Interesting find.
Poll
Another poll
New York Times Poll
New Developments II
An article
No, but Gallup has him at 40%.
I don't think it's so slim. You are looking at things from the point-of-view that everything looks messy on the foreign scene right now. You can't say its messy on the economic scene in America. The economy is doing pretty well, considering all that could have happened to it with recent historical events of the past five years. The truth is that the better view is obscured by the splashier, bloodier events happening on the world stage. This in no way can imply that when the dust has cleared President Bush's policies will necessarily be deemed to failure.
The oft-used example of late is the downward and then upward spiral of former president Harry S. Truman. Several articles have been written recently that consider Truman a good indicator of the kind of impact that Bush may have on the view taken 20 years from now. Truman was blasted for his policies, but revered for them by both parties decades later.
No one else showed a number above 41% during the recent "if we clap louder Bush'll look better" media binge.
No, but Gallup has him at 40%.
criddic, unless there's a counter-rapture -- i.e., only non-believers are whisked from the earth -- the chances of Bush ever being viewed as anything but a catastrophic president are slim. Foreign policy, the environment, the economy, social issues -- he's made everything worse than when he took office. I've given my due to previous presidents with whom I've disagreed on many issues, but Bush is the first I've ever seen who could, in the old phrase, screw up a ham sandwich.
I don't think it's so slim. You are looking at things from the point-of-view that everything looks messy on the foreign scene right now. You can't say its messy on the economic scene in America. The economy is doing pretty well, considering all that could have happened to it with recent historical events of the past five years. The truth is that the better view is obscured by the splashier, bloodier events happening on the world stage. This in no way can imply that when the dust has cleared President Bush's policies will necessarily be deemed to failure.
The oft-used example of late is the downward and then upward spiral of former president Harry S. Truman. Several articles have been written recently that consider Truman a good indicator of the kind of impact that Bush may have on the view taken 20 years from now. Truman was blasted for his policies, but revered for them by both parties decades later.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8679
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
You're correct there, OscarGuy. Whatever we think of Fox News as an informational source, its polling has never been terribly out of line with the norm. Rasmussen, by contrast, openly states that he thinks Republicans are undercounted by traditional polling, so he gooses his numbers upward. No one else showed a number above 41% during the recent "if we clap louder Bush'll look better" media binge. And it's clear now -- with the Middle East on fire, gas prices rising from an already-outrageous level, and the stock market sinking -- that those were the good times.
criddic, unless there's a counter-rapture -- i.e., only non-believers are whisked from the earth -- the chances of Bush ever being viewed as anything but a catastrophic president are slim. Foreign policy, the environment, the economy, social issues -- he's made everything worse than when he took office. I've given my due to previous presidents with whom I've disagreed on many issues, but Bush is the first I've ever seen who could, in the old phrase, screw up a ham sandwich.
criddic, unless there's a counter-rapture -- i.e., only non-believers are whisked from the earth -- the chances of Bush ever being viewed as anything but a catastrophic president are slim. Foreign policy, the environment, the economy, social issues -- he's made everything worse than when he took office. I've given my due to previous presidents with whom I've disagreed on many issues, but Bush is the first I've ever seen who could, in the old phrase, screw up a ham sandwich.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Not a significant drop? When an entire average drops more than a percentage point, that's significant. And besides, Rasmussen is the LAST poll you should lack at. FOX News are sycophants but Rasmussen is a terrible polling company that has ALWAYS been behind the curve in its polling, often giving Bush more bloated positive numbers than any other poll.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Actually I rarely look to FOX News for my polling info. Rasmussen last had Bush at 43%, and Gallup had him at 40%. Interestingly, Fox has his disapprovals at 53%, while Rasmussen has it at 56%. So with Fox's new poll, Bush's approval average is at 38.5%.
Considering that his average in my last post was 39.8%, this is not a significant drop. Fox has been wildly swinging back and forth for a while now. We'll see how events change the polls through the next few months.
