Schiavo- Free Zone: Bush Approval Rating

[Ladyhawk]

First, I'd just like to point out that there are more threads going that complain about the constant attention given the Schiavo case then there are that actually discuss the Schiavo case. Just thought I'd put that out there....

Now, be warned! Schiavo is mentioned in this link but only to the extent of the effect that her case may have had on Bush's decreasing approval rating...

Bush Approval Rating Drops

I thought this was interesting/surprising;

Here's a fascinating fact: "The new poll found the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers."

...and this...

The Associated Press notes that Cheney got called out by an audience member after he lauded the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets federal government employees create private account over and above Social Security.

"One person in the audience, Kim Miller, 28, of Mount Lebanon, told the vice president she participated in that program during her three years as a congressional staffer, and did not do so well.

" 'Private accounts are putting a ton of risk on our shoulders,' she said."

The Schiavo Affair may be forgotten by 2008, but what about these other issues? Just wondering out loud....

Humbly submitted by your friendly, neighborhood Ladyhawk

 

[crimresearch]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and state confidently that Bush has zero chance of being re-elected president in 2008.

Or should that be in the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

 

[Ladyhawk]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and state confidently that Bush has zero chance of being re-elected president in 2008.

Or should that be in the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

Cute. Very cute....

I'm surprised at the demographics of folks who are disapproving of Bush. I mean, aren't these supposed to be the same guys who are so pro-life and want reform for Social Security and thought the war in Iraq was justified, et al? Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like a disconcerting percentage of them have changed their minds. (?)

There's certainly time for the RP to recover and I think I read somewhere else (I lost the link) that this isn't the lowest approval rating ever experienced by a President.

Does the RP have anything to worry about or is it too soon to be concerned?

 

[Tricky]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and state confidently that Bush has zero chance of being re-elected president in 2008.

Or should that be in the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

Not zero, but very very low. If a bill (amendment?) was passed making it legal to run for more than two terms he could do so. It would require the most incredible string of circumstances, but it is not impossible.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not zero, but very very low. If a bill (amendment?) was passed making it legal to run for more than two terms he could do so. It would require the most incredible string of circumstances, but it is not impossible.

Perhaps he could argue that he was only elected once, because of the oddities of the 2000 election. That would be funny!

 

[SezMe]

I find Shrub's ratings drop to be very depressing.

His administration has sooooo many failings that it is difficult to know where to start. Permanent environmental damage. Trumped-up war. Tax cuts for the rich. Massive debt. Social Security private accounts scam. Disregard for science. And on and on and on and on.

But what drives his poll numbers down? A silly political excursion into the Schaivo case.

His approval drop has, IMO, far more to say about the American electorate than it does about Shrub, himself.

It is very depressing.

 

[Ladyhawk]

But what drives his poll numbers down? A silly political excursion into the Schaivo case.

His approval drop has, IMO, far more to say about the American electorate than it does about Shrub, himself.

It is very depressing.

The Schiavo case wasn't the only factor, though...

Gallup speculates that "[t]he timing of the seven-point drop suggests that the controversy over the Terri Schiavo case may be a major cause."

But the survey also "suggests that the public's increasingly dismal views about the economy, and about the way things are going in general, could also be factors in Bush's lower approval rating. . . .

"One factor contributing to the economic malaise is almost certainly the rising price of gas and oil. In an open-ended question, 17% of Americans cited fuel prices as the most important economic problem facing the country, up from just 5% who said that a month ago, and 3% who mentioned it in mid-January."

Maybe Schiavo was just the straw the broke the camel's back.

 

[RandFan]

I find Shrub's ratings drop to be very depressing.

His administration has sooooo many failings that it is difficult to know where to start. Permanent environmental damage. Trumped-up war. Tax cuts for the rich. Massive debt. Social Security private accounts scam. Disregard for science. And on and on and on and on.

But what drives his poll numbers down? A silly political excursion into the Schaivo case.

His approval drop has, IMO, far more to say about the American electorate than it does about Shrub, himself.

