WP: Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline

[@DCGoldPants]

seems that the majority of Polls are between 40-42 with some randoms below and above.

[Joe Sick]

Is it called "grasping for straws" when a president's approval goes up and he is still approved of by less than half the country?

It's sad what are considered "victories" for this crooked Republican party.

[Guest Gichin13]

I would agree with those above that the Dems have really pissed away a lot of momentum. They really should gag Dean, Pelosi, and Kerry on this war issue if they actually want to win seats in 2006.

[altair4]

They need to focus on the complete lack of credibility and ac****ability of the current administration, and their habitual pattern of lying as a cover for their proflligate spending and disasterous foreigh policy.

I guess the Republican Party is no longer in denial about being crooks. They just figure they can lie about it.

[Prosperity]

47% and climbing.... because people are now getting the whole picture instead of the Dems "We're losing"... and Donna Brazille's "Worst economy since the depression".

I'll bet when it reaches 60%.... you'll inquire about the other 40%. Similar to the 04 election results... when Dems screamed...."you can't ignore the 49% who voted against Bush". In a democracy, majority wins... and whomever wins.... enjoys the spoils.

Well that is up to the public or more specifically which side wins the propaganda war. Still, it won't ever reach 60% again I know people are stupid, but that stupid? Someone said never underestimate human stupidity... so I guess I can't totally rule it out.

[portisizzle]

Is it called "grasping for straws" when a president's approval goes up and he is still approved of by less than half the country?

It's sad what are considered "victories" for this crooked Republican party.

Let's take a trip back to memory lane for you Democrat whiners....

"Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.01% of the vote) against Republican George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote"

"Clinton's job approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from a low of 36% in 1993, to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994"

"While 55 percent thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", and 47 percent rated him as either outstanding or above average as a president, 68 percent thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58 percent answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?" 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters."

SOOOOO LET ME SEE........

Clinton got into office with only 43% of the vote.

Clinton's approval rating was a low as 36% during his presidency.

So Sicko, who is grasping at straws?

[Prosperity]

Let's take a trip back to memory lane for you Democrat whiners....

"Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.01% of the vote) against Republican George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote"

"Clinton's job approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from a low of 36% in 1993, to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994"

"While 55 percent thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", and 47 percent rated him as either outstanding or above average as a president, 68 percent thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58 percent answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?" 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters."

SOOOOO LET ME SEE........

Clinton got into office with only 43% of the vote.

Clinton's approval rating was a low as 36% during his presidency.

So Sicko, who is grasping at straws?

I think you conservatives have some sort of [sexual?] fascination with Bill Clinton.

[chomerics]

Imagine if it was actually an honest and accurate poll- he would probably be up near 54-55%..

I think you meant to say imagine if the president was actually honest, maybe he would break 50% barrier :doh:

[chomerics]

Well that is up to the public or more specifically which side wins the propaganda war. Still, it won't ever reach 60% again I know people are stupid, but that stupid? Someone said never underestimate human stupidity... so I guess I can't totally rule it out.

It won't reach 50% again. This is the best poll in over a month and even it is still below 50% approval.

The Bushies have propagandized the public to the extent not seen since the beginning of Iraq. What did Bush make, five or six major speeches? He was on TV this weekend, and has been the lead news item for the past few weeks. The elections were a success, but now that they are over, there is nowhere to go but down. If he was smart, he would declare victory and leave Iraq, but he't not bright enough to do that, instead, he will tank again in a few months, and he will singlehandedly be the factor that will lose republican power in the next election. . . Hell, he has no power left, just look at his Patriot Act bill, it was trworn in his face, and he gave up on the torture pact because even his own party is voting against him.

[portisizzle]

I think you conservatives have some sort of [sexual?] fascination with Bill Clinton.

Do you smoke cigars??? There fascination......

[portisizzle]

What did Bush make, five or six major speeches? He was on TV this weekend, and has been the lead news item for the past few weeks. .

