Bush Presidency seen as Unsuccessful

scottyz · 11-02-05, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Summary of Findings

President George W. Bush's poll numbers are going from bad to worse. His job approval rating has fallen to another new low, as has public satisfaction with national conditions, which now stands at just 29%. And for the first time since taking office in 2001, a plurality of Americans believe that George W. Bush will be viewed as an unsuccessful president.

About four-in-ten (41%) say that, in the long run, Bush will be an unsuccessful president, up from 27% in January and the highest percentage expressing that view since he took office. About a quarter (26%) believe Bush will be successful * down 10 points since January * while 30% say it is too early to tell.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 6-10 among 1,500 adults, finds the president beset by problems on multiple fronts. The president's overall job approval rating has slipped to 38%. And on a number of issues, ranging from the federal budget deficit to relations with U.S. allies, majorities or pluralities say that Bush's policies have made things worse, not better.

In advance of Iraq's Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, public opinion on the war has taken a negative turn. For the first time since the war began, a majority of Americans (53%) say the U.S. military effort there is not going well. Half of Americans now say the decision to use military force in Iraq was wrong, up from 44% last month. Support for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq, which had remained stable over the past year, also has declined. As many Americans now say the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible as favor keeping the troops there until Iraq is stable (48% vs. 47%).

While the presidential election is still more than three years off, Bush's problems are fueling a widespread desire for change. By a sizable margin (69%-25%), more Americans say that as they look ahead to the next election, they would prefer to see a president who offers different policies from the Bush administration rather than one offering programs similar to the Bush administration's. By comparison, as the Clinton administration was nearing the end of its tenure in June 2000, far fewer people expressed a desire for a change of course (52%).

Similarly, more people now believe that Bush will be viewed as an unsuccessful president than said that about President Clinton at any point in his administration. In October 1994, a low point of Clinton's presidency and just a month before the Republicans gained control of Congress, roughly a third (35%) believed Clinton would go down as an unsuccessful president, compared with 41% who say that about Bush currently. However, more people also think Bush will ultimately be successful than expressed that opinion about Clinton in October 1994 (26% vs. 14%).

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=259

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The building blocks of
President Bush's career — his credibility and image as a strong and competent leader — have been severely undercut by self-inflicted wounds, leading close allies to fret about his presidency. They say he's lost his way.

These senior Republicans, including past and current White House advisers, say they believe the president can find his way back into people's hearts but extreme measures need to be taken. Shake up his staff, unveil fresh policies, travel the country and be more accountable for his mistakes — these and other solutions are being discussed at the highest levels of the GOP.

But first this question: How did this happen?

Bush built an image as a straight-talking politician as governor of Texas and a candidate for president. Running to replace the Clinton administration in 2000, he raised his right hand at nearly every campaign event and swore to uphold the dignity and honor of the presidency.

The vow was not just a reference to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. It was a nod at every ethical question that ever hovered over
President Clinton, any blurring of what Bush viewed as a clear bright line between right and wrong.

"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves," Bush said Oct. 26, 2000.

Five years later, senior White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was accused of covering up his involvement in the
CIA leak case, an investigation that raises questions about the role played by Bush confidant Karl Rove and Vice President
Dick Cheney to discredit an
Iraq war critic.

The case cuts at the president's hard-earned credibility.

In June 2004, Bush said he stood by his pledge to "fire anybody" in his administration shown to have leaked Valerie Plame's name. His press secretary, after checking with Libby and Karl, assured the public that neither man had anything to do with the leak.

It turns out they both were involved, though Rove has not been charged and neither man has been charged with breaking the law against revealing the identity of an undercover agent.

The president's own supporters call that a Clintonesque distinction that violates the spirit of Bush's pledge from 2000. Some say Bush should publicly chastise Libby and Rove while insisting on a public accounting of Cheney's role.

A White House official privately put it this way: Bush has to step up somehow and be accountable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/...MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

How can Bush change this? Many are suggesting a shake up in the white house, new blood and new ideas can turn him around. I completely agree, he needs to seperate himself from those involved in the Plame scandal and bring in fresh blood. Trying to make new issues to overshadow the old ones isn't going to work.

How many think a pull out in Iraq will happen around the '08 election and a small pull out may happen around the '06 election?

aps · 11-02-05, 04:45 PM

As Trent Lott would say, "Happy days are here again."

danarhea · 11-02-05, 06:00 PM

Unsuccessful?

That is an understatement.

Here is a little experiment you can do. Go to http://www.google.com and type miserable failure in the search box. See what the number one hit is.