It is very depressing.

Yeah, the sky is falling. On and on and on and on.... Rhetorical.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and state confidently that Bush has zero chance of being re-elected president in 2008.

Or should that be in the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

Although he won't get re-elected in 2008, the damage he has sowed, and continues to sow will be with us much longer.

I'll go out on a limb and say that we'll still be in Iraq come 2008, probably still fighting insurgents and maybe Iran.

With the rule changes granted for the 2nd biggest douchebag of the universe (aka Tom Delay), I wouldn't be overly shocked if there are further rule changes to ensure a continued GOP legacy.

Charlie (Cynicism for Idiots) Monoxide

 

[peptoabysmal]

Not zero, but very very low. If a bill (amendment?) was passed making it legal to run for more than two terms he could do so. It would require the most incredible string of circumstances, but it is not impossible.

Then SNL gets to do another skit where GW announces that he is the 43rd, 44th and 45th president of the US.

 

[RandFan]

I'll go out on a limb and say that we'll still be in Iraq come 2008, probably still fighting insurgents and maybe Iran.

I'll go out on a limb and say that there will be major changes in the Mid East over the next decade including a rise in democracy and less violence. However things will get worse before they get better but we will turn a corner. FWIW, there are liberal commentators who also believe this so it is not just a right wing wacko idea.

I don't buy that the sky is falling and I don't agree with your analysis of affairs. I will respect your opinion but I disagree.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'll go out on a limb and say that there will be major changes in the Mid East over the next decade including a rise in democracy and less violence. However things will get worse before they get better but we will turn a corner. FWIW, there are liberal commentators who also believe this so it is not just a right wing wacko idea.

I don't buy that the sky is falling and I don't agree with your analysis of affairs. I will respect your opinion but I disagree.

Thank you for being respectful. I've notice that this forum has taken on an air of dialogue rather than the pointless ad homs that certain posters use in some bizarre attempt to bolster their positions.

I'm not hoping that Iraq is the basket-case in 2008 that it is now. I would have no problem saying "I was wrong" if democracy does break out in a peaceful fashion in the middle east. I still question the rationale that Bush and Co. used to invade Iraq (from WMD to freeing the Iraqis). Still, if the "ends justify the means", who am I to complain to?

If we all agreed with each other what a boring forum this would be.

Charlie (Miss Manners is right) Monoxide

 

[SezMe]

Yeah, the sky is falling. On and on and on and on.... Rhetorical.

Rand, "rhetorical" means to ask as a means to convey a message. I was not dong that. I was merely commenting on the various issues which seem to drive USA public opinion. I was NOT attempting to convey a message.

So, would you like to comment on the drop in poll numbers for Bush as they might have been influenced by the Schaivo case as opposed to all the other issues I raised?

Or would you like to evade the question.

No, I take that back. Based on other threads, I know you think about the issues at hand. I'd like your thoughtful reply.

 

[RandFan]

Rand, "rhetorical" means to ask as a means to convey a message.

Hi Sez,

The word rhetorical has more than one definition. When I used the word it was not that definition that I was thinking of. I will tell you what I told someone else.

"On a forum such as this, discourse is typically divided into the rhetorical and non-rhetorical. Not all discourse is used to establish a proposition or advance concepts by the use of logic. Often persuasion is used to get others to accept a premise. Examples include flowery prose, clichés, platitudes, meaningless statements, bullying, [fallacy] etc."

I was merely commenting on the various issues which seem to drive USA public opinion. I was NOT attempting to convey a message.

Hmmmm.... Let's look at the post I was commenting on.

His administration has sooooo many failings that it is difficult to know where to start. Permanent environmental damage. Trumped-up war. Tax cuts for the rich. Massive debt. Social Security private accounts scam. Disregard for science. And on and on and on and on.[/b]

There is NO message there? I'm sorry but this is a message. Not only that but it accepts as true your premises without any foundation than your opinion. You state them and then expect us to accept them without debate. This is what is classically known as *"rhetoric".