:whoknows: Waaaaa???? :cry:

I suppose in your world it is better to have liberals lie and falsify the successes in Iraq?

11 MILLION Iraqis voted. Only in your world is that a problem. For the rest of us it is cause for celebration. Our men and women are making a difference and I for one am damn proud of them AND our President.

Merry Christmas!!!

[The Evil Genius]

The question will always remain - how many american lives are worth giving "democracy" to a nation. It's not an easy or even palpable question to answer. And its a no-win for either party.

As an aside, am I the only one who thinks Dubya is missing his chance to point out the atrocities that Saddam brought on his people? If the entire American public were truly aware of what an evil man Saddam was (despite the fact that he may or may not currently have WMD's) then perhaps the war wouldn't be such a losing issue for Bush.

[portisizzle]

The question will always remain - how many american lives are worth giving "democracy" to a nation. It's not an easy or even palpable question to answer. And its a no-win for either party.

As an aside, am I the only one who thinks Dubya is missing his chance to point out the atrocities that Saddam brought on his people? If the entire American public were truly aware of what an evil man Saddam was (despite the fact that he may or may not currently have WMD's) then perhaps the war wouldn't be such a losing issue for Bush.

Or maybe President Bush leads with conviction and not with CNN/Gallup.

Either way, it is clear to me that an objective American understands why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq. Just like an American understood why we built Japan and Germany in the wake of removing destructive regimes. Maybe if we, as Americans, could lean on a better media / information gathering system not tied to political persuasion more people would understand this.

Bush does not need the liberal media's approval to do what he is doing. As far as the war being a "losing" issue? Everyone loses in war. It takes a true leader to understand popularity is not the primary goal of being President. Thank God we have a President that does not throw his wet finger in the air to determine the best possible political outcome before he decides to save a country from pure evil.

[The Evil Genius]

Portis,

Are you implying that Iraq under Saddam was going to attack the US? And that this war was a pre-emptive "saving" of American lives?

[Thiebear]

Seems like 98% of the people on here say that Afghanistan was the right war and that Iraq was not.. Yet 19 of the Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and clearly Afghanistan was if anything a minority at best correct. Apparently Osama was not there as we didnt find him....

So depending on how you spin it, you can make or break any reasoning...

[portisizzle]

Portis,

Are you implying that Iraq under Saddam was going to attack the US? And that this war was a pre-emptive "saving" of American lives?

1)Are you implying that Iraq under Saddam was going to attack the US?

You mean like Saddam's Army flying airplanes to Washington DC and invading our country? Of course not.

2) This war was a pre-emptive "saving" of American lives?

10 years of failing to comply with UN sanctions and all meaningful world intelligence pointed to Iraq have or wanting components of a nuclear weapons. Our country on the heels of 9/11 and fearful of a dirty bomb or suitcase bomb hand delivered by a terrorist.

As an American who understands history (as I am sure you do as well) why would we wait until Saddam became Hitler? Same thing goes for Iran AND North Korea. I have said many times on this web site that I have three children COUNTING on our country to properly defend itself. If that means we stop Saddam 10 years before he becomes a force then so be it. And I have history on my side...... Neville Chaimberlain

[88Comrade2000]

And it will go down again as more things come out!

[chomerics]

As an American who understands history (as I am sure you do as well) why would we wait until Saddam became Hitler? Same thing goes for Iran AND North Korea. I have said many times on this web site that I have three children COUNTING on our country to properly defend itself. If that means we stop Saddam 10 years before he becomes a force then so be it. And I have history on my side...... Neville Chaimberlain

And the strawman cometh. . . When Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, we were giving him technology and WMDs to kill his people. . .How do you justify that?

Now, when he is an old man, completely contained and with a complete inability to do anything militarily, he is going to turn into Hitler :doh:

No we understand history very well, unfortunately your version of history makes absolutely NO sense at all, and is completely ludicrous when the facts are examined.

