Bush approval dips below 40 percent


PDA






rick_reno
October 12, 2005, 06:52 PM
"In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress..."

Amazing. Bush might have to start "doing President" - and not just his act of "being President". He continues to pave the road for Hillary.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/

WASHINGTON - It has been weeks since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast; since gas prices began spiking to record highs; and since Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, held her antiwar vigil outside President Bush’s Texas ranch. But, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the fortunes of the Bush administration and the Republican Party have not yet begun to recover.

For the first time in the poll, Bush’s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress, and just 29 percent think Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court.

"Any way you slice this data, I think these are just terrible sets of numbers," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

The poll shows that Bush’s approval rating stands at 39 percent, a new low for the president. In the last NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, which was released in mid-September, 40 percent approved of Bush’s job performance while 55 percent disapproved. In addition, just 28 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, another all-time low in Bush’s presidency.

Strikingly, much has happened in the time between those two polls — many of them seemingly positive events for the White House. The president delivered a prime-time speech from New Orleans, in which he promised to rebuild the Gulf Coast. He also made several more visits to the region, to examine the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Furthermore, he saw the Senate confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and he nominated Miers, his White House counsel, to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

‘Huge question mark’ on Miers
The Miers nomination, however, has disappointed some of the president’s conservative supporters, because they say she lacks judicial experience and a clear conservative record on social issues. According to the poll, 29 percent say she’s qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, while 24 percent think she’s unqualified. Forty-six percent say they don’t know enough about her.

"There is nothing to suggest that people have turned on her," Hart said. "But there is just a huge question mark behind her at this stage. She has to establish her own bona fides."

The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points and which was conducted from Oct. 8-10 of 807 adults, also finds that strong majorities don’t believe that the recent charges against GOP leaders Tom DeLay of Texas and Bill Frist of Tennessee are politically motivated. Sixty-five percent say that DeLay’s indictment on charges of illegally using corporate contributions for political campaigns suggests potential illegal activity, while 24 percent say the indictment is politics as usual and has little merit. (Since his indictment, DeLay stepped down from his leadership position but still plays a prominent role in the U.S. House of Representatives.)

Meanwhile, 57 percent say Frist’s sale of stock in a company his family runs — just before the value of the stock declined — indicates potential illegal activity, compared with 28 percent who say the charge has little merit.

48 percent want Democratic-controlled Congress
In addition, with 13 months until the 2006 congressional elections, 48 percent say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who want the Republicans to control Capitol Hill. In fact, that nine-point difference is the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC/Journal poll has been tracking this question.

But Hart argues that Democrats aren’t necessarily responsible for this margin. "It is not that Democrats have done so well," he said. "It is that people are disgusted." McInturff puts it this way: "People are very turned off and unhappy with the state of play in American politics."

People also seem to be turned off and unhappy with high gas prices. According to the survey, 69 percent believe the worst is still to come with energy and fuel prices. Just 25 percent think the worst is behind us.

Because of this generally sour attitude, the NBC/Journal pollsters doubt that Bush will be able to climb out of his standing anytime soon. "His trampoline [is] made of cement," Hart said.

And while McInturff thinks that Bush’s approval rating actually may actually hover between 40 and 45 percent, he says that’s still problematic terrain from which to govern. "It is a very difficult place to be."

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush approval dips below 40 percent" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
October 12, 2005, 06:57 PM
Yep. By the time he leaves office we'll be wondering how the hell he ever got elected in the first place.

Oh, yeah. Now I remember. The lesser of two evils.............

telewinz
October 12, 2005, 07:22 PM
Yep. By the time he leaves office we'll be wondering how the hell he ever got elected in the first place. I don't have to wait that long, I've regretted my choice since last summer and each new day seems to add to my list of reasons for regret. George has done more damage to the future of conservatism than any democrat. In 90 days George will have the lowest approval rating since they kept track. What a squandered opportunity, what a tragedy. :( Yep, the party of family values with Elmer Fudd at the helm. :rolleyes:

bountyhunter
October 12, 2005, 07:41 PM
This is a genuine source of fear: you saw Bush in the last five years, now imagine Bush with NOTHING to lose....... his approval ratings are so low they can't fall any lower (they are at core base value for GOP members).

