1 in 4 say Bush is the worst ever

[Thomas Veil]

Not only that, but apparently a lot of Republicans still like him, believe it or not!

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Twenty-three percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Thursday say that compared to other presidents in American history, President Bush is the worst ever.

Thirty-five percent of those surveyed say that Bush is doing a poor job compared to other presidents and 40 percent said he was doing a good job compared to his predecessors. Only one percent said that Bush was the best president ever in American history....

There continues to be a partisan split regarding President Bush. Seventy-two percent of Republicans polled approve of Bush’s performance. That number drops to 12 percent among Democrats. Twenty-seven percent of independents approve of the President’s handling of his job.CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/08/poll-public-not-pleased-with-president-bush/) (My bold.)

72% ?!? :eek: Are you freaking kidding me? A number that big can't be explained by sheer political preference -- it suggests massive, massive political unawareness and willful blindness.

[obeygiant]

In this forum its probably like 3 out of 4 people think Bush is the worst ever.

Many publications list Bush as the worst ever.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html) post article compares him with James Polk.

One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States.

Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

Maybe thats what skunk is talking about when he says the Americans stole Mexico.

[Iscariot]

In this forum its probably like 3 out of 4 people think Bush is the worst ever.

Many publications list Bush as the worst ever.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html) post article compares him with James Polk.



Maybe thats what skunk is talking about when he says the Americans stole Mexico.

Actually, until 1793, Mexico was a part of the African continent. George Washington's Steampunkt division liberated the land mass, originally as an offering to British interests after the "Citizen Genêt affair".

[solvs]

I'm surprised it's that small still. Only 1 in 4. Of course, there are apparently fewer people willing to admit they're Republicans, and among them only 72% still like him. Of course only 12% of Dems like him, again that actually seems kinda high, but it's the independents that are the most important. Only 27% of them like him. That's astounding. That's worse than Nixon.

Of course, this is where someone comes in here telling us that polls are meaningless, despite the obvious fact that they are actually very telling.

[Rodimus Prime]

Not only that, but apparently a lot of Republicans still like him, believe it or not!

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/08/poll-public-not-pleased-with-president-bush/) (My bold.)

72% ?!? :eek: Are you freaking kidding me? A number that big can't be explained by sheer political preference -- it suggests massive, massive political unawareness and willful blindness.


well only like 30% or so of the population are Republicans. The largest % of people are independents. So if you take that into account that 72% is less than 25% of the total population.

[Marble]

Who are all these people who feel like America has been getting better for the last seven years? :confused:

[Queso]

Who are all these people who feel like America has been getting better for the last seven years? :confused:
Halliburton shareholders? :p

[Swarmlord]

Like him? Not really, although I'm pleased with a few things. Prefer him to Gore or Kerry? Absolutely.

In this forum its probably like 3 out of 4 people think Bush is the worst ever.

Many publications list Bush as the worst ever.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html) post article compares him with James Polk.



Maybe thats what skunk is talking about when he says the Americans stole Mexico.

Mexico had already been stolen by the Spanish. We just took it from them.

[pdham]

Like him? Not really, although I'm pleased with a few things. Prefer him to Gore or Kerry? Absolutely.

Of course you do...

Bush makes you pay for ridiculous un-winnable wars, but Gore or Kerry might make you pay for the health and welfare of disadvantaged poor people.

The choice is obvious really

[Dont Hurt Me]

Like him? Not really, although I'm pleased with a few things. Prefer him to Gore or Kerry? Absolutely.What few things are those? Im trying as hard as I can to think of anything he has done for our country, its people or on upholding the constitution. He is a pathetic Corporate puppet who has been busy killing off the middle class, selling out our country at every chance while creating a war of his doing while never catching the guy who did 911. He's a draft dodging Bum who thinks Torture is justified and a Hypocrite. Almost every word he utters is twisted truthiness. Im ashamed he is my president.

[IJ Reilly]

What few things are those?

He has a nice dog. Hardly ever wet the carpet in the Oval Office. (The dog, not the President.)

He also never diddled an intern, at least as far as we know.

So many things to like.

[swingerofbirch]

Being 25, I have only observed the presidencies of the first George Bush, Clinton, and now the second Bush. The second Bush is a disaster. I'm not sure if he's stupid or evil, but the results all the same are disastrous. Why would the neocons like him? He didn't get tough on border immigration like he said he would. Which makes me think he's smart enough to realize that our NAFTA agreement with Mexico along with corporate farm subsidies mean that America sells corn cheaper in Mexico than Mexico can sell corn to itself--meaning lots of displaced Mexicans have to come up to the US to work for huge corporations.

