posted on June 15, 2005 12:51:38 PM
BELOW ARE RESULTS OF 3 QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT BUSH. THE ARTICLE UNDER IS FAIRLY LONG READ IT IF YOU WISH. IT JUST BACKS THE REASON OF THE POLL RESULTS.
How do you rate Bush on the economy?
Poor 77%
Fair 11%
Good 7%
Excellent 5%
Total Votes: 10,218
How do you rate Bush on overall foreign policy?
Poor 81%
Fair 8%
Good 6%
Excellent 5%
Total Votes: 10,221
How do you rate Bush on the Iraq war?
Poor 85%
Fair 5%
Excellent 5%
Good 5%
Total Votes: 10,263
WASHINGTON (June 15) - Fearing that President Bush's political problems may become their own, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere are beginning to yearn for the good old days of seven months ago, when he had somebody to run against.
Voters were worried in November about the economy and the war in Iraq, but they didn't take it out on the incumbent on Election Day. They are now.
Bush's poll ratings are among the worst since he took office, declining in virtually every category since his win over Democratic Sen. John Kerry. From his handling of the economy, foreign policy and the war in Iraq to his job approval rating and voters' assessment of the country's direction, the president's political scores are in serious decline.
One reason is that voters are no longer judging him in comparison to Kerry. Bush, like other second-term presidents, is facing the prospect of lame-duck status. He's up against his own record, in a sense, and that's never an easy task.
"In a vacuum, all the dissatisfaction is put on the White House," said GOP consultant Charles Black, who argued that Bush should draw more attention to upbeat economic numbers.
The Bush campaign succeeded in its 2004 strategy - to make the election a referendum on Kerry and not the incumbent. Now, every day is a referendum on Bush.
"When you're in a campaign, people have to make a choice. It's either A or B. Easy enough," said Ken Khachigian, who served as a strategist for President Reagan. "It gets more complicated after the campaign."
Khachigian said Bush could seize the initiative by delivering a speech to Congress on Iraq.
On Election Day, a majority of voters were concerned about the war in Iraq but also said it was part of the war on terrorism. They had to make a choice between Bush and Kerry while weighing the question of who would keep them safer.
Now, with the death toll in Iraq pushed above 1,700, more than double the number of a year ago, it's no longer a choice between Bush and Kerry.
It's Bush's war. Period.
"There's just a general angst right now," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. "He's paying for his Iraq policy more now than he was before the election. People know we have to win, but they're not very happy about it. So he has a lot of problems and, frankly, nobody to blame them on.
"And the Democrats are in the unique position of not having to propose anything," Cole said.
Beyond Iraq, the economy has risen to the No. 1 concern of voters, according to at least one poll, and every survey shows a majority of voters disapproving of Bush's performance on that issue. His plans to overhaul Social Security have gotten no traction in Congress or with the general public.
The president proudly considers himself a politician who forges ahead, despite the obstacles, but some Republicans are worried that Bush's resolve could cost them control of Congress in 2006 or 2008.
They fear his advisers are ignoring the signs of voter discontent, moving too slowly to adjust their strategies to new realities. Some top Republicans also blame GOP congressional leaders for focusing on legislation that seems to help a select few while making no progress on issues that matter to many.
These Republicans include lawmakers and consultants who are allies of the White House. Most spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisal from the administration.
"They might not realize what a challenge we face here," said Joe Gaylord, a Republican consultant close to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "The challenge is they're in campaign mode. Americans can be patient for a while, but when they see nothing going on, they get to wondering, 'What's going on here?"'
Gaylord cited the political fallout from the decision to intervene in the case of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. Cole mentioned tort reform. Another top GOP lawmaker singled out bankruptcy legislation that made it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations.
Those may be good policies, the Republicans said, but those issues benefit a limited number of voters. Republicans are urging Congress and the White House to push harder for voter-friendly legislation such as the jobs-laden highway bill or energy reform, a political prescription to angst over skyrocketing gasoline prices.
Khachigian said Bush is being worn down by stiff Democratic opposition and by his bullish agenda. "In a campaign, you're less likely to put up provocative ideas, you use much more global messaging and fewer specifics," he said. "What he's paying the price for now is being specific and provocative, especially on Social Security."
Cole compared Bush to President Truman, who never shied from a tough issue and often paid a political price.
"He was pretty farseeing. What you liked about Truman is what in the short term makes it politically challenging, and I'd say the same thing about Bush," Cole said. "He likes to make tough decisions."
Cole's analogy may not be comforting to Republicans. For all his tough stands and history's opinion, Truman left office with low poll ratings after the 1952 elections. And his Democrats lost control of Congress.
EDITOR'S NOTE - Ron Fournier has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 1992.
posted on June 15, 2005 01:08:03 PM
3 more stupid AOL polls. How many times did you vote Bigpeepa? how many times did your wife vote? how many times did your son vote?
