Brendan Nyhan

The AP noticed:

President Bush’s standing with the public is slumping just three months into his final term, but Americans have an even lower regard for the job being done by Congress.

Bush’s job approval is at 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. Only 37 percent have a favorable opinion of the work being done by the Republican-controlled Congress, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

Bush’s job approval was at 49 percent in January, while Congress was at 41 percent.

So did the New York Daily News:

After 100 days of his second term, increasing numbers of Americans believe President Bush’s policies are dividing the nation, a new poll released yesterday found.

A Westhill Partners national survey conducted for The Hotline political newsletter found that 53% of registered voters say Bush has done more to divide the country as President, while 33% believe he’s done more to unite America.

Perhaps more ominously, 56% said the country was on the “wrong track,” compared with 30% who perceived a “right track.” That represents a 5-point negative slide since February in what’s considered a key barometer of voter sentiment.

Bush’s job approval rating was 51%-46% negative, with 35% saying the President is doing a poor job leading the country. An additional 24% rated Bush as doing “only a fair job.”

(Via Dan Froomkin.)

Via Dan Drezner, I see that Paul Krugman’s column on the lack of conservatives in academia has drawn

To the Editor:

In short, there is a frustrating tendency toward ideological homogeneity and groupthink in the academy, but it doesn’t mean that students are being “indoctrinated” in a simplistic sense. And those people who purport to be trying to fix that problem are offering cures that are worse than the disease — lawsuits against professors, regulation of curricula, and the suggestion that ideological affirmative action is needed to promote the hiring of conservative academics. Just say no — this is a problem that is best fixed through dialogue and debate, not legal strictures and politicization.

What’s scary is that this issue has become so prominent that David Horowitz, the disreputable conservative flawethrower who is leading the charge on this issue, is now being embraced by mainstream politicians like Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who recently called him a “fighter for freedom.” That means things are likely to get worse before they get better.

Media Matters has a useful rundown of the spread of the false claim that the Schiavo talking points memo was a Democratic forgery (via Atrios).

Update 4/8: Salon’s Eric Boehlert has more. The key point he makes is that the truly partisan bloggers are generally hacks who are just throwing s— against the wall to see if it sticks. While it works, they blog the media/political scandal de jour to death, making tons of their own errors in the process (ie the Rather memo mess). And when it stops working, they quickly move on to the next “scandal” with nary a word of correction or apology.

Dan Froomkin quotes Chuck Blahous, the White House Social Security guru, pushing a common administration talking point:

Chuck Blahous, the White House’s Social Security expert, took questions on the White House Web site yesterday. He didn’t explicitly address whether the trust fund was worthless. But he did suggest a new link between the government’s spending of the trust fund surplus and personal accounts:

“The President believes that surplus Social Security money should not be spent, which is one reason why he has proposed creating a system of personal accounts,” Blahous wrote. “These personal accounts would save Social Security money, protecting it in the accounts of individual workers, where the government could not take it away.”

Think of it as millions of little lock-boxes.

But the government is going to take away most of the gains from private accounts with a clawback that will reduce your traditional benefit by the number of dollars contributed plus 3% interest above inflation annually. What’s to stop them from changing that number and taking back more? It’s just as easy or hard as cutting the traditional benefit. This argument makes no sense to me.

Update 4/7: In a post referencing this one, Brad DeLong explains an argument that Blahous may be paraphrasing (badly). Apparently, the idea is that we need to divert the Social Security surplus into private accounts since the GOP Congress can’t restrain itself sufficiently to use it to pay down the debt. Then we cut benefits by the amount diverted in order to make up for the resulting shortfall. In some ways, this is a more coherent argument for private accounts than the one the administration is making. It’s especially helpful in understanding why the administration claims the projected Social Security deficit in 2017 is a crisis even though private accounts that will move that date forward. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!