So, would you like to comment on the drop in poll numbers for Bush as they might have been influenced by the Schaivo case as opposed to all the other issues I raised?

Yes, I don't accept as fact a number of your "other issues" or the results of those issues.

No, I take that back. Based on other threads, I know you think about the issues at hand. I'd like your thoughtful reply.

Public opinion is a fickle thing and is often used to divine more than is warranted. Reading poll numbers is a lot like reading tea leaves. Drawing conclusions from such a singular incident and snapshot of public opinion is ridiculous. It certainly isn't consistent with skepticism or critical thought.

If Bush's numbers remain low for a period of time then I think you could conclude that a significant number of people had changed their opinions about the future of the country and its economy.

Linking your "issues" to such a change is the job of pundits. Folks who's job it is to make silly statements so that news organizations can make money. I'm sorry but I don't have much confidence in such unscientific guess work.

*The art of using language effectively and persuasively. --Dictionary.com

 

[Ladyhawk]

If Bush's numbers remain low for a period of time then I think you could conclude that a significant number of people had changed their opinions about the future of the country and its economy.

Linking your "issues" to such a change is the job of pundits. Folks who's job it is to make silly statements so that news organizations can make money. I'm sorry but I don't have much confidence in such unscientific guess work.

Rand;

I don't understand the first statement above. Since when do people change their minds about the economy or the future of the country midstream? Don't Americans always want a bright future and a strong economy? People haven't changed their minds about the economy or the future of the country, Rand. They are changing their minds about Bush ..

The link I posted actually supports Sez's claims. These aren't Sez's issues. These are issues for all the American people. And if CBS, ABC , Gallup and some of the other sources are making "silly statements" then it begs the question: Why is the White House refusing to comment on the numbers? You think the White House is as easily dismissive about these recent polls as you are? I don't.

I also don't doubt that the Schiavo case had a huge impact on this poll, but IMHO, it should have! What Bush (and DeLay) did was unprecedented and you can't seriously expect Americans to just turn a blind eye. The GOP Talking Points memo revealed their agenda. That wasn't the work of pundits, Rand. It wasn't milled through liberal interpreation or perspective. That memo spoke for itself.

And, while I don't think Bush or the RP should be judged on this event alone, it does give me (and I'm sure many others) pause to wonder what his motivation has been for other endeavors. We can argue all day long as to whether the war in Iraq was justified or not, or we can discuss Bush's Social Security plan, et al. But, the fact remains that the polls taken most recently all point to the same thing. And, all it takes is for a 'significant number of people' to 'change their minds' to affect a Presidential election. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Ladyhawk]

I'm not hoping that Iraq is the basket-case in 2008 that it is now. I would have no problem saying "I was wrong" if democracy does break out in a peaceful fashion in the middle east. I still question the rationale that Bush and Co. used to invade Iraq (from WMD to freeing the Iraqis). Still, if the "ends justify the means", who am I to complain to?

If we all agreed with each other what a boring forum this would be.

Charlie (Miss Manners is right) Monoxide

Maybe I'm alone on this one, but I'm shocked at the number of times I hear this "ends justifies the means" attitude both in this forum and among acquaintances. 1500+ Americans have died because of an unwarranted war and it's all justified because some Iraqis can vote? I keep hearing about the long term potential for peace in the Middle East. Maybe so, but couldn't we have contributed that through other means? Did we have to run a scare tactic ("Saddam has WMD's) in order to get American buy-in to dethroning him? And, if there was no other way to get American buy-in, doesn't that just serve as stronger proof that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq to begin with?

I'm open to a change-of-heart on this one but I just don't see the rationale here....

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand the first statement above. Since when do people change their minds about the economy or the future of the country midstream?

They change their mind about the direction of the economy and or the future of the Country constantly. That is why presidents hire their own internal polling departments. That is why Clinton polled the public almost daily.

Don't Americans always want a bright future and a strong economy?

Wanting a bright future and believing that it is on the way are two different things.