Now be honest.
What are the age of the voters. Since any stupid person can join aol and probably the easiest isp to negotiate I would suggest the average age of AOL is about 8 and mostly liberals because liberals need direction.
posted on June 15, 2005 01:27:45 PM
Ignoring the fact that these same 'polls' show the lowest rate of unhappiness by the voters TOWARDS our Congress, too?
And once the 2006 campaign season gets under way....the voters are going to see just who IS trying to get the job done...and who is blocking that from occurring...the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
---------------
Bush hits Democratic 'agenda of the roadblock'
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2005
President Bush last night ripped the Democratic Party as do-nothing obstructionists bent on derailing his reform agenda, saying that on issue after issue, Democratic leaders in Congress 'stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership.'
At an evening congressional gala at the Washington Convention Center -- which drew $23 million for House and Senate Republican candidates and amounted to the kickoff of the 2006 political campaign season -- the president drew standing ovations from Republican faithful as he hammered Democrats for offering no solutions to the nation's most pressing problems.
'If leaders of the other party have innovative ideas, let's hear them. But if they have no ideas or policies except obstruction, they should step aside and let others lead,' Mr. Bush said to thunderous applause from more than 5,000 supporters.
The president, who has spent the past several months seeking consensus on his Social Security reform package and reaching out to Democrats with nonconfrontational rhetoric, said opposition party leaders are pursuing 'the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock, and our country and our children deserve better.'
'Political parties that choose the path of obstruction will not gain the trust of the American people,' he said at the event dubbed 'the 2005 President's Dinner.'
Mr. Bush said political parties can take one of two approaches: 'One approach is to lead, to focus on the people's business, to take on the tough problems, and that is exactly what our party is doing.
'The other approach is to simply do nothing, to delay solutions, obstruct progress, refuse to take responsibility. Members of the other party have worked with us to achieve important reforms on some issues, yet too often, their leadership prefers to block the ideas of others.'
Democrats have filibustered John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's nominee to become ambassador to the United Nations; blocked his judicial nominees, some for as long as four years; and demanded that he withdraw his idea to create personal Social Security retirement accounts before they will offer their own plan or negotiate in earnest over Republican proposals.
Congressional leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have also blocked the president's energy bill, his medical-liability reform legislation and his plan to extend his tax-relief plan beyond its 2010 expiration date.
'We hear 'no' to making tax relief permanent, we hear 'no' to Social Security reform, we hear 'no' to confirming federal judges, we hear 'no' to a highly qualified U.N. ambassador, we hear 'no' to medical-liability reform. On issue after issue, they stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership,' he said to resounding applause.
On Congress' first full day back to work after their Memorial Day recess, Mr. Bush said he is proud to 'be the head of a party that has a positive and hopeful and optimistic vision for every single person that lives in this country.'
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois also spoke at the gala, taking aim at Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has spent the past few months deriding Republicans in Congress.
'I was hoping that Governor Dean could make it tonight,' Mr. Frist said of the former Vermont governor. 'But sadly, he's too busy to make it. He's too busy helping us expand the Republican majority.'
The senator, a doctor like the DNC chairman, invoked a James Bond villain in saying that obstructionist tactics have forced the Democrats to 'change Dr. Dean's nameplate over at the DNC to 'Dr. No.'?'
Mr. Hastert also lashed out at the agenda of 'the other side of the aisle.'
'It is not enough to be against everything: What are their ideas' While Republicans are working to meet the needs of the American people, the Democrats are in meetings to figure out what the heck to do with Howard Dean.'
To laughter and applause, Mr. Hastert delivered the punch line: 'And between you and I, they might have the tougher challenge.'
~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope....sure doesn't sound to me like they're worried. The see this obstuctionism as HELPING their party.
posted on June 15, 2005 03:14:08 PM
EVIL minds think EVIL THOUGHTS.
I voted once,my wife didn't vote and my son is teaching Lacrosse this week so he also didn't vote.
Like I said before for the "L" sisters sake I hope their boys ratings go up. Otherwise they are both riding a VERY dead horse.
We will all watch the 2006 elections YES...
Now I personally have nothing more to say about this post other than read it and WEEP OLD GIRLS. YES...
posted on June 15, 2005 04:59:08 PM
Big-get rid of that old fashion AOL-so we dont have to hear about these stupid pols and get
a high speed connection ya cheap bastard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on June 15, 2005 05:21:56 PM
peepa, I don't know why you persist in quoting these skewed polls, when legitimate polls bear out the same conclusions, only with more realistic numbers.The country is not satisfied with the presiden't handling of Iraq, the economy, social security, you name it. That's clear from the likes of Gallup, Zogby and the major media polls. But you won't find one legitimate poll that finds that only 6 or 7 % of those polled are happy with him. That's just silly. I think if that were ever actually the case, there'd be rioting in the streets. Maybe I'm wrong, we're so busy celebrating over the "drop" in gas prices, and fretting over Michael Jackson and that vegetable woman, we don't have time to think about any really serious stuff.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on June 15, 2005 05:42:59 PM
Well if THIS is a sign of how other primaries are going to go....you're all in BIG trouble.
