… Des Moines Register: Iowa Poll: Headline from today’s Sunday Register: “Iowa support for Bush tumbles” From copyright story by Jonathan Roos in this morning’s Register: “President Bush's popularity in Iowa has plunged as more Iowans have become disenchanted with his handling of Iraq and the economy. A new Des Moines Register poll shows that 49 percent of Iowans approve of Bush's overall job performance, a drop of 18 percentage points from May. That's his lowest approval rating in the Iowa Poll since taking office in 2001. The president's highest mark was 84 percent following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Changing fortunes in Iraq have hurt the Republican's popularity. In mid-May, after Bush's declaration that major combat had ended, 71 percent of Iowa adults approved of how he had dealt with the conflict that drove Saddam Hussein from power. Four months later, 47 percent applaud the president as American forces try to rebuild the war-torn country amid almost-daily guerrilla attacks. The poll, taken Sept. 12-16, has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. Domestic problems are taking their toll on Bush's popularity as well. Fifty-eight percent of Iowans disapprove of his handling of the federal budget, and 56 percent are critical of his handling of the economy…Also, related sidebar headline: “Bush vs. Democrats” Report says Iowans “divided down the middle” on whether to support GWB or the Dem nominee: 41% would vote to re-elect the president, 41% would vote for the Democratic candidate, 4% would vote for someone else, 14% are “not sure.”  (9/21/2003)

… “Road not taken could have been Bush’s easy out” – headline on John Kass’ column in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune. Excerpt: “Just before war started in Iraq, a talking head was on one of those TV panel shows where they yell at each other, but this one wasn't yelling, and what he said made sense. He said that President Bush would be making a serious political mistake, threatening his bid for re-election, if he waged war on Saddam Hussein. It was understood even before the war that an attack on Iraq would cost billions during a lousy economy. Americans would die there. Rebuilding Iraq would be difficult. Terrorists would drift in across the borders and -- with Hussein loyalists--work to destabilize Iraq while sniping at American soldiers. After the first blush of unquestioning patriotism faded, when his wartime approval rating would naturally begin to come back to earth, the president's critics would pick at him. They'd draw parallels to Vietnam and invoke the magic word: quagmire. Critics would condition Americans to expect and demand immediate success in the rebuilding, perhaps with Iraqi chambers of commerce and Iraqi Elks and Rotary Clubs, parades down main street, baseball, Iraq as Iowa. Every American casualty would serve as an indictment. Every failure would be pumped up by Democrats seeking to regain power -- even by presidential candidates who voted for the war, such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass). Conservative Republican deficit hawks would oppose it, as would liberal Democrats, Libertarians and so on. So the best thing the president could have done, politically, would have been to leave it all to the United Nations, to walk away while loudly declaring victory. That would have been the shrewd move. Hussein would have remained in power, allowing Al Qaeda operatives such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- who set up chemical weapons and explosives training camps in northeast Iraq for the Ansar Al-Islam terror group -- to stay…Hussein would have money and time, and Iran (nuclear program), Syria (terrorist friendly), and the Saudi Arabians (Al Qaeda sponsors) would be watching and waiting to see how far he could push back. The Germans and the French, who reaped billions from Hussein, would have been there uninterrupted, but they'd have had the decency to wag their fingers in angry admonition at the Iraqi dictator's ‘unfortunate excesses.’ Then they'd check their bank accounts. Millions of Iraqis would have remained under Hussein's boot heel. The torture chambers and dungeons would continue. But the UN would have given the Iraqi people plenty of moral support…And though there have been no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq -- another reason to peel the president's political skin -- it wasn't only Bush's intelligence team that figured there were WMDs there. Former President William Clinton thought so. The UN thought so, too. Hussein had used them previously. He'd stalled on weapons inspections. And Hussein adamantly refused to provide proof that the weapons had been destroyed, before the war, when he had the chance. If Bush had been politically astute and declared victory and had not given the order to fire, the Germans and the French would have praised him for his ‘commitment to peace’ and for his ‘restraint.’ Critics might have discussed his newfound ‘gravitas.’ He could have stalled and postured and rattled his saber loudly while avoiding the fact of Hussein there in Iraq. Perhaps the president could have dropped a few bombs safely from above. There is precedent for fighting what we call painless wars, meaning wars in which we drop bombs and the only ones feeling pain are those killed by them, wars without much risk on the ground to Americans. The most recent was in Serbia, to save the Muslim Albanians being slaughtered by former communist thugs. That war was led by Clinton and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, whom Democrats are counting on to rescue them from Howard Dean. Recently, the Albanians we saved from the Serbs have begun the nasty habit of spilling blood farther south in Europe, and are now fighting with the Macedonians. But apparently, Americans aren't interested in such news at this time. There's no presidential political angle to it. So it's clear to me that Bush did not make the smart political move by getting rid of Hussein. Politicians don't like taking responsibility -- it leaves them open to criticism. And Democrats, naturally, are at full throttle, legitimately critical but also highly political, so many voices framing the debate their way. Bush is a politician, too. And if he were smart, he could have given himself cover by avoiding responsibility. If he'd only acted like a politician. Instead, he acted like a president.”  (9/22/2003)

