MERGED--> State of the Union

[Irvine511]

Bush: State of the Union

[q]State of the Union: Unhappy With Bush
Bush's 33 Percent Approval Rating Lowest Since Nixon for President Entering State of the Union Speech

ANALYSIS
By GARY LANGER
Jan. 22, 2007 — - President Bush faces the nation this week more unpopular than any president on the eve of a State of the Union address since Richard Nixon in 1974.

Nixon was beleaguered by the Watergate scandal; for Bush, three decades later, it's the war in Iraq. With his unpopular troop surge on the table, his job rating matches the worst of his presidency: Thirty-three percent of Americans approve of his work in office while 65 percent disapprove, 2-1 negative, matching his career low last May.

Only three postwar presidents have gone lower -- Jimmy Carter, Nixon and Harry Truman. And only one has had a higher disapproval rating, Nixon.

For Bush, the bad news just starts there. Dismay over the unpopular war is dragging him down across the board, from his personal ratings to his position vis-à-vis the resurgent Democrats. It's all a remarkable comedown for a president who, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, saw his approval rating soar to the highest for any president in polls since 1938.

Today, by contrast, 71 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track -- the most since budget battles led to a highly unpopular government shutdown in early 1996. Bush's war leadership clearly is the prime complaint: Sixty-four percent call the war a mistake, more than said so about Vietnam during that conflict.

The intensity of sentiment, moreover, has only grown: Fifty-one percent of Americans now "strongly" disapprove of Bush's job performance overall, a majority for the first time. Just 17 percent strongly approve -- a 3-1 negative ratio.

Through a partisan lens, three-quarters of Republicans continue to approve of Bush -- but with much diminished vigor. There are only about half as many Republicans who "strongly" approve (42 percent) as there are Democrats who strongly disapprove (76 percent). And among two of his core support groups, conservatives and evangelical white Protestants, he's at career lows in overall approval.[/q]



clearly, the president has his work cut out for him. with rumors that he's going to suggest that America needs to wean itself off of oil and even admit that, yes, global warming is a very real thing, it seems as if he's admitting defeat and pulling to the left.

does he have a chance to salvage his wreckage of a presidency? can the president save himself from the dustbin of history? or is it too little, too late?

 

[A_Wanderer]

History didn't treat the copperheads too well.

As for global warming the politics are now out there; denialists versus the responsible (since anything sort of ecopocalypse is politically incorrect) ~ ignoring the niggling details about Kyoto not actually doing anything at all for the fact of the greenhouse effect or the problems in formulating an effective strategy given the nonlinear relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and global climate.

 

[onebloodonelife]

I think it's too late for him to save the presidency. Plus, just because he says things like we need to find alternative sources of energy, doesn't mean that he will take any actions to move towards that. I think he has too much history with the big oil businesses to actually take action against the oil industry. That's just one example though. I'm more focused on the 2008 elections, to me, he's already a lame duck president and his State of the Union speech won't change that.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Bush has been a lame duck since 2000.

 

[U2democrat]

Followed by US Sen. Jim Webb D-VA !!!!!!

Two Virginia Democrats delivering the response 2 years in a row, while the Virginia GOP continues to make bigots of themselves. Crazy world.

 

[redhotswami]

Followed by US Sen. Jim Webb D-VA !!!!!!

Two Virginia Democrats delivering the response 2 years in a row, while the Virginia GOP continues to make bigots of themselves. Crazy world.

hellz yea! we need it. VA congressmen have been giving us a bad rep lately.

 

[Vincent Vega]

So, State of the Union is the President tells you how much time is left for the nation?

Or is it just this: "We have achieved this, secured that, did that, am gonna to bla..."?

 

[STING2]

Re: Bush: State of the Union

[q]State of the Union: Unhappy With Bush
Bush's 33 Percent Approval Rating Lowest Since Nixon for President Entering State of the Union Speech

ANALYSIS
By GARY LANGER
Jan. 22, 2007 — - President Bush faces the nation this week more unpopular than any president on the eve of a State of the Union address since Richard Nixon in 1974.