For the first time in the poll, Bush’s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress, and just 29 percent think Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court.


God help us all.

RealGun
October 12, 2005, 08:23 PM
Nice going, rick_reno. This should make a great Bush bashing thread. :rolleyes:

rick_reno
October 12, 2005, 08:25 PM
Nice going, rick_reno. This should make a great Bush bashing thread.

Hey, I didn't write it. I'd like nothing better than to see Bush come around to what I believe are his conservative core values.

enfield
October 12, 2005, 08:39 PM
Wouldn't it be scary if GWB was actually RUNNING FOR OFFICE? Brrrrrr.

MechAg94
October 12, 2005, 08:41 PM
I certainly wish he hadn't done some of the things he had done, but I don't regret voting for him. All I have to do is hear Al Gore or John Kerry speak and I am reminded the absolutely horrible candidates the Dems put up there. I hear Dems lament how bad President Bush is, but I just laugh that they couldn't find anyone better.

On a historical note, Presidents often have poor approval ratings mid-term. It ain't the first time and he ain't the first one to have them.

telewinz
October 12, 2005, 08:56 PM
Presidents often have poor approval ratings mid-term. It ain't the first time and he ain't the first one to have them. True but can you accept that Bush may become less popular than Carter? A man is judged by the company he keeps.

AirForceShooter
October 12, 2005, 09:15 PM
If he really figures out he has nothing to lose he just might pull it out.

AFS

MechAg94
October 12, 2005, 10:05 PM
Actually, I think Carter was judged by the state of the economy under his leadership and his lackluster record with the Cold War. I have no idea what company he kept.

Bush is doing fine on the economy especially by comparrison to Carter. Bush was doing well with the War on Terror. We will have to wait and see how the next few years turn out for Iraq.

Lone_Gunman
October 12, 2005, 10:27 PM
Bush is doing fine on the economy

Wow. I am glad you think so, but I certainly don't.

The economy is in the process of going down the toilet. Interest Rates are increasing. The stock market is at a 6 month low. Oil prices are high, and we are about to enter the winter months where demand will be high.

Now Bush wants to also change the tax breaks involved with home ownership. I think that will make the problem worse, as there will be less incentive to buy a home. I think the real estate market will tank if his changes are made.

I don't see good times ahead. Cash will be king for the next few years.

Sindawe
October 12, 2005, 10:37 PM
The only difference I can see 'tween the current economy and that of the Carter years is that we don't have "stagflation" to worry about. Yet. But rising interest rates and general inflation are still factors present, and while I may be an odd case, I don't see the current economy as "Booming". I've not seen any salary increases in four+ years, a lot of the jobs I'm currently qualified/experinced for are now in India & the rest of the Pacific Rim.

AZRickD
October 12, 2005, 10:47 PM
I despise these generic "wrong direction" polls. They never publish who is saying what. Are the respondents asked what is the right direction? Oh, they want lower gas prices? Do they have a solution? Just one example -- how many of them know there hasn't been a refinery built since 1976? Do they know that The Church of Environmentalism has stopped new drilling?

Is Bush losing more from conservatives, centerists, non-aligned, core GOP?

Rick

Gary H
October 12, 2005, 11:02 PM
I regret having such poor choices for POTUS. Bush is hurting the Republican Party. Without borders, unlimited federal spending, vague "War on Terror and his inability to communicate to the American people (i.e.: promote a minor privatization of Social Security) Bush has moved this country in the wrong direction. I credit him for Tax Cuts, initial 9/11 response and the initial invasion of Iraq... follow-up was a disaster. He was better than Gore and Kerry, but his poor leadership has opened the door for Hillary.

