Bush faces majority disapproval for 1st time ever

[pseudobrit]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040515/ts_alt_afp/us_iraq_vote_poll_040515180851
The American president's overall job approval rating has fallen to 42 percent, down from a 49 percent rating recorded in an April 8-9 Newsweek poll.

For the first time since Bush took office in January 2001, a majority of Americans surveyed by Newsweek (52 percent) disapprove of him.

The Republican president's approval rating on Iraq has hit a record low, as well, plummeting to 35 percent from 44 percent in the April poll.

Just 41 percent of registered voters said they would like to see Bush re-elected, down from 46 percent in a March survey, while a majority of 51 percent said they would not.

[Neserk]

Yes! About time... he should have been having this for 2 or more years now...

[Voltron]

Well wonder what would happen with his popularity if he stopped playing games and just took these terrorists out of action. We could've ended these skirmishes a long time ago the only reason they have stretched out so long is because we didn't want to damage religious areas. Not our fault they are using them to hide in. We need to rip that bandaid off. I bet afterwards his popularity will pop back up again.

[poopyhead]

Well wonder what would happen with his popularity if he stopped playing games and just took these terrorists out of action. We could've ended these skirmishes a long time ago the only reason they have stretched out so long is because we didn't want to damage religious areas. Not our fault they are using them to hide in. We need to rip that bandaid off. I bet afterwards his popularity will pop back up again.

If we rip that bandaid off we'll have the majority of the moderate Muslim World (the vast majority) aginst us, we do not want that.
We would never bomb the vatican just because Ossama ran into the Cistine

[numediaman]

I told know if this chart has been posted elsewhere, but here it is. This is from Steven Ruggles, and it shows Bushes approval rating throughout his administration using a number of sources.

Notice the three spike in Bush's approval rating. Those three spikes were, of course, 9/11, the start of the Iraq War, and the capture of Saddam Hussein.

For your enjoyment (the thumbnail looks bad, but click the link a see the large chart):

[poopyhead]

looks like bush needs a new war (sorry liberation) or terrorist attack around october/november

[IIvan]

Just imagine if we "suddenly capture" Osama in late October or so. Then its over for Kerry. :eek:

[poopyhead]

I have a strange feeling that osama is in a "spider hole" some place with a chemical light and a leash hiding somewhere on his person

[zimv20]

For your enjoyment
nice graph. i notice that the Fox approval ratings are almost always higher than the average.

[skunk]

Just imagine if we "suddenly capture" Osama in late October or so. Then its over for Kerry. :eek:
Somebody should tell him to stay indoors until after the election. Please.

[Neserk]

For your enjoyment (the thumbnail looks bad, but click the link a see the large chart):

Very Pretty :D

[skunk]

looks like bush needs a new war (sorry liberation) or terrorist attack around october/november
The trouble with having a crap contender like Kerry is that one spends a lot of time hoping that Junior will continue to mess things up. We're all praying for chaos to continue in Iraq, for more incriminating evidence about mistreatment, for more military setbacks, because we're scared that W might just pull himself back into electability, either by mistake or by a lapse in his misjudgment. It's not very healthy, really.

[IJ Reilly]

The trouble with having a crap contender like Kerry is that one spends a lot of time hoping that Junior will continue to mess things up. We're all praying for chaos to continue in Iraq, for more incriminating evidence about mistreatment, for more military setbacks, because we're scared that W might just pull himself back into electability, either by mistake or by a lapse in his misjudgment. It's not very healthy, really.

Hold on a second, don't count Kerry out. It seems I have to keep reminding people that he wasn't even taken seriously in the primaries until he started winning them. Technically, he isn't even the nominee yet. Over five months to go -- plenty can and will happen during that time.

[SPG]

The trouble with having a crap contender like Kerry is that one spends a lot of time hoping that Junior will continue to mess things up. We're all praying for chaos to continue in Iraq, for more incriminating evidence about mistreatment, for more military setbacks, because we're scared that W might just pull himself back into electability, either by mistake or by a lapse in his misjudgment. It's not very healthy, really.
Speak for yourself. I really really really don't like bush because of his policies and what he's done here and to the rest of the world. Although after so much of this crap I guess it is getting to be personal as well, as childish as it sounds, I can't stand to see or hear the guy anymore.
More people will start to recognize the results of bush's policies and his complete incompetence. Kerry does need to get his story out before the bush smear team defines him. Kerry's a good guy, a vet with a conscience, an honest guy who voted for what was right even if it didn't give hime the most immediate political benefit, and someone who is willing to look at the situation rather than rely on dogma. Don't do the republican dirty work for them by talking smack on Kerry, look into the guy and then contrast junior's life and record.

