Bush gets low marks in poll as he prepares exit

[Duddy]

Bush is the only President to have the highest approval ratings and the lowest.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Red Dawn points out, " Well a number of incumbent Republicans did lose their elelctions."

But two points are missed, (1) Many of the incumbent GOP senators that lost elections in 2008 were basically moderates who had a prior history of working with democrats on a bi-partisan basis and were basically punished for the sins of their more extremist collages. (2) Quite a number of moderate GOP senators simply retired rather than run, again losing the GOP many Senators of long standing who knew how to work on a bi-partisan basis. John Warner, Pete DiMedichi, and Chuck Hagel are going to be tough losses for the GOP to replace.

In terms of what is left in the GOP, all too many know little more than the tactics of obstructionism, and its why GOP losses increased in 2008. And why congressional approval ratings became mired in the sewer.

Non-Lemon Law,

Can you explain to me why when the Republicans have the majority it was expected that they reach out to the minority, but when they are in the minority its expected that they reach out the majority? When do democrats ever have to reach out to republicans?

Reaching out to the minority is not accepted-when it's in the bathroom stall.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Red Dawn points out, " Well a number of incumbent Republicans did lose their elelctions."

But two points are missed, (1) Many of the incumbent GOP senators that lost elections in 2008 were basically moderates who had a prior history of working with democrats on a bi-partisan basis and were basically punished for the sins of their more extremist collages. (2) Quite a number of moderate GOP senators simply retired rather than run, again losing the GOP many Senators of long standing who knew how to work on a bi-partisan basis. John Warner, Pete DiMedichi, and Chuck Hagel are going to be tough losses for the GOP to replace.

In terms of what is left in the GOP, all too many know little more than the tactics of obstructionism, and its why GOP losses increased in 2008. And why congressional approval ratings became mired in the sewer.

Non-Lemon Law,

Can you explain to me why when the Republicans have the majority it was expected that they reach out to the minority, but when they are in the minority its expected that they reach out the majority? When do democrats ever have to reach out to republicans?

Reaching out to the minority is not accepted-when it's in the bathroom stall.

:laugh: Burn!!!

 

[winnar111]

Thank you, President George W. Bush, for your service.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for fucking everything up.

fixed for reality

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Genx87
BDS to the grave I see. Instead of focusing on Obama, people would rather beat the dead horse about Bush's approval ratings.

LOL @ those who still approve of the guy. They're the kinds that still think the Vietnam war could have been won if it weren't for those liberals.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Red Dawn points out, " Well a number of incumbent Republicans did lose their elelctions."

But two points are missed, (1) Many of the incumbent GOP senators that lost elections in 2008 were basically moderates who had a prior history of working with democrats on a bi-partisan basis and were basically punished for the sins of their more extremist collages. (2) Quite a number of moderate GOP senators simply retired rather than run, again losing the GOP many Senators of long standing who knew how to work on a bi-partisan basis. John Warner, Pete DiMedichi, and Chuck Hagel are going to be tough losses for the GOP to replace.

In terms of what is left in the GOP, all too many know little more than the tactics of obstructionism, and its why GOP losses increased in 2008. And why congressional approval ratings became mired in the sewer.

Non-Lemon Law,

Can you explain to me why when the Republicans have the majority it was expected that they reach out to the minority, but when they are in the minority its expected that they reach out the majority? When do democrats ever have to reach out to republicans?

Reaching out to the minority is not accepted-when it's in the bathroom stall.

:laugh: Burn!!!

As opposed to the way democrats reach out which is when they are putting out their hand to be bribed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

As opposed to the way democrats reach out which is when they are putting out their hand to be bribed.

Like they did with Haliburton..wait that was the Republicans:shocked:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for fucking everything up.

fixed for reality

Bump for anonymous reject.

 

[Bitek]

Everything Bush touched turned to shit. We've had more historic and colossal blunders under this fool than we could have used in a century. All things bad, whether a bit his fault or mostly his fault, will always accredited to him.

