Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent

You and me both...

One of the things I find most interesting are the candidates (on both sides) that are running and are currently congressmen/senators.. It's very disturbing to hear these people talk about what needs to be done and what they will do, all the while thinking to myself, "well, why the hell didn't you do it all these years you have been in office"???

 

Good example being the numerous Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act, for the war, and now complain that they made a mistake, or didn't mean to, all to be aligned in their current stance.

You know who's stances have remained consistent, and who has a flawless voting record of small government and individual responsibility and freedom (very conservative ideals), across 20 years of being a politician?

 

Those are about the only things they did right.. What is wrong is reneging. Doing one thing then, saying another later, then regretting, or second guessing yourself shows a lack of integrity and confidence.. These are the two most important qualities in a president. Without those, you might as well have a fly as president.

George Bush.. Thank you for mentioning that...

 

Not even close on Bush, he was against big government and nation building just for starters.

There is also a point to learn from your mistakes and admit you're wrong, doing more of the same wrong does this country no good.

 

The Gallup Poll has a 60 year history for polling and tracking Presidential Job approval ratings: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Latest gallop poll ratings had Bush at low 30's in their approval ratings.

Historically, for that poll, his long term under 40% approval rating in that poll compares with the lowest poll ratings for any president going back 60 years. Its not the all time lowest but it compares with the longest running lowest job approval ratings for 6 decades.

That is a heckuva an accomplishment.

 

Mia, you're joking about small government and individual responsibility and freedom being policies of Bush, right? Otherwise, welcome back from your slumber, how has your sleep been the last 6 years?

 

Well, it's still not 24, as that poll would indicate.

Historically, Bush also had the highest approval numbers of any president, again, according to that poll..

One thing I have to respect about Bush.. He has never let polls, media bias, or moonbat dissension govern his thoughts... Can you imagine having a president that based his decisions on what way the wind was blowing at the time? Wait, we did have one of those.. Nearly killed our economy over the course of 8 years...

 

In reality his numbers were high because of the public throwing their support behind the president after 9/11. This would of happened no matter who was in power, the Green Giant, GWB, Clinton, anyone. The American public when attacked is going to support their president. Look at the numbers logically and he's got some of the worst if not worst numbers ever.

Actually he did base his decisions on the way the wind was blowing, what happened to nation building? What happened to supporting the 2nd ammendment but being for the assault weapons ban?

What Bush had/has and it's not hard to see is 9/11 gave him huge support. He locked onto this into a mind numbingly robitic almost chant of terror, terror, terror. He was able to use this for so long as he kept fear on his side, once people woke up and stopped being afraid his support quickly eroded. This is where you find him now, the support granted to him falsely simply because of an attack, the support that had nothing to do with the man other than him being president while under attack was wasted and abused to the point it's totally gone besides his die hard supporters who would support him no matter what.

Hitler, Stalin, everyone has die hard supporters that will support him no matter what, even Saddam. No I am not comparing Bush to any of these monsters, simply fact that there will always be a base of support no matter how bad a leader is.

There is also a huge difference from changing depending on what way the wind is blowing and learning from your mistakes. Personally I thought that was a basis of rasing a child, for them to learn from their mistakes, I guess Bush missed that during his childhood. I would prefer a president who is willing to admit he was wrong and change course to make our country better than simply screwing up over and over because he/she is unwilling to change course.

 

Granted, but it is not like Bush went from a 34% low to near 90% as a result.. He was in the 60's consistently prior to that..

On the other side, let's assume there was no 9/11 and no war.. Things could be very much different.. The polls might be showing that 60% or higher by this point...

War takes presidents through ups and downs, and historically, as you reach the end of a presidency, those numbers keep going down as well.

I'd imagine a war took him in a different direction.. It took a lot of things in a different direction. Dealing with muslim lunatics and fanatics has obviously consumed a lot of time..

I would like to assume that he would have likely rather had a much different presidency. But you take what you have handed to you and run with it...

As for assault weapons.. I have no real opinion on what the presidents stance is or was. I'd imagine compromise not the wind was responsible for his opinion.

Myself? How much gun do you really need? You can only kill something dead once.. Having a right to Bear Arms never really defined to what extent.. Do I need a Ruger mini-14, or will an AK locked in semi-auto suffice?

He already had quite a bit of support.. Upwards of 60%.

I never took the whole "terror terror terror" thing as a "fear" tactic... Hearing that just further reaffirmed for me that there was nothing to fear anymore so long as we stayed on top of the terror threats..

My FEAR was on 9/11... Knowing now, moving forward we are actually doing something to prevent that from happening again is not fear to me. I have no fear now. I'm not complacent, and I will certainly always welcome the fact that the threat still exists, but I'm not going to fear it..

The difference though is the leaders you mention garnered support by killing those who opposed them.