A commenter also claims that people think private accounts are a “private safe” and that politicians will be more reluctant to tamper with the clawback because of it. I doubt it. Almost no one understands the clawback today, and it’s not part of the “private safe,” but an accounting mechanism that changes the traditional benefit you’ll get when you retire years in the future. As a result, changes in it would disproportionately impact people who are far from retirement, whereas changes in the traditional benefit hit seniors right now (though you can phase in traditional benefit cuts via something like “wage indexing”). In short, I still think the Blahous claim makes no sense.

Here’s the introduction to new talking points from the Center for American Progress:

By now most Americans are familiar with House Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay’s ethical problems. Fresh off accusations that he took a number of business trips that violated House ethics rules, new revelations surfaced yesterday that indicate DeLay’s family has received more than $500,000 from his political action and campaign committees. What Americans may be less familiar with is the support DeLay is receiving from some of this country’s leading businesses in fighting these charges.

But here are the latest poll results from Gallup:

The Schiavo case may have had a greater impact on public opinion about lesser known political figures, such as House Republican Leader Tom DeLay. While DeLay’s favorable rating is virtually unchanged compared to early February (27% now, 29% in February), his unfavorable rating has increased slightly over the same period, from 24% to 31%. An additional 42% have no opinion of DeLay.

So “most” Americans know about DeLay’s ethical problems — which haven’t received much coverage outside of Washington, DC and Texas — but only 58% even know enough about him to have an opinion? And this poll was taken after his involvement in the Schiavo case, which received much more national attention. It’s yet another example of CAP’s deep concern for factual accuracy…

As private accounts continue to flatline, a few people are starting to notice that President Bush isn’t very popular, as I pointed out last week. Ironically enough, it was the Washington Times that led the charge:

President Bush’s record-low approval ratings are a result primarily of public dissatisfaction with his handling of domestic issues that loom larger than foreign policy in his second term.

On issues such as immigration and controlling federal spending, Americans disapprove of the president’s approach by margins of at least 20 percent, according to Gallup. While they approve of his handling of terrorism by a similar margin, such foreign-policy issues have faded from the headlines in recent months.

…Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, Gallup also found that only 35 percent of Americans approve of his handling of Social Security, compared with 56 percent who disapprove. While other surveys show greater approval of the president’s Social Security stance, he generally polls worse on domestic issues than foreign.

And then here’s Editor & Publisher yesterday (via Atrios):

It’s not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a “popular” leader or even a “very popular” one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.

President Bush’s approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.

Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.

Bush’s current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.

More bad signs for the president: Gallup’s survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the “state of the country” while 59% are “dissatisfied.” One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it “only fair” or poor.

This shouldn’t be surprising — Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin since Woodrow Wilson, and private accounts are sinking like the Titanic. But the media persists in exaggerating Bush’s popularity (and pretending that private accounts are still alive). A similar phenomenon took place with Ronald Reagan, who was not particularly popular by historical standards, but was repeatedly described as such by the press both during and after his term in office. The question is whether we’ll see the same pattern with Bush. If so, the consequences will be huge. The deference accorded to so-called “popular” presidents changes the whole tone and tenor of the coverage they receive. Talk about the social construction of reality…

Update 4/7: As Josh Marshall points out, the Wall Street Journal noticed:

Almost three months into President Bush’s second term, a raft of economic and social issues — Social Security, immigration, gay marriage and the recent national debate over Terri Schiavo — is splintering the Republican base.

After winning re-election on the strength of support from nine in 10 Republican voters, the president is seeing significant chunks of that base balk at major initiatives, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. One-third of Republicans say Democrats in Congress should prevent Mr. Bush and party leaders from “going too far in pushing their agenda,” and 41% oppose eliminating filibusters against Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees — the “nuclear option” that Senate Republican leaders are considering.

The Schiavo case has opened another rift. Though Mr. Bush and Republican congressional leaders acted to maximize the opportunity for reinserting Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube, 39% of Republicans said removing the tube was “the right thing to do,” while 48% said it was wrong. About 18% of Republicans say they lost respect for Mr. Bush on the issue and 41% lost respect for Congress. The survey of 1,002 adults, conducted March 31-April 3, has a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points in either direction; the error margin for Republicans alone is 5.2 percentage points.