I'm not worried as much about how good his approvals are now as I am about how his presidency will be seen 30 or 50 years from now. I still think he has a good chance of being seen as a strong leader who accomplished much, with a lot on his plate.
Considering that his average in my last post was 39.8%, this is not a significant drop. Fox has been wildly swinging back and forth for a while now. We'll see how events change the polls through the next few months.
I'm not worried as much about how good his approvals are now as I am about how his presidency will be seen 30 or 50 years from now. I still think he has a good chance of being seen as a strong leader who accomplished much, with a lot on his plate.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8679
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
ooh, criddic, I think this is ging to hurt. The mini-bounce that had you so hopeful seems to be fizzling. And who brings this sad word but your very own Pravda?
NEW YORK — Less than four months before Election Day, the latest FOX News Poll finds that voters strongly favor the Democrats on key issues such as the economy and gas prices, and give the minority party a double-digit lead for control of Congress this fall. For most of President Bush’s second term in office, more Americans have said they disapprove than approve of his job performance and that is again the case in this new poll.
The president’s approval rating dropped to 36 percent, down from 41 percent approval two weeks ago and 40 percent in mid-June. Bush lost ground this week among some key constituent groups, such as Republicans, whites and men. Overall, 53 percent of Americans say they disapprove.
NEW YORK — Less than four months before Election Day, the latest FOX News Poll finds that voters strongly favor the Democrats on key issues such as the economy and gas prices, and give the minority party a double-digit lead for control of Congress this fall. For most of President Bush’s second term in office, more Americans have said they disapprove than approve of his job performance and that is again the case in this new poll.
The president’s approval rating dropped to 36 percent, down from 41 percent approval two weeks ago and 40 percent in mid-June. Bush lost ground this week among some key constituent groups, such as Republicans, whites and men. Overall, 53 percent of Americans say they disapprove.
75% or more of Republicans Approve of the job President Bush is doing. So how can I be the last living one or "one of the last few"?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
99-1100896887
they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too)
When was this article written, since many polls now have Bush at 40% now? The only recent poll I have seen that puts him under 40 is Time Magazine's, which has him at 35%. His average, according to RealClearPolitics is now 39.8% approval.
There are no signs that this trend is ending any time soon. I am hoping it is a signal of a (slowly) renewed confidence in President Bush.
By the way, I think that editorial about Bush and how "disgusted" the writer and his friends are was inaccurate of the feelings that many Republicans and supporters of the president have toward him.
I personally think people are going to see through such articles and such sentiment. They will hopefully see the president for who he is, not who some opposers want them to think he is.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
How many times are these thugs going to break the law, and we seem to be giving them a pass...? Personally, I'd like to see the whole lot of them arrested for treason.
White House kept "major program" secret
By Alan Elsner
24 minutes ago
The Bush administration was running several intelligence programs, including one major activity, that it kept secret from Congress until whistle-blowers told the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the committee's chairman said on Sunday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News Sunday he had written a four-page to President George W. Bush in May warning him that the failure to disclose the intelligence activities to Congress may be a violation of the law.
In doing so, he confirmed a story that first ran in Sunday editions of the New York Times.
"I take it very, very seriously otherwise I would not have written the letter to the president," Hoekstra said.
"This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately and people within the intelligence community brought to my attention some programs that they believed we had not been briefed on. They were right," said Hoekstra, a close ally of Bush.
"We asked by code name about some of these programs. We have now been briefed on those programs but I wanted to reinforce to the president and to the executive branch and the intelligence community how important by law is the requirement that they keep the legislative branch informed of what they are doing," Hoekstra said.
The White House declined to comment directly on the allegations in Hoekstra's letter. "We will continue to work closely with the chairman and other congressional leaders on important national security issues," said Alex Conant, a White House spokesman.
Critics have charged that the Bush administration has a penchant for secrecy and has pushed its legal powers to the limit and possibly beyond in pursuing its "war on terror." But Hoekstra's complaint was particularly significant since it came from a strong supporter of the administration's tactics.
