NBC's Lauer asked if Bush's record-low approval numbers are "in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans"
SUMMARY: On NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert if President Bush's record-low approval numbers are "in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans ... [b]ecause, basically, they can look and say, 'Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger.' "
On the March 16 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert if President Bush's record-low approval numbers -- as reported in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll -- are "in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans" heading into the 2006 congressional elections. Lauer reasoned that Republicans might benefit from Bush's dismal poll numbers "[b]ecause, basically, they can look and say, 'Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger.' "
The March 10-13 poll Lauer and Russert discussed showed a 37 percent job approval rating for Bush, compared to 58 percent disapproval. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they felt the country was "[h]eaded in the right direction," compared with 62 percent who said the country was "[o]ff on the wrong track." Additionally, 26 percent of respondents said they felt that "Bush is facing a short-term setback from which things are likely to get better for him," compared to 58 percent who said they felt that "he is facing a longer-term setback from which things are unlikely to get better for him" and 11 percent who said they felt that "he is not facing a setback at this time."
As a March 15 NBC News online article noted, these numbers represent "the lowest job approval rating of [Bush's] presidency [and] the lowest percentage of Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction."
From the March 16 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Thirty-seven percent job approval rating is dismal for the president, but you know what, Tim? I was struck even more, as we see that number, by the question of "Do you think this country is moving in the right direction?" And only 26 percent of the people -- one in four, basically -- say yes to that question.
RUSSERT: And 62 percent say "wrong track -- wrong direction." That is a very important question to pollsters, Matt, because it detects the mood of the country as they look at this presidency, and it's very dismal news for George W. Bush.
LAUER: And if you look at this presidency with three years to go, and you ask people, "Do you think the problems the president has had in the last couple of months" -- and I guess you'd break that down to the ports deal and Iraq -- "are they short-term problems or long-term problems?" A lot of people -- 58 percent -- say, "These are long-term problems."
RUSSERT: That are going to confront this president. Almost systemic, Matt.
[...]
LAUER: These approval numbers, Tim, are they in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans in these midterm elections? Because, basically, they can look and say, "Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger."
RUSSERT: It's pretty tough to do, Matt, because they are in lockstep with the president on so many issues.
LAUER: But they've shown their disputes in the last couple of weeks.
RUSSERT: They have. They separated themselves on the ports issue. But on the primary issue driving these numbers, driving this midterm election -- Iraq -- it's the situation on the ground, and not what's discussed in Washington.
...Here's hoping Matt!! You wouldn't want that corporate paycheck to diminish in any way would you! Sycophant.
the way he said it makes sense. Republicans can start jumping ship and get the voter support by appearing non partisan and critical of the unpopular president. Showing some character if u know what i mean
Why don't you ask the Democrats who were ousted in 1994 if Clinton's popularity lows at the time hurt their cause in that election?
I don't see why this is such a big issue. He is asking a question and, as some others pointed out, it does give those more moderate Repubs to stop being gutless and start tyring to do things the voters want without worrying that the Pres will not help them out get reelected or elected at all. I don't think it it true, but it is a legit question.
Well this is just PURE spin of course.
Let's face it IF Bush had strong Poll Numbers, then Matt would be suggesting instead that those numbers would HELP the Republicans during the Mid-Term Elections.
Bad Polls: Good Good Polls: Good
See ya can't lose with Matt's spin ;-)
Exactly, this is the same "no-lose situation" that many trolls get caught trying to push on any number of Bush issues, or "no-win situation" if it involved a Democrat.
The bottom line is that there are many in Congress who have been in lockstep with Bush for 3 or 5 years, the Port controversy notwithstanding. That record is not going to be easy to downplay unless they start seriously criticizing Bush and backing it up with actions. If Lauer knows this, he's spinning, and if not then he's not informed enough for the discussion.
Just stick to reading the Today Showt eleprompter, okay?
Leave the "up-is-down" and "down-is-up" stuff to the shows with deep thinkers.
Like Tim's.
Aren't these shows, on networks that are owned by interests who love the Repubs, kinda freakin' that the whole thing is going south? They refuse to outrightly criticize the extent of what causes these low poll numbers or even acknowledge that low poll numbers are "negative." I'm waiting for Repub (or their corporate friends) manipulation of the numbers next.
