character assassination began before he even made his official announcement in his native Little Rock. Retired generals hiding behind their medals spoke anonymously to The Washington Post, characterizing Clark as quixotic and impetuous and questioning whether he has the temperament to be president. Columnist Richard Cohen followed up with an op-ed piece about whether Clark is “too weird for prime time.” Clark will have to prove himself on the campaign trail, but if he snaps at a reporter or cuts down another candidate in debate, we shouldn’t leap to the conclusion that if elected president he would order air strikes on a whim.
One of Clark’s West Point classmates whom I spoke with doesn’t share his politics, but vouches for his character. Clark’s father died when he was 8, and much of his personality was shaped by a stepfather whom he adored. As a boy, Clark raised crickets for bait in his father’s fishing camp. He attended West Point, where he was first in his class, “because he didn’t have the money for the University of Arkansas,” says this classmate. Clark doesn’t fit the mold of a military man; he’s not a good old boy. He’s a dreamer and a scholar, attributes that generate friction in the go-along military culture.
Critics will want to refight the Clinton administration’s intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo where Clark clashed with his civilian commanders. The intensity of these early attacks on Clark suggests that the Republican right sees him as a surrogate for all they hated about the Clinton administration. It must infuriate conservatives that in Zogby’s survey a candidate with Clark’s resume turns a 9-point disadvantage against Bush into a 9-point advantage.
Having a four-star general in the race helps Democrats reverse the lingering perception that they are weak on defense. Clark and Dean may end up going head to head for the nomination, but for the moment, Clark amplifies and gives legitimacy to Dean’s antiwar message. Whether he ends up on the ticket or not, Clark is positioned to tap into a powerful issue that is just beneath the surface, and that’s the simmering resentment of the uniformed military toward their civilian commanders at the Pentagon. They don’t like the $87 billion any more than the rest of the country because they know it’s not enough to do the job, and it means they’re not coming home any time soon.
