Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[Mugg Mann]

1993, my apologies!

lol...no problem!

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton had held office for less than five months and saw his approval ratings rise as time went on. George Bush has done the opposite....as time has gone on, he has seen his approval rating continuously shrink.

It might be a more valid comparison to measure the approval ratings of both presidents after they had spent the same amount of time in office.

 

[FergieTCat]

It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

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.

 

[Laura]

lol...no problem!

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton had held office for less than five months and saw his approval ratings rise as time went on. George Bush has done the opposite....as time has gone on, he has seen his approval rating continuously shrink.

It might be a more valid comparison to measure the approval ratings of both presidents after they had spent the same amount of time in office.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60%, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-10-bush-poll_x.htm?csp=34

 

[wvrevy]

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.

1 - Gee, I'm shocked that you would blame the democrats.

2 - What could Kerry have done? Something stupid like selling our ports to an Arab government with ties to terrorism?

3 - We're still dealing with a possibly nuclear North Korea...and Iran...and helping India to get nuclear arms without bothering to sign on to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty...which we want to get out of, anyway.

I agree with this much: Kerry was the wrong candidate. The dems did would Dems continue to do: try to play politics. The simple fact is that the Republicans are better at it than we are at the upper levels. Just look at the "censure" debate on capitol hill as we speak. Only a very few Dems - lead by Russ Feingold, who I will probably be campaigning for should he decide to run in 2008 - have the guts to stand up and flat-out say that Bush is in the wrong. Heck, even on the IRAQ issue - with the public support at an all-time low - the Dems won't make a stand.

So yes, Kerry was the wrong candidate. He was nominated largely on his "electability" factor, and the right wing propoganda machine managed to take care of that for a voting publiic too ignorant to know better. But could Kerry have possibly screwed things up any worse than Bush has? That's obviously open for speculation, but I just don't see how it would be possible. Kerry may not have been ideal, but he wasn't a complete incompetant. Bush, put simply, is.

 

[LuvDuke]

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.

Oh geez, the "stop me before I kill again" defense.

Let me see if I get this: You voted for George Bush, but you aren't responsible for that vote. Democrats are responsible for that vote because they didn't give you someone who could make you reject Bush. Apparently, the phony reasons for going to war in Iraq, no WMD's, the sky high deficits, etc. weren't' enough. So you voted for Bush.

Just when you think you've seen everything, this gem comes along. You truly can't make this stuff up.

Newsflash: you're the one responsible for your vote, not someone else. You made the decision. Now live with its consequences.

 

[LuvDuke]

1 - Gee, I'm shocked that you would blame the democrats.

2 - What could Kerry have done? Something stupid like selling our ports to an Arab government with ties to terrorism?

3 - We're still dealing with a possibly nuclear North Korea...and Iran...and helping India to get nuclear arms without bothering to sign on to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty...which we want to get out of, anyway.

I agree with this much: Kerry was the wrong candidate. The dems did would Dems continue to do: try to play politics. The simple fact is that the Republicans are better at it than we are at the upper levels. Just look at the "censure" debate on capitol hill as we speak. Only a very few Dems - lead by Russ Feingold, who I will probably be campaigning for should he decide to run in 2008 - have the guts to stand up and flat-out say that Bush is in the wrong. Heck, even on the IRAQ issue - with the public support at an all-time low - the Dems won't make a stand.

So yes, Kerry was the wrong candidate. He was nominated largely on his "electability" factor, and the right wing propoganda machine managed to take care of that for a voting publiic too ignorant to know better. But could Kerry have possibly screwed things up any worse than Bush has? That's obviously open for speculation, but I just don't see how it would be possible. Kerry may not have been ideal, but he wasn't a complete incompetant. Bush, put simply, is.

C'mon, Bush isn't a complete and utter failure when it comes to horsetrading with India. They got nukes and we got ........... drumroll, please...........mangoes.

Nukes for fruits..........kinda catchy.

 

[Teejay32]

It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

hey, they had emergency management in Jefferson Parish?

