Bush approval dips below 40 percent

[MasterPiece Arms.com]

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?

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 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]

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!

 

[bogie]

Just remember - whatever you do, vote anyone but a conservative republican in the next election.

Sincerely,

Democratic Underground

 

[RealGun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Shiner Bock

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]

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.

 

[rick_reno]

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]

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

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

 

[Colt]

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]

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]

Thanks. We must have posted, or been composing our posts, simultaneaously.

 

[telewinz]

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.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

 

[junyo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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