diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Is Bush the worst president we?ve ever had?
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Danospano,
"You must hate breaking that tid-bit, because it's a fallacy. Let's do some rudimentary math: Most Americans would presumably constitute 51% of the adult population, and since half the adult population didn't vote at all in the 2000 election, and since Al Gore received at least 50% of the vote in that election, and since pollsters only survey potential voters, I'd say that George W. Bush has been receiving roughly a 25-30% approval rating through-out his tenure in office. That is irrefutably a minority of Americans; not a majority (most)."
#1 the results of the 2000 election which Gore lost according to the US Constitution are irrelevant to his job approval rating as a president.
#2 pollsters often take a scientific representive sample, not just of potential voters, when doing job approval polling. Even if that was not the case, its rather presumptious of you to claim that all non-potential voters disaprove of the way Bush is doing his job. If anything, an even greater majority of non-voters probably approve of the way Bush is handling things. Non-voters typically feel the country is doing just fine and have no compelling reason to vote, which is part of the reason that Gore was defeated in 2000 during one of the best economic times in decades. Any event, the polls are accurate to a certain degree.
"Now, if we presume that a majority of those giving Bush a complimentary approval rating have friends/family/loved ones fighting in Afganistan/Iraq they would be callous, pessimistic, bastards if they disapproved of their friends/family/loved ones leader. After all, how often do we hear people harangue the person who controls our destinies? Therefore, I'd say that if we never INVADED Iraq, or Afganistan, Bush's true approval rating would lose even more weight and fall to the low-20% range."
That is just simply wrong. Read a little about the Vietnam War.
"-He better raise a lot of money, because his propaganda is becoming a tad bit mundane."
"---Can he buy the 2004 election? Tune in next year...same lame time, same lame country."
George Bush will win or lose the next election because of how the voters feel about the job he has done on the economy and foreign policy, plain and simple.
"You must hate breaking that tid-bit, because it's a fallacy. Let's do some rudimentary math: Most Americans would presumably constitute 51% of the adult population, and since half the adult population didn't vote at all in the 2000 election, and since Al Gore received at least 50% of the vote in that election, and since pollsters only survey potential voters, I'd say that George W. Bush has been receiving roughly a 25-30% approval rating through-out his tenure in office. That is irrefutably a minority of Americans; not a majority (most)."
#1 the results of the 2000 election which Gore lost according to the US Constitution are irrelevant to his job approval rating as a president.
#2 pollsters often take a scientific representive sample, not just of potential voters, when doing job approval polling. Even if that was not the case, its rather presumptious of you to claim that all non-potential voters disaprove of the way Bush is doing his job. If anything, an even greater majority of non-voters probably approve of the way Bush is handling things. Non-voters typically feel the country is doing just fine and have no compelling reason to vote, which is part of the reason that Gore was defeated in 2000 during one of the best economic times in decades. Any event, the polls are accurate to a certain degree.
"Now, if we presume that a majority of those giving Bush a complimentary approval rating have friends/family/loved ones fighting in Afganistan/Iraq they would be callous, pessimistic, bastards if they disapproved of their friends/family/loved ones leader. After all, how often do we hear people harangue the person who controls our destinies? Therefore, I'd say that if we never INVADED Iraq, or Afganistan, Bush's true approval rating would lose even more weight and fall to the low-20% range."
That is just simply wrong. Read a little about the Vietnam War.
"-He better raise a lot of money, because his propaganda is becoming a tad bit mundane."
"---Can he buy the 2004 election? Tune in next year...same lame time, same lame country."
George Bush will win or lose the next election because of how the voters feel about the job he has done on the economy and foreign policy, plain and simple.
najeena
War Child
The kiss on Dubbya's face came from the wealthy, who's interests he serves. The black eye came from the poor, underpaid and underserved who lose every time he opens his mouth. "BRING 'EM ON!" I couldn't believe my ears when I heard his challenge to harm our soldiers. Did he really think the families of the dead and wounded would appreciate it?
I fear that if he is allowed to do as he pleases, in the end we'll all be dust, circling the globe as nuclear winter ends all life on our beautiful planet. Pre-emptive attack? You bet!
No one will be left to mourn for us.
I fear that if he is allowed to do as he pleases, in the end we'll all be dust, circling the globe as nuclear winter ends all life on our beautiful planet. Pre-emptive attack? You bet!
