home

Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:46:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The results of a new Washington Post - ABC News poll show Bush's approval ratings have dropped to an all time low.

For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans question the integrity of President Bush, and growing doubts about his leadership have left him with record negative ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

On virtually every key measure of presidential character and performance, the new survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.

55% of the American people now believe Bush misled the country in taking us to war. 59% say Karl Rove should resign.

< Fitzgerald's Probe Moving Forward, Cheney to Cooperate | DeLay Filing: Fox News Paid Travel Expenses >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever | 64 comments (64 topical)
    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Bush needs to be on a pole!

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. ... The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
    Sheeple are people that follow blindly and never question their leaders. Their simple Motto is: "Follow the A**hole in front of you"


    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Edger, Mencken is WRONG. The downright moron in power is not the result of the people. • It's the result of SIX YEARS OF VOTE FRAUD. • It's the result of a coup by corporate/military interests. • It's the result of betrayal by corporate media, which willingly parroted and pandered LIES to the public. • It's the result of a massive national disaster, engineered to produce "A Second Pearl Harbor." Mencken was WRONG, if you think to apply his caution to the current horrible situation. *Please make a note of it.*

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Paul: I know that, you know that, and most of the people here know that. Mencken's "mob" I liken to, out of the the 59 million or so who voted for Bush, the ones who still after 5 years, either cannot see through him because they won''t take the time and responsibility of learning, or refuse to see through the sham, out of vested self-interest, or for whatever reason. Some, of both groups, post here regularly. Those who refuse to see, not blindly, but in full cognizance of what they do, and those who pretend to not see, delude themselves if they believe they are not transparent. They are true liars.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    Posted by edger: "I know that, you know that, and most of the people here know that." No, edger. They don't know it until they take action against it. Until then, it is a phantom of knowledge. Try to change something -- then you find out what you're up against. "Mencken's "mob" I liken to, out of the the 59 million or so who voted for Bush," • There is NO WAY to know how many people voted for Bush, in either selection. • *Please make a note of it.*

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    While the fraud you talk about (constantly) is true, you're deluding yourself when you deny the obvious fact that there are plenty enough Conservatives in America stupid enough to vote for a government like we have today. Ever been to Texas? If not, maybe PiL can just take a roadie out to Arizona. Hint: the people out here are kind of like that, PiL, only a whole lot more of them.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    glanton writes:
    Yet women and homosexuals and artists and the poor (to name but a few citizen-types) in general have all had their rights and liberties mitigated,
    I don't even see the "in general." Could we have some specifics. As for the library issue, it takes a court order. And perhaps you can tell us how the criminal justice approach, as compared to the pre-emptive srike, did? If you look at what happened, every year the attacks became more deadly and more frequent. So what resources are you speaking of? More police? et al -` And while we blather, Paris is burning.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#62)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    "As for the library issue, it takes a court order." Yes, a secret court order, one entirely free of public scrutiny. In other words, it's arbitrary. "Could we have some specifics?" Bush Admin files a brief in 2003 reccomending against the eventual result of _Lawrence v Texas_. The anti-gay rhetoric issuign daily from FOX News and the GOP alike. This is simple bigotry. There is the obvious attempt to eradicate women's reproductive rights. There was the Shiavo "case," truly emblematic of the GOP agenda. Etcetera. And please, be itnelelctually honest. Nowhere in my post did I advocate a "criminal justice approach." I did advocate that, in fighting terrorism here in America, the government must respect civil liberties every step of the way, and I allowed that this is hard to do. But you know what? It's supposed to be hard to be the freakin' President! Sheesh. It'd be so much easier if they could wiretap everything, but they can't. Oh, wait, yes they can, the Patriot Act allows for wiretapping too.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    glanton - I thought you were trying to answer my question as to what you would do to combat terrrorism. I guess the answer is, nothing. With that answer the default is the CJ approach, try to track'em down after they have killed and destroyed. And I see no change in Roe v Wade. Many on the right oppose gay marriage, many people believed the courts gave Tery Schiavo a bad deal. Neither of these will change the status quo. As to "artists," I think most people don't care what the "artists" creates, they just see no reason for the public to pay for it. And most people don't think refusal to pay, or withdrawing funds, is censorship. et al - As we blather, Paris is burning.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    PPJ: Obviously it didn't meet with your holy approval, but my initial response to your question about how I would combat terrorism was genuine. I admitted, first, that I am not qualified to prosecute a war or for that matter to be President at all. Still, I outlined some things--such as eradicating Al Quaeda being the number one priority after 9/11. And such as agressively seeking out cells in this nation--it can be done, I would hope, without trampling on the rights of American citizens. But the invasion of Iraq still looks to me like a red herring. I don't see how it made us safer, and though I watch the news all the time, I still haven't seen a single straight answer as to what it means to "win" over there. Lots of adjectives a coherent policy doesn't make. And the majority of Americans at this point appear to have a similar attitude towards Iraq. That's what the polls show. But again, the GOP needn't worry about it, because they'll find a way to distract voters in '06. Which is sad because they could be giving straight answers instead. Humorously, you write "many people believed the courts gave Tery Schiavo a bad deal." Yeah, but only in the wake of weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of this non issue. And even after all of that, and all the GOP posturing, still they lost the battle for public opinion. The whole things came out like a bad comedy. And why do you care if Paris is burning? Aren't you behind O'Reilly's "boycott"? :-0