Also, I don't think being "bad leaders" has anything to do with support. The three leaders you mention above were all, good leaders, just BAD people...

Bush on the other hand is a good person, but a bad leader....

What mistake though? I'm assuming you are talking about the war? I don't believe Bush thinks it is a mistake. And an Airborne unit I talked to last night shared that same opinion. I'm certain several "mistakes" have been made as it concerns the war. I just do not feel the war on terror itself is a mistake.

Personally, I would have like to have seen things expanded.. I think Saudi Arabia would have been the first place I would have bombed the ever living shit out of... Then I would have expanded Israel by giving them Saudi Arabia.. You want to talk about a shift in the balance of stupidity in the Middle East? I think that would be all it would take to wobble that teeter totter..

Saddam? He had to come out. But we needed help. We still do. If the rest of the world would stop complaining about the problem and help us fix it, things would move much faster. The problem is, just as it is easier to bitch about something, so to is it easier to welcome failure.

We can change the course.. To do that, we need help. Changing the course includes killing every terrorist on the planet. Until that happens, I don't see any course change.

 

Yes, however he was so new nobody had the time to trully make an opinion of him to the extent that you could say his approval rating would be anywhere near when he first came into office. Pro Bush people argue he had no time to take on the terrorist issue, yet others have brought up his approval ratings prior to 9/11. I would assume if he had no time to tackle terrorists, neither did the american public to give a true determination if they approve or not approve of the man.

I also highly doubt if there was no 9/11 we wouldn't be in Iraq. Bush wanted to go to Iraq, 9/11 simply gave him the perfect chance to get the American public behind him.

That might be the case, he however got huge approvals to us being attacked. His policies themselves and use of 9/11 has tanked him. Not simply it being the end of his presidency.

That is the very definition of changing with what's currently going on is it not?
He however has consumed more time and money and effort with Iraq, not with 'muslim lunatics'.

He chose to go into Iraq, again Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He chose to use all intelligence and embelish it and twist it to get people fearing from 9/11 to support him. The backlash of people waking up to what he did is what he faces now.

Wouldn't compromise and 'wind' be pretty much the same thing, it's just a fancy way of trying to have it both ways. 'when your guy changes it's 'compromise and a good thing' when the other does it it's 'changing with the wind'
Actually most constitutional experts from what I have read would agree the right to bear arms would give you the right to what the military has, it does not equate to hunting guns.

Again a new president with not enough time for anyone to trully have an opinion, call it giving the benefit of the doubt.

It installed fear into the population and kept the population onto the side of the president, giving approval to do whatever it takes to keep the masses safe. It was a fear tactic and nothing more, the same with Saddam ready to attack us

TY for the honesty.

Those who oppose might not be killed here, they however are trashed, discredited, outed and everything else possible are they not?

The point was simply any leader, be it bad person, bad leader is going to have a core that will support them through anything.

I wonder though if Bush had the power/opportunity such as Saddam would he be 'good'..

Iraq is not the war on terror. There have been many mistakes made of which X commanders have come out and stated what they are and how to fix it, instead of anyone giving them any thought though they are immediately attacked.

Yes lots of areas that should have could have been gone after for the war on terror, going after a country and swamping us down in it that had nothing to do with the war on terror really puzzles me to as how it will make us safer in the long term.
Even temporarily the argument 'we haven't been hit' is pretty weak as they are able to hit us in Iraq now, they also are causing us to spend extremely insane amounts of money, they have also allowed our government to use the fear they gave to us to take some 'freedoms' and since we all know that's why they hate us 'according to Bush' one would assume they are actually doing pretty damn good against us.

I'd hate to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt here, but perhaps they are smarter then we give them credit for. How better to cause harm to a rich nation but cost it huge amounts of money. Knowing that Bush might want to go into Iraq, could 9/11 perhaps of been an attempt to draw us into war there? I know this is conspiracy theory heaven, but look at it logically. If that was the case, damn they are winning all the while giving us a false sense of safety and 'winning' while they get exactly what they want. Waiting for the right time that we are so focused onto Iraq, sending some lower ranked people to die in Iraq and keep us busy while we slowly kill ourselves from the inside. Making us weaker and in the end them stronger, who trully drained more in such an instance? Suicide bombers are a dime a dozen and since the Iraq war is creating more, hmmm puzzling.

I'm shocked rarely anyone is able to see the amount of $$ we are spending, the wounded and dead to our military, inner turmoil in politics and freedoms is not a HUGE win to the terrorists, more so than a simple bombing.

Saddam was an evil man, he did one thing though, he kept that country together. Now look what we have done, exactly what the experts warned about is happening. Now one of the worst possible outcomes is about to happen as well, Turkey getting involved in the North.