The media promotes his reduced job approval as if this means that he should move left. I believe that the truth is that he would climb in the polls if he didn't allow terrorist to cross the Syrian and Iranian border by attacking them inside of these countries. He would climb with a reasonable U.S. border policy. His betrayal of the conservatives that put him in power has limited our "just trust him" approach to the black robes.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 12, 2005, 11:03 PM
EDITED FOR BREVITY:

Right now it's fashionable to be a pessimist. Bush's numbers reflect this. Eventually, people's perceptions will begin to realign themselves with reality that our country isn't actually going to hell in a handbasket.

fallingblock
October 12, 2005, 11:09 PM
"Right now it's fashionable to be a pessimist. Bush's numbers reflect this. Objectively, things are a lot better than most people think. Eventually, people's perceptions will begin to realign themselves with reality that our country is in fine shape. Bush's numbers will go back up."
**********************************************************

I'm pleased to have voted for "Dubya" both elections 'cause he is a far better choice for us than either Gore or Kerry would have been.

"Dubya's not perfect, but he's still far preferable than either of the other electable options. :D

I'd like to be a bit more convinced about Harriet Miers, though.

junyo
October 12, 2005, 11:09 PM
After my mother spanked me she wouldn't have won a whole lot of junyo-based opinion polls. Doesn't mean I didn't deserve the spanking or that it wasn't the right thing to do. One of the primary positives about Bush is that unlike the bend with the prevailing breeze, govern by opinion poll goobers that have been put up against him, he takes the long view and doesn't really care what people think. One of the primary problems in this country, IMHO, is that we have an obsession with quick fixes and window dressing over long term strategy and planning, popularity contests over historical prospective. If Bush achieves nothing but MidEastern democracy, and a reliable Supreme Court it'll make him one of the great presidents of the last century. Weekly/daily/hourly approval ratings are meaningless in that context.

telewinz
October 13, 2005, 03:26 AM
Right now it's fashionable to be a pessimist. Bush's numbers reflect this. Eventually, people's perceptions will begin to realign themselves with reality that our country isn't actually going to hell in a handbasket. If Bush achieves nothing but MidEastern democracy, and a reliable Supreme Court it'll make him one of the great presidents of the last century. :what:

Moparmike
October 13, 2005, 03:43 AM
I felt sick to my stomach when I filled in the little bubble with Bush's name next to it, and I feel sick now. Why oh why hadn't I voted for Badnarik, like my conscience told me to?

Oh wait, that whole "lesser of two evils" thing. I got suckered. :banghead:

junyo
October 13, 2005, 05:05 AM
I felt sick to my stomach when I filled in the little bubble with Bush's name next to it, and I feel sick now. Why oh why hadn't I voted for Badnarik, like my conscience told me to?

Oh wait, that whole "lesser of two evils" thing. I got suckered.Yeah, you'd feel so much better if Kerry were President, signing a new, improved AWB, giving the terrorists a handy date/time schedule of US departure from Iraq so they can lay low and garner their strength for a full scale civil war, and submitting the rest of US policy for EU approval. But at least Badnarik's vote total would've risen from "negligible" to "slightly more than negligible".

Badnarik was unelectable in anything but the Bizarro universe, yet he was the Lib nominee. Why? Because libertarians by and large don't care about actually solving any problem, it's about being right in theory, and reserving the right to whine. Losing is actually preferable, that way the libertarian idea is never actually exposed to a real world test that potentially invalidates their pet theory. You feel like a sucker? Welcome to the real world. Sometimes all the choices suck, and the optimum decision is least sucktacular.

So again, the real question is would you feel less like a sucker if Kerry were President? Because that's the only other realistic option. As much as people gripe over Bush's SCOTUS picks, what would President Kerry have done with them? There may very well be another vacancy before the end of this term, so this Presidency is probably setting the course of the court for at least the next 40 years. You really think a symbolic vote that gives that kind of power to the Great Waffler would really make you feel better? Regret is a wasted emotion.

telewinz
October 13, 2005, 05:15 AM
Yeah, you'd feel so much better if Kerry were President, signing a new, improved AWB, You mean our Republican Congress would have passed an AWB? That's bad news for the one issue voters. BTW; Bush is on record stating that HE would sign an AWB if it crossed his desk.