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    Posted by Tampa: "While the fraud you talk about (constantly) is true, you're deluding yourself when you deny the obvious fact that there are plenty enough Conservatives in America stupid enough to vote for a government like we have today." Which is MOOT to the issue, which is an illegal voting system. We had a legal voting system in 1998 -- it was gone in 1999. You have whatever agenda your leftism gives to you, but on the actual US constitution side of the equation this change to illegal elections IS AN EMERGENCY. But thanks for trying to water that down into yet another leftist non-action claim to higher purity. "Ever been to Texas? If not, maybe PiL can just take a roadie out to Arizona." Yeah, Tampa, I'm not unaware that the human race contains a lot of weird hateful people. Your point? I'd like to have legal elections again. Your sort of inactive cynicism is just one more weirdness in the way of removing the proprietary/partisan vote-fraud software from our voting system, and RE-installing paper trails like real democracies have.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    I'll be fair to Chimpy, and list a few things that might be dragging him down that aren't his fault: 1. Frist's 'blind trust' and the SEC investigation. 2. Tom Delay getting indicted for political money-laundering. But, as they say, "Birds of a feather......."

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    Posted by Slado the troll: "If it's easier for you to believe that Bush lied then to believe the truth then so be it. " Why don't you rebut a single one of the bulleted items. There they are -- in print -- and all you can do is spin. "However the truth is Saddam played a dangerous game of chicken with GW and lost." What does that have to do with killing 130,000 civilians, looting their national museum, burning down their national library, destroying the Koran-Torah Repository, and most of the archaelogical digs in the country? What does that have to do with illegally bombing water and power supply, and then failing to rebuild any of it, while also failing to guard any of the weapons or munitions in the country, which were previously controlled by the most stringent inspection regime in human history? "He for whatever stupid reason thought GW was as big a wimp as the UN and even Bush I." You trolls confuse your balls for your brains so much NO WONDER you comb your hair with spit. "No he didn't have WMD but how where we to know? He didn't give the inspectors the chance to prove that he didn't." That is a LIE. The inspectors were given full access before the invasion, and BEGGED for more time to finish their work. They already knew there was no nuclear program, and that Hussein was DISARMED. But Bush had other plans, plans going back a decade. You lie, Slado. And why don't you get your NARDS out of other INNOCENT people's lives? You support a mass-murderer, who himself supported the government that armed that mass-murderer Hussein back in 1989. And how did Hussein get into power in the first place? (cough)CIA(cough).

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    edgey - The operative word about Gen. Odum is "Retired."

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    glanton writes:
    for purely political reasons.
    All wars are fought for political reasons. edgeyakafibby writes:
    That doesn't wash, Slado. JimakaWhizzy has tried that worn out line of BS too many times here already.
    Wrong. I have never promoted:
    The question is do we abandon Iraq and let it become a huge mess or do we win.
    Show me. TS - Spin? Good heavens. When did stating the truth become a "spin." Look. Go to the link and prove it wrong. You can't. All you can do is moan when the truth is shown. PIL writes:
    You trolls confuse your balls for your brains so much NO WONDER you comb your hair with spit.
    Better to confuse your balls than not have any. PIL - Your basic premise is that when someone uses/quotes a source, if that source is inaccurate, then that person has lied. That is juvenile, unrealistic and stupid. As for what Clinton did, study 1998. If you are capable of focusing on anything past last Tuesday. Potty Mouth, tell us again about the guy who hit you down at the Dairy Queen and had to be restrained by six of his firends...