Hoekstra complained in his letter to Bush that the U.S. Congress "simply should not have to play 'Twenty Questions' to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."
In the letter and the interview, Hoekstra did not provide details about the programs, which presumably remain secret.
Hoekstra had been briefed about both the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, both of which were leaked to the media.
He said he did not expect to be briefed about everything intelligence agencies were doing but at least one of the secret activities was a major program which Congress definitely should have been informed about.
In the letter, Hoekstra said the lack of disclosure possibly constituted a "breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."
White House kept "major program" secret
By Alan Elsner
24 minutes ago
The Bush administration was running several intelligence programs, including one major activity, that it kept secret from Congress until whistle-blowers told the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the committee's chairman said on Sunday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News Sunday he had written a four-page to President George W. Bush in May warning him that the failure to disclose the intelligence activities to Congress may be a violation of the law.
In doing so, he confirmed a story that first ran in Sunday editions of the New York Times.
"I take it very, very seriously otherwise I would not have written the letter to the president," Hoekstra said.
"This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately and people within the intelligence community brought to my attention some programs that they believed we had not been briefed on. They were right," said Hoekstra, a close ally of Bush.
"We asked by code name about some of these programs. We have now been briefed on those programs but I wanted to reinforce to the president and to the executive branch and the intelligence community how important by law is the requirement that they keep the legislative branch informed of what they are doing," Hoekstra said.
The White House declined to comment directly on the allegations in Hoekstra's letter. "We will continue to work closely with the chairman and other congressional leaders on important national security issues," said Alex Conant, a White House spokesman.
Critics have charged that the Bush administration has a penchant for secrecy and has pushed its legal powers to the limit and possibly beyond in pursuing its "war on terror." But Hoekstra's complaint was particularly significant since it came from a strong supporter of the administration's tactics.
Hoekstra complained in his letter to Bush that the U.S. Congress "simply should not have to play 'Twenty Questions' to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."
In the letter and the interview, Hoekstra did not provide details about the programs, which presumably remain secret.
Hoekstra had been briefed about both the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, both of which were leaked to the media.
He said he did not expect to be briefed about everything intelligence agencies were doing but at least one of the secret activities was a major program which Congress definitely should have been informed about.
In the letter, Hoekstra said the lack of disclosure possibly constituted a "breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
GEORGE W. BUSH IS DEAD TO ME
Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end
by Mark Morford
It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.
Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.
George W. Bush is just like that.
Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of happy deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, a point where the disease, the poison has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10.
I was having cocktails recently with a group of people, among whom were two lifetime Republicans, each in his 60s, corporate businessmen, one admittedly slightly more moderate than the other (to the point where, after once hearing a senator read off a long list of Bush's hideous environmental atrocities, actually let his conscience lead his choice and ended up voting for Kerry) but nevertheless both devoted members of the party.
Bush came up, as a topic, as a cancer, as a fetid miasma in the air. They were both shaking their heads. They were sighing heavily. They were both, in a word, disgusted. The more staunchly conservative of the two even went so far as to say he was so embarrassed and humiliated by this president, by this administration, so appalled at all the war atrocities and the wiretapping and the misuse of law, the fiscal irresponsibility and the abuse of the lower classes and the outright arrogance, that if the Dems could somehow produce a decent moderate candidate with a brain, he'd have zero problem switching allegiances and voting for him. Or her.
It may not sound like much. It may not seem like a major shift. But it is, in its way, sort of massive. For thoughtful Repubs with a conscience (they actually exist, I have seen them), there is little left to defend. There is little this administration has done among all categories of ostensible GOP values that they can look to with any sort of pride. Medicare? Shrinking the budget? Smaller government? Less intervention in our lives? Reduced spending? Increased respect in the international community? Responsible international citizen? Ha. Name your topic, BushCo has failed. Spectacularly. Intentionally.
Indeed, countless Dems were disappointed with Clinton's behavior during Monicagate. Many were ashamed that he would cheapen the office so badly by such trashy moral behavior.
