Bush's Approval Rating Sags

[Adam D]

Bush's approval rating sags
Sunday, July 20, 2003 Posted: 8:29 PM EDT (0029 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The public has grown increasingly uneasy with President Bush's handling of the economy and the situation in Iraq, a new poll suggests.

Bush's overall job approval dropped 8 points since May to 55 percent, according to a new CNN-Time poll.

A majority in this poll, 52 percent, said the president is doing a poor job of handling the economy, and just four in 10 say the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq has been a success. That's down from 52 percent who felt that way in late March.

Fifty-five percent of Americans said they approved of the way Bush is handling Iraq, according to the poll, compared with 69 percent in May.

The poll of 1,004 adults was conducted Wednesday and Thursday and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The president's slipping poll numbers come as the effort in Iraq has been clouded by a controversy over the intelligence cited by the Bush administration before the war and continuing casualties.

Half in the poll, 50 percent, said it was likely they would support Bush's re-election, while almost that many, 46 percent, said it was unlikely.

The poll indicated that Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean were the strongest nationally -- with all grouped in double digits. Lieberman had 16 percent, and others were slightly behind him.

But a majority of those polled, 66 percent, said Bush is very or somewhat likely to win the election regardless of how they cast their vote.

[Adam D]

Contempt for his economic policies are rising, support for the war on Iraq is dropping, and his reelection his looking considerably more difficult.


I guess it makes sense that he's touting this "compassionate conservativism" that he has not mentioned since he was selected president in 2000.

[Ryan]

Not that this represents the population as a whole, but this is what I experienced this weekend while visiting my family and the family of my girlfriend. You would probably find this a whole lot more interesting if you knew the people involved. Nevertheless, I found it to be an interesting look into the minds of some Bush supporters.

Here are the characters and their take on Bush's performance:

1) My father: an extremely outspoken far-right conservative. He worshipped Ronald Reagan, aligns himself with the policies of the Christian Coalition, foams at the mouth when he hears the name "Clinton," holds a lifetime membership to the NRA (and carries a concealed Glock with him everywhere he goes), has held a subsrciption to Rush Limbaugh's newsletter for almost a decade, and has thought that George W. Bush hung the moon since he was elected governor of Texas many years ago. He worked for the Bush campaign, sent him financial contributions, and has stuck by the man throughout his presidency, until recently. He has never voted for any candidate who was not a Republican and has, in the past, sworn to me that he never would.

His current view: He admitted to me that he saw Bush as even more irresponsible and liberal with spending our tax dollars than was Bill Clinton. He is fuming about the handout given to non-taxpayers in the recent "tax cut," the proposed prescription drug plan, and the massive corporate handouts given by the administration. He says he is "EXTREMELY displeased" with Bush's handling of the economy and believes that the administration is doing irreparable damage that his grandchild will be paying for when she is an adult. He is still in support of the war in Iraq but admits that he thinks Bush was dishonest and manipulative in pushing us to war with them. Of course, as a conservative, he is more displeased with the economic impact of this war than he is with the thousands of human lives that have so far been ended or completely wrecked.

His position: If the election were held today, he says he would vote for a third party candidate. He says he does not trust Bush any longer and wants to send a message to the GOP that Bush's brand of "conservatism" is not what keeps the campaign contribution checks rolling in.

Strike 1


2) My mother: an extremely conservative woman who bases most of her beliefs upon what my father thinks. Like most Americans, she has a very short attention span and therefore turns on her political heros (or falls in love with them) as often as the wind changes directions. She is also a typical middle aged woman and grandmother who is much more conerned about issues like banning abortion and "saving the children" than she is all that complicated economic stuff. She is a very educated woman, but is rather oblivious when it comes to what is really happening in politics.

Her current view: Her baby is in Iraq risking his life for a war waged upon lies. Bush is a coward who did not fulfill his military duty and then stands up to the world and says "bring it on." She says, "that is my child upon which he is calling for violent retaliation by the Iraqis. If anything happens to my baby, I'm gonna bring it on his ass! I want this crap over and my child home NOW!"

