How has Clarke hurt Bush* with the average voter?

[BillZBubb]

I would like to see how fellow DU'ers see the effects of Clarke's testimony on swing voters. If Clarke is really hurting Bush* shouldn't we see Bush*s negatives going up and his approval numbers going down substantially?

What I am sensing right now is that the Repug/media smear job is working to the extent that this group of people is essentially tuning it out or are confused. What do you guys and gals think?

[opihimoimoi]

1. The Spin Masters are Spinning as best as they can. Their approach is

NOT to answer the charges of gross negligence but to denigrate the messenger. Fuck the Message! That is the Pubs way outta this and guess what? They got no choice, all their ammo is blame and distraction, never the TRUTH.

[Wwagsthedog]

2. Won't matter much here in Texas

The "average voter" thinks * walks on water.

[Skittles]

17. yes

the average voter in Texas is a f***ing idiot

[Mz Pip]

3. If this is still an issue

come November, it will make a difference. THat's why BushCo has pulled out all its ammo on Clarke.

The fact that Clarke's book has hit #1 should make the Bushies seriously nervous. They wanted to squash this this week. It ain't going away and this is good for us.

MzPip
:dem:

[ezee]

4. CLARKE

has them on the run.. The general public listens to the "main stream news". It will take a few days to a few weeks for the fall out to occur. Clarke is a strong and precise man. He would not have stepped into this hornets nest unless he had enough protection not to get stung.this has LEGS and is not going anywhere soon.....its a long road to November, .

[BillZBubb]

6. Welcome to DU ezee!

I hope you are right that this has legs. I hope Joe and Jane Sixpack don't get "smear fatigue" and just tune it out.

[Robbien]

5. The Rasmussen Daily tracking poll says it is having an effect

On March 23 before Clarke's testimony: Bush 47% Kerry 45%
Today: Bush 44% Kerry 47%

So, yes it is getting through to some people.

[BillZBubb]

7. Thanks for the polling numbers

How accurate or reliable are the Rasmussen numbers? I seem to recall other DUer's saying they didn't trust them.

[Robbien]

10. Yes, Rasmussen always seems to favor the GOP

Their Bush favorable numbers always are on par or higher than Faux's numbers and always far higher than all other polls. That is why I posted the numbers, because if their GOP rosy glasses are dimming a bit, then it must be getting through to the masses.

[fearnobush]

8. I believe that the *'s hurt themselves a whole lot more by

insisting that Condi not testify publically under oath. This gives Clarke's testimony and claims real teeth because so long as she refuses to do so , then try to get an other 'private' meeting, the public is believing Clarke more than her or them. Thats my take. The Administration also looks real desperate by wanting to declassify Clarke's info, just to smear him. If everyone remembers, first the Admin was saying no he is not a lier, just out of the loop...now they are calling him an outright lier and bluffing on a perjury charge.

[lunarboy13]

13. Bushisms

Is it just me? Or does it seem funny that the immediate "talking points" -- duly administered by Rice, Powel, and McClellan after the Clarke bomb -- had the exact same phrase regarding Bush's emphasis on terrorism: "He was tired of swatting at flies...". If the President was more involved with the terrorist threat before 9/11 and had chaired briefings and meetings that focused on terrorism, wouldn't there be more than "swatting at flies"? Is that the only sound byte? This seems to support the idea that there was only one or two meetings about terrorism that the President attended and his only contribution was about "swatting at flies". I wonder, was it at Camp David? Were the windows open?

[Skittles]

18. Hey Lunarboy

welcome to the DU :hi:

[BabsSong]

9. There was something on CNN or MSNBC (??) today

It said that Bush has suffered a loss of about 7 points due to this. That's interesting because all he has to do is parade around with another plastic turkey and those 7 points will be back. I find that about 7 is the usual movement depending on a story unfavorable to him or ads favorable to him, etc. He swung back about that many points after his ads started. In other words there are about 7% of the people who blow in the wind constantly and believe everything and anything. The rest seem to stand pat. The day you see a real dive is the day you know we finally hit on something that really rattled the country OR that made the country rush to Bush. He's probably giving orders to launch the terrorist attack earlier than scheduled to bring the people unto him!!!

[progressiverealist]

11. I think it doesn't hurt bush directly so much as it takes away an issue

that he'd like to use to attack Kerry. This neutralizes the issue. On some issues the best we can do is hold Bush to a draw.

[BillZBubb]

12. If we get a draw on the terrorism issue,

Bush* is finished. We've got a lot of ground to make up to get to that point.

[bagnana]

14. the white house press gaggle today was WEAK

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040326-13.html

Look for yourselves: why doesn't the press ask

(1) if Clarke is 'lying," and in fact Bush was on high alert in light of his concerns about terrorism and the increasing chatter in June/July 2001, why did he go on a one month vacation in August 2001?

(2) is it true that Rice has now recanted her claim that no one could have predicted planes would be used as missiles, and admitted that she "misspoke?" if so, doesn't she have a duty to inform the nation of this "misstatement"?

(3) why is the White House suddenly willing to release partial snippets of information that it believes contradicts Clarke's testimony before the panel -- is national security not as important as covering your political hiney?

(4) exactly what that Clarke said was a lie, and what is your basis for claiming it is a lie?

[BillZBubb]

16. The press? I think we know the answer to that!

Also:

(1) How can Rice go on every channel to attack Clarke in public, but she can't go before the 9/11 commission in public?

(2) If it is so safe to "unclassify" and release information to smear Clarke, why can't the WH "unclassify" and release the August 6, 2001 daily briefing?

(3) Why can't the WH produce a list of meetings chaired by Bush*, prior to 9/11 that dealt primarily with the threat posed by Al Quaeda. And what orders did he give to follow up these meetings. If he was really on top of this, there had to be numerous meetings and to do's.

(4) And sorry, Chimpy, but just getting regular reports of the threat from the CIA doesn't count. What did you do about those reports? What were the follow up actions? That's the issue.

[arewethereyet]

15. won't matter at all

if you didn't like Bush you still won;t like Bush if you did like Bush then hes just a lying former employee mad about being demoted.

next ?

[BillZBubb]

19. That's true for the politically active

But I'm more concerned with the 15% who aren't strongly tied to Bush* or Kerry. They are the ones who will determine the election, so which way will they come down on this?