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    "All wars are fought for political reasons." Yes, but sometimes 'political reasons' translate into defending your nation from a real threat, and sometimes they translate into terrirorial/colonial.economic gain, period. Now, gee, which is it in this case? And again, not all wars are started on foreign shores largely in order to achieve sweeping domestic ends. You know, the whole 'support these rollbacks on civil liberties I'm a war President' shtick. I would hope that these poll numbers reflect a certain enlightened suspicion among the American people that they've been 'punked,' but it's doubtful. More likely: the numbers are this way because right now people are thinking about real issues----come election time there will be loits of red herrings a la flag burning, boys kissing, 'war on Christmas' etcetera and they'll fall for it like clockwork.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    glanton - Your premise is paranoid and flawed. Can you tell me what civil liberties you have lost? BTW - What say you about the WOT. How would you combat the terrorists? Or would you just cower, while waiting for them to do what they want?

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    - The operative word about Gen. Odum is "Retired."
    So, military people lose all their ability to critique military situations when they've retired? If that were true in all cases, then no comment by anyone retired from the military would be worth considering, no matter what direction it came from. Sounds good to me. TTFN, Whizzy

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#53)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Jim, you'll ignore my response but you baited me and for some reason I like you, so here goes: Well, for one I am a frequenter of public libraries. Those records are covered by Patriot Act. This is bothersome. It is no business of the feds what I read. But because I don't check out books any of those a-holes have ever read, I'm probably in the clear. Which brings me to the point. As a straight white man who is not poor, Jim, you're right, I haven't lost much liberty since the GOP takeover. Yet women and homosexuals and artists and the poor (to name but a few citizen-types) in general have all had their rights and liberties mitigated, with a helluva lot more coming down the pike. Some of this you yourself have acknowledged, in your more lucid moments. How would I combat terror? Hmmmmm, hard to say: I cheerfully admit I'm nowhere near qualified to be Commander In Chief. I wish certain others were able to admit that as well, though. Still, it seems to me the thing to do after 9-11 would have been to go after Al Quaeda with guns blazing, and not let up. Rather then doing it for a while and then making it a lesser priority, that is. And to take lots of security measures at home, while at the same time fully respecting the rights and freedoms of American citizens. Yes, Jim, I know this latter concept would have been hard to pull off, but it's not supposed to be easy to be President. Bush wants it to be easy and simple, black and white, no nuance, no ambiguity. That's part of why he's not qualified. Also it seems to me like a President could use his stroke to do everything possible to help ease Israeli/Palestenian tensions, and to give allies a real reason to support whatever it is you're trying to do. Again, hard to do, but part of the job. But Jim, I have seen nary a shred of evidence that invading Iraq helped us fight terrorism. I would argue it has deflected resources from going after those who vow to kill us. And I think if you do, God forbid, reach the conclusion that the only option is to invade a sovereign nation (however despicable that nation's tyrants may be), then you must have a real plan, you must know what you mean when you say 'win'--and you must be able to explain it to the people. This burden nobody on any Righty blog or network or radio station that I visit (often), this burden has not been met. And certainly not by the CIC. And I think right now, since they're not fixated on flag burning or some such nonsense issue, lots of Americans are seeing things like I do. Thus the poll numbers. But don't worry Jim, your heroes will come up with some way to distract voters when elections come around.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Glanton writes...
    come election time there will be loits of red herrings a la flag burning, boys kissing, 'war on Christmas' etcetera and they'll fall for it like clockwork.
    Exactly. The "Ignoratzi" - compliant sheep that they are. No ability to think critically, observe trends, or parse information for lies of omission. Lots of reasons why - same pathetic result.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Uh, CBS should remember that there is something called the INTERNET. (How quickly they do forget!) As this shows this poll follows in the grand tradition of RatherGate. In fact, it almost makes RatherGate look good. What is the managers at CBS thinking? Let me guess: "What can we do to run off viewers even more quickly."