Her position:She says she "hates" George W. Bush, especially after hearing the "bring it on" comment. She says she will not vote for him and may even vote for a Democrat for the first time in her life if she thinks it will end the war sooner. In actuality, her vote will probably depend on whether or not my brother makes it home safely before the election. Regardless, she is very unhappy with the man.

Strike 2


3) My girlfriend's mother: a staunch conservative and Zionist Christian , she "votes her faith" and always will.

Her current view: She disagrees with some of what Bush has done, but believes that most of it was in response to the "mess Clinton left behind." Regardless of his record, she proclaims that Bush is a "man of God" and therefore a vote against him is a vote against righteousness. Also, she feels that opposition of the war on terror is equivalent to support for the destruction of Israel, God's chosen people.

Her position: She voted for Bush in 2000 and will vote for him again in 2004, and she does not want to hear any more negative information about the man.

ball 1


4) My girlfriend's father: The only kind of conservative that I can get along with in a political conversation, and the only type worthy of the label "conservative," he hates the government and loves the Constitution. He wants to abolish the IRS, put strong limits on welfare, and expand social freedom to include legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Basically, he wants the government out of his bedroom, his paycheck, and his gun rack. He begrudgingly voted for Bush in 2000 thinking that he would reduce the size and power of the federal government, but he has always been suspicious of the man and thought him to be "an idiot with a trust fund."

His current view: He "hates that little lying SOB and wants his goddamned money back. How dare that little shit spend my money like it's his play toy and then poke his nose into my life." He is extremely concerned about the Patriot Act and the expansion of federal power that has come under the Bush administration. Also, his response to the "bring it on" comment was "I'd like to put that little pansie out in the desert and watch him cry when those bastards 'bring it on.' Our boys need to be home defending our country, not running around the desert chasing some asshole cavedodger!"

His position: He's voting Libertarian. He says "that son of a bitch fooled me once, but he isn't going to do it again. I'll be damned if that bastard gets my vote!"

Strike 3


Of course, this is not conclusive evidence of Bush's overall sinking approval, but it is interesting. I had the same conversation with these people six months ago and their opinion was 180 degrees from where it is now. Bush has failed miserably to even push the agenda of the people who got him into office, and he has failed the rest of us even more. We'll see what happens next year but one thing is certain, all of you smug Republicans ought to think twice before you write off the next election.

[Adam D]

hates the government and loves the Constitution

um...the Constitution is the reason why the government is the way it is.

I hope his approval rating sags enough to lose the election.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Adam D


um...the Constitution is the reason why the government is the way it is.

That argument could be made. From his perspective, though, the current government does not respect the Constitution and is operating outside the limits set by it. I tend to agree with him on this particular point.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by WarLord
Which all goes back to my theory that we will be at war with somebody, either Iran or N. Korea, by Sept. 2004. This last military campaign was rather closely timed to last fall's Congressional elections. The junta was ready to go to war with Iraq at the end of last year. The only reason they didn't was due to George I and James Baker, amongst others, pleading with Fearless Leader to seek international support.

Watch for the drums of war to begin beating more loudly next summer. After all, what's wrong with creating situations where Americans are killed daily if it ensures re-election?

By way of example, from the BBC today comes this:
"US President George W Bush has accused Iran and Syria of continuing to support terrorism and warned the US may take action.

In one of his strongest recent threats to Iran and Syria Mr Bush, speaking in Texas, said their behaviour was "completely unacceptable" and that any state which continued to support terror "will be held accountable".

He also said their actions hampered peace efforts in the Middle East, calling terrorism "the greatest obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state"."

I'm not so sure the public will fall for this twice in two years. I could be wrong, but it seems that even many of the Bush supporters who do not openly admit their doubt about this war still hold some reservations about it.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Ryan
That argument could be made. From his perspective, though, the current government does not respect the Constitution and is operating outside the limits set by it. I tend to agree with him on this particular point.

Sure, but the vagueness of the Constitution is what has allowed the courts to adjust the laws beyond it.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by WarLord
Which all goes back to my theory that we will be at war with somebody, either Iran or N. Korea, by Sept. 2004. This last military campaign was rather closely timed to last fall's Congressional elections. The junta was ready to go to war with Iraq at the end of last year. The only reason they didn't was due to George I and James Baker, amongst others, pleading with Fearless Leader to seek international support.

