Why Bush's Approval Ratings are Slipping
I have an hypothesis: The reason President Bush's approval ratings are slipping is because he is too liberal. How so, you ask? Look at what he's done through the lense of the left.
One, he spends money like a liberal, perhaps moreso, and is out of step with his conservative ilk who typically cut spending for social programs. Two, he's in a war with an agenda that he has failed to make clear, plus he remains in a combat situation that has no pull-out strategy, much like Clinton with Bosnia, Haiti, or Samalia. Three, he "lies" to the American public about all sorts of things, just like Clinton did during his scandals. Four, he subjects our national interests by appealing to the UN, just like Clinton. Five, he makes the same marketing appeal to us with his form of Christianity, just like Clinton did when, during the photo ops, he would swing his huge bible on the way to church. Six, he makes these scripted "town-hall" type gatherings with the troops, just like Clinton did with his "town-hall" gatherings around the country. The left knows this as political opportunism; they hate it in Bush, but applaud it with Clinton.
The fact is we know Bill Clinton IS a sleazeball, so his actions fit his person. He couldn't be labeled a despicable hypocrite; we expect him to play the part of the pondscum that he is. So Clinton could pull it off and absorb the attack against liberalism with his weak, immoral character. Bush, on the other hand, can't pull it off. He is awkward trying to act "Clintonesque;" his character can't absorb the liberalism and the people actually see the hypocrisy and brown-nosing. We want the tough, conservative Bush that we elected, not some pandering "new-tone" wimp who is trying to make everyone on the Beltway happy. Nothing irritates people more when you have a sycophantic leader trying to get people to like him. Bush is trying to do this, and the polls show it. In Bush, liberalism is as appealing as a naked Bella Abzug, and the left is blushing with embarrassment. They know a weak ideology when they create one.
posted by Underground Logician @ 9:20 AM
27 comments
27 Comments:
UL,
You've gone over the edge. Get hold of yourself, man. This teeters on the psychotic. And I'm taking away your "logician" title.
For the record, Clinton's approval numbers never, never went below 54. Check it out for yourself.
Mr. Bush is in trouble because of his policies, his incompetence, and the radical ideologs he chooses to place around him.
The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under criminal indictment, the majority leader of the Senate is being investigated by the SEC and the Department of Justice. The vice president's closest advisor and chief of staff, I. "Scooter" Libby, and the president's closest political advisor and deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, have both been before the Grand Jury on multiple occasions. We don't know where this will lead to. We do know that Karl Rove lied when he told Scott McClellan and Bush that he wasn't involved in the Plame scandal. Rove lied. He is a liar.
This may be difficult for you and the people who support Bush to withstand, but it is reality.
Your cute little exercise in placing all the blame for the Bush administration's scandals on liberals and Clinton changes nothing.
Unless things change for Bush over the next year or so, this administration will continue to implode, because from the beginning it was based on a lie and an evil lie at that.
When Bill Clinton's scandal was made public, I understood and faced the fact that he had behaved disgracefully and stupidly. I had the intelligence and maturity to criticize him for his misdeeds.
I would expect you to do the same and not behave like an adolescent and blame someone else for Bush's scandals, lack of morality, and lack of truthfulness.
Once you come to terms with the fact that Bush is responsible for his troubles, and not Bill Clinton, then you can reclaim your title as a "logician."
Gee, I don't know what I'll do if I can' get my "Logician" title back from Isabella! I'd have to call myself just "Underground," something dark, dank and musty, icky, dirty, stinky and rotten!
*LOL*
My dear, you don't understand my point. I'm not blaming liberals for Bush's woes. I'm saying in a very angular fashion that Bush is far from being conservative. And when he pulls the same type of political opportunistic stunts like Clinton, the left goes wacko. Liberals DO turn a blind eye to the stunts liberals pull. You may be the exception, master chef!
Lighten up, just a little!
*LOL*
Isabella, you little fibber! You dared me to check it out, and I did. I found this article under White House Studies. The URL is:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_1_3/ai_109025096
President AV. High Low
Kennedy 70 83 56
Eisenhower65 79 48
Bush 61 89 29
Johnson 55 79 35
Clinton 54 73 37
Reagan 53 65 35
Nixon 49 67 24
Ford 47 71 37
Carter 45 74 28
Clinton was at 37% at his low point. So, big deal.
This chart doesn't look that great once you hit publish. GRRRRR.