Delmar
October 13, 2005, 05:20 AM
How predictable was all of this?

The conservatives won't vote a Democrat in when a Republican is running because they think there might be some conservatives steering the boat.

The Liberals won't vote for a Republican for the same reasons.

GW comes along and advertises himself as milk toast dead in the center, and acts like it.

So, given the choices of left/right/middle and the capacity to pull off the election, GW gets the white house because he is in the center!

Now, the conservatives are mad because he is not conservative enough.
The liberals are mad because they think he is a conservative war-manger spend too much, even though their man Kerry said "he would do the same thing, only better", whatever that means.

Bush gets blamed for things which are his fault as well as things which are not. All this yelling about wanting someone in the middle turns out to be exactly what a lot of Americans DON'T want, and don't understand. I don't think the term "compassionate conservatism" has been defined-although it was much bandied about.

The President's America thinks of as real leaders were never "middle of the road". What we want is someone who is headed in a postive direction-might not agree with that direction sometimes, but we would like to be able to at least understand it.

I hear Strother Martin in my ears right now (Cool Hand Luke) saying, "What we have here, is failure to communicate!"

telewinz
October 13, 2005, 05:50 AM
Middle of the Road or not Bush's problems are a lack of leadership and his inability to do anymore than to react to problems. Most of his proactive initiatives have been a dismal failure (Iraq, Social Security) even with a Republican Congress! Elmer Fudd had better luck catching Bugs Bunny :D

Delmar
October 13, 2005, 05:53 AM
"Elmer Fudd had better luck catching Bugs Bunny"

That is most certainly NOT true. By the time Elmer had Bugs dead to rights, he had "no more buwwits" :D

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 13, 2005, 06:29 AM
It's easy to focus on the utterly shameless, partisan, cop out, nonsense statements of the bush apologists, such as:
If Bush achieves nothing but MidEastern democracy, and a reliable Supreme Court it'll make him one of the great presidents of the last century.
I'm pleased to have voted for "Dubya" both elections 'cause he is a far better choice for us than either Gore or Kerry would have been. Dubya's not perfect, but he's still far preferable than either of the other electable options.
Bush is doing fine on the economy... (from the land of the clueless wishful thinkers)
Nice going, rick_reno. This should make a great Bush bashing thread. (Why is it that pointing out facts gets labeled "bush bashing?" Oh, that's right, because the strategy is to make bush the "victim" so as to avoid the LISTS of facts. It's the same putrid garbage the klinton clones shoveled. Remember how they would defend klinton as if you were ganging up on their husband?)

...but I would like to point out how these apologists who have their partisan blinders on, are actually a tiny minority.

junyo, fallingblock, MechAg94, and RealGun are the only ones who are SO partisan (and have walked away from good principles of liberty, which allows them to support this man) that they care more about irrational loyalty than anything else.

I sincerely ask this group of super Bush loyalists, what would you have done if son of satan (i.e. son of daddy bush, AKA mr huge import ban) had signed the AW ban renewal like he wanted to? Hmmmm? :confused: :confused: :confused:

At some level, those of us (most of us I think) who understand the lists of bush betrayals and lies, who uderstand that the economic numbers from the government are manipulated and a sham, see that it comes down to is this:

JUST WHAT THE HELL ARE BUSHIE'S PRINCIPLES? So far (and it's doubtful that it will change) it is obvious that he only has ONE principle: to use people. He endlessly leeches the mindless support from his (thankfully dwindling) base. He uses those around him, who like him, are DEVOID of principles other than loyalty. All this evil man cares about is loyalty, and that is because it's awful hard to use people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE GOOD PRINCIPLES!!

