Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Nov 10, 2008.
I thought this had been true for some time now...?
Almost a quarter of the country thinks he is doing a great job?
But he'll be vindicated by history!
Well I doubt that all of them think he's doing a great job.
At 76% disapproval leaves the entire spectrum from neither approving nor disapproving of the job all they way to thinking he's doing a phenomenal job. I can't fathom how much more than a third of that 24% would think he's doing a great job, which would mean that less 1 in ten thinking he's doing a "great job."
yes, he earned this honor, several months ago. CNN is recycling news.
No idea why they are calling this a new poll??
any one wanna start takeing bets on how low it will get before obama is sworn in? anyone?
new MacBook Pro says it will drop below:
Well another CNN poll gave Obama a 75% approval rating and he's not even in the White House yet.
I don't see it moving a whole lot more unless Shrub manages to start another war or add another trillion to the deficit in the next seventy or so days.
He will "find" Osama. I have already predicted it.
Look everyone I captured Obama, he is in the White House, where is my prize.
Unfortunately, he now looks like this.
EDIT: Oh dear, I have fallen for the Republican brain-washing of confusing Obama with Osama. Whip me with wet noodles.
I believe that like me a lot of people are going to hold him to his word. We will see when he actually gets in. So far his prep work for the job has seemed solid.
Anybody can get the ingredients ready, lets see how good a cook he is.
You've obviously never worked in a restaurant. I've seen prep cooks that couldn't read a recipe.
Can't even wait to let history decide that one, eh? Most of the presidents that we honor today were hated by the people when they were in power. I'm not saying that it will work this way with Bush, but let's first take note that the views of people can vary greatly between their life and years after death.
I'm sorry, but this is blatantly false.
Americans have been polled on the best (and worst) presidents for many years, and these three always round out the top:
All three had very high approval ratings at some point during their presidency (in the case of Washington and FDR, for the majority of their time in office) and Lincoln's approval ratings were lowest half way through the Civil War when the North was not doing well. He rapidly turned that around and won reelection quite handily in 1864 and never really saw his popular support drop.
If you want to look at other highly regarded presidents, we can look at Reagan and Clinton, both of whom and fairly high approval ratings when they were ready to leave office and for most of their tenure.
I just did a paper partly on this today, so it's fresh in my mind. Ever since 9/11, the unsure/undecided response of Bush's job approval ratings have been in the single digits.
This goes until June 2008.
Wow, just keeps going down, doesn't show much sign of slowing either
With this kind of velocity, his approval rating might continue to decline for years after he's left the White House.
Maybe he will go below 10% percent. The lowest I have ever heard W getting was an 18% percent approval rating, lower than Truman at his worst and lower than Nixon at his worst. I will be so glad to see him go.
Note that both Truman and Nixon had more than four years in office. Maybe the Presidency should be limited to one term so no one President can wreak that much damage upon a nation. And if a VP takes over with more than two years left, he/she should not be able to run for President the next term.
It might take a constantly fresh approach from any winning party that walks into the White House to keep the executive branch honest.
It could be said Clinton and Reagan had popular two term Presidencies, but I can't think of anyone else since FDR won in '32 and '36 where the country had faith in a two or more term President. And even FDR had serious detractors.
Maybe there should also be very short term limits on Senators (2 terms) and Congresspeople (6 terms). To me that makes sense since our economy, foreign affairs, and our demographics change at a furious pace. A President in his/her second term may just slack and become a lame duck. We don't want a lame duck being in the White House, regardless of party. I think W's second term lame duck-edness was a huge factor in this recession.
That has the potential to go very badly for the country. Just look at the California Legislature. With such severe term limits, no legislator ever has the chance to gain enough experience to be competent. Instead, interest groups and lobbying firms have more real power, not the voters.
Do we really want governments to shift every time there is a change in the economy? That's not what produces good governments. It's better if governments are phased in and out gradually and instead exercise good judgement while in office.
If we consider the fact that the US has the most national elections for a wealthy democracy, with all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years (the UK for contrast generally dissolves Parliament once every 4 years).
Where does the line get drawn between gaining competence and becoming complacent?
The only way I would really know is if I personally worked in the California Legislature and compared personal memoirs and stories, assuming we were all telling the truth, with other California Legislature members.
There has to be a happy medium where one can gain competence, produce at a decent rate of success, and not go in a job too long.
I had a landscape gardening business I ran for 20 years. Before that, I had done fine antiques for 12 years and was over with that gig for good as I couldn't picture myself selling antiques for one day more. But from the beginning of either job, I got better, and improved from my mistakes, but when I realized that my body or spirit was not holding up to my expectations and my ambition was weakening and I was getting jaded, I saw to it to retire and let someone else take the reigns of the business. My father ran a business for 28 years, 6 or 7 days a week, and by age 62, he was completely ready to retire from any full time work forever. He continued on part time until nearly 70, but that was it for him. My mom is past 70 and will continue her current job for another five or six years and then retire.
Everybody has a learning curve, their peak performance years, and a time to move onto something else. I just don't think a Senator getting into office and serving for fifty or more years can keep up such a hectic schedule and overwhelming responsibility and serve his/her constituency with the fervor it takes. Same for 80 year old judges who have served for more than half a century.
That' why I believe in changing careers, like I did, 12 years, 20 years, and hopefully one more 20 year run before I quit and resort to a low key job(s) with no big expectations. I do plan to work until I die, which if I am lucky, will be in my 80s, but by then I may just be like the part time mail mart clerk, the host at the local French restaurant, the math or physics professor who works one day a week, or the coffee machine attendant at the supermarket down the street. I did know of a 98 year old shopkeeper in town but I don't picture myself living that long. But like she wished, she died with the store. Great for her, but would you want her to be your State representative?