I stand corrected. I heard the percentages on Air America yesterday and believed them.
I'm going to go to Al Franken's website and tell him he was wrong!
However, I do know that Clinton's numbers were in the 60s while he was being impeached.
UL 1
Isabella 0
I'm not afraid to admit it when I've gotten bad information.
Isabella:
Are you jomaca508 now? I tried to clink on it and the page doesn't come up. I'll try later.
Yes, I do recall Clinton's numbers up during the impeachment.
Oh, by the way, you're the one keeping score; I'm not into keeping a tally. I probably disagree with the numbers anyway! :D
No, I'm not jomaca, don't know how that name popped up. Blogger acts weird sometimes. Must be all the rain we've been having...
No, I'm not jomaca, don't know how that name popped up. Blogger acts weird sometimes. Must be all the rain we've been having...
Underground,
YES!!!
UL:
Question: If Bush's poll numbers are slipping because he is being too liberal then why aren't the liberals in love with Bush?
As for liberals being big spenders, how do to justify Clinton balancing the budget AND having a surplus?
James:
As to balanced budget, Clinton raised taxes. The Budget looked good on paper. What I don't know is how the "cashflow" changed when Bush lowered taxes.
As to why liberals don't like Bush, it's a matter of power, getting their own people in.
Just a guess.
UL:
Interesting points.
don't have to be a political theorist to figure this one out: many people who voted bush as the "least evil" option are simply pulling their support now that he's in his second term.
in the same way, conservatives ceded the wmd argument once the iraq war was well under way. why? not because they didn't have arguments, but simply because it wasn't worth arguing over.
UL and TS, again, ditto.
and, by the way, Clinton's town hall meetings were never scripted or "by invitation only". He often faced hostile questioners. the difference is tht he was smart enough to be able to answer these people, and diffuse those situations. Dubya can't even talk to Laura with Karl whispering in his ear!
UL,
Didn't want this to be lost down there in your post on global warming:
10/19/2005 8:30 a.m. ET
It's been confirmed: Hurricane Wilma, with a pressure of 882 mb, is the most intense hurricane on record in the Atlantic Basin.
http://www.weather.com/
You need to check out the post if you haven't. Mars is heating up. The CO2 polar ice caps are shrinking due to increase in temperature. Our sun might be churning out some added heat, which is cyclical.
I'm still not in favor of Kyoto...
Hi again UL,
Have no idea how accurate this cashflow chart is, but certainly looks spectacular .. (grins).
Cheers
UL,
More on Clinton's poll numbers:
From wikipedia:
"While 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, his job approval rating consistently ranged from the high 50s to the high 60s in his second term, with a high of 73% approval in 1998 and 1999."
GWB (as in Great White Bear), yup, no doubt GWB (as in George W. Bush) is an idiot.
GWB: No doubt Clinton answered his critics. "I did not have sex with that woman" is a great answer; he's a lawyer for crying out loud.
Isabella: I don't care if Clinton had poll numbers in the nineties. He's a pol, and damn good at it. But he is NOT a man of moral substance. Bush is a pol, but not great at it. As to a moral man, it seems like he's a mix. Not sure where to land yet. I'm sure you have suggestions for me, eh?
Saur: Don't encourage the Bear, girl! Bush is not an idiot. I think he's a bit naive, thinking he can win over his enemies on the Beltway. The hatred towards him is great and Bush doesn't have the political savvy that Clinton has.
Unfortunately, I think you're trying to score some points here. Bear doesn't need your support in this, go ahead, you can tell him otherwise. He'll understand.
Wombat:
Are you spamming me?
Maybe it's time for word verification.
wombat, wombat, wombat...
UL, UL, UL,
Read the damn link before you make an ass of yourself.
Sorry Wombat, I'm running on little sleep and am prone lately to react than think.
Sad stats, I'm afraid. And yes, dubya has been spending us into the tank. Damn moderates! Trying to be all things to all people get's pricey!
Don't get me started...I'll start railing against the man. GRRRRR.
Spam? Nah, there's a real person here (though have my doubts sometimes.. grins). As for 'word verification', I only have trouble when there's two "w's" and can't figure out where the "v's" are. On the subject of "current accounts" - while we seem to have our own GWB clone, (acting before thinking is becoming common, apparently)in that "anti-terror" laws are placing iron collars around our necks, and "Industrial Relations" legislation is set to turn us all into poverty peons - our "current account" is in healthy surplus. Mebbe we should send Peter Costello (treasurer) over your way to sort everything out .. heh heh.