But that was just a cheap little affair (our allies never understood all the fuss anyway). This was never the attitude toward Clinton's politics, his capacity to understand complex issues, his astounding political savvy. No one anywhere doubted he made the country richer, more environmentally conscious, more stable, more respected and admired. Clinton was globally adored not only for his charisma but for his contributions to world peace. Plus he could actually point to Afghanistan on a map.
What a difference a handful of years makes. Now, overseas, we are a joke. A threat. A toxin. We are considered reckless and arrogant and ignorant, dangerous not just to the rest of the world but to the overall health of the planet. No one anywhere understands how a man like Bush can be the leader of the Free World, stolen election or no.
Sure, smarter Europeans know full well that the United States is deeply divided between the pseudo-religious right-wing warmongers who control a tiny cadre of the powerful elite, and, well, everyone else. It does not matter. America's reputation as a powerful and respected diplomatic peacekeeper, as the nation that sets the standards for human rights and economic freedom and choice, is hobbled. Crippled. Is very nearly dead. How quickly can we recover? How much damage has been done? History will tell, and it will be ugly indeed.
Interesting feature interview with Al Gore in Rolling Stone recently. Gore mentions two amazing things: one is the discussion he's had with generals regarding Iraq, with one coming right out and admitting that Bush's disastrous Iraq war will go down as the worst invasion in American history, our greatest misstep, our most costly and debilitating mistake. Among top brass in the know, of this there is little question.
The other was about the discussions Gore's had with various major corporate CEOs about Gore's pet issue, global warming, and how obvious it is that 15 minutes after BushCo leaves office, we will have a radically new global warming policy. In other words, Bush won't do a thing about it in the next two years, despite how obvious it shall become that we are in crisis, simply because he can't risk finally coming out and admitting yet another enormous policy disaster. Not to mention how nearly six years of enviro policy abuse, from air quality to water to forestry to pollution deregulation on all his industrial pals, can't be undone with a smirk and a prayer.
Which is just another way of saying we are currently stuck. We are swirling around the bottom of the drain, clinging on to anything that might hold us from going under for just a little while longer. We have to let the neocon disease run its course, and just pray that at the end of it all the scarring and the pain and damage will not be so permanent, and so hideous, that we can't be seen in public for a decade.
This is where it stands: Bush can in no way risk alienating the ultra-right-wing bonk-job contingent that put him in office (they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too), and hence all policy and all agenda items from here on out will be even more vicious and desperate in an attempt to shore up the base. Hence trying to mutilate the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Hence attacking the New York Times and claiming newspapers are endangering American lives.
In other words, Bush's latest nasty, Rove-designed salvos and upcoming attacks to save a sliver of power and pride and sneering GOP control are just the beginning.
However -- praise Jesus and pass the scotch -- they are the beginning of the end.
GEORGE W. BUSH IS DEAD TO ME
Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end
by Mark Morford
It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.
Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.
George W. Bush is just like that.
Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of happy deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, a point where the disease, the poison has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10.
I was having cocktails recently with a group of people, among whom were two lifetime Republicans, each in his 60s, corporate businessmen, one admittedly slightly more moderate than the other (to the point where, after once hearing a senator read off a long list of Bush's hideous environmental atrocities, actually let his conscience lead his choice and ended up voting for Kerry) but nevertheless both devoted members of the party.
Bush came up, as a topic, as a cancer, as a fetid miasma in the air. They were both shaking their heads. They were sighing heavily. They were both, in a word, disgusted. The more staunchly conservative of the two even went so far as to say he was so embarrassed and humiliated by this president, by this administration, so appalled at all the war atrocities and the wiretapping and the misuse of law, the fiscal irresponsibility and the abuse of the lower classes and the outright arrogance, that if the Dems could somehow produce a decent moderate candidate with a brain, he'd have zero problem switching allegiances and voting for him. Or her.