Watch for the drums of war to begin beating more loudly next summer. After all, what's wrong with creating situations where Americans are killed daily if it ensures re-election?

By way of example, from the BBC today comes this:
"US President George W Bush has accused Iran and Syria of continuing to support terrorism and warned the US may take action.

In one of his strongest recent threats to Iran and Syria Mr Bush, speaking in Texas, said their behaviour was "completely unacceptable" and that any state which continued to support terror "will be held accountable".

He also said their actions hampered peace efforts in the Middle East, calling terrorism "the greatest obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state"."

I think the wardrums will continue to beat progressively louder as we get closer to Nov. 2004, but I doubt people, let alone the military, will be willing to go to war again so soon. I think Bush will use the panic from his recent and upcoming wardrum beating will be used in the elections without having to go to war yet. He'll whip the public up into a frenzy claiming all these threats across the world and then argue that the Dem candidate won't go to war, so we need Bush to take us to war to defeat those threats. That's part of the reason why the administration keeps bouncing between N. Korea, Syria and Iran, even though the administration isn't even done with Iraq. They want to extend the idea that there are multiple threats that will take several neocon administrations.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Ryan
He says he is "EXTREMELY displeased" with Bush's handling of the economy and believes that the administration is doing irreparable damage that his grandchild will be paying for when she is an adult.

First point of order, your immediate and extended family sound pretty interesting, the kind of folks that I'd love to know.

Secondly, addressing your father's and many other folks view point on the handling of the economic status of the country - I stated this before. It is highly unlikely that our country will see a definite economic recovery over the course of the decade ahead. What everyone in the current administration will not (and cannot) tell the general public is that we are practically in another Great Depression. We have Wall Street and the State Department to thank for that. The fabricated and imaginary economic boom of the 90's has to be adjusted back to a normal rate of growth. Retirement funds and pensions are funding this fake recovery as they are invested in a mortgage rate fiasco that will maintain cash in the pockets of the Wall Street moneymakers. This way when the bottom really drops and the government has to admit it to the public - Wall Street can come in a buy all that low interest rate property for $0.10 on the dollar. You see they are not investing in the country's economic recovery they're banking on its failure. The Middle class will be decimated by this - the administration's only hope is keep money in the pockets of those who have it so that they may help the economy back out after it hits bottom. Deficit spending, who really care's what inevitable is inevitable... Besides the government has more income than it ever has in any point in history - it's simple money mismanagement or abuse.

The economy has to adjust itself. You see there really is nothing that the current administration can really do to compensate the failures of the previous administration. You will not see that judged in your lifetime but history will judge it…Trust!

I strongly encourage everyone to find a way out of debt in the very near future…

Of course what do I know?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Arthur
First point of order, your immediate and extended family sound pretty interesting, the kind of folks that I'd love to know.

Secondly, addressing your father's and many other folks view point on the handling of the economic status of the country - I stated this before. It is highly unlikely that our country will see a definite economic recovery over the course of the decade ahead. What everyone in the current administration will not (and cannot) tell the general public is that we are practically in another Great Depression. We have Wall Street and the State Department to thank for that. The fabricated and imaginary economic boom of the 90's has to be adjusted back to a normal rate of growth. Retirement funds and pensions are funding this fake recovery as they are invested in a mortgage rate fiasco that will maintain cash in the pockets of the Wall Street moneymakers. This way when the bottom really drops and the government has to admit it to the public - Wall Street can come in a buy all that low interest rate property for $0.10 on the dollar. You see they are not investing in the country's economic recovery they're banking on its failure. The Middle class will be decimated by this - the administration's only hope is keep money in the pockets of those who have it so that they may help the economy back out after it hits bottom. Deficit spending, who really care's what inevitable is inevitable... Besides the government has more income than it ever has in any point in history - it's simple money mismanagement or abuse.

The economy has to adjust itself. You see there really is nothing that the current administration can really do to compensate the failures of the previous administration. You will not see that judged in your lifetime but history will judge it…Trust!

I strongly encourage everyone to find a way out of debt in the very near future…

Of course what do I know?

