Bush at All-Time Low
Weird: thirty percent of Americans still see something they can approve of in George W. Bush.
After 2000, Americans could at least claim he wasn't really elected by the people, he got into office even while losing the majority of the popular vote. Oh, and we couldn't really tell how bad he was going to be -- remember, Gore and the focus groups, and all that? The rest of the world gave us a break on that account, too -- it was a close election that actually went the other way, Americans must have just not been paying attention. But after 2004, we should have known better. 2004 was the heartbreaker, when you realized that half the country really couldn't tell the difference. We showed the world, at that point, that Americans really are like that: belligerent, rigid, self-serving, near-sighted, incurious.
It's too late, people. The guy's got two more years. The Pottery Barn rule is in effect: you broke it, you own it. Just sit back and watch what wonderful new things the guy can dream up for our country.
The national job approval rating of President Bush has plummeted to 30%, an all–time low in the latest Zogby International telephone poll, sinking below the 31% approval rating he dropped to in early June.
The President’s positive job rating is down from 36% in late October, in the weeks heading into the congressional midterm elections. Since then, the Democrats swept to control of both houses of Congress, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned and was replaced by Robert Gates, who said the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. Release of the Iraq Study Group’s report calling for significant change in the way the U.S. is conducting the Iraq war came as this latest Zogby poll was in the field.
Sixty–eight percent said they believe Bush is doing only a fair or poor job leading the nation.
Support for the President waned in key demographic groups, the Zogby poll shows. Among all Republicans, just 60% gave him a positive job rating, while 39% gave him negative marks. Just 9% of Democrats and 22% of political independents gave him good marks for his work. Among married respondents – typically a group who favors Republicans – just 35% said Bush was doing a positive job. Among men, another favorable GOP demographic, just 31% gave him positive marks, while 69% gave him a negative rating. Even among stalwart Born Again respondents, just 43% had positive ratings for the President on his overall job performance. President slips to all-time low in the Zogby Poll as key demographic groups jump ship
After 2000, Americans could at least claim he wasn't really elected by the people, he got into office even while losing the majority of the popular vote. Oh, and we couldn't really tell how bad he was going to be -- remember, Gore and the focus groups, and all that? The rest of the world gave us a break on that account, too -- it was a close election that actually went the other way, Americans must have just not been paying attention. But after 2004, we should have known better. 2004 was the heartbreaker, when you realized that half the country really couldn't tell the difference. We showed the world, at that point, that Americans really are like that: belligerent, rigid, self-serving, near-sighted, incurious.
It's too late, people. The guy's got two more years. The Pottery Barn rule is in effect: you broke it, you own it. Just sit back and watch what wonderful new things the guy can dream up for our country.
posted by JimK at 9:40 AM
10 Comments:
He's got the right idea- he's just executed poorly. Would have been infinitely worse with Gore and Kerry. The big problem was lack of alternative. There was no choice in either 2000 or 2004. The voters need to marginalize the Democratic Party and start a new one to compete with the Republicans.
Right now the voters are giving Democrats one last chance and, so far, they're handling it like a bunch of Keystone cops.
Hillary and Obama should be the last straw. 2008 will be the first wide open election in a good while and its going to be fun. Glad the Dems will have a record to run on!
Jim writes,
2004 was the heartbreaker, when you realized that half the country really couldn't tell the difference.
Couldn't tell the difference? Now there is a comment that reflects a serious disconnect with a political reality of that race: Kerry.
How about this...I will grant you that Bush is "bad"...ok, what was the alternative offered by the Democrats? John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry? Add to that mix the Angry Left and money bags of George Soros, and well...a "dimwit" wins re-election? Please, have a little respect for the democratic process...
We showed the world, at that point, that Americans really are like that: belligerent, rigid, self-serving, near-sighted, incurious.
