Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[wvrevy]

Removed the Taliban from Afganistan

Umm...you might want to pick up a newspaper. They're Baa-aackk.

Caught Siddam Hussen

And it only cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and a couple thousand (and counting) American troops. Hardly an "unmitigated success".

Created 2,000,000 jobs

Again, this is debatable. See a site such as http://www.jobwatch.org/ for examples.

Got more votes than anyother president in history, more than Clinton could dream of

Which goes to show that Twain was right.

Yes, Carter did not let a city fall off the map, but he did let unemployment and inflation get to double digits, letting the jobs base of the middle of the country fall off the map. Didn't the accident at 3 Mile Island happen during Carters presidency? He was in the Nuclear Navy and he new the risks of nuclear power and he should have know it was a risk and done something to make the people around the plant safer.

I seem to remember people hating Regan and saying what a disaster he was, how he was provoking the Soviets and bringing us closer to nuclear holocost and not making us safer.

And that was largely because we were all convinced - by previous administrations, Carter's included - that the Soviets would never "go under" without a fight. I'm not sure it was the smartest decision to push them over the brink without knowing the answer to that question, but it turned out that we got lucky. Yes, Reagan gets credit for some of that. But basically all he really did was spend them into bankruptcy. Effective, but hardly diplomatic genius.

Besides, I don't recall having claimed that Carter was anything like a huge success. I just don't think he was anywhere near the disaster that the current moron is.

 

[DisneyDotty]

You think the President's ratings are low now?
Just wait til we invade Iran...

 

[tworkit]

You think the President's ratings are low now?
Just wait til we invade Iran...

 

[CapeCodTenor]

You think the President's ratings are low now?
Just wait til we invade Iran...

Who says we're going to invade Iran? Do you have an insite into this administration that the rest of us don't?

 

[FreshTressa]

I hate party lines....I hate that fiscally conservate has to equal socially conservative.

Bush only got elected because he is socially conservative, not because he knows anything about good foreign policy or ways to handle the economy. So, he is a republican, but still not economically conservative.

Then there was Clinton, who was socially liberal, and fiscally fairly conservative.

Neither one aligns themselves all the way with their party.

I label myself a conservative...but that is just economically. I'm socially liberal...so I'm more along the lines of clinton, even though I'm technically a Jefferson conservative (read, Libertarian). Make any sense?

 

[dcentity2000]

You really got to find a new mantra. Even Saddam's generals were sure he had WMD's.

You mean the invisible ones?



Rich::

 

[Planogirl]

I hate party lines....I hate that fiscally conservate has to equal socially conservative.

Bush only got elected because he is socially conservative, not because he knows anything about good foreign policy or ways to handle the economy. So, he is a republican, but still not economically conservative.

Then there was Clinton, who was socially liberal, and fiscally fairly conservative.

Neither one aligns themselves all the way with their party.

I label myself a conservative...but that is just economically. I'm socially liberal...so I'm more along the lines of clinton, even though I'm technically a Jefferson conservative (read, Libertarian). Make any sense?

This makes a lot of sense and shows that you actually think about your beliefs. Many of those who blindly follow Bush certainly can't make that claim.

 

[Mom2be]

Again, the operative word is "reality". Were you that disturbed when Clinton employed Echelon to eaves drop on everybody and not just terrorists?

Courtesy of Joe:

Sex with one's wife is not fornication. And the old "everyone did it" defense

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not care what former Presidents did or did not do illegal wire tapping. What I care about is the NOW - and to stop this abuse of power.

~Amanda

 

[wvrevy]

I hate party lines....I hate that fiscally conservate has to equal socially conservative.

Bush only got elected because he is socially conservative, not because he knows anything about good foreign policy or ways to handle the economy. So, he is a republican, but still not economically conservative.

Then there was Clinton, who was socially liberal, and fiscally fairly conservative.

Neither one aligns themselves all the way with their party.

I label myself a conservative...but that is just economically. I'm socially liberal...so I'm more along the lines of clinton, even though I'm technically a Jefferson conservative (read, Libertarian). Make any sense?

Everyone else may move along...nothing to see here.

(Psst....Hey Tressa...Don't tell anyone, but I'm actually a lot closer to you in terms of fiscal conservatism than I am to the old "tax and spend" democrats. Yes, I do fall FAR on the left on social issues - little things like equal rights and such - but I'm much more moderate in terms of government spending. Just do me a favor and don't tell anyone...Don't want to lose my liberal street cred )

 

[FergieTCat]

Please post the link to your sources that shows Clinton's approval ratings were 37% at one point. I looked at www.pollingplace.com, and I don't see when his ratings dropped below 50% (including the period of the impeachment proceedings).