[stevenaa]

And the strawman cometh. . . When Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, we were giving him technology and WMDs to kill his people. . .How do you justify that?

Now, when he is an old man, completely contained and with a complete inability to do anything militarily, he is going to turn into Hitler :doh:

No we understand history very well, unfortunately your version of history makes absolutely NO sense at all, and is completely ludicrous when the facts are examined.

We can't change our past actions, though those actions certainly contributed to his rise. But given our role, maybe we had some responsiblity to set it right. Now, once the sanctions were lifted, and they were going to be lifted, what do you thing he woud have begun doing right away? Do you really think he wouldn't have restarted his weapons progam?

[portisizzle]

No we understand history very well.

Neville, You know why we got after Saddam?

(hint......Hitler)

[Cskin]

It won't reach 50% again. This is the best poll in over a month and even it is still below 50% approval.

That's bold Cho... which is why I like you.... but that's just plain wrong. Never above 50% again.... with all the things now going right and the only thing the Dems are hanging their hats on his the "Bush lied" hook? Come on.... it appears to me that people are starting to suffer from Democrat Whining fatigue... sick of the Left marching out Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, and others to declare "America Bad"... and "world better without Bush" crap.

I actually think the Dems wasted HUGE Momentum allowing Kerry, a bonafide LOSER in America's eyes, to spout off about all things wrong with Iraq... not to mention our soldiers TERRORIZING IRaqi women and children.

Middle America, the flyover part the Dems don't seem to understand, aren't going to take to kindly to being told that America is bad.... Iraq war was illegitimate.... our soliders are TERRORIZING people.... and the war is lost.

They're going to be reminded of that in 06, by every Repub running, and those same red staters are going to be looking for the Repub button in the voter box for no other reason than the bad taste in their mouth left by the whining Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Dean left that continues to marginalize good ole' fashioned Americans with values, morals, patriotism, and a deep seated love of our military and our fallen heroes.

Keep on trying to sell that "hate America" crazy.... the 52% of America who re-elected Bush aren't going to be buying in 06 or 08.

[Joe Sick]

Let's take a trip back to memory lane for you Democrat whiners....

"Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.01% of the vote) against Republican George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote"

"Clinton's job approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from a low of 36% in 1993, to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994"

"While 55 percent thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", and 47 percent rated him as either outstanding or above average as a president, 68 percent thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58 percent answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?" 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters."

SOOOOO LET ME SEE........

Clinton got into office with only 43% of the vote.

Clinton's approval rating was a low as 36% during his presidency.

So Sicko, who is grasping at straws?

Link?

Thanks to your boy, the "Clinton years" are being thought of as "the good old days." When you have someone so disastrous and incompetent as Bush, it makes all the other presidents look good.

"Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure

% % %

6/04 62 37 1

6/03 55 43 2

In December of 98, Clinton had a 73% approval rating.

Where are you getting your facts?

-------

Edit: Maybe it's just the "pity" factor, like Clinton got when he was impeached.

[jbooma]

Link?

Thanks to your boy, the "Clinton years" are being thought of as "the good old days." When you have someone so disastrous and incompetent as Bush, it makes all the other presidents look good.

.

Yep the days of unrealistic salaries and allowing many companies to cook the books, ah the good old days :doh: :doh:

[Westbrook36]

And the strawman cometh. . . When Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, we were giving him technology and WMDs to kill his people. . .How do you justify that?

IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT! DON'T YOU ALL SEE!?!? Whenever something is said that Liberals don't like, you can be sure they will play the Blame America card shortly.

Why do you hate America?

[Joe Sick]

Yep the days of unrealistic salaries and allowing many companies to cook the books, ah the good old days :doh: :doh:

And this relates to approval ratings how? Exactly.

I'm sure that under Bush, no CEO is making an unrealitistic salary, right? Gimme a break. :doh:

Try to stay on the thread topic with the Clinton bashing.