And what is the major legacy or accomplishment he's trying to carve out for himself? "I was a real asshole when I needed to be"

Yeah buddy. Yes you were. And then some.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: chrisho
There are times where we need leaders who do what is necessary even if we don't like it.

For his blank check signing off whatever spending bill Congress sent him he should he held in contempt

Agreed,
My worst list is Carter, and Hoover, cant think of a good 3rd. Nixon destroyed the white house, but he opened up relations with china, and ended the Vietnam war so he deserves some credit.
I wont judge bush for 20yrs or so, its still hard to see what will end up with this whole Iraq thing, that will make all the difference. Also I get a feeling that we don't really have the full picture of everything that went into this decision making, be it good or bad, also I think will find out much more in the future.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and when Congress gets finished investigating Bush's administration, his administration won't be worth squat.

-Robert

Congress investigating anyone is a joke. What are those crooked bastards gonna say? He's just as bad as us.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for your service.

Sig worthy stupidity.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for your service.

Sig worthy stupidity.

One thing that always strikes me the most about bush whenever i see him, is how much he has aged during the last 8 years. I cannot fathom how stressful that job would be

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Does Congress still have an even lower approval rating than Bush?

I think the approval ratings are a reflection of American's disgust with politicians in general these days.

Maybe. Congress running about a 20% approval rating right now according to Gallup.

Link

That a very misleading number since most incumbant congress people win reelection.

So did Bush. I doubt that many will claim his approval rating is a misleading number because he was reelected.

His approval rating was higher (above 50%) when he was re-elected in 2004. It really plumetted in his 2nd term when most people figured out he is a complete idiot and is driving our country into a hole it will take years and years to climb out of.

Bush may not be the worst president we ever had (time will tell) but I can guarantee he'll be a lot closer to being the worst POTUS then the best POTUS.

And that's no BdS.

 

[ProfJohn]

No President will ever compare to the group that served right before the Civil War.

You can't compare a poor economy and a badly executed war to the failure to preserve the union.

 

[Kanalua]

Move On


.org

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
Move On


.org

A very good organization!!

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for your service.

Sig worthy stupidity.

One thing that always strikes me the most about bush whenever i see him, is how much he has aged during the last 8 years. I cannot fathom how stressful that job would be

yeah imagine who stressful it would be to figure out what lie you lied about and try to keep it all straight.

All that guilt every time someone died in Iraq... Karma -- it's a bitch.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for your service.

Sig worthy stupidity.

One thing that always strikes me the most about bush whenever i see him, is how much he has aged during the last 8 years. I cannot fathom how stressful that job would be

yeah imagine who stressful it would be to figure out what lie you lied about and try to keep it all straight.

All that guilt every time someone died in Iraq... Karma -- it's a bitch.

You were probably one of those people who hated Bush before he became president, one of those "support the troops, not the war" types...who now cry a river when someone criticizes "the One."

Look at every president, especially the ones in for 8 years...the office makes these men age so fast...

Look at Clinton in 1992 and then again in 2000...Lincoln is a great example, too...the Civil War aged him like nothing else possibly could.

President Bush, no matter what you think of him, lead this country through one of the most perilous times since probably the civil war...at no other time has the country been under such a threat from outside or within. His policies helped the country navigate the financial storm following 9.11.01 (cutting taxes by the way) and he lead two successful wars (yes two, and successful).

 

[ericlp]

yawn...

Besides, even if they made all of the airplanes completely safe, the terrorists would simply start bombing other places that are crowded: pawnshops, crackhouses, titty bars, and gang bangs. You know, entertainment venues. The odds of your being killed by a terrorist are practically zero. So I say, relax and enjoy the show.

You have got to be realistic about terrorism. Ya gotta be a realist: Certain groups of people ? muslim fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, jewish fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana ? are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time. That?s the reality. Angry men in combat fatigues talking to god on a two-way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are eventually going to provide us with a great deal of entertainment.

Especially after your stupid fuckin? economy collapses all around you, and the terrorists come out of the woodwork. And you?ll have anthrax in the water supply and sarin gas in the air conditioners; There?ll be chemical and biological suitcase bombs in every city, and I say, ?Relax, enjoy it! Enjoy the show! Take a fuckin? chance. Put a little fun in your life.?