People haven't changed their minds about the economy or the future of the country, Rand. They are changing their minds about Bush

No, *they are changing their mind about the likely outcome of the near future and blaming Bush for that outcome. Which is appropriate if it is true.

The link I posted actually supports Sez's claims. These aren't Sez's issues. These are issues for all the American people. And if CBS, ABC , Gallup and some of the other sources are making "silly statements" then it begs the question: Why is the White House refusing to comment on the numbers?

No it does not beg the question. I don't know why they don't respond. It certainly doesn't prove anything.

You think the White House is as easily dismissive about these recent polls as you are? I don't.

Politicians live by polls. I don't doubt that they are concerned. However it doesn't prove anything for the reasons I have pointed out.

Are you at all a skeptic? If so you shouldn't put too much weight into the polls right now just because they fit with your world view.

I also don't doubt that the Schiavo case had a huge impact on this poll, but IMHO, it should have!

Unproven. Further it is not proven that it will continue.

What Bush (and DeLay) did was unprecedented and you can't seriously expect Americans to just turn a blind eye.

I am firmly against what Bush and DeLay did. However I know better than to think Americans won't from time to time turn a blind eye. Especially if the economy is good. I'm not arguing that they have or have not in this instance. I'm stating plainly that your argument is so far specious.

The GOP Talking Points memo revealed their agenda. That wasn't the work of pundits, Rand. It wasn't milled through liberal interpreation or perspective. That memo spoke for itself.

Assuming the memo is authentic and Republicans are denying that it is, it only proves politics. I find it unseemly and wrong but I would expect most American's would dismiss it as politics. This is just you wanting to fit your view of what SHOULD happen with what IS happening. Put the skeptic hat back on. Be skeptical of the Bush administration but be skeptical of events that seem to prove what you want or think should happen.

And, while I don't think Bush or the RP should be judged on this event alone, it does give me (and I'm sure many others) pause to wonder what his motivation has been for other endeavors. We can argue all day long as to whether the war in Iraq was justified or not, or we can discuss Bush's Social Security plan, et al. But, the fact remains that the polls taken most recently all point to the same thing. And, all it takes is for a 'significant number of people' to 'change their minds' to affect a Presidential election. Wouldn't you agree?

As I said earlier, I would only accept that the polls were a true reflection of peoples intentions or beliefs IF it were to remain for some time. A singular snapshot in time is not worthy of drawing any hard conclusions. I would say that IF the numbers are correct and IF they continue then there would be an issue. Sorry but that is simply being a skeptic.

*Still not proven true.

 

[Ladyhawk]

No it does not beg the question. I don't know why they don't respond. It certainly doesn't prove anything.

Politicians live by polls. I don't doubt that they are concerned. However it doesn't prove anything for the reasons I have pointed out.

Well, I think it proves they don't have a response.

Are you at all a skeptic? If so you shouldn't put too much weight into the polls right now just because they fit with your world view.

What proof do you have that the polls "fit in" with "my" world view? I'm as skeptical as anyone here, but I don't think being a skeptic means that you don't trust anything put in front of you. The polls that were conducted were from worthy sources (unless you think Gallup, CBS, ABC and others all have a hidden agenda), I think they made some valid assumptions on why those polls came out that way. But, the fact is that Bush's approval rating has dropped. Politicians live by polls for a reason, don't they?

Unproven. Further it is not proven that it will continue.

I never said it was proof that it would continue.

I am firmly against what Bush and DeLay did. However I know better than to think Americans won't from time to time turn a blind eye. Especially if the economy is good. I'm not arguing that they have or have not in this instance. I'm stating plainly that your argument is so far specious.

Assuming the memo is authentic and Republicans are denying that it is, it only proves politics. I find it unseemly and wrong but I would expect most American's would dismiss it as politics. This is just you wanting to fit your view of what SHOULD happen with what IS happening. Put the skeptic hat back on. Be skeptical of the Bush administration but be skeptical of events that seem to prove what you want or think should happen.