In every facet of government you look at be it healthcare, education, the military, social security, George Bush works for corporations. Health care has got to stay private. Education has to be standardized to make minions for corporate america. The military has to be at war to provide billions to the military industrial complex. Social security has to go private to give money to drug companies.

He's a corporate shill. And evil. Or stupid. Or both.

[Genghis Khan]

He's a corporate shill. And evil. Or stupid. Or both.

don't you mean all three of them ;)

and about the corporate bit...did you know that president bush has shares in oil...and do you know how much his shares have increased during his presidency?

just an open question.........

[solvs]

For the fiscal conservatives the economy isn't that great, the dollar is losing value, and the national debt is skyrocketing. For the social conservatives nothing has really changed for the better for you either. Abortion, homosexuality, church and state. Actually, thanks to the screwups of GW and the former GOP Congress, people are swinging the other way on practically anything the Republicans touch anymore. For those who think the war on terror is important, and many of us still do, since they're screwing that up too, all the more reason to dislike them. Not that the Dems are a whole lot better right now, but at least they don't seem to be actively making everything worse. As reflected in poll where people do give the Congress low marks, but trust the Dems more overall with every policy. So really, yeah, I don't see how anyone would actually like him and this administration, but some of you still defend him for some reason. Noticing no one gave any good examples though.

And if you're only defense is that he's better than someone else might have possibly been (not that we actually know, since they weren't given the chance), I'd say that's a pretty weak defense.

[mactastic]

For the fiscal conservatives the economy isn't that great, the dollar is losing value, and the national debt is skyrocketing. For the social conservatives nothing has really changed for the better for you either. Abortion, homosexuality, church and state.
Not entirely true. The social conservatives have a real shot at overturning Roe v Wade, and the anti-working-folk types have a new pair of genuine heros sitting on the SCOTUS.

Those two nominations were the culmination of 30+ years of conservative effort, realized under the Bush presidency.

[hulugu]

Like him? Not really, although I'm pleased with a few things.

What has Bush done that has pleased you? I'm really curious.

Prefer him to Gore or Kerry? Absolutely.

I absolutely do not understand why you think this.

[CalBoy]

Not entirely true. The social conservatives have a real shot at overturning Roe v Wade, and the anti-working-folk types have a new pair of genuine heros sitting on the SCOTUS.

Those two nominations were the culmination of 30+ years of conservative effort, realized under the Bush presidency.

What always kills me about conservative nominations to SCOTUS is that they end up being liberal. In recent history, only Rehnquist and Scalia have upheld their conservative values. If we look at the composition of the court for the past several decades, it's been overwhelmingly Repulbican-nominated, and yet, the Court remains moderately liberal in many ways. Justices like O'Conner and Kennedy have helped the liberal wing win some important victories recently:

Lawrence v Texas (Lee will care about this one)

Roper v Simmons- bans death penalty for minors

Atkins v Virginia- bans death penalty for the mentally ill

and a few others as well. Personally, I think that Roberts will become a more liberal justice as time goes on. He's adopted his children, and he fought a case that helped gay couples adopt children in his legal past; not exactly a true conservative. I'm just waiting for Bush to leave office so he can pull an Earl Warren on us:D

Back to the topic at hand:

I'm very shocked that 72% of Republicans support him. I hope to god that that's a polling error.

[Swarmlord]

What has Bush done that has pleased you? I'm really curious.

The appointments to the Supreme Court, the response to 9/11 in Afganistan, tax cuts just to name a few things.


I absolutely do not understand why you think this.

And no matter what I say, you probably never will.

[SMM]

Well, bush is losing many friends in the military, a place where Presidents usually do well. Perhaps it is because of reasons like this (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/12/countdown-on-veterans-day-bush-goes-awol-vets-silenced-marlboro-marine-jobless/).

From Crooks & Liars:



On today’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann aired a somber and enraging segment on the sad state of affairs for our veterans on this Veteran’s Day. Talking with Paul Rieckhoff from IAVA, Olbermann blasted George Bush for ducking out of the ceremonies at Arlington Cemetary, talked about the growing number of homeless Iraq & Afghanistan vets and the utterly disgraceful silencing of anti-Iraq veterans in Massachusetts and Southern California who were not allowed to participate in Veterans Day parades — some were even arrested. On the one day of the year their voices should have been heard and they should have been honored, they were instead betrayed by their fellow citizens. I don’t have the words to describe that kind of cruelty.