It may not sound like much. It may not seem like a major shift. But it is, in its way, sort of massive. For thoughtful Repubs with a conscience (they actually exist, I have seen them), there is little left to defend. There is little this administration has done among all categories of ostensible GOP values that they can look to with any sort of pride. Medicare? Shrinking the budget? Smaller government? Less intervention in our lives? Reduced spending? Increased respect in the international community? Responsible international citizen? Ha. Name your topic, BushCo has failed. Spectacularly. Intentionally.
Indeed, countless Dems were disappointed with Clinton's behavior during Monicagate. Many were ashamed that he would cheapen the office so badly by such trashy moral behavior.
But that was just a cheap little affair (our allies never understood all the fuss anyway). This was never the attitude toward Clinton's politics, his capacity to understand complex issues, his astounding political savvy. No one anywhere doubted he made the country richer, more environmentally conscious, more stable, more respected and admired. Clinton was globally adored not only for his charisma but for his contributions to world peace. Plus he could actually point to Afghanistan on a map.
What a difference a handful of years makes. Now, overseas, we are a joke. A threat. A toxin. We are considered reckless and arrogant and ignorant, dangerous not just to the rest of the world but to the overall health of the planet. No one anywhere understands how a man like Bush can be the leader of the Free World, stolen election or no.
Sure, smarter Europeans know full well that the United States is deeply divided between the pseudo-religious right-wing warmongers who control a tiny cadre of the powerful elite, and, well, everyone else. It does not matter. America's reputation as a powerful and respected diplomatic peacekeeper, as the nation that sets the standards for human rights and economic freedom and choice, is hobbled. Crippled. Is very nearly dead. How quickly can we recover? How much damage has been done? History will tell, and it will be ugly indeed.
Interesting feature interview with Al Gore in Rolling Stone recently. Gore mentions two amazing things: one is the discussion he's had with generals regarding Iraq, with one coming right out and admitting that Bush's disastrous Iraq war will go down as the worst invasion in American history, our greatest misstep, our most costly and debilitating mistake. Among top brass in the know, of this there is little question.
The other was about the discussions Gore's had with various major corporate CEOs about Gore's pet issue, global warming, and how obvious it is that 15 minutes after BushCo leaves office, we will have a radically new global warming policy. In other words, Bush won't do a thing about it in the next two years, despite how obvious it shall become that we are in crisis, simply because he can't risk finally coming out and admitting yet another enormous policy disaster. Not to mention how nearly six years of enviro policy abuse, from air quality to water to forestry to pollution deregulation on all his industrial pals, can't be undone with a smirk and a prayer.
Which is just another way of saying we are currently stuck. We are swirling around the bottom of the drain, clinging on to anything that might hold us from going under for just a little while longer. We have to let the neocon disease run its course, and just pray that at the end of it all the scarring and the pain and damage will not be so permanent, and so hideous, that we can't be seen in public for a decade.
This is where it stands: Bush can in no way risk alienating the ultra-right-wing bonk-job contingent that put him in office (they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too), and hence all policy and all agenda items from here on out will be even more vicious and desperate in an attempt to shore up the base. Hence trying to mutilate the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Hence attacking the New York Times and claiming newspapers are endangering American lives.
In other words, Bush's latest nasty, Rove-designed salvos and upcoming attacks to save a sliver of power and pride and sneering GOP control are just the beginning.
However -- praise Jesus and pass the scotch -- they are the beginning of the end.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Maybe it's just the summer heat, but aren't we behind the times in this thread? No mention of the Hamden-Supreme Court decision or the North Korean Missile Crisis! Or have I missed a post or two?
Bush at 60
Bush at 60
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
criddic3 wrote:Nik wrote:Ok ok. I stand corrected then, Criddic. I CAN imagine a less arousing couple having sex: YOU and anyone :p
You wouldn't say that if you knew me, but it's funny I admit.
I'm awfully curious as to what this means, criddic. Why wouldn't we say that if we knew you? Are you a hottie with a mackin' bod? I never got an answer on the top/bottom question but I'm dying to see what you look like. The last Republican I dated had a smokin' bod and I'm sort of a pecs freak so...(taking myself off into private message land as this is now painfully off-topic)
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell