35% think the country is headed in the right direction. 43% approve of the job being done by Bush 41% support his handling of the war 37% support his social security plan 43% support his economic plan The Republican congress is in worse shape with elections coming up in 2006. 10% approve of the job being done by Congress. Poll: Bush Job Approval Dips to New Low June 10, 2005 8:32 AM EDT WASHINGTON - As the war in Iraq drags on, President Bush's job approval and the public's confidence in the direction he's taking the nation are at their lowest levels since The Associated Press-Ipsos poll began in December 2003. About one-third of adults, 35 percent, said they think the country is headed in the right direction, while 43 percent said they approve of the job being done by Bush. Just 41 percent say they support his handling of the war, also a low-water mark. read the rest of the story
I think this has less to do with Bush than the article infers & more to do with politics in general. I think the country is beginning to see that politcians aren't doing what's in the public's best interest. I guarantee had Kerry, Dean or any of the other Democratic nominations won the election - their approval rates would be horrible as well.
Could be, Cparso. I do follow your logic and partially agree. But it's not like the american people are reaching for reasons to disapprove of the man (and administration) Presided over the loss of approximately three million American jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office, the worst record since Herbert Hoover. Overseen an economy in which the stock market suffered its worst decline in the first two years of any administration since Hoover’s. Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks two years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq, thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation. (One historian made this point particularly well: “After inadvertently gaining the sympathies of the world 's citizens when terrorists attacked New York and Washington, Bush has deliberately turned the country into the most hated in the world by a policy of breaking all major international agreements, declaring it our right to invade any country that we wish, proving that he’ll manipulate facts to justify anything he wishes to do, and bull-headedly charging into a quagmire.”) Misled (to use the most charitable word and interpretation) the American public about weapons of mass destruction and supposed ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq and so into a war that has plainly (and entirely predictably) made us less secure, caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists, is killing American military personnel needlessly, and is threatening to suck up all our available military forces and be a bottomless pit for the money of American taxpayers for years to come. Failed to follow through in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are regrouping, once more increasing the threat to our people. Insulted and ridiculed other nations and international organizations and now has to go, hat in hand, to those nations and organizations begging for their assistance. Completely miscalculated or failed to plan for the personnel and monetary needs in Iraq after the war, so that he sought and obtained an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, a sizable chunk of which is going, without competitive bidding to Haliburton, the company formerly headed by his vice president. Inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and transformed it into a $500+ billion deficit in less than three years. This negative turnaround of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is totally without precedent in our history. The ballooning deficit for fiscal 2004 is rapidly approaching twice the dollar size of the previous record deficit, $290 billion, set in 1992, the last year of the administration of President Bush’s father and, at almost 5 percent of GDP, is closing in on the percentage record set by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Cut taxes three times, sharply reducing the burden on the rich, reclassified money obtained through stock ownership as more deserving than money earned through work. The idea that dividend income should not be taxed—what might accurately be termed the unearned income tax credit—can be stated succinctly: “If you had to work for your money, we’ll tax it; if you didn’t have to work for it, you can keep it all.” Called upon American armed service people, including Reserve forces, to sacrifice for ever-lengthening tours of duty in a hostile and dangerous environment while he rewards the rich at home with lower taxes and legislative giveaways and gives lucrative no-bid contracts to American corporations linked with the administration. Given an opportunity to begin to change the consumption-oriented values of the nation after September 11, 2001, when people were prepared to make a sacrifice for the common good, called instead of Americans to ‘sacrifice’ by going out and buying things. Proclaimed himself to be a conservative while maintaining that big government should be able to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights, and that the government must have all sorts of secrets from the people, but the people can be allowed no privacy from the government. (As one of the historians said, “this is not a conservative administration; it is a reckless and arrogant one, beholden to a mix of right-wing ideologues, neo-con fanatics, and social Darwinian elitists.”)
Sadly, this comes as no surprise. His presidency is taking a major downturn, IMO, almost all of which stems from either a disregard or a failure to grasp the desires of conservatives.
True, but IMO there has been a lack of politicians recently that could provide any better. He gets to much blame for this. I don't think his administration helped the problem very much but the economy works in a cyclical fashion. After the boom of the 90s (which had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton), we were due for a downturn regardless of the president. The UN and quite a few nations had it comming. They wouldn't have provided any help regardless - that's why they deserved to be called out. Well this goes back to the argument of whether large debts are bad or not... there is no known answer so throwing this out there is more of an attempt to smear him than anything. This is one of the Republican party's main flaws. They support "old money". They don't incourage class mobility & make it harder to move up. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. (Don't get me wrong, the Democrats go to far in the opposite direction). I don't know what you mean by this. What did you want our values to become? Capitalism is the American way. It's been great for us. I don't want it to change.
That's exactly right. He's trying too hard to please everybody...and when you do that, you generally end up pleasing nobody. I have a lot of issues w/ Pres. Bush myself...but given the alternative, I'm not the least bit sorry I voted for him. It could be worse.
How so? I mean, most conservatives vote that way for fiscal reasons. Bush has proven over and over that fiscal conservation means very little to him. I guess I just don't understand what massive overhauls that Kerry had planned that scared everybody so badly [insert random 'b/c you are a whiny liberal jackass' cheapshot here]. The size/power of government under Bush has increased pretty drastically, the economy is in very bad shape, and our foreign policy is basically non-existent. How were things so much worse under our last democratic president (BJ's not included) that caused so many to speak so fearfully of JFK taking office? (Just for the record, concerning this past election, I strictly adhere to the 'giant douche' vs 'turd sandwhich' analogy provided by Southpark...Kerry being the douche) Everybody wanted to know Kerry's plan for this and that. But it was ironic because all of the inquiries basically amounted to 'What's your plan for fixing these things that the current administration has screwed up so badly?' I just don't really understand how things could be much, or any, worse off than they are now.
Haven't you read the bumper stickers? THE TERRORISTS VOTED FOR KERRY! :hihi: I certainly think that Kerry could have done a worse job as far as Iraq is concerned. I also believe that his wishy washy stances would provide a stronger possability for terrorists attacks on America. Those are very good points about Bush's fiscal policies. Republicans gradual slide away from small government will necessitate either a new party or revamping of the republican party. It's hard to argue that you voted for him because of fiscal reasons. However, many republicans are socially conservative as well - which was a big reason to vote for Bush & even bigger reason not to vote for the very liberal John Kerry.
Well, you could be bowing to Mecca 5 times a day against your will. I'd have to say that's definitely worse. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
