Bush's approval rating at all time LOW

This is a good day for the progressive people in America. Bush's approval rating has fallen 8 points since last month, to 34 %. Cheney's approval rating is currently at 18%. Some more stats for ya that just came out today:
43% of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war on terror
21% of Americans approve of the deal to allow an Arab company to operate at U.S. ports
32% of Americans approve of the way Bush is responding to the needs of Katrina victims
51% of Americans say Bush doesn't care about them
30% of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war

"30% of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war." Gee whiz! I wonder how this could possibly be? I thought things were going just great in Iraq. Peace and democracy have broken out through out the country. Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs and Kurds all get along. Muslims get along with non Muslims. Violence, rape, murder, torture, executions, are rare occurances and a free, responsible, democratic, inclusive, representative government rules the country compassionately and with intelligence and optimism. The rebuilding of the country is going along smoothly without a glitch, and no one is excessively profiting from it while millions of little children and old and infirmed men and women are starving to death. Mosques, Churches and Temples stand proudly side by side. There is a clear separation between Mosque and State, there is a free press that adequately and truthfully represents the population it services. Iraq is the most sucessful country in the Arab World, The Middle East and one of the leading, developing, democratic countries in the world right up there with India, Brazil, Mexico and er...Afghanistan?? Iraqis have never ever been happier and never will be happier than they are at this very moment. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please do take a look at my post in the "How many of these guys might be in Iraq thread."

I know there are those who don't believe polls, but according to Zogby 72 per cent want to end the war this year. That would be nice, but I don't see it so far.

TIS

Zogby Poll

If only Clinton would have done something with Bin Laden.

As a side note:

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a
homeless person.

The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to
come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his
pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless
person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave
him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the
Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for
administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.

Why? It's not going to get that thug out of office anytime sooner.

Forget these polls and statisics. They are fake. Do you know what really matters? That my approval rating for Bush is still at 99%!Thats the only approval rating that you need to pay attention to.



DS

Smitty, I'm genuinely curious: why the one percent drop?

I think the one percent is for Bush's hair cut. That has really going down since the start of his term.

Other than that, Bush is a o-kay dude!

Only 1% for the "Ports Deal"?

That should be worth at least 5% :p

Good point. The port deal is worth another 5% off so my approval rating for Bush is 94%.


DS

yea these polls dont mean jack. To me even 30% for the war is unbelievable. HOW.

The fact is that the only thing thats gonna get these guys out of office is the 2 term limit--and even then they might try to hypnotize people into believing they need another term

a good day for the progressive people in America will be when we do something significant to stop bush and all his clones

Now you see, this is a real good example of how the Democrats, when they hear the words "Firing Squad" always seem to form a circle. One BIG reason Bush won was that it was Kerry who ran against him. And now I hear all this nonsense about Hillary running in '08. I am not a repub or a dem, but I can tell you this, if you dems DO pick Hillary to run in '08, YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE AGAIN, it is doesn't matter WHO the repubs run against her. You need another Bill C to run, not another damn liberal. Liberals cannot win the presidency in this country.

Good God! The Dems should not Hillary! Holy crap! That'll ruin the whole freakin party!

Seriously, I'll become a Republican if the Dems run her. Why? Because at least they have their shit together. How could they get Bush II "elected" unless they were organized?

Bush II has blown it big time. And why hasn't he been impeached? I mean, Clinton got in trouble for fellatio from one woman. Why can't Bush get in trouble for performing fellatio on the oil and military companies?

I am not a repub or a dem, but I can tell you this, if you dems DO pick Hillary to run in '08, YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE AGAIN, it is doesn't matter WHO the repubs run against her. You need another Bill C to run, not another damn liberal. Liberals cannot win the presidency in this country. [/b][/quote]I have to say that I'm not wild about the idea of Hillary running/being the nominee. But you just answered part of the appeal by saying "you need another Bill C to run." I know some Dems feel that part of the upside of having Hillary is that Bill comes along with her. Who better to turn to advice than your husband, a former two term president? Look how powerful Hillary tried to be while in office - why wouldn't we expect Bill to do the same?

I'm not saying that's the best reason to vote for her and that having Bill won't cover up her negative qualities. But it is something to consider.

The only Republican I can say with certainty at this point that I would absolutely not vote for instead of Hillary Clinton is Jeb Bush.

I'm truly surprised that we haven't been hearing more from and about him lately.