This is the same guy:

Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-B... kiss your *** goodbye... because anybody who was here as that category five storm came across... was gone.

 

[LuvDuke]

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.

So, ahhh, what would you suggest these State representatives do? Hold a gun to Bush's head? Maybe send him hunting with Cheney?

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[JoiseyMom]

Nah, there's precedence against that... Carter was allowed to serve out his term, after all.

Hate to disappoint...but Jimmy Carter's problem was not incompetence.... Carter was probably the most honest and honorable man ever to be our President. Comparing Bush to Carter is like comparing Spongebob to Albert Einstein.

 

[FergieTCat]

I figure if I'm going to join this debate, I'll just stick to quoting the facts as reported by mainstream media.

And they never said they had effective emergency management.

hey, they had emergency management in Jefferson Parish?

This is the same guy:

*snork*

Hate to disappoint...but Jimmy Carter's problem was not incompetence.... Carter was probably the most honest and honorable man ever to be our President. Comparing Bush to Carter is like comparing Spongebob to Albert Einstein.

 

[dcentity2000]

Internet.

Serious business.



Rich::

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Hate to disappoint...but Jimmy Carter's problem was not incompetence.... Carter was probably the most honest and honorable man ever to be our President. Comparing Bush to Carter is like comparing Spongebob to Albert Einstein.

Comparing Bush to Carter is like comparing a Commander-in-Chief to a tennis court manager.

And what in the world was so brilliant about Carter as President? (Albert Einstein, indeed )

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

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?

Excellent points.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

He only cares about the American people with over a million dollars in hand and those that line his party's pockets. He doesn't give a rat's behind about you and I.

And this is based on ???

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Well then Clinton should've been impeached!

Oops, my bad, the Republicans tried that.

And you supported the impeachment process? Good for you if you did.

 

[Charade]

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.

The problem is that many Bush supporters are painted with the "blindly follows" brush. And it's a big one. Do you have any proof that they blindly follow? Or is that just speculation?

 

[LuvDuke]

And you supported the impeachment process? Good for you if you did.

Excuse me, but what ever gave you the idea I didn't support the impeachment process? At the beginning, I thought Clinton should've resigned. And then I came to the belief that the Constitutional process should be followed (impeachment) and that the ones pointing the finger at Clinton, like Gingrich, were bigger scum than he was.

This is what I don't understand about the right. You folks talk about Clinton as if he got away with something when the fact is the Constitutional process was followed, Clinton was impeached, and the Senate failed to remove him from office. End of story.

Having said that, while I supported the process, I did not support the reasons for that process. Much as the right tried to peddle the idea "it wasn't about sex", it was about sex and the country saw the Starr investigation for what it was..........a fishing expedition that failed to catch the big fish.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Excuse me, but what ever gave you the idea I didn't support the impeachment process? At the beginning, I thought Clinton should've resigned. And then I came to the belief that the Constitutional process should be followed (impeachment) and that the ones pointing the finger at Clinton, like Gingrich, were bigger scum than he was.

This is what I don't understand about the right. You folks talk about Clinton as if he got away with something when the fact is the Constitutional process was followed, Clinton was impeached, and the Senate failed to remove him from office. End of story.

Having said that, while I supported the process, I did not support the reasons for that process. Much as the right tried to peddle the idea "it wasn't about sex", it was about sex and the country saw the Starr investigation for what it was..........a fishing expedition that failed to catch the big fish.

Starr did his job. It was the Senate's job to remove him or not.

It was about sex and lies initially, but soon became perjury. And no I really don't think he "got way with it". He suffered, his family suffered, his legacy suffered, his VP Al Gore suffered, and the country suffered as Clinton refused to fess up and therefore dragged out the process and wasted everyone's time as he defined the word "is."

 

[TCPluto]

The dems did would Dems continue to do: try to play politics.

Wow, that is so profound!

That puts everything in perspective, I now see your point.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

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?

Hussein? pure evil. provocation? not enough to invade a country and topple what turns out to have beenn a pretty inept government lacking the very military and terrorist capabilities we justified the invasion over.