It is NOT the ECONOMY Stupid for Presidentail Approval Ratings in America

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

diamond

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
May 3, 2002
Messages
12,849
Location
Tempe, Az USA
..after all.
Pres Bush during his tenure has had a shitty economy here in the US. Despite that his approval ratings have consistently remained at a record high..70-85 per cent..unheard of, for a long while:yes:

Coincedently the mainstream liberal press which admittedly has always contend that a STRONG ECONOMY=HIGH APPROVAL ratings for a US President.:yes:

In addition the mainstream press which is about 80 per cent liberal/(anti consevative-Bush) acccording to independent studies..have said CHARACTER has little to do w/a Pres approval rating..

So w/the US economy "in the shitter" for A VERY LONG TIME -right now..how come GW's ratings are so high?

Could it be CHARACTER after all?:yes:
:yes:
Perhaps?
:yes:

thank you

diamond
 
Last edited:
Character...we dont really know much about his charcter. This isnt Clinton. I would have to go out on this huge leap and say its that little war thats being fought in Mid East. Traditionally when there is a war that the people agree with then the pres will do good in ratings.
 
Why do you think that every attempt by the liberals to shit on this president is rebuked by the public..

Let's remember the ENron Scandal?... remember that. The liberals kept on clamoring that he was involved in some big scandal.. The public just didn't buy it.. because he wasn't involved...

Let's remember all the uprisings by the liberals saying 'What did Bush Know and when did he know it' basically stating that Bush knew we were going ot be attacked.. he knew where and when, and by whta means.. The public didn't buy it.. And so far nothing in any of these memos could have aided in preventing this attack.

How about the latest poll.. I think it was something like 80 % of Americans would give up some of our freedoms in order to have a bit more security during this time of hostility.. Now.. What initially goes thru my mind.. is that If we give up any freedoms, We won't get them back.. Buuuut, We dont' have a liberal in office.. People trust this man, they trust his character to do what is best for us and when it is all over our freedoms will be returned (Just as they were after WWII).

Yes, the war is part of it... a rising economy will just make sure poll numbers aren't down.. they don't necessarily mean high numbers.. But it's the fact that the American people dont think this administration is going to BS the people.. or Pull the wool over the eyes of us Americans.

L.Unplugged
 
diamond said:

So w/the US economy "in the shitter" for A VERY LONG TIME -right now..how come GW's ratings are so high?

Could it be CHARACTER after all?:yes:
:yes:
Perhaps?
:yes:

I think Bush's high approval ratings have a lot more to do with the events of September 11th and the continuing effects of these, than his character, or the economy. Remember his approval ratings were only average before Sept. 11th but have remained much higher since. I think it has a lot to do with fear and people wanting to rally round their president in a time of 'war'. The Republicans have certainly made the most of this, as they've responded to a lot of criticism by saying it's inappropriate to criticise the president while the nation is 'under threat' or 'at war'. The increase in patriotism since Sept. 11th is probably also partly an explanation - people sometimes feel that criticising the leader of their country is unpatriotic and therefore they're likely to be less critical of him.
 
Re: Re: It is NOT the ECONOMY Stupid for Presidentail Approval Ratings in America

FizzingWhizzbees said:


I think Bush's high approval ratings have a lot more to do with the events of September 11th and the continuing effects of these, than his character, or the economy. Remember his approval ratings were only average before Sept. 11th but have remained much higher since. I think it has a lot to do with fear and people wanting to rally round their president in a time of 'war'. The Republicans have certainly made the most of this, as they've responded to a lot of criticism by saying it's inappropriate to criticise the president while the nation is 'under threat' or 'at war'. The increase in patriotism since Sept. 11th is probably also partly an explanation - people sometimes feel that criticising the leader of their country is unpatriotic and therefore they're likely to be less critical of him.

i would agree with you. but there will never be a fair answer to this question. the responses you'll get from this board, and in society in general, are that bush has done an excellent job handling events since september 11th.
it is difficult to isolate the reasons for his high rating. perhaps a comparison to 'threat'-time presidents of years past, both before and after, the initiation of the threat is in order. i'm not sure what the best case of this would be but i'm sure there is a similar period which could be compared.
 
Well, in the recent past when another US President w/high approval ratings got involved in a war..ie- Bosnia his approval numbers went down slightly..every miltary involvment practically either his numbers would dip or remain the same at best..