I've said it before, I really don't think Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. I think the media is spinning it that way because she's the most "known". I don't dislike her as many others do, but I agree that it would be political suicide for the Dems if she's the candidate.

As much as I am all for a qualified woman candidate (and I don't say she isn't qualified), I think now, of all times, with the shape our country is in, that we can't afford the historic moment of a woman President right now. The many people "on the fence" who hear she's running will most likely "not" vote for her simply because they don't like her.

As far as Jeb Bush, who knows. I've heard "buzz" (and only rumor, but this wouldn't surprise me), that Cheney will step down either to health reasons or possibly as part of the CIA Leak scandal, or both), and that Jeb may be appointed VP by his bro. Great, all we need.

TIS

Are there any chances that Rudy Giuliani will run?

I've heard his name tossed around as well Lavinia. I never knew too much about him before 911, and I think he was impressive in it's aftermath bringing the city together. When I was in NYC, a couple of the tour guides credited him for cleaning up Time's Square area, and seemed to have a favorable impression of him. I may be wrong, but I think he's known to lean a little "left" ???? Those in NY will be much more familiar with his politics than I am.

I remember twice, once shortly after 911 and then a couple years later hearing him say that on 911 the first thing he said to himself was "Thank God George Bush Is President." :rolleyes: Political bullshit??? Maybe, but I can't get that out of my head. :p Totally a turn-off.

However, it would be nice to have our first Italian American President, if qualified.


TIS

Rudy is about as far to the left while still being considered part of the right as can be.

If he were smart, he'd switch parties and become a conservative democrat instead of a liberal republican.

He'd win in a landslide.

PLaw,

Do you think then the Republicans would be happy/satisfied if he did run??? Or would they prefer someone who isn't leaning left???

TIS

How is Rudi G's health? He bowed out of the Senate race in 2000 for prostate cancer.

I can see the conservatives either nominating Jeb Bush or McCain. I think there are enough people in this country, some conservatives included, who have had enough from the Bush name. But he is a governor and that has seemed to be the predominant path (or former VP)to the White House in the past 30+ years.

IMO, neither party has a viable strong candidate at this point for 2008.

Well, I think Rudy's pro-choice stance turns off pretty much all of the conservative republicans.

And I think that anyone who makes abortion the mostimportant issue in their minds and votes based on that is silly.

But, since most of the republicans at least seem to be of the conservative variety and most of the democrats seem so liberal.....

Used to be, as I remember it, that there wasn't that much to choose from in the political philosophies of both parties.

But the two most recent presidents we've elected seem more liberal and conservative than ever, so it seems as though both parties are moving further away from the center.

With that in mind, I don't see how Rudy could realistically expect to win the nomination of either party, altho I believe he could win the election.

I think that the winner of the next presidential election will be the candidate who the public perceives as being closest to the middle.

I believe that altho the majority of republicans are conservtive, there are enough that aren't that are sick of the Bush style to vote the other way, as long as the democratic nominee is not too far to the left.

And I also believe that altho the majority of the democrats are quite liberal, there are enough of them that aren't and are sick of the Howard Dean style philosophy to also vote the other way, as long as the republican nominee is not too far to the right.

Hopefully, both parties will realize this, smarten up, and nominate candidates who represent more of the middle ground than the extreme, and whoever wins it will have the effect of uniting the country more, rather than polarizing it further.

I'm sure he'll run, but I can't see Rudy getting much support from the Republican party. Personally I like him, but he and McCain don't have the backing either of them need. Although I'm not exactly sure who else is high-profile enough to win?? I haven't heard much about Jeb Bush running and I think that would be a disaster anyway. The Bush name has been run through the mud way too much to win another election.

I didn't mean to repeat what Plaw said. I guess we were posting at the same time.

Since George Pataki has announced that he will not seek another term as governor of NY, I sort of expected Rudy Giuliani to step forward. But he hasn't, which leads me to believe that he may have his sights set on Washington.

Rudy has always been a controversial figure, who was elevated to hero status after September 11th. Personally, I've always been a fan of his, but I think that there are Republicans out there who will have a problem with him.

He did some things during his reign as NYC mayor that many thought were impossible, such as cleaning up Times Square, lowering crime, getting rid of the squeegee men, lowering the hotel tax and increasing tourism, and so on. And he's really never been afraid to make an unpopular decision, which endears him to me.

On the other hand, his personal life was a mess. He's been married several times, he actually moved OUT of Gracie Mansion while his wife and children remained, and he suffered through a very messy and very public divorce.