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Hope you have lots of batteries, Jim. You'll need them. "It's hard work" spinning like a top. Harder work staying afloat too, I'm sure. You might have to start "comin' in saturdays". ;-)

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    in a way, i almost sort of agree with jim (and the world didn't topple off its axis!): these "polls" mean absolutely nothing, in concrete terms. the only time they might mean something is come 2006 & 2008, and even then it's marginally interesting. the only thing that really counts is how people actually vote.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#4)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Jim, If I accept everting that your link states (and it is a biased site), so what? You have W's approval at 40%? Congrats. Your positions are no longer mainstream

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Bush, on April 29/05, said: "You know, if a president tries to govern based on polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls.” In an article in The Walkerville Weekly Reader Oct. 31/05:
    The reaction from pollsters was immediate and scathing. One leading opinion poll showed the president’s support drop ten percent among pollsters. ... Pollsters are a critical constituency. Washington insider Tom Dewey noted that no president can hope to win support without appealing to pollsters. ... Other pollsters agreed. Dewey said that “when Americans don’t trust polls, they become unpredictable. Worse, they become unmanageable.”


    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Gee polls are inaccurate? Who'd a thunk it. PPakaJim is right that CBS weighted thier polls to fit what they wanted the results to be. They paid for it they might as well get the results they desperately want, eh? Ask Rather and Mapes. So Bush is down in the polls, so what? What exactly does that portend? He is going to be president for the next couple of years no matter what the wet dreams of the Left are now. I would think that the Left would use the next couple of years to hone thier message to win the next presidential election but they seem mired acrimomious attacks and we all know how well that has worked for them in the past. I used to be a Lefty but I rejected thier gapeseed nonsense. Funny how a Classical Liberal has been cast aside by the socialist fanaticists who have become the anchor of the Dems today. If you've lost me than you are on the skids. Gadzooks!