I wish the bush apologists would start to notice that the anti bush crowd is PRINCIPLES BASED. It's not "bush bashing" at all. The bush apologist crowd is scared to death of a principles based discussion. Their whole mindset is EMOTION BASED. This takes the form of "anything goes patriotism as long as there is an (R) in front of his name." Proof that they are emotion based is how A. they constantly paint G.W. as a "victim" (they love to call you a "bush basher"), B. how freaking evasive and angry they get when you upset their little fantasy that they have built up. The "bush is doing fine on the enonomy" line is positively a new low for these people. SURE, things are great if you choose to avoid any specifics! They heavily manipulated inflation numbers that come out of this corrupt government make it even easier for these people to put on their rose colored :cool: glasses. Their conscience must give them fits every time they go to the gas pump. We should feel sorry for these bush apologists. It takes a lot of effort and is very exhausting to avoid reality. Keeping their fantasy going takes a LOT of mental gymnastics, especially when someone challenges their B.S.

telewinz
October 13, 2005, 06:42 AM
It's easy to focus on the utterly shameless, partisan, cop out, nonsense statements of the bush apologists Damn! Don't take that attitude on some pro-Bush forums, you will be banned/censured for sure. Toe the party line you, you, YOU Communist! :D

bogie
October 13, 2005, 08:16 AM
Just remember - whatever you do, vote anyone but a conservative republican in the next election.

Sincerely,

Democratic Underground

RealGun
October 13, 2005, 08:23 AM
Middle of the Road or not Bush's problems are a lack of leadership and his inability to do anymore than to react to problems. Most of his proactive initiatives have been a dismal failure (Iraq, Social Security) even with a Republican Congress! Elmer Fudd had better luck catching Bugs Bunny

- Bush is strong on leadership, good substance but short on form. The Presidency is not reality TV, but the criticism is just as petty and fashionably mean spirited.
- He is far more resolute than reactive. He has an agenda and sticks to it. Where there is a problem, he addresses it, especially if it gets in the way of his agenda, which would be meaningful and admirable things resulting from his Presidency, making a longer term contribution.
- His proactive initiatives, at least the ones you name, have not been "failures". It ain't over yet. The inevitable compromises may just prove to be of real merit. Congress will be cautious about changes that might get them voted out of office. Individual voters generally do not consider the grander picture and only support what affects their check in the mail. Tough decisions naturally draw criticism.

Lone_Gunman
October 13, 2005, 08:27 AM
Just remember - whatever you do, vote anyone but a conservative republican in the next election.

That will be easy to do, since there will not be one of the Republican ticket.

That quote sounds like something from Republican leadership, not the Democratic Underground.

Bush is strong on leadership, good substance but short on form.

I don't think so. He hasn't shown good leadership since the days immediately following 9-11. He stopped leading in Iraq months ago, and I am not sure he has any idea what he should do there now.

As far as "good substance" is concerned, this President signed Campaign Finance Reform and Medicare Reform, both of which are bad substance. Now he is proposing to use federal troops for law enforcement. He wants to disadvantage thousands of home owners by changing tax advantages to owning a home.

He does not even perceive illegal immigration to be a problem, and has shown no leadership in solving the problem. He has taken no leadership role in getting us weaned off foreign oil.

I voted for Bush twice. The first time I thought he would be a pretty good president. It was clear to me by 2004 that he was not, but I voted for him again as the lesser of two evils. I don't neceassarily regret that, as we would be worse off with Kerry. But its a damn shame when the best reason I can think of to vote for a President is that he is not John Kerry.

I predict that within the next few months Bush's ratings will fall to the all time low for any president. Even the neo-conservative lap dogs on Fox News are turning on him. Jimmy Carter must be happy as a clam to know that soon he will no longer be America's least favorite living ex-president.

c_yeager
October 13, 2005, 08:59 AM
I predict that conservative third parties will have their best showing ever in the next presidential ellection. This is going to be an exciting race between two people that will make us look fondly back on the days of GWB.