…The latest poll shows that Mr. Bush retains huge Republican support in general. His overall approval rating remains at the middling levels he has registered for more than a year, slipping slightly to 48% from 50% in February. But fully 87% of Republicans approve of his job performance, and 88% express positive views about him personally.

Different elements of the party, however, are balking at specific items on the president’s agenda. On his centerpiece initiative of Social Security, for instance, 32% of Republicans call it “a bad idea” to let workers invest payroll taxes in the stock markets.

Despite Mr. Bush’s cross-country tour to sell his plan, that proportion has held steady since January, while resistance among Democrats and senior citizens has driven overall opposition to 55% from the 50% recorded on the eve of his second inauguration. On Social Security, “opinions are hardening in a way that makes Bush’s job more difficult,” Mr. McInturff says.

On judicial nominations — a cause of contention between the White House and Democratic leaders — resistance among rank-and-file Republicans is even higher. Four in 10 say the option of filibusters should be preserved.

On Mr. Bush’s proposal to grant legal status to some illegal immigrants already in the U.S., Republicans are opposed by 50%-48% — almost matching the 54%-42% opposition among Democrats. About 55% of independents oppose Mr. Bush’s plan, while 38% favor it.

Nearly two-thirds of Republicans say Congress shouldn’t pass legislation affecting families in cases such as Ms. Schiavo’s, though some Republicans on Capitol Hill aim to do just that. By 50%-37%, Republicans say the federal government should be “less active” on social and moral issues; on gay marriage Republicans split evenly, with 48% saying Congress should pass legislation and 47% saying it shouldn’t.

Here’s one important finding that’s not in the artice: When asked to choose between the claim that “Federal tax cuts have been worth it because they have helped strengthen the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money” and the claim that “Federal tax cuts have NOT been worth it because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs,” the public chooses the second over the first by a 54%-38% margin. Yet rolling back Bush’s tax cuts, which cost far more over 75 years than the Social Security deficit, is not on the table. (The full poll results are here [PDF]. Note that all WSJ links require a subscription.)

Finally, USA Today also reported on the Gallup poll, though less harshly than E&P.

Matthew Yglesias flags Rep. John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, invoking civil rights in an argument defending the filibuster:

Rep. John Lewis wins the prize for most dissonant pro-filibuster argument yet:

“Sometimes we can speak with one voice as a nation,” said Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), “but there are times when our conscience requires us to take a different path. This nation has been made more fair, more just, more true to its own destiny by the voices of dissent that spoke out against injustice in America.  We have been made a better nation by those who fought to end slavery and legalized segregation, by those who struggled for the cause of human dignity and equal justice in America. It is our ability to make room for difference that has made us a beacon of light for people seeking justice around the world.  We cannot turn back now.   We do not want our elected representatives to be silenced.  We do not want the voices of dissent to be stamped out in the U.S. Senate, because we know it may be the minority that saves us from ourselves.”

Ah, yes, the filibuster — lifelong friend of the Civil Rights movement.

Aside from the historical tensions here, let me say it once again: the filibuster does not protect free speech! Lewis is making a nonsensical argument, though I guess it’s still better than the animated Flash clip starring a walking megaphone named “Phil A. Buster,” which also recapitulates the standard pro-filibuster fallacies, implying it is in the Constitution and that it protects free speech. (Yes, “Phil A. Buster.” That cuddly filibuster. Like Lewis Black says, I don’t have the time or energy to make this shit up.)

(Note: For past posts on the “nuclear option” clown show, click here.)

I was annoyed to

[Fleischer’s] inaccuracies, however, pale next to his greater sin: this book is boring. That Fleischer can be so infuriating and so dull at the same time is his greatest accomplishment…

Allan B. Hubbard, the director of the National Economic Council at the White House, has published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that once again pretends there’s no “clawback” for money diverted into private accounts:

First, voluntary personal retirement accounts help younger workers build nest eggs for their retirement that they own and control and government cannot take away. By allowing workers to put up to four percentage points of their payroll taxes in a personal retirement account, the individual gets a real “trust fund” with his or her own name on it that is saved for retirement. With the current system, all Social Security surpluses are spent by Washington politicians on other government programs…

Third, voluntary personal retirement accounts give younger workers the opportunity to get a better rate of return on their Social Security dollars. If an average-wage worker making $35,000 a year were allowed to take 4% of his or her payroll taxes and set it aside in a personal retirement account, starting at age 21, then when he or she retired that nest egg would be worth nearly $250,000.