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#7)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Yeah, jimcee, the Democrats last Presidential nominee, John Kerry, is a real "socialist fanatic." So too are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That is, they are "socialist fanatics" on planet Murdoch, where you appear to have set up permanent residence. Christ, man: ease up on the koolaid; it's eating out your brain.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    Glanton, your feeble canards do not change the fact that the Left has effectivly taken over the Democrat talking point machine. When you turn on Carville you have effectively lost any entrance to mainstream politics. He's a political slut as is his wife but without him in your party you'll never get past the velvet ropes of the power club. It appears you are happier being that New Jersy guy that has been turned away from a popular club and then content yourself to pick a fight with the bouncer. Trust me, read about classical liberalism and decide for yourself. If you like the resentful Left hang out there. You don't like republicans? Fine. You don't like Carville and his exploitative comrads? Join the crowd. I agree with you. But as long as you use feeble taunts and lesser logic you will always be on the outside and angry. Somehow I sense that perpetual aggrievence is your avocation.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#9)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    No, jimcee, Carville does not hold any office. Neither does Al Franken, for that matter (strange pairing, they!). Anchors of the parties at the end of the day will be determined by who gets nominated to positions of real power. The Democratic leaders I named can by no stretch be considered socialists unless, again, you live on planet Murdoch. Now. As for influence. Are you suggesting that, say, the Al Franken element (to use a particularly shrill example of far left punditry) has anywhere near as strong of a voice in the top Democratic machinations as, say, the Sean Hannity element (equally, if not even more, shrill) has on the people in power with the GOP? If you think it's even close my friend you are the one who needs meds.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    "Uh, CBS should remember that there is something called the INTERNET...What is the managers at CBS thinking?" Maybe you should pause the autospin cycle long enough to use the INTERNET to verify that she cited an ABC-WaPo poll.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Lay off the kool aid indeed. I'd be afraid to see the results of a polling of Americans opinions on what countries they believe to be "socialist", both past and present. Planet Murdoch indeed. If I give you a choice between yellow and more yellow, purple isn't ever going to be an option. The way the Democrats have acted since the '94 election has been disgusting - starting with Healthcare shortly after Clinton was elected. Going on 14 years later, we're nowhere close to healthcare reform -- we're too busy pissing away poor peoples lives and tax dollars all over the world for the sake of Corporate profit taking. Polls are bogus. CPNIVA is correct, election results (as I referred to recently) are all that matters. Even they can hardly be trusted anymore. They are definitely not representative of any true majority.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Tampa: "Polls are bogus." Not all polls are bogus. If they asked "Should Bush be Indicted Today?" the majority of the country would answer yes, as a poll would show. Polling the truth produces a true answer. " CPNIVA is correct, election results (as I referred to recently) are all that matters." Aside from a regulated government that controls rather than rewards graft. Without that, election is just a seasoning for flavor. "Even they can hardly be trusted anymore." They cannot be trusted, what are you talking about? Thirty states don't have recount rights? The exit polls -- another form of PROVEN accurate polling -- suddenly disappear or flip? That's the direct result of a concerted effort of vote-fraud. The way you say it, Tampa, it sounds like Misericordia for the human race. It's a PRACTICAL issue, not a sentiment. Instead of bemoaning the fraud, ACT TO STOP IT. "They are definitely not representative of any true majority." And now let's look in history to find ANY society that ran on a peaceful democracy. Failing that, turn your telescope around -- you're looking through the wrong end. More people vote now than at any time in human history. That the US system is being gamed is a full-on crisis -- and not a sad fact, ho-hum, a cynical disappointment with the world for not freeing itself at once on our command.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    How many 911 PATRIOTS did Georgie kill and maim, by sending them to combat without armored vehicles or body armor? How many men and women had their patriotism rewarded with Georgie's cowardice and treason? How many men and women got Georgie's bait and switch? How many signed up to go get Al Qaeda, only to do Oil Ministry watch, while the munition bunkers were being stripped around the country by THEIR enemies. By turning by these negligent means the most heroic into body bags, Georgie committed treason -- he objectively strengthened our enemies. The patriotism of the Wilson's was also rewarded with Georgie's cowardice. The citizens who perished in LA and AL because their NG and the best of their equipment were overseas, were rewarded with Georgie's cowardice in going to San Diego to play gitar, while they died from lack of water. Any of these causes, any of these CRIMINAL BETRAYALS, are plenty as the basis of impeachment. Bush Must Resign. The band plays on, like their paid to, but there is enough evidence already that impeachable negligence and treason to American national security.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    The important thing in any of these polls isn't the absolute number, but the trend. And in George's case, in all of the polls, the long-term trend is down, down, down. The only time Bush was really popular was right after 9/11. And he definitely squeezed the 9/11 sponge for every bit of political gain he could wring out of it. But that sponge is dry; if there's another major terrorist attack, America will rightly hold Bush reponsible.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    et al - Well, with all the comments made by all the usual subjects, the one thing that wasn't done was dispute the fact that the poll is skewed as described. I don't care if Bush support is 10% or 100%, but I do care that a major news source demonstrates, again, their ability to provide inaccurate information. Shame on CBS News. Nowonmai writes:
    Excuse me? At the end of Clintons' administration, there was a surplus,...
    You're excused. Now go to the library and do some reading. By the fall of 2000 the Internet bubble was bursting and the teleommunications industry was imploding and the markets were trending downward. The spring and summer months of '01 saw a nervous stock market as company after compnay announced poor earnings, and people started to understand that the bloom was off the rose. 9/11 happened and the economy was further depressed as the travel industry was almost pushed into total collapse. And you know what? Government revenue, which comes from taxes made on money paid wage earners, dropped. Amazing, isn't? Cause and effect. Wow.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    It does not matter to you that Bush and his cronies lied to the American people in order to get his cherished Iraq war
    but I do care that a major news source demonstrates, again, their ability to provide inaccurate information. Shame on CBS News.
    you are full of sh*t, and part or an ever shrinking portion of America that has lost faith in dear leader. As the rats jump ship ppj denies that the boat is sinking. ha hahahah ha.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Let's put our heads on straight fellow trolls. It would take an idiot not to beleive that the W's poll numbers suck. However a little awarness of past presidents leads us to the unquestionable fact that as bad as it is it's no where near as bad as it was for Carter, Reagan, Bush I or even Clinton when they're down in the dumps. (All made it into the 20's I beleive). Today's lets make big judgments on the short term facts society always leads to grandious predictions of gloom and doom far before they're warranted. Remember Kerry's exhuberance when the polls showed he was going to win the presidency? Need I remind everyone here their reactions? That said considering that this country is constantly told they're losing a war when they aren't, that the economy sucks when it doesn't, that Bush lied/fibbed/misled when he didn't it's suprising his numbers are as good as they are. Not withstanding all they I predict, based on nothing but my opinion, that they will go up and that Bush is currently bottoming out. If the democrats blow the Alito nomination then they'll help him that much faster.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#20)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    One of the 'polls' of senators last month went 90-9 against at least one of the president's policies. That one had to count for something.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Slado-Another cog in the RNC spin echo chamber.
    Matalin falsely claimed that Reagan and Clinton's second-term approval ratings were "similar" to Bush's current low in the polls.
    Could she have actually have lied. PPJ will be upset that there are people other than Bush lying
    but I do care that a major news source demonstrates, again, their ability to provide inaccurate information.
    ha ha ha.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Here is the link to past presidential polls. Slado's echo chamber is as expected false. His prediction that Bush has bottomed out is also wishful thinking, wonder which echo chamber he got that from. link

