Schiavo- Free Zone: Bush Approval Rating

[Ladyhawk]

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

Sorry about not getting back to this until now. Had to do the "Easter thing"

To answer your question: No. But, let's not forget that Bush's approval rating started dropping last year. This isn't just a one day thing.

Bush's approval rating hits NEW low

- President Bush's job-approval rating has sunk to 45 percent, the lowest of his presidency, amid public opposition at his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case and growing concern over soaring gasoline prices.

I also thought this was of note:

Still, even at his current low point, Bush outscores every other recent president's low point since John Kennedy, who bottomed out with a 56 percent approval rating. Richard Nixon holds the modern record for the lowest approval rating - 24 percent - during the Watergate scandal that forced his resignation.

And, to be fair....

The 45 percent rating is a far cry from his record 90 percent approval after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it's still well above the low marks scored by most recent presidents, and it's also within range of Bush's relatively steady poll numbers over the past year.

Except for a slight bounce after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections, Bush's job-approval rating has been stuck in the high 40s to low 50s since early 2004. The Gallup polling organization tests the president's standing almost weekly by asking voters if they "approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job."

Still think this is "insufficent data"? Can you still not "draw a conclusion"? Just asking....

 

[Ladyhawk]

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."

The unnecessary loss of 1500+ lives shouldn't be trivialized either. Let's not lose sight of the fact that :
1. we didn't explore all other options
2. we did place these troops in harms way
3. our initiative to invade Iraq had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. We went over there looking for WMDs that didn't exist.

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?

No, I can't hold that view, Mycroft. Not ever. Because, if I ever do, it means that I would not hold this President responsible for the lives that have been lost over a lie. The attitude of "ends justifies the means' sends a message to Washington that they are free to do whatever they want and without accountability. Spend whatever money they want, spend whatever lives they want, declare war on whomever they want, ...just so long as they deliver something that makes America look as if we knew what we were doing when we didn't. Now our troops are committed to Iraq for who knows how long. Where is the exit strategy I keep hearing so much about? Why are we still sending troops over there? How many more will die?

Next thing you know, Bush will be manipulating Congress to impress his RR constituency over some 'right to life, right to die' issue....oh, wait a minute....

And meanwhile, in other news, Osama Bin Laden STILL roams the countryside, a free man somewhere.... You remember Osama, right? The guy with whom we had a legitimate gripe? 3500+ American citizens dead? I wonder if Dubya remembers...

But, hey, that's ok. At least the Iraqis can vote.