[Thomas Veil]

Unfortunately, you're making a couple of big assumptions: (1) that voters are informed and perform in a logical manner, and (2) that Kerry will run a vigorous campaign. That former is often untrue, and the latter remains to be seen.

[Sayhey]

Unfortunately, you're making a couple of big assumptions: (1) that voters are informed and perform in a logical manner, and (2) that Kerry will run a vigorous campaign. That former is often untrue, and the latter remains to be seen.

No one should take the next 6 months to the election for granted. All kinds of things can and probably will happen to shake up the horse race. Having said that, Kerry is doing better than almost any other candidate in history running against an incumbent at this stage of the campaign. It is a function of this type of race that it is a referendum on the incumbent more than a vote for a replacement.

Kerry cannot compete with Bush for the media spotlight. That is even more so in this election than say 1992 because of the war. Given that set of circumstances, Kerry has raised an enormous amount of money and is able to go head to head in the ad war taking place in the battleground states. If you haven't had a chance go to Kerry's (http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/) web site and look at the two biographical ads he has put out with the largest ad buy in history. Neither Clinton in '92 or Dole in '96 had anywhere near that ability to fight back.

This race will start to be defined and the public's perceptions of Kerry will be formed mainly at the Convention and in the days after Labor Day when the electorate begins to truly focus in on the race. We have a long way to go and Kerry is doing great at this point.

Lastly, don't expect Kerry to be on the news nightly with partisan attacks against Bush. As many have already observed, you don't try to murder someone who is committing suicide.

[skunk]

Unfortunately, you're making a couple of big assumptions: (1) that voters are informed and perform in a logical manner, and (2) that Kerry will run a vigorous campaign. That former is often untrue, and the latter remains to be seen.
I apologize for dissing your man, but from over here he's completely invisible. Maybe the Pentagon is jamming the signal, but we hear nothing about him. What is his policy? Does he have one? What is his stance on Iraq? Ditto. Please explain (no more than 2 sides of A4) for the benefit of us foreigners. :)

[Sayhey]

I apologize for dissing your man, but from over here he's completely invisible. Maybe the Pentagon is jamming the signal, but we hear nothing about him. What is his policy? Does he have one? What is his stance on Iraq? Ditto. Please explain (no more than 2 sides of A4) for the benefit of us foreigners. :)

It is not that Kerry isn't saying anything, it is that when you have a major scandal like the prison torture news not much else gets in the headlines. For instance, Kerry has been giving major policy speeches on such questions as education but you wouldn't know it from the coverage. If he makes the news it is in a soundbite responding to the day's newest revelation. This is not all bad. As long as Bush is dropping in the polls, Kerry will get his days in the spotlight. If you want to know his stance on the issues go to his web site and you can find more information than you would ever want to know.

John Kerry.com (http://www.johnkerry.com/)

[IJ Reilly]

It is not that Kerry isn't saying anything, it is that when you have a major scandal like the prison torture news not much else gets in the headlines. For instance, Kerry has been giving major policy speeches on such questions as education but you wouldn't know it from the coverage. If he makes the news it is in a soundbite responding to the day's newest revelation. This is not all bad. As long as Bush is dropping in the polls, Kerry will get his days in the spotlight. If you want to know his stance on the issues go to his web site and you can find more information than you would ever want to know.

I've been keeping a close watch on the LA Times (you know, that "notorious liberal rag"?) for their coverage of Kerry. Since the primary process effectively ended in March, I haven't seen a single a front-page story about Kerry that I can recall, except for one or two about the medals flap, and many of the back pages stories about him have been on the same subject. In fact his policy speeches are barely covered, usually landing on page 20 or so. I also noticed that the Hersh article rated only about 100 words in the middle of the first section in today's Sunday edition. You do have to wonder about these editorial choices.

[jefhatfield]

If we rip that bandaid off we'll have the majority of the moderate Muslim World (the vast majority) aginst us, we do not want that.
We would never bomb the vatican just because Ossama ran into the Cistine

in world war II, there were some areas we did not bomb but we did not let the enemy know so they didn't use those areas to hide weapons, supplies, key leaders

now every move we make seems to be broadcasted by cnn...so much for rumsfeld's obsession with winning a pr war instead of a war...the gop is great at using pr in elections, but making every military move public and using that to increase presidential popularity can backfire...especially with this issue of non bombardment of religious buildings to "look good"

the military operations in iraq have fallen apart due to non compliance with the powell doctorine...powell's ideas are in the minority and 4 star generals in step with powell's ideas of winning a war with overwhleming force and having an exit plan are gone (generals tommy franks and eric shinsheki)

now we are stuck in a vietnam quagmire style of army and defense department administration similar to the 1970s when, ironically, donald rumsfeld was the dod chief