Nixon was beleaguered by the Watergate scandal; for Bush, three decades later, it's the war in Iraq. With his unpopular troop surge on the table, his job rating matches the worst of his presidency: Thirty-three percent of Americans approve of his work in office while 65 percent disapprove, 2-1 negative, matching his career low last May.

Only three postwar presidents have gone lower -- Jimmy Carter, Nixon and Harry Truman. And only one has had a higher disapproval rating, Nixon.

For Bush, the bad news just starts there. Dismay over the unpopular war is dragging him down across the board, from his personal ratings to his position vis-à-vis the resurgent Democrats. It's all a remarkable comedown for a president who, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, saw his approval rating soar to the highest for any president in polls since 1938.

Today, by contrast, 71 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track -- the most since budget battles led to a highly unpopular government shutdown in early 1996. Bush's war leadership clearly is the prime complaint: Sixty-four percent call the war a mistake, more than said so about Vietnam during that conflict.

The intensity of sentiment, moreover, has only grown: Fifty-one percent of Americans now "strongly" disapprove of Bush's job performance overall, a majority for the first time. Just 17 percent strongly approve -- a 3-1 negative ratio.

Through a partisan lens, three-quarters of Republicans continue to approve of Bush -- but with much diminished vigor. There are only about half as many Republicans who "strongly" approve (42 percent) as there are Democrats who strongly disapprove (76 percent). And among two of his core support groups, conservatives and evangelical white Protestants, he's at career lows in overall approval.[/q]



clearly, the president has his work cut out for him. with rumors that he's going to suggest that America needs to wean itself off of oil and even admit that, yes, global warming is a very real thing, it seems as if he's admitting defeat and pulling to the left.

does he have a chance to salvage his wreckage of a presidency? can the president save himself from the dustbin of history? or is it too little, too late?

The President already won, he won re-election in 2004 despite the best efforts of the liberals to prevent that from happening. With regards to the most important issues facing the country, the war in Iraq, the President is continuing ahead with his plans, while the Democrats are going to pass an irrelevant resolution in Congress.

The poll numbers are really no different from last May, but its made to look like this is some shocking brand new low for the President. Polls will come and go, but the President will continue to do what he thinks his best for the country. Congress is not going to cut off funding to the troops in Iraq. There is not going to be any impeachment of the President either as so many liberals hoped for.

The United States economy is doing fantastic with unemployment at historic lows of 4.5%. The latest UN Human Development Index reports that the United States has the 8th highest standard of living in the world in 2006. Surprisingly, gas prices are predicted to continue to fall which will benefit the economy even more.

No one judges Harry Truman by his low poll approval numbers of 19%, so will it be with Bush. There is not enough time in Bush's presidency left to complete the nationbuilding and counterinsurgency task left in Iraq. That will be left to the next administration, and the choices they make will determine the outcome. Hopefully, by then whoever gets elected will have recognized that to much has been accomplished and that abandoning the situation as so many have proposed doing could ruin everything, turn Iraq into 1990s Afghanistan, and damage US security, as well as create conditions that could lead to a far more costly war years down the road.

As for as oil and energy independence goes, its a worldwide issue, not one for any particular country. The interconnected global economy means that no country is immune from a crises in the Persian Gulf, regardless of what they use for energy. If the global economy as a whole is impacted by a crises in the Persian Gulf, so will every country that participates in the global economy at any level.

 

[yolland]

So, State of the Union is the President tells you how much time is left for the nation?

Or is it just this: "We have achieved this, secured that, did that, am gonna to bla..."?

The latter. Basically, he'll talk about all the great stuff achieved during the last year, then outline his proposed legislative agenda for the next year, everyone from his own party applauds enthusiastically along, then a member of the opposition party offers a response. It's actually required by the Constitution, though technically it can be a written address rather than a spoken one--that hardly ever happens, though. The Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members, and most all Congresspeople attend.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Ah, ok, I suspected such a thing.
Luckily Merkel doesn't do that, so we don't have to hear how well the Grand Coalition is sleeping.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

The President already won, he won re-election in 2004 despite the best efforts of the liberals to prevent that from happening.

oh, STING, protect us from the liberals! blame the media! combat insurrection from within!