No one will be left to mourn for us.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
I think that would be on a different cheek
Danospano,
I certainly do, my last post was in response to your questions and statements on the reliability or validity of Bush's approval ratings. Why do you ask? Is there something I said that you have a question about or are confused about?
I certainly do, my last post was in response to your questions and statements on the reliability or validity of Bush's approval ratings. Why do you ask? Is there something I said that you have a question about or are confused about?
Zoocoustic
War Child
Anyone who's still going on about Bush "stealing" the 2000 election is just plain ignorant.
ALL major media sources reported that once all the votes and absentees were counted, that Bush had won the state of Florida.
Those are the facts.
ALL major media sources reported that once all the votes and absentees were counted, that Bush had won the state of Florida.
Those are the facts.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Shhh. Don't spoil the fantasy
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
I think that's true for the world in general, on BOTH sides of any argument.
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
I think it is interesting how everybody is sitting around spouting generalities instead of focusing on the topic at hand. Yeah, why don't we just sit around a call Bush, CLinton, etc. names instead of looking at their performance objectively. Just take a look at the polls of historians posted here (look at my earlier posting for a link to the rankings). I mean, Warren G. Harding and Jimmy Carter are 2 guys who in retrospect did a pretty awful job even though contemporary opinion might suggest otherwise. BTW, Harding was very well liked by the public. AT the top of the list, you have people like FDR, Teddy, LBJ, and Eisenhower. All these men had differing political philosophies, but further OBJECTIVE study shows that ,hey, they did a pretty good job at furthering the interests of the U.S. It appears that the best time to really gauge the greatness of a president is years after holding office. According to the list, Clinton and Bush I are mediocre; who knows, maybe in the next decade after people have the opportunity to see their performances from less colored lenses, current opinion will change.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I'm certainly no expert on economics, but I don't see how it can be denied that the economy truly prospered under Clinton, and that the US was viewed by the rest of the world in a far more favorable light.
I was completely disgusted by his lying and shenanigans, but sometimes I think I'd rather have Bill back in a second..and I wouldn't care if he was swinging from the WH chandeliers, then what we have now 
I was completely disgusted by his lying and shenanigans, but sometimes I think I'd rather have Bill back in a second..and I wouldn't care if he was swinging from the WH chandeliers
, then what we have now The 1990s were an easy time when it came to problems overseas relative to now. The Cold War had ended before Clinton came into office which allowed for greater cuts in defense spending which is big part of the reason the USA achieved Surpluses in the late 1990s. Clinton had nothing to do with the Cold War and its ending though.
The Backlash against Clinton in 1994 and the election of the first Repulican congress in 40 years forced Clinton to be come more conservative in his domestic spending practices and to forget about a National Health Care Plan in favor of better economic growth through a balanced budget which was now possible with the Cold War over.
Clinton's impact on the economy is indeed there, but so is the Republican Congress's impact, the who changes in the World following the Cold War, and the sudden increase in productivity during the 1990s that happened independently of Government.
If Clinton had to face a continueing Cold War or a 9/11, the sunny economic times of the 1990s probably would not of been possible.
The Backlash against Clinton in 1994 and the election of the first Repulican congress in 40 years forced Clinton to be come more conservative in his domestic spending practices and to forget about a National Health Care Plan in favor of better economic growth through a balanced budget which was now possible with the Cold War over.
Clinton's impact on the economy is indeed there, but so is the Republican Congress's impact, the who changes in the World following the Cold War, and the sudden increase in productivity during the 1990s that happened independently of Government.
If Clinton had to face a continueing Cold War or a 9/11, the sunny economic times of the 1990s probably would not of been possible.
Elvis Presley
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Experts: 'Hatred' Toward Bush Not Exceptional
thought this applied to the topic at hand...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104523,00.html
Experts: 'Hatred' Toward Bush Not Exceptional
WASHINGTON ? President Bush's critics are playing political hardball this election season, attacking him with a vitriol that some observers say is over the top. But others say the venom is a staple of presidential politics.
"Are they harsh? Absolutely. Are they harsher than other presidents, not just in modern times, but historically? No. It's an American tradition to beat up on our presidents," said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics (search).
Presidents have consistently faced severe criticism, Sabato said, citing the abuse suffered by Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and even Thomas Jefferson. He called media-darling John F. Kennedy the one exception.