Plaw, he was originally a Democrat, who became a Republican, so I don't think that he would switch again.

I don't think the man ate or slept for his last three months as mayor. He displayed true leadership during those very dark days, but he is a true "New Yawker", and I'm not sure how his outspoken attitude would play on a national level.

TIS - If you want to learn more about him, read his book Leadership. It's interesting, sad and very funny all at the same time.

It is a good read, SB. Plus he makes some "Godfather" references, which is kind of cool.

Patrick, you have so much to learn!! Youth is on your side, though, and there's time for you to wise up.

Don't you know those polls are rigged to make sure the approval rating is low?

They only ask certain demographic, certain amount of men vs. women and a certain percentage of conservatives/Republicans. Whether they want the result to be a low or high rating on whatever issue...the outcome is virtually guaranteed.

So all you 'Progressives' out there, enjoy the false high while you can...it is going to be rather short-lived.

Apple

That may be true, but I believe Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low. I don't need any polls to feel that.

While I wouldn't argue that the high may be, in terms of following polls and whatnot, a false one, how may it be short-lived?

Strange how some people accept some things as truth based strictly on faith and are never skeptical, and assume other things are automatically false.

As for me, my skepticism always goes both ways.

As far as polls in general go, sure they can be biased based on the polling organization, the people polled, the wording of the questions, and a host of other factors.

But to deny that Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low right now seems kind of silly.

I bet that his own biased polls show the same thing. It's just a question of what the numbers are.

Here's a story from United Press International:

New polls have Bush at under 40 percent

Washington

March 03, 2006 12:01:13 AM IST

Polls released Thursday by CNN and Fox News put President George W. Bush's job approval rating at under 40 percent.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed 38 percent of U.S. adults approved of the president's performance in office -- just one point above his record low in the poll, 37 percent last November. CNN said respondents expressed concerns about Bush's ability to manage the government and pessimism over the war in Iraq.

The Fox News poll showed Bush with a 39 percent approval rating.

Fox said most of those surveyed opposed allowing a Dubai company to operate U.S. ports, and the Republican Party has lost ground to Democrats on the issue of terrorism. The GOP had a 13 percent advantage over Democrats on the issue at the beginning of the year, but that margin shrunk to 5 percent in the new poll.

By a margin of 14 percent, respondents to the Fox poll said it would be better for the country if Democrats win control of Congress in this year's election.

Both polls were conducted Tuesday and Wednesday.

(UPI)

--------------------------------------

I don't think anyone can accuse Fox News of being biased against President Bush, or being part of the "Liberal-controlled media".

What if Bush's approval rating was at an all time high, it would be rigged too, correct?

I agree that you can't always depend on polls, but if the right questions are asked, in the right way, to a wide range of people, that the "can" be fairly accurate.

I am also sure that all politicians DO pay attention to polls even if they claim they don't. Even though it may not be 100 per cent accurate, it is one way to monitor what the public feels. To depend totally on them isn't smart but on the other hand, for a politician to totally disregard all of them might not be too bright either.

TIS

Last time I checked, he's still in office until 2008.

I wouldn't be 100% sure of that.

Altho I thnk it's unlikely to happen, there have been some faint rumblings calling for impeachment.

And should the other shoe drop with respect to Iraq, the "Ports Deal", the wiretapping, or a host of other issues, those rumblings could easily become a roar.

If there's one thing we know about politicians of both parties, it's that they're like rats who desert the ship once it starts to sink.

And as Bush's approval ratings continue to drop and the mood of the American people hardens against him, you never know.

All it will take is one bombshell, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there's a bomb ticking away somewhere getting ready to explode in Bush's face.

PLaw, thanks for treading where no one else on the BB dares to go. :p

I agree with the potential bombshells and there are many possible. However, one thing I will say for this administration (excluding Bush), they are very smart and very shrewd at keeping things secret. I'm guessing one of the most secretive administrations we've had. So, with that in mind, and with the media on the right side of the political arena, (although I sense a change is possible there), it may very well be that we won't know the facts until long after GWB has left office. I guess it's better to know the truth later than not at all.

TIS

The problem is that the issues you've mentioned - Iraq, the Ports Deal, wiretapping, etc...are not "impeachable" offenses. After all - Congress approved Iraq. The Dubai deal was approved by a government committee. The Echelon wiretapping has been going on since Harry Truman initiated it, so that isn't anything new, either.

To be impeached, a President must be convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors." All of the actions you've mentioned, while controversial, are by definition not enough to get him kicked out.