 

[Doozer61]

I heard the Dixie Chicks were performing.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

The poll numbers are really no different from last May, but its made to look like this is some shocking brand new low for the President. Polls will come and go, but the President will continue to do what he thinks his best for the country. /B]

and if you read, you'll see that what's significant is that he's been so low for so long and his DISAPPROVAL numbers are second only to Nixon after Watergate. and all anyone talks about with Nixon and Carter are how low their approval ratings are, what a disaster their presidency was, and what a criminal they were.

why should Bush take after Truman, but not the others?

but, please, carry on.

 

[verte76]

Bush is a lame duck. This speech isn't going to change a damn thing for me.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, at least abroad Bush has no chance anymore to get a good reputation at all.

 

[U2isthebest]

I can't listen to that man speak. It's literally painful. I never thought I would call my president a dumbass: not because of political differences (although there are many ) but because he is, in fact, a literal dumbass! If "American Idol" is preempted because of his *erm* speech? I will be more pissed than I thought I could be.

 

[martha]

I was at the gym one morning, and he was on TV saying something about "getting deficit spending under control." Was I high, or was the closed-captioner high? Or was the president high?

 

[redhotswami]

he says a lot of things. he doesn't even have to be high to make some of the most outrageous statements.

but i think to the answer to your question is none of the above: i was high.

 

[kellyahern]

Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

oh, STING, protect us from the liberals! blame the media! combat insurrection from within!

Hey, someone has to be in that 33 percent .

 

[tiny dancer]

I wonder how many Republicans will stand & clap when he talks about the war.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

and if you read, you'll see that what's significant is that he's been so low for so long and his DISAPPROVAL numbers are second only to Nixon after Watergate. and all anyone talks about with Nixon and Carter are how low their approval ratings are, what a disaster their presidency was, and what a criminal they were.

why should Bush take after Truman, but not the others?

but, please, carry on.

Bush took decisive action to defeat Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as remove Saddam. History will likely judge the removal of such terrible and threatening groups as a victory for the world, and Bush is the person who led the major effort to accomplish these things. Provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan and Iraq, it will accomplish its objectives in both countries. History will then see the removal two evil regimes as well as their replacement with stable and non-hostile regimes that benefited those countries as well as the rest of the world. All of this, at a cost that is relatively small compared to other US wars in history. In terms of economics, the USA recovered from a recession that started with an economic downturn in the Clinton administration and is currently experiencing record levels of unemployment.

In contrast Nixon was forced to leave office and had to be pardoned. Carter failed to win re-election. Everything points to history's take on Bush being closer to Truman than the others, but obviously, it will be heavily impacted by what happens to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future.

 

[financeguy]

Do you get paid for your posts here, STING2?

I was just curious.

It's just that another poster alleged that you did, and you never contributed to that discussion.

Personally, if someone implied I was being paid for my posts - in effect, paid for spouting propaganda - I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd probably want to nip those kinds of insinuations in the bud.

So perhaps it's for the best if we clarifed the issue once and for all, y' know?

 

[phanan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

Bush took decisive action to defeat Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as remove Saddam. History will likely judge the removal of such terrible and threatening groups as a victory for the world, and Bush is the person who led the major effort to accomplish these things.ns to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future.

Unfortunately, most people will look at the fact that he has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden first and foremost, whether that is fair or not.

 

[Irvine511]

what Bush has demonstrated in Iraq is that the insurgency -- for lack of a better word -- can kill anyone who cooperates with the US, and the US is utterly incapable of protecting them. the policies Bush has pursued in the Middle East are not in and of themselves good policies; they are only as good as the people who carry them out, and Bush has failed miserably. you can argue as much as you'd like that invading Iraq was the right policy, but it has turned out to be the wrong thing to do because the wrong men did it.

and it is because of these mistakes that the US is eventually going to withdraw because it is increasingly politically impossible to continue to send men and women to fight in someone else's Civil War.

and all this because Bush's incuriosity and intellectual laziness caused him to wishfully believe that we were invading some kind of functional, secular state with institutions robust enough to survive a foreign invasion and then continue to function under new leadership.

it turns out that Iraq -- for all its roads and schools and oil -- is quasi-medieval where Saddam had merely secured loyalty through equal measures of fear and treasure.

there is no Iraq. there is only Saddam's Iraq.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If that is really the case then there is no position that isn't morally reprehensable in some way or another.