Umm..and we more or less know his character..:eyebrow: :ohmy:

Therefore Ergoheads..this character issue may be more important than we realize after all, wouldnt cha think?:yes:

Out-
DB9
:)

oh yeah Bono kinda likes him:D
thank you.
:)
 
diamond said:
Bosnia his approval numbers went down slightly..every miltary involvment practically either his numbers would dip or remain the same at best..

yeah but the nature of these two instances is very different.

bosnia was a far off battle with hundred year old roots that few understood.

september 11th was planes plowing into office towers in the focal point of your nation. when that happens, to me at least, it is easy to go forward with what the american people want.
 
I dunno Kobe.:no:
Intution tells me that if Gore would of won the election..he prolly would of had the same approval rating as Bush pre 9-11 and after 9-11 like a 2.5-5 per cent approval rating bump only -instead of 25-30 like Bushes..due to character.;)

DB9
:)
 
diamond said:
I dunno Kobe.:no:
Intution tells me that if Gore would of won the election..he prolly would of had the same approval rating as Bush pre 9-11 and after 9-11 like a 2.5-5 per cent approval rating bump only -instead of 25-30 like Bushes..due to character.;)

DB9
:)

of course you don't agree;)
that is what i was alluding to with my first post. i don't think we can isolate the reason.
 
Imagine, for a moment, what Clinton or Gore would have done after 9/11...

<shudder>

Would have they sent a cruise missle to an empty tent? Order little more than mere bombings for a few days? Hold a conference to try to "understand" why the terrorists were so upset?

It may be a bit far to suggest that Clinton was a Chamberlain (and Gore would have been another Chamberlain), and Bush is a Winston Churchhill... but the parallels are there.

It's not only the crisis, but the response.
 
kobayashi said:


it's largely a moot discussion because of that word.

I disagree, considering Clinton's tepid response to other terrorist attacks against the United States:

- The first bombing of the World Trade Center
- The bombing of U.S. embassies
- The attack on the barracks in Saudi Arabia
- The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole

(I may have missed one or two attacks. Sorry if I did.)

Couple that with the fact that Clinton will not admit that his foreign policies were in any way responsible - still clinging to the notion that they were successful - and you can derive a very good notion of how Clinton would have responded to 9/11.
 
Achtung Bubba said:
good notion of how Clinton would have responded to 9/11.
I'll take a guess
Clinton would have realised that his popularity would go through the roof by bombing just about anything that one could possible bomb out there and do just so
 
Achtung Bubba said:

It may be a bit far to suggest that Clinton was a Chamberlain (and Gore would have been another Chamberlain), and Bush is a Winston Churchhill... but the parallels are there.

You are insulting Winston Churchill just by mentioning him in the same sentence as GW Bush. Please point out the parrallels between these two men. I am curious.
 
Achtung Bubba said:
It may be a bit far to suggest that Clinton was a Chamberlain (and Gore would have been another Chamberlain), and Bush is a Winston Churchhill... but the parallels are there.

Is Blair to Bush what Mussolini was to Hitler?
 
diamond said:
Well, in the recent past when another US President w/high approval ratings got involved in a war..

Until here I thought you were going to say something about George Bush senior. He got involved in a war (Gulf War, the USA moved the Iraqi's out of Kuwait and the US Army lost their Vietnam syndrom). A year later he lost the election to Bill Clinton.

Just wanted to mention it...

Marty
 
Popmartijn said:


Until here I thought you were going to say something about George Bush senior. He got involved in a war (Gulf War, the USA moved the Iraqi's out of Kuwait and the US Army lost their Vietnam syndrom). A year later he lost the election to Bill Clinton.

Just wanted to mention it...

Marty

actually that had more to do with breaking his 'no new taxes' campaign pledge than the Gulf War
 
Bush, Sr. also had high approval ratings as well around the Gulf War. People, ultimately, are fickle, but, currently, I think his approval has to do with terrorism concerns more than anything.

Melon
 
DrTeeth said:


Is Blair to Bush what Mussolini was to Hitler?



I just love how some people outside America love to make these bold proclamations, your media must be doing a fine job if your opinion of Bush is near that of Hitler.

Of course, jealousy twists perception admittedly.
 