Augustwest
October 13, 2005, 09:29 AM
Badnarik was unelectable in anything but the Bizarro universe, yet he was the Lib nominee. Why? Because libertarians by and large don't care about actually solving any problem, it's about being right in theory, and reserving the right to whine. Losing is actually preferable, that way the libertarian idea is never actually exposed to a real world test that potentially invalidates their pet theory. You feel like a sucker? Welcome to the real world. Sometimes all the choices suck, and the optimum decision is least sucktacular.

A couple of rock-solid truisms, which some folks can't seem to see:

1. The lesser of two evils is....evil.

2. If nothing changes, nothing changes.

Calling evil "sucktacular" may be a cute way of making voting for either of the major parties' candidates a little more palatable.

But bad is bad.

Socialism is socialism.

Signing every bill that comes across your desk is signing every bill that comes across your desk.

It's a travesty that Clarence Thomas isn't Chief Justice oif the USSC right now.

Decreasing revenues and increasing spending is a recipe for economic disaster, whether it's at the level of government, or in the private sector.

I could go on, but I won't. It just amazes me that anyone still comes to Bush's defense.

And yeah, I voted for Badnarik. It was either that or not vote at all.

RealGun
October 13, 2005, 09:54 AM
As far as "good substance" is concerned, this President signed Campaign Finance Reform and Medicare Reform, both of which are bad substance. Now he is proposing to use federal troops for law enforcement. He wants to disadvantage thousands of home owners by changing tax advantages to owning a home.

Those two reforms are good in principle. There are issues with the details. Campaign Finance Reform addresses unfair advantages in elections. That is a good thing. The details may be issues but the concept is sound. Reforming Medicare to reduce abuses is wrong in what way?

So far, no one has a better idea, entirely practical, than using the organization, deployment, hardware, and logistical capabilities of the military. Bush is putting the concept out there for consideration. It is a catalyst for someone to have a better idea, still getting the job done when needed while not dupliciating the expense of maintaining capability.

Home owner tax deductions are not an entitlement, not sacred, not the American way. If home ownership does not need to be stimulated, the tax deduction comes under scrutiny. Other than a couple loopholes for not paying tax on profits from a sale of a home, I'm not sure what tax breaks you are referring to. Interest paid on a mortgage is going to be deductable. Got any details?

He does not even perceive illegal immigration to be a problem, and has shown no leadership in solving the problem.

Not true. The problem is that he is not comfortable in dealing with the problem harshly and simplistically. Compassion matters to him. Additional border patrol personnel will get approved. Bush's real issue is dealing with people who are already here, preferring to treat them as people, not cockroaches.

He has taken no leadership role in getting us weaned off foreign oil.

Yet he will soon be signing legislation to encourage building of new oil refineries. The debate is in Congress. Other than budget proposals, I think he wisely let's Congress work the details and do all the debating. If you look closer, I think you will find that the Greens are controlling the issue. It is naturally difficult to produce oil and natural gas without ignoring environmental issues. Initiatives to cut back usage have either already occurred or are currently in process as a response to recent price increase concerns and the heightened awareness of the problem after losing the production capacity in the Gulf of Mexico due to hurricanes. Part of the problem is of course political, because people want to drive what they prefer, never mind gluttoness fuel consumption. If you really wanted to address dependence on foreign oil, you would come down hard on consumption. Instead of reacting to complaints about high fuel prices, you would substantially tax excess consumption, i.e. ownership of certain types of overkill vehicles which are more than essential transportation, indeed luxuries.

Major Beer
October 13, 2005, 10:28 AM
Why oh why hadn't I voted for Badnarik, like my conscience told me to?

i hear ya man - Kerry made me do it (vote for W).

honestly we need to remove some career politicians from the House and Senate - IMHO that is where the problem lies as the President is a transient official.

beaucoup ammo
October 13, 2005, 01:36 PM
High approval ratings there for sure! As for 'Dubya: a Good 'Ol Boy..have met him several times..just in the wrong place at the wrong time! A great White Wing hunting parder..but a Right Wing political pardner he ain't. The ones who voted for him aren't getting what they paid for.