36% is doing well?

Considering that Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were at 35% at one point, Clinton's at 37%, I say, "so what"? Considering the fact that he takes an undeserved and unprecedented pounding from the press on an hourly basis, I think he is doing well at 36%. He doesn't care about polls, he cares about the American people.

 

[AuntieM03]

I'm a republican/libertarian sort and I don't approve!

It is not him necessarily that I disapprove of, but his administration. They spend too much and don't understand global development issues.

It was naive to think democracy would be the cure to Iraq's ails.

I enjoy reading political debates, but not getting involved. However I had to say that is the cutest puppy I have ever seen in your sig.

 

[DisneyBaby!]

I guess the point is the PEOPLE will be AGAINST things that are morally correct, or INFAVOR of things that are morally wrong and we now consider repugnent or what looked like at the time to be the wrong thing, like give the women the right to vote, the Cival Rights Act, Integration of the schools, appeasing the confederacy or the Nazis, I could go on. The sign of a true leader is one who does what they know to be the right thing and not concern themselves with public opinion. If Truman dropped the bomb today, people would be calling him a war criminal and want to impeach him, but under the circumstances he knew at the time, he made a difficult decision that will be debated for years. People argue that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so we would have justification to get into the war where hundreds of thousands of Americans died, or that Kennedy cooked the books to get us into Vietnam, where tens of thousands of Americans died. If the whole world tells someone to stop, and they never back it up with action or the conseqences are so corrupt they mean nothing, it makes the situation worse. Then somebody with a big brass set comes along and backs the words up with action, they are the one wrong.

And Please, do not act like the Iraq is some innocent pacifist with the big imperielist attacking them without provocation. Is the ONE reason ANY war begins? Do people really think Sadam Hussien was a good guy?

 

[Fantasysurfingboy]

Bush Is A Great President I Like Him Alot Cause We Are From The Same State Texas. And Bush Cant Be Relected because He Has Been In The Office For To Times.

 

[tworkit]

Please post the link to your sources that shows Clinton's approval ratings were 37% at one point. I looked at www.pollingplace.com, and I don't see when his ratings dropped below 50% (including the period of the impeachment proceedings).

36% is doing well?

June 2003 approval was at 37%. Google it and you'll see many sources backing it up.

 

[LoraJ]

June 2003 approval was at 37%. Google it and you'll see many sources backing it up.

June 2003? For Clinton?

 

[Mugg Mann]

June 2003 approval was at 37%. Google it and you'll see many sources backing it up.

George Bush was sworn in as President in January, 2001. Needless to say, I had a great deal of trouble finding even one source in Google giving Bill Clinton any sort of presidential approval rating for a period of time when he did not hold office.

 

[What the Heck]

Carter didn't let an entire US city drop off the map. Bush has him beat on virtually every front.

Sorry, but this wasn't Bush. This was the responsibility of the Governor and the Mayor - or are you arguing that Bush should have Dictatorial powers? Are you arguing that we should scrap the Constitution completely? The National Guard didn't get there sooner because they were waiting for orders from their CIC - the Governor, not the President. They were not, and should not ever be in such a situation, federalized.

If you are arguing that the levy should have been made stronger by this President, you have a point, however the blame also goes to the State representatives (again, including the Governor) who should have pushed harder.

And, no, Carter doesn't have him beat on every front. Carter is still the only President to have a US embassy taken over. And, yes, it was his fault - directly. We had the means to defend ourselves in that situation, but not the will from the President.

You know, even with all of the debating I have done in this thread, I'm one of the 74%. I blame the Democrats. Why couldn't they come up with a better candidate in 2000 instead of someone who couldn't even win his own state? If Gore had carried Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered. And Kerry? He didn't understand the international issues, especially in relation to Asia. What he wanted to do scared the heck out of me - I could easily see it leading to another Korean conflict with a fully nuclear armed North Korea - with China still on their side.

I'm not sure that I agree that Bush is a disaster, but if he is, he's one that has been created by both sides.

 

[Viking]

June 2003 approval was at 37%. Google it and you'll see many sources backing it up.

I guess he was about 3 points behind John F. Kennedy then in 2003

 

[tworkit]

George Bush was sworn in as President in January, 2001. Needless to say, I had a great deal of trouble finding even one source in Google giving Bill Clinton any sort of presidential approval rating for a period of time when he did not hold office.

1993, my apologies!

 

[Viking]

I'm not sure that I agree that Bush is a disaster, but if he is, he's one that has been created by both sides.

You're forgetting the third side: The huge number of non-voters, who don't give a s**t about who wins elections.