....

But I also know that most Americans are soft, frightened, unimaginative people who have no idea there?s such a thing as dangerous fun. And they certainly don?t recognize good entertainment when they see it.


I couldn't have said it better myself........

So, Kanalua, what does 911 have to do with Iraq?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
President Bush, no matter what you think of him, lead this country through one of the most perilous times since probably the civil war...at no other time has the country been under such a threat from outside or within. His policies helped the country navigate the financial storm following 9.11.01 (cutting taxes by the way) and he lead two successful wars (yes two, and successful).

You're mad. Please explain how the threat posed by Al Qaida compares with that of a truly dangerous enemy, such as cold-war Russia. Please explain how the loss of 3000 Americans on 9/11 was a cataclysmic event in the scheme of things. Almost everything bad that has happened during America's response to 9/11 has been due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration, not a consequence of some huge intrinsic "peril" posed by worldwide terrorism.

Naturally, you make the illogical argument that because Bush got through tax cuts in 2003, that action CAUSED whatever good things happened in the economy subsequent to that. Ever heard of Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I thought not. Of course, any NEGATIVE economic events that occurred subsequent to the tax cuts (such as the current economic crisis) are NOT Bush's fault because, . . ., er, . . ., you just know they're not his fault. Also, Clinton doesn't get credit for the fantastic economy subsequent to his tax INCREASES because . . . ?

Bush was clueless boob.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Kanalua
President Bush, no matter what you think of him, lead this country through one of the most perilous times since probably the civil war...at no other time has the country been under such a threat from outside or within. His policies helped the country navigate the financial storm following 9.11.01 (cutting taxes by the way) and he lead two successful wars (yes two, and successful).

Please explain how the threat posed by Al Qaida compares with that of a truly dangerous enemy, such as cold-war Russia. Please explain how the loss of 3000 Americans on 9/11 was a cataclysmic event in the scheme of things. Almost everything bad that has happened during America's response to 9/11 has been due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration, not a consequence of some huge intrinsic "peril" posed by worldwide terrorism.

Naturally, you make the illogical argument that because Bush got through tax cuts in 2003, that action CAUSED whatever good things happened in the economy subsequent to that. Ever heard of Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I thought not. Of course, any NEGATIVE economic events that occurred subsequent to the tax cuts (such as the current economic crisis) are NOT Bush's fault because, . . ., er, . . ., you just know they're not his fault. Also, Clinton doesn't get credit for the fantastic economy subsequent to his tax INCREASES because . . . ?

Bush was clueless boob.

1) When did the Soviet Union ever directly attack us on our own soil? When did it directly kill 3000 of our citizens in one blow? Are you minimizing the loss of 3000 people in one act of terrorism? If you are going to blame all the BAD in the World on Bush, you've got to blame him for everything that has gone good, too...which leads to...(by the way, your own logic clearly reveals your lack of understanding of post hoc ergo propter hoc...I'll explain since you don't understand what you just found out on Wikipedia: you say that bush's tax cuts didn't cause the economic recovery of the early 2000s and blow off any argument as p.h.e.p.h. Yet, in the paragraph above you have a p.h.e.p.h. statement: "Almost everything bad that has happened during America's response to 9/11 has been due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration." Good job.)

2) Yes, the economic rebound post-9/11 was a direct result of the tax cuts (2001 and 2003). The current economic crisis is because of bad social policy (toxic subprime mortgage crisis - look it up), NOT tax cuts. I don't agree with Bush's response to the current economic crisis, and he even admitted he abandoned his free-market principles...but...you don't see me praising Bush for that, do you? No.
Under the 1993 tax hike (1993-1997) the economy averaged a 3.2% real growth per year (not bad). When Republicans took charge and implemented tax cuts in 1997 the economy averaged 4.2% real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike. Tax cuts work...they've worked for decades. Tax and spend doesn't work nearly as well...