I would venture to say that more people vote for these rating polls than really vote. It would be interesting to compare the numbers.

President Bush Job Approval Rating

RealClearPolitics Average 04/10 - 04/20

Approve 30.8%

Disapprove 65.5%

 

Congressional Job Approval Rating

RealClearPolitics Average 03/18 - 04/09

Approve 22.0%

Disapprove 70.0%

 

At least congress is higher(worse). Does anyone approve of anyone any more?

Here's a big surprise from the article:

 

"Views of Bush divide sharply along party lines. Among Republicans, 66% approve and 32% disapprove. Disapproval is nearly universal — 91% — among Democrats. Of independents, 23% approve, 72% disapprove of the job he's doing."

If the independents are about at the poll response average, that's a pretty good indication that Republicans are being a little soft and Democrats a little hard, but the final number is juuuuuuuust right, Goldilocks.

I am plenty old enough to remember the Carter years and yes this president is worse.

I am plenty old enough to remember the Carter years and yes this president is worse.

 

I gave reasons why I thought Carter was not a very good President, would you care to explain why you believe Bush rates so poorly in your opinion?

At this point we have half the unemployment that we had under Carter, inflation is a fourth of what it was under Carter and our enemies had no fear of us as Mr. Carter wanted to talk and not take action.

Bush's current 28% approval rating ranks among the lowest in Gallup's polling history. The worst from an individual poll was Truman's 22% in February 1952, and Gallup recorded several measurements between 23% and 27% for Nixon and Truman. The looming threat of even higher gas prices in an already-struggling economy -- in an environment where highly visible Democratic presidential candidates attempt to remind voters of the nation's struggles -- suggests the potential for further decline in Bush's approval rating in the coming months.

Here's what makes Bush worse, IMO:

 

After 9/11, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of our country was in his corner. The world, including a lot of Muslim states, were horrified at what had happened to New York, which has long been considered a kind of world capital. So what does he do with all this domestic and international good will?

 

Domestically, he pushed a hard-line conservative policy agenda, using the goodwill from the American people to the advantage of policies he'd proposed prior to the attacks. He USED 9/11 for short-term political gain. If he had a less greedy, winner-take-all political advisor than Rove, he could have created an enduring center-right supermajority that would have frustrated leftist nut jobs like me for a generation or more. Really, it's Republicans that should be the most angry at Bush.

 

Internationally, he unilaterally pursued a war of choice on dubious grounds despite the protests of our deepest allies. He eroded confidence in America's leadership by abandoning basic human rights principles in favor of torture. He alienated the world with his 'with us or against us', 'axis of evil' rhetoric, which sees that lack of nuance as some sort of insane cowboy fantasy projection.

 

That's why poll numbers are what they are.

I gave reasons why I thought Carter was not a very good President, would you care to explain why you believe Bush rates so poorly in your opinion?

At this point we have half the unemployment that we had under Carter, inflation is a fourth of what it was under Carter and our enemies had no fear of us as Mr. Carter wanted to talk and not take action.

 

A needless war.

Here's what makes Bush worse, IMO:

 

After 9/11, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of our country was in his corner. The world, including a lot of Muslim states, were horrified at what had happened to New York, which has long been considered a kind of world capital. So what does he do with all this domestic and international good will?

 

Domestically, he pushed a hard-line conservative policy agenda, using the goodwill from the American people to the advantage of policies he'd proposed prior to the attacks. He USED 9/11 for short-term political gain. If he had a less greedy, winner-take-all political advisor than Rove, he could have created an enduring center-right supermajority that would have frustrated leftist nut jobs like me for a generation or more. Really, it's Republicans that should be the most angry at Bush.

 

Internationally, he unilaterally pursued a war of choice on dubious grounds despite the protests of our deepest allies. He eroded confidence in America's leadership by abandoning basic human rights principles in favor of torture. He alienated the world with his 'with us or against us', 'axis of evil' rhetoric, which sees that lack of nuance as some sort of insane cowboy fantasy projection.

 

That's why poll numbers are what they are.

 

 

Well stated :thumb:

I gave reasons why I thought Carter was not a very good President, would you care to explain why you believe Bush rates so poorly in your opinion?

At this point we have half the unemployment that we had under Carter, inflation is a fourth of what it was under Carter and our enemies had no fear of us as Mr. Carter wanted to talk and not take action.

 

 

The negatives associated with the Carter years were short term in nature (high inflation, high unemployment, Iranian hostage crisis). The negatives associated with Bush will be with us for decades (Iraq war and its fiscal and military readiness repercussions, largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society). The country will have a heavy and enduring millstone around its neck when George W. Bush walks out of the White House for the last time.

Here's what makes Bush worse, IMO:

 

After 9/11, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of our country was in his corner. The world, including a lot of Muslim states, were horrified at what had happened to New York, which has long been considered a kind of world capital. So what does he do with all this domestic and international good will?

 

Domestically, he pushed a hard-line conservative policy agenda, using the goodwill from the American people to the advantage of policies he'd proposed prior to the attacks. He USED 9/11 for short-term political gain. If he had a less greedy, winner-take-all political advisor than Rove, he could have created an enduring center-right supermajority that would have frustrated leftist nut jobs like me for a generation or more. Really, it's Republicans that should be the most angry at Bush.

 

Internationally, he unilaterally pursued a war of choice on dubious grounds despite the protests of our deepest allies. He eroded confidence in America's leadership by abandoning basic human rights principles in favor of torture. He alienated the world with his 'with us or against us', 'axis of evil' rhetoric, which sees that lack of nuance as some sort of insane cowboy fantasy projection.

