TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY'S OVER

Bush's Leadership Pinnacle (David S. Broder, April 27, 2003, Washington Post)

At a midweek news briefing, Sen. Ted Kennedy was doing what he does so well -- laying out the Democratic case on domestic policy, preparing the ground for the debates that will resume now that Congress is back from its Easter recess.

His staff had positioned a chart highlighting the economic problems that Kennedy says have piled up during President Bush's tenure: "2.5 million fewer private-sector jobs; long-term unemployment up by 184 percent; over 2 million more Americans without health insurance . . . retirement savings eroded . . . consumer confidence down . . . a projected $5.6 trillion federal surplus turned into a $4 trillion deficit."

It looked like a script for a TV ad in the 2004 campaign -- good, red-meat stuff, hitting Bush on the economy -- the same kind of attack that sank the president's father in 1992.

In the subsequent question-and-answer session, Kennedy -- who strenuously opposed the United States' taking military action against Iraq -- was asked what he thought now that Saddam Hussein's regime had been routed. "I commend the president on his leadership," he said, "and the men and women of the armed forces."

In that moment, I thought I saw the problem the Democrats face in trying to defeat this President Bush. No one, not even the most partisan of politicians, thinks it prudent to challenge Bush on his strong suit -- leadership.

The reason is obvious. A mid-April poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a respected Republican firm, gave Bush a 68 percent approval score -- 9 points higher than he enjoyed last October, on the eve of the Republicans' midterm election victory. Particularly notable, pollster Bill McInturff told me, were the reasons people gave for their support.

Only 4 percent of those approving said it was because of Bush's economic policies. Only 13 percent said it was because he had prevented additional attacks. Even though the poll was taken days after the fall of Baghdad, only 23 percent said it was because of his direction of the war. Fully 52 percent said they approved because of "his general personal strength and sense of leadership."

McInturff told me that he was not surprised. For 18 months, "when you ask people why they support him, they go right past specific policies and focus on those leadership qualities."

It is not just partisan Republicans who make this point. In an early April Gallup-CNN-USA Today poll, 80 percent of those surveyed said they agreed with the statement that Bush "is a strong and decisive leader" -- an all-time high in that survey's measure of this trait.

The normally dispassionate and relatively non-partisan Mr. Broder has been fairly critical of President Bush in his column, so it's all the more surprising to see him in this essay not only compare Mr. Bush to Ronald Reagan but essentially declare the 2004 campaign to be unwinnable for the Democrats. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 27, 2003 1:49 PM