It is just beginning to hit the fan.

Take Care

R.H. Lee
October 13, 2005, 01:48 PM
Instead of reacting to complaints about high fuel prices, you would substantially tax excess consumption, i.e. ownership of certain types of overkill vehicles which are more than essential transportation, indeed luxuries.
Why stop there? Why not just outlaw the production of 'overkill vehicles which are more than essential transportation, indeed luxuries'? I mean, you're still going to have the 'excess consumption' by those willing to pay the tax, right? And if you're after 'excess consumption' why not go directly to the root cause?

A Bush supporter proposing tax increases. That says it all. :rolleyes:

rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 02:12 PM
Bush isn't doing too bad, he's still ahead of the last 7 at their lows.

Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents -

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

RealGun
October 13, 2005, 02:16 PM
A Bush supporter proposing tax increases. That says it all.

What "says it all" is having a better idea.

Colt
October 13, 2005, 02:24 PM
Rush talked about this today.

Here's a little present for all the Bush-bashers in this forum:

Bush's current (lowest) approval rating is higher than all of the past 7 presidents' lowest approval ratings.

It is 5 points higher than Clinton's lowest. (35)
It is 13 points higher than Carter's lowest. (28)
It is even higher than Reagan's (I don't recall his number)

While I'm sure the Bush-bashers would love to believe he is the "least popular president ever," the fact of the matter is he is in fact the least unpopular of the past 7 we've had.

rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 02:38 PM
It is even higher than Reagan's (I don't recall his number)

Reagan was at 35%. The numbers for the last 7 were posted a couple of posts above your reply.

Colt
October 13, 2005, 02:39 PM
Thanks. We must have posted, or been composing our posts, simultaneaously.

telewinz
October 13, 2005, 04:30 PM
Just remember - whatever you do, vote anyone but a conservative republican in the next election. Plan B, elect Jeb Bush. It's a family malaise. :neener:

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 13, 2005, 05:50 PM
Bush is strong on leadership, good substance but short on form.


I don't think so. He hasn't shown good leadership since the days immediately following 9-11. He stopped leading in Iraq months ago, and I am not sure he has any idea what he should do there now.

One thing Bush has repeatedly demonstrated is that he'll do what he thinks is right, even if that isn't popular or convenient. That's the very definition of moral courage, something few Presidents have possessed.

That's also one of the primary reason his numbers are low.

He HAS stopped leading in Iraq. That's by design. The Iraqis are now pulling most of the weight in Iraq. Iraqi politicians are now managing most of the local government. Iraqi army and police have secured the bulk of the country, and they're pulling a lot of the weight in those areas that still see fighting.

My friends in the military currently in Iraq tell me that the Iraqi police and army can largely hold its own now. They lack equipment, but they have plenty of courage and strong will to win. They're quickly gaining the needed experience. They say it won't be long until our military isn't needed in Iraq any longer.

I also know two professors who went to Iraq as contract workers (engineers). They provide a civilian perspective: Daily life in Iraq is peaceful and productive. Schools, stores, offices, and factories are open. The infrastructure is working well (except when the insurgents try to sabotage it). Iraqis are honest, intelligent, hardworking people. They love their children and hate the insurgents. This was a real surprise to them, given the way the American media has consistently described Iraq as a sort of thrid world hellhole.

When was the last time you heard about Mosul or Falujah in the news? The odds are good that, come Sunday, Iraq will have a new constitution. It won't be long until even the leftist media can no longer ignore the signs of success in Iraq.