 

[maycocksean]

Do you get paid for your posts here, STING2?

I was just curious.

It's just that another poster alleged that you did, and you never contributed to that discussion.

Personally, if someone implied I was being paid for my posts - in effect, paid for spouting propaganda - I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd probably want to nip those kinds of insinuations in the bud.

So perhaps it's for the best if we clarifed the issue once and for all, y' know?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Do you get paid for your posts here, STING2?

I was just curious.

Hey, as long as he posts, I believe in propaganda and manipulation

 

[Vincent Vega]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

Bush took decisive action to defeat Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as remove Saddam. History will likely judge the removal of such terrible and threatening groups as a victory for the world, and Bush is the person who led the major effort to accomplish these things. Provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan and Iraq, it will accomplish its objectives in both countries. History will then see the removal two evil regimes as well as their replacement with stable and non-hostile regimes that benefited those countries as well as the rest of the world. All of this, at a cost that is relatively small compared to other US wars in history. In terms of economics, the USA recovered from a recession that started with an economic downturn in the Clinton administration and is currently experiencing record levels of unemployment.

In contrast Nixon was forced to leave office and had to be pardoned. Carter failed to win re-election. Everything points to history's take on Bush being closer to Truman than the others, but obviously, it will be heavily impacted by what happens to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the US withdrawing or not, is very likely to go on for decades, with the costs of human lifes reaching the millions.
The costs of the war in Iraq alone will overtake the costs of the Vietnam war this year, with over $670 billion.
A recession and also a boom are not that closely linked to any government that you can claim the one being responsible for the recession, and the other being responsible for the boom. Even lesser in a free market economy as the US is.

Here in Germany it's the same. We are picking up at the moment, as the whole western world does.
That's the economic cycle, and with September 11, it was clear that the world economy would decrease for a while.
Now that our economy is picking up again people are saying our Grand Coalition is responsible for that.
But it's not. The only good to say about the current government is, that they didn't change the reforms undertaken in the previous years.
Still, even Schroeder and the reforms are not responsible for the upswing, they are only a little help.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]The doubt on Capitol Hill reflects the continuing erosion of Bush's public support across the country. His approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, and only twice in the past six decades has a president delivered his annual speech to the nation in a weaker condition in the polls -- Harry S. Truman in the midst of the Korean War in 1952 and Richard M. Nixon in the throes of Watergate in 1974.

For the first time, majorities of Americans say Bush cannot be trusted in a crisis, has not made the country safer and should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq to avoid further casualties rather than leave them until civil order is restored. And, in a sign of intensifying opposition, a majority -- 51 percent -- for the first time expressed strong disapproval of Bush's performance, compared with 17 percent who strongly approved.

"The world changed significantly on Election Day, and the only people who were surprised were them," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said of Bush and his aides. Now, he added, "they've backed themselves into a tough corner, and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want, makes him look . . . like [he's saying], 'I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway.' "

The poll indicates that Bush has made no headway in selling his decision to bolster troop levels in Iraq by 21,500, with 65 percent now opposing it, compared with 61 percent the night of his Jan. 10 nationally televised address. Three in five Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan.

Bush's overall approval rating of 33 percent matches the lowest it has been in Post-ABC polls since he became president, and 71 percent say the country is seriously off track, the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade. By contrast, newly installed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is enjoying a honeymoon, with 54 percent approving her handling of the job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012200236.html

[/q]

 

[martha]

^ I got no sympathy for those who are just now realizing that Bush has sold them a bill of goods. Where the hell were they six years ago.

Americans can be so lame.