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    "Reagan was at 57 percent at this stage of his presidency and Clinton was at 61 percent, according to Gallup polling at the time." here's a nice graphic.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Sailor what does that even mean? "At this stage in their presidency"? These are the LOWEST poll numbers ever for the last 7 sitting presidents. Bush Sr. 29%; Clinton 37%; Reagan 35%; Carter 28%; Ford 37%; Nixon 24%; LBJ 35% My only point was that Bush's rating (while very low) is not the lowest of all time.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Slado- No wonder you provide no link for your numbers as they come from the Wingnut Daily. Do you have any other links that might have some credibility?. Here is Clinton's approval rating and here is Bush's approval ratings.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Bush's rating (while very low) is not the lowest of all time.
    That is quite an impressive achievement.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    I don't recall anyone saying the bush's approval ratings were the lowest of all time, (but it's early, give him a chance;-) Please site a link for that 37% for Clinton's JAR, I don't believe it's accurate.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    edgar-looks like Bush can set some records yet as he has three more years to work his 'magic'.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Squeaky - Your BS level exceeds your capacity to use it. Bush relied on the same information that Clinton used when he bombed in '98.. i.e. Information from the CIA and other (worldwide)intelligence agencies. Doesn't bother you to keep making these same old silly charges? Squeak, what is your plan for the country? How would you fight terrorism? What sources would you use for information? How about some suggestions about what to do rather your continual drivel that "Bush lied." Sailor - Let's not worry about "all." Refute the specific poll. I don't think you can, or you wouldn't be talking about "all."

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Squeaky: Bush can set some records yet as he has three more years to work his 'magic'. We can count on that I think. :-)
    “When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, ‘I am still on course.’ Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. --Gen. William Odom (Ret.)
    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#31)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Shorter Jim and jimcee: "If he's up in the polls, it shows that we're winning. If he's down in the polls, it shows that you're losing." Even shorter: "Heads I win, tails you lose." Very insightful, guys. Kudos.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Sorry I forgot to inlcude the link Poll numbers I don't know when it occured but probalby in his first term not second (as evidenced by your link showing his second term) Edgar If you go back to my first post you'll see that I too feel his numbers are bad. Just trying to add perspective to the Bush bashing.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Bush is not worth bashing. The only perspective I would like to perceive him from is to have him so far gone that he dwindles away to nothing, then vanishes in a puff of his own hot air.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "Bush relied on the same information that Clinton used when he bombed in '98" No, Bush relied on forgeries about Niger, which he had been told were LIES, • LIES about aluminum tubes, • LIES they told about nuclear programs, • LIES they told about drones, • LIES they told about Nine-eleven, • LIES they told about Osama Bin Laden (i.e., catching him dead or alive), • LIES they told about British intel, • LIES they told the UN, • LIES they told the US about the forthcoming invasion (about a $3 billion cost, tops; about "throwing flowers," about "six month deployment," etc.), And LIES about needing THEIR experts to find the WMD; that the UN team couldn't find what they KNEW was there. Clinton did none of those things. How much longer will you lie to your fellow countrymen, Jim?

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    charley: Paul's points have been repeatedley substantiated by facts, by him and others in multiple posts here, and by many elsewhere, on blogs, in media, and in many discussions where intelligent people actually take the time to read, research, consider, and learn. Your abusive ad hominem attack serves no purpose other than to make you look foolish and ignorant. It certainly will not win you any support from anyone with any intelligence or self respect.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    I'll pass. Too late to pass...

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    I would have to lapse into incoherent ranting.
    What? That's all you ever do!