"I can't think of another [White House] occupant who wasn?t beaten to a pulp on a regular basis," Sabato said.
But political expert Michael Barone (search) has written about what he sees as increased harshness directed toward the current commander in chief.
"I think the degree of feeling is unusually high," he said.
However, Barone agreed that the treatment Bush is receiving is not new in history. He compared it to the anger that some directed at Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And none of the experts forget the beating Bill Clinton was regularly getting in the press toward the end of his presidency.
"I don't think the criticism [of Bush] has been that big compared to previous terms when you had an impeachment taking place. It's hard to argue that President Bush is getting harsher criticism," said James B. Lemert, professor of journalism at the University of Oregon (search). "I would be a little surprised if there had been an escalation of the rhetoric this century, including the 20th."
Polls show America deeply divided on Bush. In an Oct. 28-29 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 44 percent of respondents said they would vote for Bush, while 38 percent said they would vote for the unnamed Democratic candidate. Other polls show public opinion on Bush even more closely divided.
An L.A. Times poll found that Bush's personal approval is much higher than that of his policies, with 68 percent of adults polled saying that they like him as a person and 26 percent saying they do not. The same poll found 46 percent like most of his policies, but 48 percent don't.
By comparison, the personal versus policy ratings for Clinton were reversed by the end of his second term. A September 2000 L.A. Times poll found that 58 percent of respondents approved of his policies compared to 41 percent who disapproved, but only 32 percent said they liked him personally against 67 percent who said they did not.
The public "really liked [Clinton] up until the scandal and then they realized that he was a sleazebag. Clinton was extremely popular personally, much more so than his policies, up until the Monica Lewinsky scandal," Sabato said.
Perhaps as a result of the personal bashing their leader took while president, the Democratic hopefuls seeking to follow in Clinton's footsteps are taking particular zeal in their attacks on Bush's policies.
Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., called Bush a "miserable failure." Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Bush is treating Iraq like "a toy he has won." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., calls for "regime change" in the United States.
But critics don't limit their comments about Bush to political discourse. Some describe their feelings in the most visceral of terms.
In a recent New Republic cover story titled "The Case for Bush Hatred," Jonathan Chait writes that he "hates" Bush for his policies and his personality.
He hates the way he walks "shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from the sides" and his "blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang," the article says.
Sabato said Bush's re-election team doesn't need to worry about the personal attacks on the president as long as he continues to have policy successes.
"They're not voting on personality. Presidential elections are about big things. They're not about somebody's smile and they're not about whether somebody likes somebody. They're about whether the individual has produced for them and their families," he said.
Barone added that voters will look at the president's position on the war, the economy and other significant issues, and not at whether they regard him as confident or cocky.
"I think it's going to be more whether or not people are with him or against him on major policies," he said.
thought this applied to the topic at hand...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104523,00.html
Experts: 'Hatred' Toward Bush Not Exceptional
WASHINGTON ? President Bush's critics are playing political hardball this election season, attacking him with a vitriol that some observers say is over the top. But others say the venom is a staple of presidential politics.
"Are they harsh? Absolutely. Are they harsher than other presidents, not just in modern times, but historically? No. It's an American tradition to beat up on our presidents," said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics (search).
Presidents have consistently faced severe criticism, Sabato said, citing the abuse suffered by Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and even Thomas Jefferson. He called media-darling John F. Kennedy the one exception.
"I can't think of another [White House] occupant who wasn?t beaten to a pulp on a regular basis," Sabato said.
But political expert Michael Barone (search) has written about what he sees as increased harshness directed toward the current commander in chief.
"I think the degree of feeling is unusually high," he said.
However, Barone agreed that the treatment Bush is receiving is not new in history. He compared it to the anger that some directed at Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And none of the experts forget the beating Bill Clinton was regularly getting in the press toward the end of his presidency.
"I don't think the criticism [of Bush] has been that big compared to previous terms when you had an impeachment taking place. It's hard to argue that President Bush is getting harsher criticism," said James B. Lemert, professor of journalism at the University of Oregon (search). "I would be a little surprised if there had been an escalation of the rhetoric this century, including the 20th."
Polls show America deeply divided on Bush. In an Oct. 28-29 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 44 percent of respondents said they would vote for Bush, while 38 percent said they would vote for the unnamed Democratic candidate. Other polls show public opinion on Bush even more closely divided.