Keith also touches on the gut wrenching story of Lance Corporal James Blake Miller– better known as the Marlboro Marine–who is now jobless, divorced and near suicidal since being discharged from the military after being diagnosed with PTSD. With little aid from his government, Miller received help from an unlikely source — Luis Sinco, the LA Times photographer who snapped the famous picture of him during the battle of Fallujah in 2004. You can read Sinco’s story in the LAT here.

[hulugu]

The appointments to the Supreme Court, the response to 9/11 in Afganistan, tax cuts just to name a few things. And no matter what I say, you probably never will.

You can fall back to cynicism all you want.

Lay it out, why is Bush better than a theoretical Gore or Kerry. What key difference did Bush make in the first days of Afghanistan?

I don't see how anyone in the office would have prosecuted the first days of the fight in Afghanistan, so I don't know if this is really a fair assessment of Bush's particular ability to lead, except simply be quiet long enough for US SOCOM to get in there. However, don't you consider the period after that initial success problematic? Would this color your view of the entire Afghanistan affair if we were to lose control of the country entirely and the Taliban roared back into power?

As for tax cuts, we've had this argument before, and I think we're at political odds with his choices for SCOTUS, but this doesn't seem like much to hang your hat on. Especially considering the administration's failures and scandals.

If this is the sum total of Bush's positive attributes, two conservative judges, a short-term success, and a little money in your pocket, color me unimpressed.

[solvs]

The appointments to the Supreme Court, the response to 9/11 in Afganistan, tax cuts just to name a few things.
I can see why you'd like the SCOTUS positions, but the others don't make sense. We pulled resources from the 'stans to go to Iraq before we were finished, not that our troops had the resources they needed to begin with. Like armor and exit strategies. I don't know if you've noticed, but we're losing in Afghanistan now, and never really had Pakistan, but that's going even more to Hell, while we continue to support them. Not to mention that Bin Laden guy Bush isn't too concerned with (his words, not mine). As far as the tax cuts, my taxes haven't really changed much, meanwhile we're getting far less for our money, and what we do get seems to be nothing but incompetence. Plus, costs continue to skyrocket. As does our debt. I don't see how a couple hundred extra dollars a year makes that ok.

And no matter what I say, you probably never will.
It would help if you expanded. Maybe even backed it up. Or, you know, based your opinion on reality. I mean, you're really going to use Afghanistan as a win? Really? Have you not been paying attention to what's going on over there recently? Uh, we aren't making things any better. Plus, now they want to go to Iran, which is a whole other kettle of fish we can't handle.

Which also proves how badly things have been going, since we have neither the resources, nor the credibility, to deal with any other threats, real or perceived.

You can fall back to cynicism all you want.
What else is he going to do, he's got nothing else.

Lay it out, why is Bush better than a theoretical Gore or Kerry. What key difference did Bush make in the first days of Afghanistan?
You're never going to get that.

[mactastic]

What always kills me about conservative nominations to SCOTUS is that they end up being liberal. In recent history, only Rehnquist and Scalia have upheld their conservative values.
Socially conservative values maybe. But both Alito and Roberts have shown no signs of being anything other than a great friend to established business interests.

And after all, when it comes down to brass tacks, that's the most important constituency to TPTB in the GOP; despite what the "values voters" may try to tell you.

[atszyman]

Bush makes you pay for ridiculous un-winnable wars, but Gore or Kerry might make you pay for the health and welfare of disadvantaged poor people.

Let's be fair. Bush is not making us pay for ridiculous un-winnable wars. He's borrowing money to pay for them so that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for his ridiculous un-winnable wars.

I don't know if everyone's kids are like mine (a 3 year old and a 7 month old) but they are just freeloaders. They don't do any housework, CPS won't let them run the lawnmower anymore, I can't force them to work (once again, thank you, CPS), and eBay keeps shutting down my attempts to auction them off. I love the idea that they will have to pay for this president's mistakes for years while I'm either retired or dead.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>

If this is the sum total of Bush's positive attributes, two conservative judges, a short-term success, and a little money in your pocket, color me unimpressed.

It is true that we'll never know just how ineffectual that Gore or Kerry would have been had they been president.

The judges are gifts that keep giving and the money in my pocket is not "little".

[leekohler]

It is true that we'll never know just how ineffectual that Gore or Kerry would have been had they been president.

The judges are gifts that keep giving and the money in my pocket is not "little".