 

That's why poll numbers are what they are.

 

On the first bolded, I would like you to give an example of this.

 

On the second bolded, we are.

 

On the third bolded, you know that is not true, and the mantra is hackneyed. You are very persuasive as a debater anyway, your argument is strong without that particular line, its not true, so you don't really need it.

 

On the fourth bolded, the poll numbers are low because Bush's Republican base is angry at high, unchallenged spending and poor political leadership on economic directives. The 50% who were against Bush before were going to be against him, the additional 25% are ticked off about economic issues, not the war, torture, or the myriad other crap oft-cited by the left.

1) From EJ Dionne Jr's Stand Up Fight Back, pp 17-18:

To put it plainly, many of Bush's critics who rallied to him in crisis felt ripped off and exploited when he carried on with politics as usual as the 2002 elections approached. Bush's cynical use of the prospect of war in Iraq and the homeland security issue to win an election demeaned what had been a special moment in our history. National unity, love of the flag, the rebirth of patriotism- these were genuine responses to a vicious attack on our country. That 9/11 was used to win an election and to push for more tax cuts could only be seen by Bush's critics as a violation of solidarity. It was a solidarity that existed not because Bush was president but because the country was willing to rally around any president leading us at such a time. That Bush did not appreciate this will always be the blackest mark on his presidency, whether or not he wins reelection.

 

and pp 53-54

Indeed, within only a couple of weeks of 9/11, it was clear that some Republicans wanted to use the slaughter to run table on behalf of their favorite initiatives, especially tax cuts. They pushed, for example, a cut in the capital gains tax and the rest of the economic agenda that they had been advocating for the past decade. Representative John Spate, a South Carolina Democrat and budget committee leader, was incredulous: "We've lost 5,000 people and now we need a capital gains tax cut? It's unconscionable that they'd even bring it up

 

Yet eight days after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was urging Bush to advance his whole conservative domestic agenda right away because "the bloody attacks have created a unique political moment when Americans of all stars and stripes are uniting behind their president." Drill for oil in the Arctic, the journal preached, speed up the tax cut- this while the country was spending tens of billions more than anyone anticipated before the crisis- and even insist on pushing through more conservative judges. What did judges have to do with the war? Nothing, but the Journal's editorial writers saw opportunity: Democrats in the Senate will hesitate to carry out borkings that clearly undercut Mr. Bush's leadership." Bush, they concluded, should "use the moment to press a broad agenda that he believes is in the national interest.

 

So much for unity.

 

Bush advocated cutting taxes by 1.6 trillion when the economy was doing great, he proposed cutting taxes by 1.6 trillion when the economic downturn after 2000 became apparent, and following 9/11 he fought for a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. The circumstances were, for lack of a better word, circumstance; the tax cut was a goal in and of itself, not a tool.

 

2) Then why do 66% of Republicans still approve of Bush? It's time to really get mad.

 

3) The participation of the ever-shrinking "Coalition of the Willing" was a PR stunt. Their numbers were nominal and their support compelled, especially when you consider that the majority didn't even send combat troops, only logistical and medical support. Even Britain sent only 45,000 for the invasion, making the US and UK forces over 98% of the combat troops. We made a decision to invade, and England rode shotgun.

 

While it may not fit a technical definition of unilateral action, it was based in the principles of unilateralism. The decision making process was entirely our own.

 

4) The Iraq war is now called a mistake by 63% of Americans and 57% approve of immediate withdrawal. 52% think a Democrat is better suited to take on Iraq.

A needless war.

 

This war war was supported by many Democracts in the beginning, but for political expedicency only they now are against the war. No ability to see the long term or courage to fight when things get tough.

No doubts mistakes were made. In situations like this nothing goes your way 100% of the time. If the current Democrats were our leaders in WWII they would have quit the war by the end of 1942.

This war war was supported by many Democracts in the beginning, but for political expedicency only they now are against the war. No ability to see the long term or courage to fight when things get tough.

Maybe it's because the executive branch turned out to be very, very wrong about Iraq. Just an alternative interpretation.

No doubts mistakes were made. In situations like this nothing goes your way 100% of the time. If the current Democrats were our leaders in WWII they would have quit the war by the end of 1942.

If this war were like WWII, it would already be over.

Here's what makes Bush worse, IMO:

 

After 9/11, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of our country was in his corner. The world, including a lot of Muslim states, were horrified at what had happened to New York, which has long been considered a kind of world capital. So what does he do with all this domestic and international good will?

 

Domestically, he pushed a hard-line conservative policy agenda, using the goodwill from the American people to the advantage of policies he'd proposed prior to the attacks. He USED 9/11 for short-term political gain. If he had a less greedy, winner-take-all political advisor than Rove, he could have created an enduring center-right supermajority that would have frustrated leftist nut jobs like me for a generation or more. Really, it's Republicans that should be the most angry at Bush.

 

Internationally, he unilaterally pursued a war of choice on dubious grounds despite the protests of our deepest allies. He eroded confidence in America's leadership by abandoning basic human rights principles in favor of torture. He alienated the world with his 'with us or against us', 'axis of evil' rhetoric, which sees that lack of nuance as some sort of insane cowboy fantasy projection.

 

That's why poll numbers are what they are.

 

Leaders of the major nations of the world supported Bush on the belief that Huessin had WMDs. They did not necessarily support invasion, because of their business interests. We had something close to 40 counrties who supported our invasion.