But this worker’s traditional benefit would be reduced by the value of the money diverted into the account plus 3% per year interest above inflation, making the net gain much smaller. It’s not free money!

Politics in a microcosm — here’s a hilarious account of the current war between the proto-politicians in the Duke undergrad student body that reads like a dispatch from Washington:

The Duke Student Government presidential race was thrown into flux early this morning when the DSG Judiciary ruled that part of the Election Commission’s weekend rulings was unconstitutional.

Today’s planned runoff between juniors Emily Aviki and Jesse Longoria will likely not take place as the Election Commission must now reconvene to determine how to proceed. The runoff, however, must occur by Thursday, per DSG bylaws…

Although the Judiciary upheld the commission’s April 2 finding that Aviki had violated campaign laws during the March 31 executive election, it decided the sanction forbidding Aviki to campaign during the resulting runoff period was illegal. A runoff is a separate election from the original vote, DSG Chief Justice Emilie Lemke said, and any punishments should only apply to the election during which the violation occurred.

The Judiciary sent the ruling back to the Election Commission with the recommendation that Aviki lose a fraction of her original vote count as punishment, which would send the race into a three-candidate runoff with Longoria and junior Russ Ferguson.

The best part is the campaign dirty tricks:

In addition to the ruling, the Judiciary informed all of the candidates that it was “embarrassed” and “absolutely disgusted” with the behavior of some of the candidates, Lemke said. The two-week campaign has been marked by flying accusations, particularly between the Aviki and Ferguson campaigns. Lemke noted that during the appeals hearing Longoria stayed out of the fray.

Over the course of the campaign, Aviki has been charged with premature campaigning and posting an illegal “live” link on her AOL Instant Messenger profile on election day. The Election Commission sanctioned Aviki for those charges but ruled Saturday that she could remain in the runoff, albeit without campaigning.

Candidates and their supporters have also hurled allegations against each other about bribing minors with alcohol and an incident involving slogans painted on the East Campus bridge…

Much of the contention arose from an incident March 29 when the Election Commission received notice of the slogans “Jesse’s pesky,” “Aviki’s tricky” and “Concerned citizens endorse Ross the boss” on the East Campus bridge. When all three candidates arrived on the scene, Aviki and Ferguson supporters argued over who was responsible for the incident, each accusing the other. Members of the Election Commission divided the bridge among the candidates that night and ordered that each paint over the section with his or her name on it.

Senior James Saad, a member of Ferguson’s campaign team, filed a complaint with the Election Commission that implicated Aviki in the incident.

Aviki said she was particularly struck by the Ferguson camp’s allegations. “I was very surprised that he could actually have the gall to say that I was responsible,” she said. Ferguson said Monday he did not know who was responsible for the bridge painting.

Aviki’s campaign has been fraught with controversy since a pro-Aviki banner was hung 20 minutes before official campaigning was supposed to begin at midnight March 21. The Election Commission cut her campaign funds in half and banned Aviki from hanging banners on Main West. Aviki blames her first campaign violation on a fast dorm room alarm clock and said that while the incident hurt the first day and was “unfortunate,” she was able to run her campaign within the budget constraints.

After Aviki’s second campaign violation—leaving a live link on her AOL Instant Messenger profile on election day—the Election Commission ruled Aviki could remain in the race but prevented her from campaigning and disqualified her from receiving the $5 budget allotment for runoff elections. Those final punishments were the pieces of the ruling the Judiciary found objectionable.

This is also a classic case study in the folly of FEC-style campaign regulation — ridiculous micro-management of the process just doesn’t work. Let the voters decide!