Of all the things Bush might be blamed for, it appears that the price of gasoline is what's principally fueling (sorry) his low poll numbers. There is a rich irony here, because of all the things he should be blamed for, the price of oil is near the bottom of the list. Neglect and saber-rattling may have destablized the prices beyond where they would be under a competent president, but really, gas prices are a global phenomenon.
The irony is that he should be at 33% in the polls, whether it's for the price of gas or (select one or more): Iraq, the Social Security blunder, Harriet Myers, the Medicare doughnut hole, Dubai ports, immigration, tax cuts for the wealthy, deficits, Katrina, Terri Schiavo, etc. That people have selected the one emergent debacle for which he's less directly responsible is just, to me, the maraschino cherry on his just desserts.
To date, the public is dissatisfied with the Bush administration's approach to solving the problem. In the Post-ABC survey, just 23 percent approved of the job the White House was doing on the "situation with gasoline prices," while 74 percent disapproved.
The CNN poll showed just 24 percent agreeing with the statement that Bush was "doing enough to solve the country's energy problems," while 71 percent said he was not doing enough.
Bush managed to fool enough of the people for enough of the time to get himself re-elected in 2004. If the election happened now, only 40 million Americans would vote for him. Twenty-two million are now disillusioned (in addition to the 59 million who were already disillusioned), and not by false news. Many righties are howling that Bush shouldn't be blamed for the price of gas--or police brutality, or the weather in Topeka. But that argument is only useful so long as he is being blamed for those disasters he created (you don't see the same righties demanding fairness about that).
So I say go ahead, blame Bush. He's got it coming.