… CNN headline this morning: “Bush ‘not paying attention’ to Democratic race…President getting his news from aides” Associated Press report posted today:  “President Bush says he is paying virtually no attention to the Democratic race for his job, even as the candidates sharpen their criticism of his performance. ‘Well, occasionally it blips on my radar screen, but not nearly as much as you would think. I've got a job to do. I'm occupied,’ Bush said in a taped interview telecast Monday night on the Fox Broadcast Network…’The American people are going to make that ultimate judgment as to whether or not I ought to be re-elected.’ The president's 2004 campaign has been humming for months. He has raised more than $65 million at 21 fund-raising events since June for a Republican nomination for which he faces no opponent. His campaign offices employ dozens of people. Nevertheless, Bush insisted he was ‘not paying attention’ to the Democratic race. He said he knew who the candidates are, but had not watched a Democratic debate. Likewise, Bush's response to the Democrats' specific criticisms about his handling of the war in Iraq and the economy. ‘I repeat, I'm not really paying attention to it,’ he said. Bush said he insulates himself from the ‘opinions’ that seep into news coverage by getting his news from his own aides. He said he scans headlines, but rarely reads news stories. ‘I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news,’ the president said. ‘And the best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.’” (9/23/2003)

… After attracting weekend headlines with criticism of GWB on Iraq policies, Teddy opens new anti-Bush initiative on clear air standards. From report – an excerpt – by Kay Lazar in yesterday’s Boston Herald: “Warning that mercury pollution from the nation's power plants is contaminating fish and seriously damaging public health, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy joined top lawmakers along Boston Harbor yesterday to blast President Bush's plans for clean air rules. ‘Seventy one percent of the coastlines and 82 percent of estuaries are polluted with fish that are too dangerous to eat,’ Kennedy (D-Mass.) said. ‘We will not stand for an administration that continues to weaken protections for our children.’  Bush is under attack by environmentalists, who accuse him of rolling back pollution control requirements at power plants and other industrial facilities under his ‘Clear Skies’ proposal. Coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The mercury settles into water, and health experts say mercury-contaminated fish can cause birth defects. ‘Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears less interested in protecting mothers and children from mercury poisoning, and more interested in protecting the polluters' bottom line,’ said Sen. Jim Jeffords (Ind.-Vt.), lead sponsor of a proposal to strengthen federal clean air rules. Jeffords is a ranking member of the Senate Environmental Committee, which begins hearings today on Bush's nominee, Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, to head the federal Environmental Protection Agency. On Friday, Gov. Mitt Romney announced new proposals to significantly reduce mercury emissions from four coal-fired power plants in Massachusetts.  However, Massachusetts and the rest of New England gets socked by pollution from Midwestern plants that blows in on prevailing winds.” (9/24/2003)

… “Poll Suggests Close Presidential Election” – headline from washingtonpost.com. Excerpt from AP report: “President Bush and the Democrats are closely matched among voters more than a year before the presidential election, says a bipartisan poll released Thursday. Voters like the president personally and favor his efforts on fighting terrorism while they view Democrats as stronger on the economy and other domestic issues, the survey found. The Battleground 2004 poll showed people were evenly divided on whether they thought Bush should be re-elected or it's time to give someone new a chance to be president. He had a slight lead in a head-to-head matchup with an unnamed Democrat. Just over half, 53 percent, said the country is on the wrong track, while 39 percent said it is headed in the right direction, according to the poll conducted by GOP pollster Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. Republican Goeas said Bush's overall position in the polls is fairly strong given the general pessimism about the country's direction. ‘You can't underestimate the depth of connection of this president to voters’ after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Goeas said, adding the job approval number and other measures don't reflect that connection. ‘The events of Sept. 11 were a defining moment.’ Lake said Democrats are able to challenge Bush on foreign policy now because of growing doubts about postwar Iraq. ‘You couldn't touch this a month ago,’ she said. Bush had a 54 percent job approval rating in the poll and two-thirds said they like him personally. In other findings:…Asked what will convince them the economy is improving, six in 10 said a drop in the unemployment rate…While Democrats were favored on the economy and health care, Bush had the upper hand on foreign policy and the campaign against terror. The poll of 1,000 registered voters who said they are likely to vote was taken Sept. 7-10 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.” (9/26/2003)