Salome said:
I'll take a guess
Clinton would have realised that his popularity would go through the roof by bombing just about anything that one could possible bomb out there and do just so

Thats just an ongoing arrogant attitude and I am really disgusted by it. As a government civilian for the air force and a former soldier of the army, I am sick and fucking tired of being portrayed as "reckless cowboys, war-mongering, bombastic", or whatever else you want to throw up there.

Just because your country doesn't do a DAMNED thing to help others out besides themselves (i.e. humanitarian missions, peace-keeping missions, liberation) doesn't mean you have to keep this agenda of yours up where every time Bush or Americans our own pride in our country is mentioned your response is snide if not scathing.
 
Last edited:
melon said:
Bush, Sr. also had high approval ratings as well around the Gulf War. People, ultimately, are fickle, but, currently, I think his approval has to do with terrorism concerns more than anything.

Melon

I think at the end of the day THAT-
-Bush will be reelected..:)
-he WONT make the same mistakes as his Pappy:no:..he has a better "machine"..(handlers/advisors):)
-he comes across more real and compassionate then his dad.:)-ask Bono.:)

Melon is partially right.
His character overshadows the terrorists' characters while you were always wondering about his(GW's) predessesor's character( Clinton):eyebrow:..which diminished his ability to lead in a war time situation.:mad:

diamond
 
Last edited:
diamond said:


Melon is partially right.
His character overshadows the terrorists' characters while you were always wondering about his(GW's) predessesor's character( Clinton):eyebrow:..which diminished his ability to lead in a war time situation.:mad:

diamond

The only time Clinton ever launched an attack was to distract our attention while he zipped up his pants
 
z edge said:


Thats just an ongoing arrogant attitude and I am really disgusted by it. As a government civilian for the air force and a former soldier of the army, I am sick and fucking tired of being portrayed as "reckless cowboys, war-mongering, bombastic", or whatever else you want to throw up there.

Just because your country doesn't do a DAMNED thing to help others out besides themselves (i.e. humanitarian missions, peace-keeping missions, liberation) doesn't mean you have to keep this agenda of yours up where every time Bush or Americans our own pride in our country is mentioned your response is snide if not scathing.

I haven't much entered this foray of discussion because I mean... we can't really burst's these people's idealistic bubbles.. that'd be discriminatory.. But now my pride for my country has bubbled over.. mostly because I'm watching American Idol, and feeling kinda abashed at the poor display of performers, that I must pull out one of the givens.. one of the known great things abouto ur country.. and with that..

Z..You know.. this is exactly right.. We've said it before on this forum...

Europeans have called our statements BS.. that 'They know how to do things' (Diplomacy.. or Bending over.. take your pick).. but things like the latest sweeping wave of antisemitism in Europe.. It's labeled as 'being sympathetic to these poor suffering palestinians', but let's get serious here.. these 'poor people' want to kill every Israeli..

I've also made this statement before.. America and its military is what is keeping democracy.. representative government, and well shit.. Freedom alive in this world.. If we were to go down.. There isn't a damn thing anyone would be able to do to stop whoever knocked us and any other evil groups from controlling the whole world.. I got laughed at the last time i said that, but It's the truth.. anyone that denies it is out of touch.

I mean.. take Z Edge's point.. all these humanitarian missions.. Everything revolves around us taking part in it.. Kyoto.. it's worthless unless we sign it.. (Though Canada and Australia have not signed it either..).. Bono's Debt Relief.. Who's wallet is Bono trying to open?.. OURS.. not Britains, or hell.. China's..

To get back to what Z Edge was saying about people knocking us.. Be thankful you have these "reckless cowboys, war-mongering, bombastic" AssHoles taking out the governments that would like nothing better than to end your life.

A little emotional.. or maybe just Angered at how bad American Idol really is... The last giirl just sang 'Save the Best for Last'.. Come on.. I mean.. that song kept Joe Public's Live and Learn from reaching number one.. it should be banned from any public performances jsut for that..


L.Unplugged
 
Lemonite said:


I've also made this statement before.. America and its military is what is keeping democracy.. representative government, and well shit.. Freedom alive in this world.. If we were to go down.. There isn't a damn thing anyone would be able to do to stop whoever knocked us and any other evil groups from controlling the whole world.. I got laughed at the last time i said that, but It's the truth.. anyone that denies it is out of touch.

Exactly, and perhaps this very thought is what brings these "out of touch folks" to their level of disdain for us through jealousy of their own neglect.

