Republicans=Bush?

National Democrats made no secret of their glee at the willingness of Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions -- the heads of the two Republican campaign committees -- to defend the economic policies of George W. Bush during an appearances on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"The men in charge of Republican campaigns made it crystal clear what Republican candidates plan to do if elected -- take us backward," trumpeted Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine in a release this morning.

Before the celebration gets under way in earnest, however, new data from a national poll commissioned by Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, shows that the public doesn't regard Republicans in Congress as synonymous with the former president. (The Benenson Strategy Group, a Democratic polling firm favored by the White House, conducted the survey.)

Just one in four people said that if Republicans took back control of the House it would mark a "return to George W. Bush's economic policies," while 65 percent said that Republicans would pursue a "new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies."

That data point suggests that Congressional Republicans have -- whether intentionally or accidentally -- decoupled themselves from the unpopular former president over the past 18 months or so.

The work of the next four months (or so) for Democrats is to remind people of that link -- that the vast majority of Republicans in Congress were in office when Bush was president and played a not-insignificant role in passing his agenda.

The data in the Third Way poll suggest that if Democrats can (re)hang Bush around the neck of Republicans, it could greatly improve their chances of minimizing losses this fall.

Almost half (49 percent) of respondents said they would prefer a candidate who would "stick with" President Obama's economic policies, while 34 percent said they would opt for a candidate who aligned with Bush's economic policies.

But, if Bush -- literally his name -- is taken out of the equation, the voting dynamic changes, as it becomes clear that there is not a large reservoir of support for Obama's approach to the economy.

A majority -- 51 percent -- say they would prefer a candidate who believed Obama's economic plan is not working and "we need new economic policies that will shrink government, cut taxes on investment and support business growth," while 42 percent said they would rather support a candidate who believed Obama had a plan for the economy and that we need to give it time to work.

In some ways, the findings are ho-hum. After all, it's no secret that Republicans want to make the election a referendum on Obama, while Democrats want to make the midterms a choice between what Obama has done and what the GOP will do/has done.

But the disconnect in most Americans' minds between the economic approach of Bush, which they detest, and that of Congressional Republicans, which they remain undecided about, is critically important to understanding the task before Democrats over the next 106 days.

The American public has a very short memory (See Spitzer, Elliot or Albert, Marv) and it's clear that they don't view this Republican party as George W. Bush's Republican party.

That's not to say Democrats can't -- or won't try -- to remind them. But it's a helpful reminder that Bush's numbers should not be regarded as a stand-in for Republicans more generally. And that, of course, is a very good thing for anyone running with an "R" after their name this fall.