… “Biased coverage: Telegraph, Monitor slap Cheney” – Headline on editorial in yesterday’s The Union Leader. The editorial: “Liberal media bias reared its ugly head again yesterday, this time in the way two New Hampshire newspapers covered Vice President Dick Cheney’s fundraiser in Manchester. The headlines say it all. The Union Leader capped its story on the event with the accurate headline, ‘Cheney defends Bush’s policies, raises money.’ The [Nashua] Telegraph inaccurately titled its story, ‘Cheney draws more protest than support,’ while the Concord Monitor played Democratic press operative with its headline, ‘It’s all about the cash at Cheney fundraiser.’ The Telegraph reported that the protesters outside Cheney’s downtown Manchester event outnumbered the vice president’s supporters inside.  The Monitor counted ‘about 150’ Cheney supporters at the event, with ‘several dozen’ protesters outside. Our reporter estimated roughly 150 Cheney supporters and about 100 protesters. The Associated Press also counted ‘about 150 Republicans.’ The Telegraph’s claim that there were ‘fewer than 90 supporters inside and roughly twice as many protesters across Elm Street outside’ is contradicted by the reports of three other journalists. Furthermore, the protesters were rounded up by labor unions, the Democratic Party, and left-wing activist groups. It is disingenuous to suggest, as The Telegraph did, that more people in New Hampshire oppose the vice president than support him.  The Monitor headline stating that Cheney’s event was ‘all about the cash’ sounds as if it were lifted from the Democratic Party’s talking points. And it also isn’t true. The event was a fundraiser, but Cheney spoke passionately about the war on terror and the administration’s accomplishments. Fundraisers in which administration officials jet around the country to speak to friendly audiences are as much about generating press coverage and getting the administration’s message out as they are about raising money.  The next time John Kerry holds a fundraiser in New Hampshire, we eagerly await the Monitor’s headline, ‘Kerry fundraiser all about the money.’ Something tells us we’ll be waiting a long time.” (9/26/2003

… New York Times article written by Richard W. Stevenson and Adam Nagourney, “Bush ’04 Readying for One Democrat, Not 10”. Excerpts: “WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — President Bush's political advisers have set in motion an aggressive re-election machine, building a national network of get-out-the-vote workers and amassing a pile of cash for a blanket advertising campaign expected to begin around the time Democrats settle on their candidate early next year, party officials said. Mr. Bush's senior advisers, in interviews last week, repeatedly described the Democratic field as unusually weak and divided, providing an important if temporary cushion for Mr. Bush. Still, they said the recent sharp drop in the president's approval ratings, the continued loss of jobs in the economy and the problems plaguing the American occupation of Iraq only made the political outlook more uncertain in an election that they have long thought could be as tightly contested as the one in 2000. "We expect it to be a hard-fought, close election in a country narrowly divided," said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser. "When a Democratic nominee is finally selected, our expectation is that it could be a close and hard-fought race." The decision to delay the start of advertising until about the time the Democrats settle on a nominee is a rejection of what had been a central element of President Bill Clinton's re-election campaign. Mr. Clinton began advertising 16 months before Election Day, in an effort to define the election before the Republicans chose an opponent. Republicans said that would be a waste of money, given the battle taking place among the Democrats. Instead, aides to Mr. Bush said, their campaign would begin spending when a Democratic nominee starts to emerge from the primary battle, probably battered and very likely almost broke. In what Republicans said was a pre-emptive effort to nullify Democratic attacks that are likely to gain more attention in the weeks ahead, Mr. Bush's political operation, using elected officials and party leaders, has begun to try to cast the Democratic candidates as excessively negative in their attacks on a personally popular president. The headline on a Republican National Committee statement attacking the Democratic presidential debate of last Thursday night read: "Democrats So Desperate to Attack President Bush, They Will Say Just About Anything!" As Senator George Allen of Virginia, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, put it in an interview: "The president is focused on doing his job, and the Democrats can focus on having their debates and who can be the most shrill." "Each of them has relative strengths and weaknesses, but happily for us, in each case the relative weaknesses outweigh the relative strengths," said Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. "They're all Howard Dean now. They have adopted harsh, bitter, personal attacks as their approach. They are a party of protest and pessimism and offer no positive agenda of their own."  (9/30/2003)

… OnPolitics is carrying an online article written by Sharon Theimer of the Associated Press headlined, “Bush Expected to Raise $50M in Third Quarter…Democratic Candidates Holding Last-Minute Fundraisers”. Excerpts: “After less than five months of fund raising, President Bush is roughly halfway to his goal of raising $150 million to $170 million for his re-election campaign. The Bush campaign expects to raise around $48 million to $50 million when the current fund-raising quarter ends at midnight Tuesday, spokesman Scott Stanzel said. That would lift Bush's total to more than $80 million since he entered the 2004 race in mid-May. Bush had fund-raisers scheduled in Chicago and Cincinnati on Tuesday. Many of the 10 Democratic hopefuls also were making last-minute efforts to achieve the highest third-quarter money total they could. … Bush raised a record of more than $100 million for the 2000 primaries, when the donation limit was $1,000 per person. Under a new campaign finance law, the limit has doubled to $2,000. While the Bush campaign said its goal for next year's primary season is $150 million to $170 million, Bush is widely expected to raise $200 million or more. Because he has no primary opponent, he can save much of his money to spend against the Democratic nominee-to-be next summer. Dean said last week that is one of the reasons he is considering opting out of public financing for the primaries, as Bush has. Most of the Democrats have committed to accepting public primary money and the $45 million spending limit that comes with it. Kerry, too, may skip public financing. Kerry, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were expected to raise $4 million to $6 million for the third quarter. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was expected to raise under $4 million, along with Clark, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton. "We can't continue to do what we need to do without your continued assistance over the next 48 hours," Lieberman wrote in an e-mail solicitation Monday, urging online donors to help him raise $300,000 in the last two days of the quarter. (9/30/2003)