Most who live and work in Washington D.C., live and work in an echo chamber: They are unable to hear the voice of the American People, because it is drowned out by the voice of the 'media'; and as far as meditating upon one's own thoughts, they seem not able to do that either; the echoing reverberations of Washington D.C. talking points, becoming the clutter of their minds.
And this is it that has Senate Democrats "cowering" with regard to the Censure Resolution ("cowering" being the word used by the Senator who proposed that Resolution).
For you see, as soon as the Republican Noise Machine found out that such a Resolution was to be proposed, they immediately began to make threatening noises of how this would harm Senate Democrats; how there would be a backlash to "attacking the President"; that Republicans were glad for this "gift", that they wanted Senate Democrats to "bring it on"; that Senate Democrats were cutting their own throats by attempting to Censure the President for his illegal wiretapping...
...and you know what? In that echo chamber that is Washington D.C., those Senate Democrats listened to that noise; they actually lost the meditative counsel of their own consciences; they became quickly hypnotized by that echoing noise...
...and they "cowered".
Much to the Anger and Frustration and Absolute Disgust of the millions upon millions of American People who are so dissatisfied with this Administration and it's Republican Congress (look at the polls!)...
...millions upon millions of American People who are not being heard by Senate Democrats (LOOK AT THE POLLS!)...
The American People (who live outside Washington D.C.), who cannot be heard by their Senators...
...because their Senators live in an echo chamber; they live and work in Washington D.C.; and they "cower".
This is were Matt starts into "Dreeeeeeeeeaming."
Matt should change his slacks, he must have had another little accident.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's just a blessing for America, because the GOP is going to lose power in this country and Democrats are going to get a chance to right things that are wrong.
No one should be surprise at the GOP's ability to turn bad news into good news. if anything, I think Mat is on to something: Republicans can now challenge the President without fear of losing votes because the public does not support Bush. By turning against the President, Republicans make the argument: "you don't have to dislike me because I am not with the President." It's the old distancing trick. If anyone can pull it out it is the Republican. So, good for Mat for pointing that out.
He Actually has a Point No one should be surprise at the GOP's ability to turn bad news into good news. if anything, I think Mat is on to something: Republicans can now challenge the President without fear of losing votes because the public does not support Bush. By turning against the President, Republicans make the argument: "you don't have to dislike me because I am not with the President." It's the old distancing trick. If anyone can pull it out it is the Republican. So, good for Mat for pointing that out. - ReasonableDem
------------------------------------------------------
Stop the gibberish. Matt is brown-nosing; I can smell the stench from here. Republicans only get away with turning the truth upside down because they have a chokehold on the federal government. As soon as the Republican majority is booted out in the next election, get ready for impeachment proceedings and indictments for a raft of Abramoff-paid Republican crooks.
Is this a slow day at MM? No O'Reilly bashing or Olbermann praising today? Picking on Lauer because he is asking a question?
Why not ask David Brock why he wrote a hatefilled book about Anita Hill?
All most all of the posts I have read from youfollow this pattern Jylon..
"Why does MMFA post on Olbermann, he commits hate speech."
Then when they post something that somewhat more relates to this site's stated mission "to highlight conservative misinformation" you bitch about it as well.
Maybe it's just me, but someone suggesting the Commander in Chief's low poll numbers are going to benefit the party who's been backing him pretty much all the way.. well let's just say I'm pretty sure that's wishful thinking at best, partisan spin at worst. (or both)
Asking Russert that question is not partisan, its a question.
How was your drive home from work today?
Same concept.
"Seeing as your mother was recently thrown in jail, do you see this as a blessing in disguise as you can blame all your shortcomings on her?"
Yeah sure you can say it's just a question, but it's also setting you up to be able to respond in a favorable light about the situation.
As opposed to asking this neutral question: "Seeing as your mother was recently thrown in jail, what effect do you think this will have on your reputation?"
See the difference here is one injects the answer for them into the question, and the other doesn't.
In the legal profession, its called a leading question.
His response was very appropriate--sort of "huh? How is that possible, when they've voted to support his positions all along?"
He was given a leading question but he didn't get led.