WSJ - today op-ed and funny to boot.
Voters: Who Needs 'Em?
The Washington Post reports that turnout was low in yesterday's Virginia Democratic primary, and at least one Democrat is happy:
Election officials said the heat--it was 100 degrees in some places--probably discouraged some voters. The turnout was likely to be less than 10 percent of registered voters, the officials said.
Voters who braved the weather found few lines. Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria), who was unopposed, worked the polls for his fellow Democrats.
"There's only one voter every five minutes," he said. "It's great, because I can give my whole spiel."
Democrats used to yearn for high voter turnout, as exemplified by former Enron adviser Paul Krugman's Election Day column last year:
I always get a little choked up when I go to the local school to cast my vote. The humbleness of the surroundings only emphasizes the majesty of the process: this is democracy, America's great gift to the world, in action.
But over the last few days I've been seeing pictures from Florida that are even more majestic. They show long lines of [early] voters, snaking through buildings and on down the sidewalk: citizens patiently waiting to do their civic duty. Those people still believe in American democracy; and because they do, so do I. . . .
Regular readers won't be in any doubt about who I want to win, though New York Times rules prevent me from giving any explicit endorsement. (Hint: it's the side that benefits from large turnout.)
As it turned out, voter turnout was huge, and President Bush won re-election, carrying Florida by a 5% margin.
Now we're hearing that high voter turnout somehow disfranchises Democratic voters. Robert Kuttner wrote in the Boston Globe last week that John Kerry "came up just one state short in 2004, perhaps due to deliberately contrived long lines that held down Democratic turnout in Ohio."
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, nobody votes anymore; it's too crowded.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 15, 2005 05:45 PM ]
posted on June 15, 2005 05:44:13 PMonly with more realistic numbers.The country is not satisfied with the presiden't handling of Iraq, the economy, social security, you name it. That's clear from the likes of Gallup, Zogby and the major media polls.
Even with Gallup polls showing how much the country is dissatisfied with Bush, the Republican still find a way to trash those results. However they believe the results when they show how much the country supports Bush.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 15, 2005 05:51:29 PM
More whining....
Anyone who thinks these polls are going to change the fact that this President will remain in office until 2008...are only fooling themselves. That's why these polls mean nothing to me....why I laugh at them.
Like I said....it's not like we haven't been through all this 'polls' showing one thing and the end result the dems were hoping for not coming about before, SEVERAL times. lol
And THINK....how many seats in the HOUSE are the dems going to have to gain in order to retake control? Think that's REALLY going to happen? I don't.
But hey....dream while the dreaming is good.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 15, 2005 07:02:56 PM
We all know the numbers Linda, and they are quite do-able in 06, particularly given the Social Security mess and stem cell research. Those two issues alone are going to cost the Republicans quite a few seats. All in the world the dems need to do is campaign as Pro-Cure, and Pro-S.S....piece of cake.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on June 15, 2005 08:19:55 PM
Lets be realistic. The liberals on this board do not want to change SS so now maybe they are going to have to wait until they are 69 before they can collect social security.
Do you want to work forever or do you want a solution to fix SS. No matter how you look at it by 2017 there will be 3 workers to every 1 worker collecting SS. That is not enough to keep SS solvent. Do the math.
Any suggestions here how to solve it???
None from the democratic party as they don't see a problem. So now wait until 2017 until there is a problem then what do you do?
posted on June 15, 2005 10:30:31 PM
LOL profe - We all know the numbers Linda, and they are quite do-able in 06,
oh yea....they've BEEN 'do-able' since 1998 but the dems haven't done it since then.
particularly given the Social Security mess and stem cell research. Those two issues alone are going to cost the Republicans quite a few seats.
I don't agree. It's just more of the same, just like it 'was going to happen' in 2002 because everyone was SO upset about the election being stolen. Didn't come about then either.
All in the world the dems need to do is campaign as Pro-Cure, and Pro-S.S....piece of cake.
lol...as I said...dream on. A month in politics can see great change from polls...even less sometimes. But we're talking about close to a year and a half. These issues will be over and dealt with by then.
Nope...imo, the 2006 election is going to be a further reminder that the liberal part of the democratic party has led the rest of their party down the path of losing once again. It's really becoming quite a pattern, a ten year one to this point....and it could be generations before we see the dems back in power again.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