Besides - even if you do impeach him, that means Cheney is in the Oval Office. For liberals, that would probably be as unacceptable as having Jesse Helms in there. :p

I'm not saying that Bush has committed any impeachable offenses of which we have been made aware.

I said "a bomb ticking away somewhere getting ready to explode."

Meaning something that we do not yet know about - possibly related to one of these issues, or possibly something new - that does constitute an impeachable offense.

For example - just suggesting possibilites here, not implying that any of these are the case -

If we should learn that the "intelligence" reports that were supplied to Congress by the Bush administration were known by him to be false, and that we were intentionally lied to about our mission in Iraq.

Or, if it should turn out that there is some kind of under the table deal in which money is being exchanged (read: bribes) to help the "Ports Deal" along.

Or, some kind of transcript or recording emerges of a meeting that Bush or some high ranking administration members had about the Katrina situation which indicates that there was an intentional delay or laxity on the part of the feds in responding.

Or, if it turns out that we had OBL cornered at some point, and bribes were paid somewhere along the line to members of the adminsitration by members of the bin Laden family to let Osama "escape".

Again, just for emphasis, I'm not suggesting that any of these scenarios are actually the case.....

As far as Cheney goes, I hear some talk that he may resign before his term is up, giving Bush the chance to hand-pick his potential successor.

Or, he may find himself forced to resign or be impeached himself.

I can think of a few ticking time bombs which might involve him as well.

Such as....

It turns out he was drunk when he shot his friend, hence the reason for the delay in reporting the accident.

Or, there's some kind of under the table dealings and bribery going in regarding Cheney, Haliburton, rebuilding Iraq, etc.

Again, just suggesting possibilities, not saying that they are the case....

It is all speculation. Could it happen? Sure. But it is the same as saying he could die in office, or he could complete his term with a record high approval rating. There is a possibility for each of them. But it is all speculation.

Well, of course it's all speculation.

I think I made that perfectly clear.

All I said was that I wouldn't be 100% sure that Bush was going to complete his term.

But I never would have suggested that there was any possibility at all of his father being impeached, or Reagan being impeached, or Carter, or Ford, or Lyndon Johnson, though.

While we are speculating, consider this:

There are several people (Joe Wilson comes to mind) who warned the administration that there wasn't evidence of Sadam possessing WMDs and that was "before" Bush made is case for war. That, if true, would be the "biggie" IMO.

And with all the bribery and shady dealings throughout this administration (Delay,Abramoff, Cunningham, to mention only a few), who's to say it doesn't go higher???

As far as Cheney goes, and I know most don't follow this, so I'll make it brief, it is suspected that he is the other "un-named" leaker in the Plame investigation. A couple weeks ago the administration after two years,turned over more than 150 e-mails to Patrick Fitzgerald that they originally had claimed were "lost" through whatever process. However, I read that Fitzgerald had conviscated Cheney's computer in the beginning, so it's possible other info was revealed.

Not only that, both Cheney & Bush did testify directly to Fitzgerald, but neither of them under oath. It's suspected that Cheney will be called to testify again, this time under oath. If he has something to hide,or if he was involved in any of this, he'll step down.

Sure, we are speculating on "what ifs", but there are so many secrets and shady dealing charges here that you have to ask questions.

All that being said, unless there is a major breakthrough of some kind, or unless there is more outrage by the public to pursue some of these issues, I think it won't be until after Bush is out of office before we know the full truth.

TIS

I simply think that there is more speculation and "hope" involved in these discussion than any likelihood of possibility anything of the sort will happen. You make good points regarding actions by President Bush people would consider grouds for not caring for him, but not for impeachment. All I'm saying is that there more "hope" than likelihood. I really don't think that he will be impeached. It has happened so few times (four) in our history that the odds are greatly against it, and even then, only two were successfully impeached (one resigned and the other was acquitted). Also, considering Republicans control Congress, it makes it even more unlikely, even if his popularity is at all-time lows.

Kindly don't assume that I personally "hope" that he is impeached.

I'd prefer to remember him as an honest, if incompetent, president, rather than as a criminal.

All an impeachment will do is divide the country even further.

I prefer to cross my fingers and live with his incompetence.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats should have the right to point their finger with the Bin Laden deal. Clinton neglected to take care of it. Bush didn't listen when briefed about Bin Laden at the beginning of his term. Like in many issues, both sides are equally stupid with this issue.