An L.A. Times poll found that Bush's personal approval is much higher than that of his policies, with 68 percent of adults polled saying that they like him as a person and 26 percent saying they do not. The same poll found 46 percent like most of his policies, but 48 percent don't.
By comparison, the personal versus policy ratings for Clinton were reversed by the end of his second term. A September 2000 L.A. Times poll found that 58 percent of respondents approved of his policies compared to 41 percent who disapproved, but only 32 percent said they liked him personally against 67 percent who said they did not.
The public "really liked [Clinton] up until the scandal and then they realized that he was a sleazebag. Clinton was extremely popular personally, much more so than his policies, up until the Monica Lewinsky scandal," Sabato said.
Perhaps as a result of the personal bashing their leader took while president, the Democratic hopefuls seeking to follow in Clinton's footsteps are taking particular zeal in their attacks on Bush's policies.
Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., called Bush a "miserable failure." Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said Bush is treating Iraq like "a toy he has won." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., calls for "regime change" in the United States.
But critics don't limit their comments about Bush to political discourse. Some describe their feelings in the most visceral of terms.
In a recent New Republic cover story titled "The Case for Bush Hatred," Jonathan Chait writes that he "hates" Bush for his policies and his personality.
He hates the way he walks "shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from the sides" and his "blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang," the article says.
Sabato said Bush's re-election team doesn't need to worry about the personal attacks on the president as long as he continues to have policy successes.
"They're not voting on personality. Presidential elections are about big things. They're not about somebody's smile and they're not about whether somebody likes somebody. They're about whether the individual has produced for them and their families," he said.
Barone added that voters will look at the president's position on the war, the economy and other significant issues, and not at whether they regard him as confident or cocky.
"I think it's going to be more whether or not people are with him or against him on major policies," he said.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
I actually agree with these, particularly the first one. What the hell is a fact? The concept of "facts" in history went to the grave with Queen Victoria, or should have. It's all opinion. That's the post-modernist way.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
I can't remember which president this was, but I wanna say Carter or Eisenhower. Anyway, he was quoted as saying, "If one morning, I walked across the Potomac river, the headlines the next day would read, 'President Can't Swim.'"
SD
SD
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Sherry Darling said:I can't remember which president this was, but I wanna say Carter or Eisenhower. Anyway, he was quoted as saying, "If one morning, I walked across the Potomac river, the headlines the next day would read, 'President Can't Swim.'"
SD
I believe that was Eisenhower. I would have read that if it was from Carter's presidency, and I've never read it. When I was younger this neck of the woods was Carter country. My maternal grandmother, from Opelika, Alabama (town right next to Auburn, Alabama) could have easily been president of his fan club. The place is, like two hours away from Plains on 280. No, not exactly a great president, but a great guy. We are just sorry that Grandma didn't live to see him win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
verte76 said:
What the heck?! I hope you are kidding or are being sarcastic. If it's all opinion and nothing else, why should I even listen to what others have to say? When I am grading an essay I am not looking for various opinions that say "Oh, this is what I think, so give me credit." No, give me reasons based on facts, and then you will receive credit. If everything is opinion, there is no need for arguing over anything else.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Ft. Worth Frog said:
What's being said here has a lot of merit. In politics there are very few "facts". The Earth is round, yes this is a fact. But when you come to the issues of politics, when was the last time you saw a true fact? For ever "fact" that you can find to support gun control, someone else can find a "fact" that disputes it.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Ft. Worth Frog said:
No, I am *not* being sarcastic. I'm serious. What is a fact? Something that's correct 100% of the time. OK, you've got certain things that are facts, or laws, like the law of gravity. But that doesn't make every argument invalid or whatever. Some opinions hold more water than others. Conservatives love to point out that evolution is a theory, not a fact. A theory is a solid *opinion* that has plenty of weight behind it. It's more accurate to define it as an opinion than a "fact" if it's not 100% true all of the time. Whose opinion of Vietnam is 100% "correct"? Whose opinion of Policy X is 100% correct? A "soft" science, like history, political science or economics, is never going to be as exact as something like physics and chemistry. And yet, when I took chemistry, they were still teaching Bohr's theory of atomic structure, which was almost 100 years old at the time. A physicist I met chewed me out for even being taught that theory. "Bohr was wrong!!" he yelled. Excuse me, I didn't choose our textbooks. But look into this, saying it's all opinions and theories and such doesn't mean everything's invalid, or not true at all. I was a philosophy minor so I got a double dose of this stuff in school. And please don't tell me I wrote those papers in vain. OK, they got me a degree. But I like to think that's not all.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
uh oh..dont look now..