Isabella: I don't care if Clinton had poll numbers in the nineties. He's a pol, and damn good at it. But he is NOT a man of moral substance. Bush is a pol, but not great at it. As to a moral man, it seems like he's a mix. Not sure where to land yet. I'm sure you have suggestions for me, eh?
UL,
As a person who appears to be deeply religious, your assertion that Clinton is NOT a man of moral substance is troubling.
Do you base that on his Monica scandal? Or do you see nothing in his life that is moral? And if you see nothing in his life that is moral, may I ask how you can possibly know that? You criticize people on the left as irrational Bush haters. Have you looked at the log in your eye?
I take it you've already removed the beam from your own eyes first, correct?
As to being moral, it is not something private and personal, but it is noticeable. I mean, you imply that I'm being unduly judgmental. You must be allowing yourself the freedom to judge.
As to Clinton, his public life and "indiscretions" are numerous and well known. You're not going to try to convince me of this man's morality, are you? Of course, he is not the devil incarnate, but in the scheme of things, he's a scoundrel.
So, if Jesus called King Herod a fox, and the pharisees hypocrites, there seems to be room for judgments to be made. And it is perhaps to avoid them and the example they lead.
As to Bush hatred, come on! You love the man? I've been to your blog; I've seen your pics; I've read your statements. You are not one who is "concerned" about the direction of this country so much as you are one to villify Bush. Don't start the holy tone with me, girl.
I have never hidden the fact that I dislike Bush's policies. In fact I often say I dislike what he stands for.
It's a known fact that Bush was a drunk and reprobate up until he was 40 years old, and probably was a cocaine addict, although his family was able to cover up a lot of his out-of-control behavior. It helps when Dad's the ex-head of the CIA.
The point is, Bush became born-again, and all was forgiven. He's a changed man. Saint, even.
Clinton apologized to the country after his egregious behavior and met many times with his pastor--but in many people's eyes he's still not a moral man. Nor will many people extend him the forgiveness that is extended to Bush over his past bad behavior.
I find that strange.
And I disagree with your assertion that being moral is not something personal and private.
Every day, many people perform humanitarian acts without drawing attention to themselves. Those are private acts of morality.
And you certainly don't mean to compare yourself to Jesus, do you when you say he judged Herod, implying that because Jesus judged, you have the privilege of judging your fellow man. Doesn't God also say judge not lest you be judged?
PS. For someone you call immoral, Bill Clinton, along with the hated, evil Hilary, managed to raised a bright and well-behaved young woman.
How did that happen? Doesn't the religious right claim that a parent's good and moral influence is very important in raising a child?
How the hell did immoral Bill and evil Hilary manage to raise a nice woman like Chelsea?
I haven't met Chelsea, so I can't comment. As to Bill's morality, I realize the Rev. Billy Graham absolved him of his sin with Monica, which is nice.
As to your facts about Dubya's immoral and licentious past, a bit of an exaggeration from someone so clearly against the man. I'd prefer information from someone without an axe to grind.
As to Bill's apology about the Lewinsky scandal, it was clearly an admitance of guilt, qualified by his assertion of a politically motivated scandal; a perfect political apology. But, how about Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, et al? There were a lot of women in the man's life. Had he come clean? I don't recall it. Maybe your high-powered search engines could find that for me.
As to morality not being simply private and personal, I meant what I said, don't try to twist it. There are private acts of morality and public. The acts themselves are NOT left for the individual to determine if moral or not. I'm attacking the prevailing relativism that seeks to prevent the judging of any actions. The morality of actions are not up for only the individual to determine. Moral relativism reduces morality to personal opinion and holds that is no one else's business.
As to what Jesus said, he said quite a bit on the topic of judging. Seems that liberal materialists only remember one quote. Jesus also said "Use righteous judgment." He warned of following the example of those who have bad fruit, political or religious. We are to walk with our eyes wide open. The judging you're calling is one which condemns without mercy or insight. Prejudice would fit into this. I will take note of your warning here, though. I know my weaknesses and you do well to note it.
But I will not play the nice fool either. I'm not going to fear what divinely appointed liberals think about my judging, who in essence couldn't give a damn about my religion or the other many sayings of Jesus Christ for that matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home