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Sailor,
    Please site a link for that 37% for Clinton's JAR, I don't believe it's accurate.
    The "nice graphic" link that you posted shows Clinton at approximately 37% during his administration. Are you looking at the info you post? If so, why didn't you believe the poster who pointed it out? Posted by at November 4, 2005 02:16 PM

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Posted by charley: "PIL-like a baby, you simply regurgitate the nonsense fed to you by others." Look in the mirror much, charlie? "you are given the facts, refuse to acknowledge them but continue to sputter, drool and generally soil yourself." Classic. Can't answer for a single one of the LIES Bush told, just has to go back to his myth. Poor baby. Is the trolls learning? No, they don't know how.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    ppj- Hallucinating again? Perhaps you have not taken your meds today. Hearing voices?
    Squeaky - Your BS level exceeds your capacity to use it. Bush relied on the same information that Clinton used when he bombed in '98.. i.e. Information from the CIA and other (worldwide)intelligence agencies.
    This thread is about Bush's poll numbers.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Paul If it's easier for you to believe that Bush lied then to believe the truth then so be it. Continue with your rants. However the truth is Saddam played a dangerous game of chicken with GW and lost. He for whatever stupid reason thought GW was as big a wimp as the UN and even Bush I. No he didn't have WMD but how where we to know? He didn't give the inspectors the chance to prove that he didn't. He violated every sanction put on him by the EU, US or the UN. To what end? We assume (those of us who deal in the truth) that it was to convince Iran, Egypt, Isreal etc... that he still had them so he could weild influence. Only Saddam knows. If you want the truth become his lawyer and maybe he'll tell you. The question is like Roe v Wade, that is the removal of Saddam is settled law. Would you overturn the removal of Saddam now? Should he be put back in charge? Or do you simply want to drag out the lame WMD, Bush lied rant everytime you're backed into a corner? The question isn't did Bush lie, was the evindenced trumped up, etc... That is settled if you actually read the Senate intelligence report Part I and the 9/11 report. The question is do we abandon Iraq and let it become a huge mess or do we win. Save the Bush lied rants for your trip to Argentina.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    slado: 1st, please define "win," and in doing so pretty please use as few sunshiny adjectives as possible. But beware: attempt nouns and verbs at your own hazard since there aren't really a lot of neocon talking points out there to draw from, in that quadrant. 2nd: _Roe_ properly ended the "conversation" because it recognized that American civil liberties do not belong in the hands of voters--they are inalienable. War is different: as President you'd better have damned good reasons for starting one, and you ought to be able to honestly express those reasons to the public. This our Administration did not do. What we face as a result is the ever growing suspicion that our people are being blown to bits for nothing or, even worse, for purely political reasons.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Slado: The question is do we abandon Iraq and let it become a huge mess or do we win. That doesn't wash, Slado. JimakaWhizzy has tried that worn out line of BS too many times here already. Subscribing to the twisted mindset that started Bush's misadventure in Iraq, then trying to shift responsibility for the mess onto those who protested it as idiocy before it got started, by claiming that they must now subscribe to that mindset or be held responsible for the mess, is cheap, insulting and deceitful, at best.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Hi pat, I don't think the graphic I posted from the AP didn't show Clinton below 40%, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. If from that data you can show different numbers I'd be happy to look at them. No challenge, no hyperbole, just asking. And to all; The thread is about bush having his lowest rating during his presidency. Please try to stay on topic.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#45)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Great, Slado. The truth of the whole Iraq mess is over an international game of chicken. And you think PIL is deluded? Charley, you label edger as a PIL follower and then refer us to PPJ for your facts? LMAO Patrick, You're really reaching on the poll numbers thing with Sailor. And if you look at it you will see that Bush is sliding steadily downward since 9/11, while Clinton went consistently upward as his presidency progressed. Clinton bounced there, Bush lives there.

    Re: Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    PiL's post today at 01:06 PM is correct in everything said. His earlier post, not so much. Clinton had an opportunity to pass healtcare reform between '93 and '94. He failed to gain Democratic votes. End of story. I do agree that not much progress could have been expected after that point. Republicans love HMOs. The rich ones don't have to worry about anything as quaint as a medical bill and I suppose it's a good thing that the poor ones believe in faith healing. The rest of the Conservatives don't really believe the garbage they write. They could care less about anyone's lives -- so long as it's not their own blood at risk and as long as their own foul ethnocentric/racist/bigoted biases and egos are validated by this corrupt government. Keep spinning about CBS, PPJ. It's very amusing in the face of the steady stream of lies coming from the right.

    Poll: Bush Approval at Lowest Level Ever | 64 comments (64 topical)