It seems that we read many of the same publications. I tend to agree with what you said, except I think it's a VERY far stretch to blame all of our economic problems on the Clinton administration. We were not dragged into this pit over an eight year period - this has been building up for a very long time. While I agree that the 90's bubble is a major factor in this, you cannot blame that on any politician nor can you isolate that as the single reason for our current situation. I'm sure I don't have to explain the policies of the federal reserve and the big banks to you as you seem to already have a good grasp on this.

In any event, the mistakes of the past have been made and we now have to deal with them or die trying. I save about 30-40% of my income because I understand what lies ahead. But you cannot for a sinlge moment convince me that GWB is handling this economic crisis in a prudent manner. Running up record deficits and spending billions of dollars a month to engage in war is going to drive us MUCH further down into the quicksand. And you know damn well that a great majority of money he is refunding to taxpayers is NOT going into the pockets of the middle class as you have implied.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Ryan
It seems that we read many of the same publications. I tend to agree with what you said, except I think it's a VERY far stretch to blame all of our economic problems on the Clinton administration. We were not dragged into this pit over an eight year period - this has been building up for a very long time. While I agree that the 90's bubble is a major factor in this, you cannot blame that on any politician nor can you isolate that as the single reason for our current situation. I'm sure I don't have to explain the policies of the federal reserve and the big banks to you as you seem to already have a good grasp on this.

In any event, the mistakes of the past have been made and we now have to deal with them or die trying. I save about 30-40% of my income because I understand what lies ahead. But you cannot for a sinlge moment convince me that GWB is handling this economic crisis in a prudent manner. Running up record deficits and spending billions of dollars a month to engage in war is going to drive us MUCH further down into the quicksand. And you know damn well that a great majority of money he is refunding to taxpayers is NOT going into the pockets of the middle class as you have implied.

Let me clarify at bit more - we agree more than you realize.

I actually pointed the finger at the State Department which is an entity purely run by bureaucrats that can only be slightly influenced by any current administration. Where the Clinton administration went wrong was when they rode the boom with much celebrated fanfare instead of doing the right thing and slapping down the Wall Street Crooks; but hey that's politics. I never once implied that anyone was being prudent.

Ooops...the time I have a meeting at 6 pm

I'll hit this thread again with my take on the tax cuts.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Arthur
Let me clarify at bit more - we agree more than you realize.

I actually pointed the finger at the State Department which is an entity purely run by bureaucrats that can only be slightly influenced by any current administration. Where the Clinton administration went wrong was when they rode the boom with much celebrated fanfare instead of doing the right thing and slapping down the Wall Street Crooks; but hey that's politics. I never once implied that anyone was being prudent.

Ooops...the time I have a meeting at 6 pm

I'll hit this thread again with my take on the tax cuts.

This doesn't make any sense. If you're blaming the State Dept. for our problems (how you blame the economy on the State Dept. I don't know) then I don't see why you turn around and blame Clinton for the problems.

Originally posted by Adam D


um...the Constitution is the reason why the government is the way it is. [/B]

OFF TOPIC.


but i tend to disagree. the constitution was written not to end up like this. it was writen to be interpreted and adaptable. its the interpretations that fucked it up. its a great document and idea.....it just got jacked up by jack-asses of the non steve-o type.

well maybe.....theyre brawling in the congress these days.

Originally posted by WarLord
Which all goes back to my theory that we will be at war with somebody, either Iran or N. Korea, by Sept. 2004. This last military campaign was rather closely timed to last fall's Congressional elections. The junta was ready to go to war with Iraq at the end of last year. The only reason they didn't was due to George I and James Baker, amongst others, pleading with Fearless Leader to seek international support.

Watch for the drums of war to begin beating more loudly next summer. After all, what's wrong with creating situations where Americans are killed daily if it ensures re-election?

By way of example, from the BBC today comes this:
"US President George W Bush has accused Iran and Syria of continuing to support terrorism and warned the US may take action.

In one of his strongest recent threats to Iran and Syria Mr Bush, speaking in Texas, said their behaviour was "completely unacceptable" and that any state which continued to support terror "will be held accountable".

He also said their actions hampered peace efforts in the Middle East, calling terrorism "the greatest obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state"."

Fuckin War Powers Act......