Gibberish · 11-02-05, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Unsuccessful?

That is an understatement.

Here is a little experiment you can do. Go to http://www.google.com and type miserable failure in the search box. See what the number one hit is.

That is a joke by google. Number two hit is Michael Moore. If you want the joke to work better tell the person to enter in 'failure' and push the "I'm feeling lucky' button instead of 'Google search'.

It does show that the decision makers over at google are most likely democrats. I guess that kills some conservatives theory that all democrats are on welfare.

scottyz · 11-02-05, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibberish

It does show that the decision makers over at google are most likely democrats.

The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.

Iriemon · 11-02-05, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyz

How can Bush change this? Many are suggesting a shake up in the white house, new blood and new ideas can turn him around. I completely agree, he needs to seperate himself from those involved in the Plame scandal and bring in fresh blood. Trying to make new issues to overshadow the old ones isn't going to work.

How many think a pull out in Iraq will happen around the '08 election and a small pull out may happen around the '06 election?

Well, pandering to the electorate worked in the past. Why do you think we are hearing about more tax cuts? Nevermind the fact that it will throw us a few score more billion in debt. What is that on top of the $2.4 trillion he has borrowed from our future so far? Tax cuts are popular, he'll do that.

TurtleDude · 11-02-05, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyz

The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.

it has several names-spam jacking etc. It has nothing to do with reality, just the number of dem minions who blog and create other internet traceable articles that call Bush a failure.

scottyz · 11-02-05, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

it has several names-spam jacking etc. It has nothing to do with reality, just the number of dem minions who blog and create other internet traceable articles that call Bush a failure.

It's called Google Bombing. Google management doesn't interfere with it and any group of people can do it themselves.

ANAV · 11-03-05, 05:36 AM

I do not see how Bush's presidency can be seen as unsuccessful. First he still has three years remaining before you can judge the entire term.

Second, the number one job of the President is to protect the citizens. Bush inherited a country that was weak on national security, thus 9/11 happened on his watch. Since then he has taken bolder steps to fight terrorism than any other President (Democrats and Republicans). As a result several plots have been revealed and derailed. So he is protecting the American people admirably. He (through the mighty American military) ousted the terror supporting regime in Afghanistan, captured or killed several terror leader, and put the others on the defensive. Name one administration that can even come close to accomplishing that.

Third, the huge tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of all taxpayers. Libs can say "it's tax breaks for the rich" but it's also tax breaks all classes. I'm not rich by on means, but thanks to GW I keep more of the money I earn and less goes to the government.

Time will tell whether or not the presidency has been successful or not. Clinton did (or failed to do) a number of things I did not agree with, but I would not label his time in office as a whole unsuccessful.

cnredd · 11-03-05, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyz

The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.

Google Refuses Conservative Ad, Similar to Liberal Ad
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 04, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The world's best known Internet search engine, Google.com, stands accused of liberal political bias after allegedly refusing a conservative group's ad, which had text nearly identical to an advertisement the company previously accepted from a liberal group. Google denied the charge Tuesday and said it treats all of its users and customers fairly...

..."We were using Google, typed in 'Tom DeLay,' and saw all the Google AdWords on the right-hand side that came up there and they were all anti-DeLay ads," Greene said.

Greene decided to buy an advertisement supporting DeLay and to try to spend enough money to get his ad to come up on the top of the list.

"So we did that, and then we decided that - as part of this campaign to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are attacking DeLay - we decided to do a specific ad against Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader," Greene explained...

..."That's all we did," Greene told Cybercast News Service. "We took the liberal ad and changed the words to make it a conservative ad."

But Google refused the ad.

"At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization," Google wrote Greene on the administration page of his ad account. "As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site."

"Well, that's great! They're a private organization, they can certainly make that decision" Greene said. "But then we looked, and all the anti-DeLay ads were still up, including the one we had copied word-for-word except that we changed the name."

Other anti-DeLay advertisements that were accepted by Google including, "Help Us Defeat DeLay," "Don't delay, Oust DeLay," "Tom DeLay's Rear End" and "tom delay [sic] a republican [sic] showing his true colors," among several others. Only two ads that could be construed as not negative toward DeLay were displayed: One for a "Great Conservative Book - Eyes Wide Open: What Liberals Don't Want You to Know About America!" and another exhorting viewers to, "Pray for Tom DeLay."

Tuesday morning, if visitors searched Google under Pelosi's name, anti-DeLay ads were also returned under the "sponsored links."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200505%5CSPE20050504a.html