Unfortunately we had to find out just how awful a President W is.

I'm curious as to why you feel the judges are good choices. So far, they've shown they care more about ideology than upholding the law. But then again, maybe that's why you like them.

[Swarmlord]

Unfortunately we had to find out just how awful a President W is.

I'm curious as to why you feel the judges are good choices. So far, they've shown they care more about ideology than upholding the law. But then again, maybe that's why you like them.

Well as I've said before I'm no fan of Bush, but I was even less impressed with Gore or Kerry. We can only speculate what they would have done with any of the issues that we are currently discussing.

Before commenting on your question about the judges, I'd like to know where you think they failed to uphold laws. What rulings are you referring to?

[leekohler]

Well as I've said before I'm no fan of Bush, but I was even less impressed with Gore or Kerry. We can only speculate what they would have done with any of the issues that we are currently discussing.

Before commenting on your question about the judges, I'd like to know where you think they failed to uphold laws. What rulings are you referring to?

Perhaps I misspoke. I should have said that they pay more attention to their narrow ideology rather than science-based fact. The most recent being their "partial birth" abortion ruling which might have made sense, except for the fact that they banned it even if the mother's life was in jeopardy. Never mind that fact that it was a rarely used procedure in the first place. That to me seems to be a ruling based on personal beliefs.

[mactastic]

Perhaps I misspoke. I should have said that they pay more attention to their narrow ideology rather than science-based fact. The most recent being their "partial birth" abortion ruling which might have made sense, except for the fact that they banned it even if the mother's life was in jeopardy. Never mind that fact that it was a rarely used procedure in the first place. That to me seems to be a ruling based on personal beliefs.
And never mind that in 2000 the court overturned essentially the same ban because of the lack of an exception for the mother's health.

I see we can already tell what the word of Alito and Roberts is worth when it comes to the profession of faith in stare decisis.

[princealfie]

wow, so warren harding isn't the worst?

[Naimfan]

This raises an interesting question--where will this Bush rate historically among Presidents?

Generally, historians and political scientists agree that Lincoln, FDR, and Washington rank as the top three, and that Harding, Grant, and Nixon rank as the bottom three. So where would the Shrub rank? I'll take a stab and say he'll go down in the "below-average" category as described by the Murray-Blessing study.

Others?

[mactastic]

This raises an interesting question--where will this Bush rate historically among Presidents?

Generally, historians and political scientists agree that Lincoln, FDR, and Washington rank as the top three, and that Harding, Grant, and Nixon rank as the bottom three. So where would the Shrub rank? I'll take a stab and say he'll go down in the "below-average" category as described by the Murray-Blessing study.

Others?
Let's put it this way: I never thought I'd miss Nixon.

[Naimfan]

Let's put it this way: I never thought I'd miss Nixon.

:D

Good line!

[hulugu]

Let's put it this way: I never thought I'd miss Nixon.

It's amazing, the more I read about Nixon the more I think he was a decent president compared to the current occupant.

Think of it, the guy presided over school integration, the creation of OSHA and the EPA, as well as NOAA. During his time, he also went to China, and signed the both the ABM treaty and SALT I.

[hulugu]

It is true that we'll never know just how ineffectual that Gore or Kerry would have been had they been president.

The judges are gifts that keep giving and the money in my pocket is not "little".

Do you ask the banker for 'super-sized' bills? ;)

[obeygiant]

Perhaps I misspoke. I should have said that they pay more attention to their narrow ideology rather than science-based fact. The most recent being their "partial birth" abortion ruling which might have made sense, except for the fact that they banned it even if the mother's life was in jeopardy. Never mind that fact that it was a rarely used procedure in the first place. That to me seems to be a ruling based on personal beliefs.

Hey lee, thats not true. The ban does have a provision that if the mothers health is in danger that ban is lifted.

This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
Full text of the ban act (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm)

The ban was not put forth due to "personal beliefs" or "narrow ideology". The type of abortion that was banned is absolutely horrible.

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.


This ruling "makes sense" for sure. I am very happy about the outcome.

[solvs]

and the money in my pocket is not "little".
You're only borrowing it. Judging by the ever increasing national debt, you're going to have to pay for it eventually. And your kids. And their kids. Which still amazes me considering how little we've gotten, which you still haven't specified what you actually like.

This raises an interesting question--where will this Bush rate historically among Presidents?
Unless peace miraculously breaks out in the next year, and unless the next President is even worse, I'm guessing it will be pretty far down there.