That's why Brock wrote the book, he was the unfortunate victim of the right wing cult much like yourself. I know the reason for the awful Anita Hill book; but what I'm perplexed about is why do you come here? You obviously don't like MMFA's choice of topics. You don't seem to like it here at all. It seems kind of strange to spend so much time in a place you don't like.
I am a big fan of Media Matters and that is why I am here. I am a true progressive who support diverse ideas.
If I am against something I speak up. That is my right.
I bring up the Anita Hill issue because its IRONY.
I won't question your assertion. But the topics you choose to comment on and the constancy of the type of comments you make leaves room for speculation. There have been many many posters who have come to MMFA and professed to be Progressive, Liberal, Democrat; but if you read their posts they are always super critical of MMFA and Liberals and Democrats while simultaneously defending conservative policy, politicians and public figures. I could help but wonder if you were yet another alter egos of a poster that frequents MMFA under many screen names. If you aren't my apologies to you for the accusation.
I dont support Conservatives , I dont support anyone who spews hate and lies to teh American Public.
jlyon, leftwingandunafraid, etc seem to be on the threads that tommy is not. a coincidence i'm sure.
I DO question your assertion. I have read about 10 of your posts and none of them have any progressive ideas in them. They are nothing but liberal bashing. To quote Judge Judy "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining."
Brock has also written a book describing how his views have changed over time, and he is now committed to trying to right some of the wrongs for which he was partly responsible. So what is ironic about identifying one of those prior wrongs that he regrets?
It would be ironic (or hypocritical or otherwise worthy of criticism) only if he continued to hold those views and behave badly, yet objected to similar views and actions of others.
Is that you? Or does Matt now have an account with MMFA?
Can you imagine going to a right-wing site and wasting hours every day debating the topics presented? There is only one way someone would waste that much time... they are paid to be here.
re: President Bush's record-low approval numbers are "in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans ."
Matt Lauer's question completely ignores the fact that the Republicans (and many Democrats and the media for that matter) have been complicit in Bush's policies that have driven his popularity down. As much as Bush tries to run the country with authoritarian style, it takes a complicit Congress for to allow him to get away with it. Here Matt tries to put all the responsibility on Bush.
End of story.
What about the nightly hate from Michael Savage?
We never hear about it.
Matt is not partisan End of story. What about the nightly hate from Michael Savage? We never hear about it. - jlyon --------------------------------------------- My, my, my that was an obtuse comment. The leading question Matt Lauer asked is evidence of his partisanship. To say he is not partisan, end of story, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary right before us, sounds like something a dimwit neocon scum would say. Not saying you're a dimwit neocon scum of course, thats just what it sounds like. End of story.
jlyon has solved this for us, folks. Thanks EVER so much. Yeah, you're a progressive, suuuuuuuuuuurrrrreeee.
LAUER: These approval numbers, Tim, are they in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans in these midterm elections? Because, basically, they can look and say, "Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger."
ANSWER: EARLY RETIREMENT!!!!!
As someone who got out of broadcast journalism years ago because of the direction it was heading (a story for another post), I tend to evaluate MMFA posts about journalists questions differently than some of you. First, I don't consider Lauer a journalist. He's a talk show host. That said, the question he asked was a good one but was phrased so poorly it comes across like he is stumping for the GOP. What he was trying to get to was whether the poll numbers for Bush really translate into bad news for Republican members of Congress. The "blessing in disguise" line was stupid and proves he is no journalist. Russert gave a reasonable and (I believe) accurate answer to the question. Essentially, he said the polls were no "blessing in disguise."
Do you think the President is a mendacious, corrupt incompetent?
I'm not implying anything, just asking a question.
You must be either a lawyer or really stupid to take the position that Lauer was "simply asking Russert a question."
for "you" read "one"
I think Lauer is saying can the Republicans show that they can keep the President in line, but it is obvious with his low numbers that they can't. I think Russert is right to say they are lockstep with the President on too many issues. I think Russert than gives too much emphasis for the whole problem being the ground situation in Iraq. It sounds like he is simplifying here and not focusing on as much as he should. He is almost running away from his previous much more correct statement.
He lost all credibility when asked about media ownership and responded that integrity is for paupers. The man is a slimy little worm.
I like Matt!But he should ask Russert about Halliburton andCheney- Bush.He shoukd ask why if tax cuts are so good ,do Americans state they would pay higher forsome programs.