I mean.. take Z Edge's point.. all these humanitarian missions.. Everything revolves around us taking part in it.. Kyoto.. it's worthless unless we sign it.. (Though Canada and Australia have not signed it either..).. Bono's Debt Relief.. Who's wallet is Bono trying to open?.. OURS.. not Britains, or hell.. China's..

sounds familiar :up:

To get back to what Z Edge was saying about people knocking us.. Be thankful you have these "reckless cowboys, war-mongering, bombastic" AssHoles taking out the governments that would like nothing better than to end your life.

You just nailed it.

OF course the laughing can start now. Perhaps we should all just burn our history books and smoke dope until the camp fire itself sings peaceful songs of peace, harmony, and flowers. Then we can import the terrorists into a flight schools all over the world.
 
z edge said:

Perhaps we should all just burn our history books and smoke dope until the camp fire itself sings peaceful songs of peace, harmony, and flowers.

With all those forests the environmental crazies are protecting that are going up in smoke ..you can probably light up there.. right next to the last dying Snow Owl.

L.Unplugged
 
June 25, 2002

The Reality Thing

By PAUL KRUGMAN


You can say this about the Bush administration: where others might see problems, it sees opportunities.
A slump in the economy was an opportunity to push a tax cut that provided very little stimulus in the short run, but will place huge demands on the budget in 2010. An electricity shortage in California was an opportunity to push for drilling in Alaska, which would have produced no electricity and hardly any oil until 2013 or so. An attack by lightly armed terrorist infiltrators was an opportunity to push for lots of heavy weapons and a missile defense system, just in case Al Qaeda makes a frontal assault with tank divisions or fires an ICBM next time.

President George H. W. Bush once confessed that he was somewhat lacking in the "vision thing." His son's advisers don't have that problem: they have a powerful vision for America's future. In that future, we have recently learned, the occupant of the White House will have the right to imprison indefinitely anyone he chooses, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process or review. But they are rather less interested in the reality thing.

For the distinctive feature of all the programs the administration has pushed in response to real problems is that they do little or nothing to address those problems. Problems are there to be used to pursue the vision. And a problem that won't serve that purpose, whether it's the collapse of confidence in corporate governance or the chaos in the Middle East, is treated as an annoyance to be ignored if possible, or at best addressed with purely cosmetic measures. Clearly, George W. Bush's people believe that real-world problems will solve themselves, or at least won't make the evening news, because by pure coincidence they will be pre-empted by terror alerts.

But real problems, if not dealt with, have a way of festering. In the last few weeks, a whole series of problems seem to have come to a head. Yesterday's speech notwithstanding, Middle East policy is obviously adrift. The dollar and the stock market are plunging, threatening an already shaky economic recovery. Amtrak has been pushed to the edge of shutdown, because it couldn't get the administration's attention. And the federal government itself is about to run out of money, because House Republicans are unwilling to face reality and increase the federal debt limit. (This avoidance thing seems to be contagious.)

So now would be a good time to do what the White House always urges its critics to do ? put partisanship aside. Will Mr. Bush be willing to set aside, even for a day or two, his drive to consolidate his political base, and actually do something that wasn't part of his preconceived agenda? Oh, never mind.

I think that most commentators missed the point of the story about Mr. Bush's commencement speech at Ohio State, the one his aide said drew on the thinking of Emily Dickinson, Pope John Paul II, Aristotle and Cicero, among others. Of course the aide's remarks were silly ? but they gave us an indication of the level of sycophancy that Mr. Bush apparently believes to be his due. Next thing you know we'll be told that Mr. Bush is also a master calligrapher, and routinely swims across the Yangtze River. And nobody will dare laugh: just before Mr. Bush gave his actual, Aristotle-free speech, students at Ohio State were threatened with expulsion and arrest if they heckled him.

It's interesting to note that the planned Department of Homeland Security, while of dubious effectiveness in its announced purpose, will be protected against future Colleen Rowleys: the new department will be exempted from both whistle-blower protection and the Freedom of Information Act.

But back to the festering problems: on the economic side, this is starting to look like the most dangerous patch for the nation and the world since the summer of 1998. Back then, luckily, our economic policy was run by smart people who were prepared to learn from their mistakes. Can you say the same about this administration?
As I've noted before, the Bush administration has an infallibility complex: it never, ever, admits making a mistake. And that kind of arrogance tends, eventually, to bring disaster. You can read all about it in Aristotle.
 
Back
Top Bottom