Again...what "I want" or what "I think" should happen has nothing to do with it. But, your line of thinking seems to imply that we shouldn't put stock in anything we hear, see or read. And, if that's the case, how do you define an informed decision ?

As I said earlier, I would only accept that the polls were a true reflection of peoples intentions or beliefs IF it were to remain for some time. A singular snapshot in time is not worthy of drawing any hard conclusions. I would say that IF the numbers are correct and IF they continue then there would be an issue. Sorry but that is simply being a skeptic.

There is no questioning that this disapproval rating may be short-lived. What is your definition of 'some time'? Two weeks, two months, two years? Irregardless, if you're in politics, it's not something you ignore and hope will go away. As I've said before, I was quite surprised that people reacted at all, let alone as strongly as they have and across the demographics that they have. Even if it's only for one day.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Maybe I'm alone on this one, but I'm shocked at the number of times I hear this "ends justifies the means" attitude both in this forum and among acquaintances.

What's the matter with "ends justify the means"? In hundreds of ways we tolerate less than perfect means for a favorable end.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
1500+ Americans have died because of an unwarranted war and it's all justified because some Iraqis can vote?

Everyone who joins the army does so knowing they may be called upon to place themselves in harms way. I believe we owe them a responsibility to make sure that when we place them in danger, we have explored all other options first and that the cause is a good one.

In the case of Iraq, I believe we have met part of that obligation. We may not have explored every alternative before going to war, but the effect of freeing 25 million people from Saddam Hussein and helping them to build a representative democracy is no small thing. It shouldn't be trivialized as "some Iraqis can vote."

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I keep hearing about the long term potential for peace in the Middle East. Maybe so, but couldn't we have contributed that through other means?

Maybe, but we don't have the ability to go back in time and choose another path. We have to make the best of the situation we are in now. If we have created an opportunity for long term peace in the ME, then we need to maximize this opportunity.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Did we have to run a scare tactic ("Saddam has WMD's) in order to get American buy-in to dethroning him?

I believe the threat of WMD was exagerated by the Bush administration, but I don't believe they didn't think it was real. Like you, I agree the threat of WMD was hype used to sell this war.

However, recognizing that doesn't mean we should squander the opportunities we have now.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
And, if there was no other way to get American buy-in, doesn't that just serve as stronger proof that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq to begin with?

Can you not simultaneously hold the ideas that we may have been wrong to go to war with Iraq and we should do everything we can to encourage the success of this new democracy and encourage the spread of freedom and democracy through the Middle East?

That's my position. You can never change how you got to where you are, but you can always change where you're going.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I think it proves they don't have a response.

Agreed. So what is the point if we can't draw an conclusions?

What proof do you have that the polls "fit in" with "my" world view? I'm as skeptical as anyone here, but I don't think being a skeptic means that you don't trust anything put in front of you.

And I'm certainly not suggesting any such thing. I think skepticism requires us to admit that there is little if any thing we can draw from such data. Furthermore anything we can draw could be short lived.

The polls that were conducted were from worthy sources (unless you think Gallup, CBS, ABC and others all have a hidden agenda), I think they made some valid assumptions on why those polls came out that way.

I don't question the motives of the news groups. I do very much question there assumptions.

But, the fact is that Bush's approval rating has dropped. Politicians live by polls for a reason, don't they?

Of course, but does that fact give us any real information with which to draw conclusions?

Again...what "I want" or what "I think" should happen has nothing to do with it. But, your line of thinking seems to imply that we shouldn't put stock in anything we hear, see or read. And, if that's the case, how do you define an informed decision ?

I imply no such thing. I'm saying we have far too insufficient of data to make any concrete conclusions.

There is no questioning that this disapproval rating may be short-lived. What is your definition of 'some time'? Two weeks, two months, two years? Irregardless, if you're in politics, it's not something you ignore and hope will go away. As I've said before, I was quite surprised that people reacted at all, let alone as strongly as they have and across the demographics that they have. Even if it's only for one day.

Let me ask you this question, can you determine the mean temperature for the next year by looking at today's mean temperature?