NYT Poll: Bush's numbers: Okay, but sliding.

I still do not know what the average person is thinking when they give Bush high marks on anti-terror issues. The only thing I can fathom is that that this is a 'new' issue to Americans, and they don't yet know how to judge a policy's efficacy.

Until Kean and Co. issue their report, and we have some clarity on Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush gets a grade of 'incomplete' from this quarter. The DHS funding issue firther casts doubts on Bush's leadership ability. People have no knowledge of what Bush knew and when. This may change within a month.

I suppose that everyone polled thinks they know more than they do. A snippet from this article:

Fewer than one in five people said their tax burden had been eased by Mr. Bush, who has made tax cuts the centerpiece of his economic program. His latest domestic initiatives, unveiled in the run-up to the State of the Union message on Tuesday, got only a lukewarm response, with 58 percent saying that building a permanent space station on the Moon was not worth the risks and costs.

Moreover, the support Mr. Bush gained after the capture of Saddam Hussein last month has largely dissipated. His overall approval rating now stands at 50 percent, comparable to President Bill Clinton's 47 percent in January 1996. Mr. Bush remains a polarizing figure in a sharply divided country, with 9 in 10 Republicans approving of his performance, and only 1 in 4 of the Democrats.

Despite those vulnerabilities, which the Democratic presidential candidates are busily trying to exploit, Mr. Bush retains a powerful advantage on national security. Sixty-eight percent, including majorities of both Democrats and independents, gave him high marks for the campaign against terrorism, and 68 percent said the Bush administration's policies have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. Sixty-four percent said they considered him a strong leader.

"He demonstrated a maturity after 9/11, responding in a positive and determined way to bring the country onto a steady keel," said George House, a 72-year-old Democrat in Sigourney, Iowa. Mr. House, who was reinterviewed after the poll, added that he still had doubts about the war with Iraq.

Such assessments could set a high bar for Mr. Bush's Democratic challengers, who are still largely unknown, even among Democratic primary voters, many strategists say. "People wonder whether the Democrats will be as aggressive as Bush in keeping the country safe," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster.

Already, credibility as commander in chief has emerged as a major issue in the battle for the Democratic nomination. Many Democrats in rival campaigns have argued that Howard Dean, who has led in the polls for most of the primary season, is unlikely to pass that test on national security, because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and his lack of foreign policy experience.

So, people get it, about the short term effect of Bush's tax cuts. It doesn't benefit them. What is far less clear is whether they know the long term implications of mountainous debt, continued record spending in the face of record deficits and that their real security is jeopardized by this administration's reckless fiscal policy.

The Republicans in this country cannot experience cognitive dissonance. This isn't really surprising given their insistence on continued belief in ancient myths. 90% of them approving of Bush's job? Talk about a disconnect between belief and reality. It boggles the reasoning mind.

Until the Kean Commission reports and we hopefully have a clearer sense of who knew what, and when, this administration has unequivocally proven that it does not warrant the benefit of the doubt. From Cheney's Energy Policy documents to Valerie Plame, this administration has been nothing but a pack of deceptions, redirections and lies. You could say, that this is 'politics as usual.' You would be wrong.

It is humorous that Dean, the candidate that got the Iraqi question right, is seen as weak on national security. The RWEC has certainly done their jobs well.

What's with the ambivalent statement from Mr. House above about Bush?. He showed 'a maturity after 9/11'. Hell, I could have done that. What did Bush and his advisors know prior to 9/11? Hopefully we'll find out. Mr. House still is 'unsure' about Iraq? Doesn't this guy read? Sorry to be harsh, but people need to be informed before they can even form a reasoned position. Mr. House is not informed.

Poor shill Bill McInturff. He believes that Bush has kept the country safe. Well, excuse me, but didn't one of the worst attacks upon Americans take place under his watch? Yes. Yes it did.

If I was a bit less a skeptic, I might buy into some of what the RNC is pitching. But from where I'm standing, all I see is a weak sitting president that took us into a war of his own making, and is looting the country even as I type this. We are not demonstrably safer, we are far worse off economically, and no one is at the helm. Harsh, maybe. I think that these are objective observations, and sometimes objectivity is harsh.