The BEST solution for Iran is to make them a non-issue in world politics. The only reason anyone gives a crap is the oil. Science has failed us.Originally Posted by MattB
|
|
|
|
|
The BEST solution for Iran is to make them a non-issue in world politics. The only reason anyone gives a crap is the oil. Science has failed us.
Has this poll really been up for over two days with these results?
I am amazed, based on the tone of the usual political discussion on here to see more somewhat negative views on Bush than positive. I am really amazed because I have been interested in those national poll numbers and how they show such negative results for Bush.
To fully explain, I can't understand the major drop off in Bush's numbers from his reelection. He did win a majority, the first President since his Dad to reach that level, after serving his first term. I've been wondering if the polling facts were really that far off, but unless the really strong Bush supporters on here are just not voting, I guess the poll numbers aren't that far off. From someone who didn't support him, I just haven't seen that much difference in his second term performance from his first to make such a great change.
So is "he is doing the best job he can" a compliment? I wasn't sure about that.
I suspect JAAgan that there were more than a few people in the last election who voted for Bush because they saw no real alternative. It wasn't so much an endorsement of Bush as a rejection of Kerry.
I do think Bush's numbers reflect some things that he really has no control over -- like high gas prices. But they also reflect the FEMA fiasco, the fact that people are squeemish about the continuing story in Iraq, the criticism of people like Rumsfeld -- while Bush seems to stand blindly by them (I'm pretty sure that reflects Bush's view of loyalty, but it might also be poor leadership)
I put that one in there, because it is EXACTLY what was stated about him in the debates with Al Gore during the first election. I couldn't understand why people thought it was a good thing, even if he lost the debate.
I guess I just don't see anything different now from the way he always led, and am surprised to see his supporters turn on him for what seemed to be perceived as a strength before -- unwillingness to admit the need for change aka "flip-flops."
I do understand those who chose Bush as the lesser of two evils, and perhaps I did underestimate those numbers, because it would have been an easy conclusion to reach.
Maybe the first choice should have been Stephen Colbert's litmus test question for his guests -- "Great President or the greatest President?"
What can I say"
Well flip flop and change are not the same thing. A flip-flop is a complete about face on a subject. John Kerry for the war then against the war with not much change in between. Bush will not change his plans to fit the situation, ie war planning. They went in with a bad plan and stuck with it for a while instead of changing. As president, you must alwasy be willing to change your strategy and mind about things incrementally, that is change. A flip-flopper is a guy who goes from one extreme to the other, which a nation cannot have because it would lead to instability and lack of trust in your politician.
A president must change because things change, they cannot predict the future. They cant just jump ship though when things are going their way either. You see the difference?
Actually, I think that John Kerry voted for the war with the faulty information as the basis. After a little time, it became apparent that there were no WMD's and he stated that the war was a bad idea. Bush has never stated that and still defends that it was a good idea - even the strategy is still defended.
John Kerry is a joke. I think he knew well waht he was voting for and it wasnt hinging on WMDs. Once the public started making noice about WMDs is when that traitor started sqawking about it. He also flip flopped on his own countrymen back in Vietnam. John Kerry would be that guy that would make a rash decision and leave us in a terrible position time and time again. John Kerry will change his mind if it will get him political favor, but it shows that he has no basis of beliefs.
Bush is sorely wrong about his strategy in Iraq, it was terrible. Bush is too hard-headed to change.
i've got to disagree with you there. i don't think kerry had any idea what he was doing. i think he just went with the flow...the flow was for it then against it so he voted accordingly...the last time he actually took a stand was in the 60s or 70s when he had all of those anti-war debates...but even there he "stand" is diminished since when all of the vets were throwing down their medals, he kept his and trew the ribbons. he is not the "take a stand" kind of person from what i've seen and his vp was more "presidential" then he was. as far as rash decision-making...he'd actually have to make a decision for that to happen and that's just not his style...he's not quite "the decider" that bush is. (sorry, i couldn't resist throwing that in there)
Well, rather he knew what he was doing in the first place. I think we can agree that he flip flopped because he saw the public turning on it. So, we agree there. I also agree that he isnt much of a decision maker unless the public is deciding for him. Kerry would never make a tough decision. He would try to put off all hard decisions onto the next president. I am sure many politicians do this, but I know Kerry would have been the worst.
Well, old argument that doesn't much matter anymore. We can guess what he would have done, but we don't know. We do know what Bush has done and it is exactly as many of us guessed.
The next election will be interesting. I haven't seen one candidate that I think is worthy yet - on either side. Of course, someone always rises up closer to primary time that we weren't expecting to be there.
Based on your poll Champ -
I see Bush with a 65% approval rating...
BTW - YES, YES and OK - are all measures of approval -
Interesting...
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
i think that's because there were too many choices. if there had been 2 "bad" and "good" i think it would be closer to 50/50. still better than the national polls but the leanings of this forum are decidedly to the right...so a 50/50 result would be significant, meaning that a significant number of republicans voted "bad."
and before anyone mentions it: i am more than aware of the weakness of an argument based on predicted statistics.
I went into this knowing that this was a strong right leaning group. So, some saying that he has screwed up some and the percentage saying that he has done a bad job is significant. Saying "he has done the best that he can" is a bad question, though. I did it to be funny, but there is no way to tell if the votes are positive or negative. To someone like me, Bush doing "the best that he can" is a VERY low bar. :icon_wink
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
