Bush Officially Most Unpopular President Ever!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by freeny, May 1, 2008.

  1. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #1
  2. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    Congress as a whole, including the do nothing Dems. But when broken down, Dems win polls on almost every issue. Though unlike Bush supporters, even Dems will be more than happy to criticize their own for their lack of progress. This is a common theme when something like this is posted. Point is, Bush is extremely unpopular. The small Dem majority sucking doesn't change that.

    Though this could have been posted on one of the earlier threads about this, as I was about to do to one of mine as an update. ;)
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    They're blue because the Republicans, along with a few of their own, won't let them do anything.
     
  6. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #6
    Congress can't do anything because the Democrat's don't have a large enough majority. When the majority's party isn't that big, and the president is from the other party, things don't get done.
     
  7. iMacZealot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #7
    I highly doubt Bush would've gotten elected if he could've campaigned for a third term.
     
  8. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    Now if we could only get them for Congress as well.
     
  9. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #9
    Don't we already? ...2 years in the House, 6 years in the Senate.
     
  10. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #10
    Yeah, what ever happened to all that crap in 2006 about working together? I certainly remember hearing the word "bipartisanship" coming from people like Nancy Pelosi al lot around that time. I haven't seen any of that from either side.

    That's how long a term is, but they can run again and again and again.

    No, I believe that the point is that the entire American government sucks at the moment.
     
  11. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #11
    You and Thomas Veil have essentially made the same point. You both correctly identified the root core issue, which many are missing. It was only a few months back, that Congress finally succeeded in overriding a Bush veto. The bill had so much bipartisan, and public support, it was not viewed as a significant political victory for Congress. As you point out, the congressional democrats, by themselves, do not have sufficient votes to override a Bush veto.

    Unless enough republicans 'cross the isle', no bill can pass if GW vetoes it. That is just the way it is. Now, there are some democratic 'lap dogs', who are not progressive and usually vote with the republicans. Fortunately, ActBlue has been leading a campaign to fund progressive candidates and defeat these individuals. The upcoming election should unseat many republican incumbents and some democrats will lose their positions to other progressive democrats.
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    It takes both sides to be bipartisan. The Dems compromised on things like war funding and FISA. The republicans have been anything but bipartisan....
     
  13. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #13
    No, they can run again and again. For example, Ted Kennedy was elected to the US Senate in 1961, five years before I was born! He is closing in on 50 years there. That is way too long in my opinion.
     
  14. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #14
    Oh, of course. I just wasn't thinking...
     
  15. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #15
    Thank you.

    Not that I'm arguing that the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of swash-buckling old-school liberal superheroes. Far from it. Waaay far from it. Yet, it would be interesting to see what they could have passed had they not been torpedoed by a virtually lock-step Republican minority plus a handful of Democrats who have fuzzy dice hanging where their balls oughtta be.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    While that is true, it doesn't change or defend Bush's unpopularity, nor why. Which is what this thread is about. It's similar to the "Clinton did it too" defense often used in these same types of situations. It's disingenuous to make it seem like Dems are the ones with low approval ratings, when it's Congress as a whole. When broken down, though the Dems aren't even very popular with their own, they do actually have better ratings when compared to the GOP. And while disappointed with the Dems, however small their majority, it's more about what they haven't been doing, not what they have been.

    But I guess since there's just no more excuse for how bad a job Bush is doing, this is the best we can do, stating the obvious that Dems aren't doing enough against him.
     
  17. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #17
    Why are Bush's numbers so low? Because we're pissed off!

    Well what do you know? Obama was at least partially right: apparently people are angry and bitter.

    I see that 70% figure as even bigger than it looks. Who are the remaining 30%? Probably the very rich, who never think things are going badly; the die-hard Republicans, who simply can't admit it, and an assortment of others. That would mean that among those of us who live in the real world, virtually everybody is pissed off.

    As far as terrorism goes, should Obama win, I think it's imperative that he make decisive, correct military decisions. Defense is pretty much the one area in which people still view Republicans as having the advantage over Democrats -- don't ask why -- and it's important that the next president reverse that situation.
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18
    You know what they say.....like father, like son :D
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #19
    I don't know...the American public is very stupid.

    Bush might not be able to run again, but McCain certainly can, and there's a pessimist in me that thinks that McCain will actually win because the Democrats just don't know how to run a campaign.
    Term limits aren't always a good thing, especially when it comes to legislatures. Overly restrictive term limits produce unknowledgeable legislators who rely on the same staff members and lobbyists when it comes time to write bills. The representative or senator would change in name only-Congress would still be run by the same people on the inside.

    California is facing this problem these days. Interest groups are the ones who are writing legislation these days, and because no legislator is around long enough to know how the "game" is played, they don't bother to challenge it.
    I think many autonomous agencies are doing a good job. Specifically those that are resistant to political appointments.

    However, I would agree that at the moment our elected branches of government are in the crapper.
     
  20. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #20
    While I agree with you CalBoy I think 20 years should be long enough. 10 terms for a Representative and 3 terms for a Senator. I just don't think that people should spend their entire lives there, like Sen. Kennedy, Byrd, Thurmon.
     
  21. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #21
    I have trouble with a set amount of time. I feel it's too restrictive.

    I would prefer a formula involving a certain number of terms combined with age and popularity.

    For example, the base line number of terms could be set at 12 years (6 rep terms and 2 senator terms) with additional terms dependent on how closely the rep/senator won his/her previous election (6 additional years for a margin of victory greater than 65-35, 12 years extra for a margin of victory greater than 75-25, etc).

    For age, it would be inverted, removing 6 years off of the top for every 3 years beyond age 67.

    Mind you this is a rough idea, but I feel it's more responsive because it's easier to restrict an old fart like Thurman and reward a good legislator like LBJ when he was in the Senate and House.
     
  22. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #22
    ^^^ Way to complicated, hold on a sec while I get out my slide rule! :D
     
  23. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #23
    Psh, it's all about the slide rule! :D
     
  24. doctor pangloss macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Location:
    Thailand
    #24
    It's really too bad for Bush that he acted liked a president by making the tough decisions which confronted him.

    If he'd treated the presidency like a popularity contest he would have faired much better.:rolleyes:

    Unlike the popular William Jefferson Clinton who accomplished very little and remained quite popular. Clinton's one dubious achievement: NAFTA is in the process of being undone by his wife and the stalwart house democrats. Good thing he's not running for office again.:D
     
  25. Mackan macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    #25
    He would probably get elected. That's how a majority of the America works. Now I bet the people of America will elect McCain, essentially no difference from Bush. Logical, right?

    No please let there be a chance for change. Pick Obama, he has shown the best judgement, and offer intelligent answers. But Americas people have to be intelligent enough to understand that, that's the hard part.
     

Share This Page