If there is anything I hope the US can show the rest of the world is this: that unless they hold similar values, we could care less what they think of us. Now, I understand why whimpish Europeans have given up on the fight to defend the West; in countries like France, Muslims constitute 1/5th of the entire population...and that is a sizable enough population to be concerned about taking a stand that runs contrary to this populations first allegiance: their religion. Still, if September 11th, 2001 taught the US anything...anything at all...it is this: you can ignore a problem, but that doesn't mean it will go away.
I sincerely hope that Sen. Obama will ignore those pushing him to prematurely make a run for the White House. He is not prepared and he does not have the experience needed to make a run now. Should he do so and fail, I fear that it will delay the US in electing its first African-American President...and that would be truly unfortunate.
I say let Hillary run and perhaps once and for all this "vampire" of American politics can be defeated. Where is a wooden stake when one needs one? Who might that be?
Orin said "If there is anything I hope the US can show the rest of the world is this: that unless they hold similar values, we could care less what they think of us."
That's rather foolish, Orin. That's why there was a 9/11. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Oh, I see, Randi. 9/11 was our fault because we aren't tolerant enough. We need to keep an open mind about groups like al-quaeda and the Taliban.
Are you out of your mind?
Anonymous, The United States can't go around interfering all over the planet and ignoring foreign people's conscerns about that interference and expect there to be no repercussions. You can't expect to be a global bully and have the world love you for it.
Well, al-quaeda's problem was that we defended Kuwait when it was invaded by a sadistic lunatic. We were asked to do this by a neighboring country, Saudi Arabia, where the holiest site in Islam is located. Bin Laden's version of Islam says that infidels (the U.S. and dandy Randi, among others) cannot be tolerated as being present in the same sovereign nation as any Islamic holy site.
Sovereign nations asked our help. We were the only ones in a position to provide this help. We did.
How does this constitute "bullying"
in your..ahem...mind?
Al Quaeda is upset by many actions of the U.S. including its military presence all over the middle east and in Saudi Arabia in particular. The U.S. was "invited" under duress by U.S. backed goverments and against the wishes of much if not most of the population. The U.S. blindly favours the Israelis over the Palestinians in the conflict there.
Decades ago he U.S. installed a puppet government in Iran eventually leading to the Iranian revolution. The U.S. also initially backed Sadam Hussein and supported him in its war against Iran. The U.S. has been interfering in the politics of that entire region to install pro-U.S governments for decades. If the only American action there had been to oust Sadam from Kuwait and the military presence in Saudi Arabia had been removed immediately afterwards it might have been a different story.
Thanks to the incompetence of the Bush adminstration's pre-emptive warmongering neocons, Saudi Arabia may begin backing Iraq's Sunnis, including Al-Qaeda, while Iran sides with the Shiites.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said....
The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of Al Qaeda, who are opposed to the kingdom’s monarchy. But if Iraq’s sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html?hp&ex=1166072400&en=9b8923e7095544b1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
"Thanks to the incompetence of the Bush adminstration's pre-emptive warmongering neocons, Saudi Arabia may begin backing Iraq's Sunnis, including Al-Qaeda, while Iran sides with the Shiites."
There was nothing pre-emptive about the war. Iraq was firing on our planes, which were enforcing U.N. resolutions, on a daily basis.
Additionally, while certain parties tried to stop the U.S. from removing Saddam, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran were pleased as punch to see it happen. The people of Iraq were quite pleased at the time too.
If spreading democracy is a "bullying" tactic, what do you call allowing a murderous dictator to terrorize his captives? All the same people who whine about Iraq would now like us to "bully" Sudan. History will not be kind to the hypocritical liberals of our day.
Anonymous at December 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Anonymous, the people of Iraq are worse off now than they were under Sadam. That was a pre-emptive war. American planes were not welcome in that country and it had a right to defend itself against this incursion just like the U.S. would do if foreign planes invaded its airspace. "Bullying" is an understatement when the U.S. invades and forces democracy on a soveriegn country. That was never the reason for attacking the country in the first place. The war was justified by false claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. This is just the sort of thing that makes Arabs despise the U.S.
Post a Comment
<< Home