We like dictators on our side 'see Pakistan' against terrorists, yet we go after a dictator who did not support terrorists that were against us, makes no logic at all to say it's the war on terror. How people can not see this goes exactly against the war on terror is frightening. Yes it brought some terrorists into the country, big deal, seriously. Even if it was working to fight them there of which I do not believe, it's like taking over a country to fight our war on their land when they had nothing to do with our war in the first place. How does that make us any better than the terrorists?

How about going after terrorists and leaving countries that had nothing to do with it alone for starters?

 

We'll see if you're still singing that tune when there is a Democrat in the white house.

*bookmarks thread*

 

I'll take your lack of a response as you agreeing with that.

 

Bush was/is a spoiled chimp! He is incapable of rational thought.

 

Mia:

If you looked at the long term comparison of the gallup poll you'd probably see this Bush trending lower over all compared to some other presidents.

Regardless the recent trend of over a year compares at the bottom with Nixon and Truman in terms of both being both specifically low and staying low for a long period of time.

Different polls turn up different results. The Zogby poll had Bush at 24%. This one has him in the low 30's. Either way it is low.

I can't believe you made that allusion to Clinton with regard to the economy.

First of all every aspect of the economy did better during the Clinton period than during the Bush period. Both periods began during economic recessions. Not only were overall economic conditions better but the federal govt budget situation was better.

Regardless of that; most economics is not determined at all by the president in charge. It is a function of the economic cycle, boom and bust, etc.

Its typically ludicrous to start tying the welfare of the economy to a president and/or his economic policies.

Both the 90's and this decade have benefitted from startling low inflation and huge increases in asset growth in the stock market and real estate.

 

I made no "allusion".. It is a fact that Clinton rode the Reagan/Bush wave for several years, inheriting growth.. Towards the end of his presidency and into the beginning of Bush's first term we saw the result of Clinton's policies take affect... If not for Bush's tax cuts, Clinton's presidency would have likely drove us deeper into recession.

As for polls, I think I have made it quite clear that I do not care for candidates or politicians that rely on the polls when making decisions... That lacks integrity and personal conviction. I like to do what is right, not what is popular... I like people who do what is right, not necessarily popular. Popular people tend to do well in polls, unfortunately their actions tend to take a much different turn.

Please describe one "aspect of the economy" that "did better during the Clinton period". Please also cite your source... I know you said "every". I'm gonna make it easy for you.. Just give me one example backed by fact that Clinton was directly responsible for.

Inflation did not start out low, it was brought there. Lowering taxes did it both times.

 

That's a heck of an accomplishment, for the liberal media...

 

I like the bureau of labor statistics.

Take a look at growth in GDP, gross domestic production.

From 1993 -2000 GDP in current dollars grew from $6.337.7 billion to 9.817 billion over 8 years. Total growth rate 47.5% Average growth rate=5.9%

2001-2006 GDP grew from 10,128 billion to 13,194.7 in current dollars. Total growth rate over the 6 years = 30.3% Average growth rate=5.05%

Last I checked 5.9% is better than 5.05%

But I don't equate politics with tax policies. I equate the growth with business cycles.

It so happens Clinton entered office during a recession also. It was generally seen as more severe than the one in which Bush entered office. It was an overall credit crunch that severely limited growth and lending across the board.

Growth during the 90's was again a result of long term low inflation that was instituted by Paul Voelker at the Fed, who came in during the high inflation period of the late 70's. Low inflation has persisted throughout the 80's, 90's and the 2000's. Voelker got it going and Greenspan followed through.

Growth in the 90's was highlighted by enormous growth in the telecom industry which exploded in the 90's. That was probably a result of deregulation which occurred in the late 1970's. It just took off in the 90's --not because of administrations---but the effects of open competition really revved up and took years to get in place after first being deregulated.

The telecom explosion burst at the end of the 90's. Typical business cycle thing. Had nothing to do with tax policies. Reference how MCI was growing and reporting totally false financial records with regard to its growth. By the tale end of the 90's they were one of many doing that. The telecom depression was significantly more severe than the dot.com depression as telecom had many many many times more employees, revenues, etc.

Btw, the recession of the early 90's was a result of an enormous credit crunch as a result of huge numbers of poor loans in the commercial real estate business. It basically totally restructured the S&L business which became deregulated in the early 1980's after the high inflation period killed their then exclusive business of just making residential mortgages.

You guyz who tie in economics with tax policies should read something, almost anything by an economist.

 

Thank you for bringing some sense to this thread It's so ridiculous when people try to compare the congressional poll with the president's.

24% approval and going nowhere fast. I am truly hopeful that Bush will destroy the Republican party or at least this neo-con version of it.

 

What is liberal about a 60 year old poll that has asked the same question every week or 2 weeks continuously for 60 years during all administrations.

That is a rediculous comment. There is nothing less liberal or conservative, or political in any way than repeating the same effort over 60 years.

 

...And he was re-elected...