--
Poll: President's approval on the rise after Thanksgiving
WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
?2003 Associated Press
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/02/national1730EST0659.DTL
(12-02) 14:30 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
President Bush's standing with the public has improved since his surprise Thanksgiving trip to Iraq amid signs of a stronger economy and following congressional passage of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
Bush's job approval was at 61 percent in the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted the four days after the holiday, up from 56 percent during the four days before Thanksgiving. Disapproval of the president dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll released Tuesday.
Bush visited the troops in Baghdad on Thanksgiving -- a move that even won praise from political opponents.
Public opinion about Bush personally also improved during the four-day, post-holiday span, with an increase in the number who view him favorably from 65 percent to 72 percent. Republicans shifted from 83 percent with a favorable view of Bush personally to 94 percent. Democrats moved from 46 percent to 55 percent.
Public opinion on the war in Iraq did not shift significantly, however. People were about evenly split on whether the war in Iraq was worthwhile before the holiday and afterward.
Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq increased slightly, with 44 percent approving and 53 percent disapproving before Thanksgiving, and people evenly split on that question now. The public view of his handling of the economy also shifted from a 45-51 percent split before Thanksgiving to a public divided almost evenly on his handling of the economy, 50-48, afterward.
The margin of sampling error for the 789 people interviewed before Thanksgiving and the 847 interviewed after was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
?2003 Associated Press
--
Poll: President's approval on the rise after Thanksgiving
WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
?2003 Associated Press
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/02/national1730EST0659.DTL
(12-02) 14:30 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
President Bush's standing with the public has improved since his surprise Thanksgiving trip to Iraq amid signs of a stronger economy and following congressional passage of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
Bush's job approval was at 61 percent in the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted the four days after the holiday, up from 56 percent during the four days before Thanksgiving. Disapproval of the president dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll released Tuesday.
Bush visited the troops in Baghdad on Thanksgiving -- a move that even won praise from political opponents.
Public opinion about Bush personally also improved during the four-day, post-holiday span, with an increase in the number who view him favorably from 65 percent to 72 percent. Republicans shifted from 83 percent with a favorable view of Bush personally to 94 percent. Democrats moved from 46 percent to 55 percent.
Public opinion on the war in Iraq did not shift significantly, however. People were about evenly split on whether the war in Iraq was worthwhile before the holiday and afterward.
Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq increased slightly, with 44 percent approving and 53 percent disapproving before Thanksgiving, and people evenly split on that question now. The public view of his handling of the economy also shifted from a 45-51 percent split before Thanksgiving to a public divided almost evenly on his handling of the economy, 50-48, afterward.
The margin of sampling error for the 789 people interviewed before Thanksgiving and the 847 interviewed after was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
?2003 Associated Press
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Nooooooooooo.............
It is a Sphere
Ok you got me.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
For me Verte's post rang very true. Yes, there may be facts, but facts have to go into a context and be interpreted. And with all the political obfusification that goes on, true facts are very hard to establish.
SD
SD
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Verte is pretty smart..
db9
db9
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Thanks diamond and Sherry.
*blush*
*blush*
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I understand your point, Ft. Worth Frog. When you saw the thing about "no facts" perhaps you thought of 9/11 or something else that no one in their right mind would argue was anything besides a loathsome, heinous crime against humanity. Decent Saudis were horrifically depressed, shocked and outraged at the role of their countrymen in this attack. And yet we are separated by even the moderate Moslems in that country by religion, and political and social differences. It's a whole different way of life. Some things that are strong opinions here don't exist there. I did a painting about the horrific bombing in Istanbul. It's going to be shown at a local open house tomorrow! I'm flipped out! That was also a heinous, loathsome act that we all deplore. If you want to say that it's a "fact" that these things are heinous, loathesome, and every other adjective you want to use to mean the same thing, fine. They're condemned 100% of the time, unless you're a terrorist.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