But hey, I'm just a Bush apologist, brainwashed by Karl Rove. Everyone knows that Iraq is a miserable failure.:rolleyes:

junyo
October 13, 2005, 06:29 PM
junyo, fallingblock, MechAg94, and RealGun are the only ones who are SO partisan (and have walked away from good principles of liberty, which allows them to support this man) that they care more about irrational loyalty than anything else. Catch a clue. The right of self determination is universal and inherent, yet the Democrats, Libertarians, and xenophobe conservatives would've gladly left millions of people under the boot heel of a murderous dictator and excepted the conventional wisdom that Arabs are incapable of democracy and need a tyrant over them. You among them apparently. Were it not for Bush, the millions of people now participating in their government, determining their future, writing their Constitutions that makes their governments responsible to the people would not have happened. And you have the gall to accuse me of walking away from the "principles of liberty"; I dare say you don't begin to understand what those principles are. You claim to have oppose Bush on principles but they're nowhere in evidence; your entire diatribe is ad hominems and insults. The facts speak for themselves. Despite his shortcoming, Bush has delivered liberty to more people than any American president since Reagan brought down the Communists. Tell me how a so-called lover of liberty and freedom fails to fathom that, fails to appreciate that the spread of freedom and self determination is not just a good thing but the penultimate goal of legitimate government. Instead we're hearing about the economy and tax cuts, selfish quibbles that are truly irrelevant in the larger scheme.
The lesser of two evils is....evil. Great bumpersticker, asinine logic. The statement only has meaning in a completely binary world. In a world where there are multiple dimensions to problems (i.e. "the real world")the lesser of two evils is... less evil. Given a choice, 'less evil' is generally preferable to 'as evil' or 'more evil', especially if 'not evil' can't reasonably be achieved. Calling "evil" sucktacular is a cute way of actually influencing the process as opposed to wasting gas just so I can waste my vote and then bitching about it for 4 years.

bountyhunter
October 13, 2005, 06:59 PM
One thing Bush has repeatedly demonstrated is that he'll do what he thinks is right, even if that isn't popular or convenient. That's the very definition of moral courage, something few Presidents have possessed.He has also repeatedly vocalized the belief that God has directly commanded him to take specific actions. He has that ardent belief in common with about 99% of the people currently receiving "assistance" in mental hospitals.

The fact is you are ascribing specific traits based on behavior which could be (and may well be) due to other reasons: Bush came to the oval office looking to put Saddam's head on a pike. Period. It is a TOTAL coincidence that saddam was the man responsible for his father receiving the most lopsided loss in decades for his attempted second term, and even tried an ill-conceived plot to try to kill him.

Sure..... the war was ordered by God....... OK, but MAYBE there was a little more to it than "moral courage". Sounds more like an old-fashioned Texas ass-whuppin' on somebody who tweaked his daddy.

R.H. Lee
October 13, 2005, 07:01 PM
yet the Democrats, Libertarians, and xenophobe conservatives would've gladly left millions of people under the boot heel of a murderous dictator and excepted the conventional wisdom that Arabs are incapable of democracy and need a tyrant over them. You among them apparently. Were it not for Bush, the millions of people now participating in their government, determining their future, writing their Constitutions that makes their governments responsible to the people would not have happened. I thought it was about the 'War on Terror' or some other compelling U.S. interest that justifies the sacrifice of American lives. Now it's about democratization et yada. There are plenty more murderous dictators in the world. How about freeing all the people under their boot heels? Why are the Iraqis special?
But hey, I'm just a Bush apologist, brainwashed by Karl Rove. Everyone knows that Iraq is a miserable failure. Hey, you said it, HTG. What's the KoolAid flavor this week?

rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 07:07 PM
Why are the Iraqis special?

Could be oil, but I doubt it. I think it's because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy.
They can wrap it up in whatever goodness they want, but I can't identify anything else that would have led us down this road. Note - I'm not objecting to the road we're on, I think it's a grand plan.

Art Eatman
October 13, 2005, 07:15 PM
This type of stuff belongs over at APS. A very few folks have "sorta" touched on some civil rights issues, but the thread as a whole just isn't THR's bailywick.

Ya wanna talk about Bush? One specific subject per individual thread, please, as long as it's a THR-related deal.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush approval dips below 40 percent" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!