Home / What Bush can do to stop his approval slide

What Bush can do to stop his approval slide

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Leoniceno’s Corner

Powered by

About Leoniceno

  • RedTard

    People that stand up for their beliefs are not such a bad thing. Would you prefer if we just eliminated public office and governed the country by opinion polls or do you just not like Bush’s determination because you don’t agree with him politically?

  • You mean we don’t govern by opinion polls now?

    Dave

  • President Bush’s plan for reforming Social Security doesn’t stand a chance because the substance of it is unpopular (I believe the latest polls showed that only about 35% support it).

    And this is not a matter of partisanship in which the only people who object are Democrats. A good number of Republicans don’t like it, either.

    Mr. Bush doesn’t need a new style, he needs a new plan.

  • Nancy

    What everyone seems to forget is that Bush does NOT have a mandate; he never did. Both elections were won by the scantiest of margins, meaning that 1/2 the country has never believed a word he says anyway. If you have no credibility with 49% of the people to begin with, you don’t have a very good chance at redeeming their negative opinions of you, at any time or for any reason. The proper question might be, what can he do to prevent further credibility loss among those of the 51% who did vote for him? I don’t think he will be able to do it, simply because at this point he has also betrayed the adherents to the classic Republican causes of minimal government, minimal government interference in personal lives, and minimal debt. They have been unusually forward in openly wondering what, as someone posing as a Republican, he thinks he’s doing, and disapproving of same. He certainly isn’t going to be able to win back anyone else, because he has had no hestitation in offending the rest of the world by what is perceived as his in-your-face, arrogant misconduct through his entire first term – and it looks as if he isn’t trying to be any more conciliatory in his second. The only groups he has given unstinting loyalty to are his fellow billionaires and corporate business interests. Of course, with their help he managed to pull off winning (some would claim stealing) two elections; and Americans in general are remarkably stupid, intellectually lazy, and gullible, preferring to have their opinions spooned out to them so they don’t have to think for themselves, so perhaps he can reverse his image. I’m sure Karl Rove is banking on that.

  • Nancy…You said it all…Great job

  • Scantiest of margins? By that you mean the largest percentage victory in the popular vote since 1964 and the largest numerical victory of all time – if I recall my figures correctly. Do you recall that ever so popular Bill Clinton got his mandate with less than 50% in both elections?

    >>with their help he managed to pull off winning (some would claim stealing) two elections< < And those who made that claim would be trenchant idiots. >>; and Americans in general are remarkably stupid, intellectually lazy, and gullible, preferring to have their opinions spooned out to them so they don’t have to think for themselves<< Which explains their literally suicidal stand against social security reform. Not that I agree with any plan Bush has floated so far - he's been trying so hard to figure out a way to make a plan he can sell to both parties and the public that he's totally abandonned the entire point of reforming the system in the first place. We don't need some idiotic half measure, we need a total replacement of the existing system with an entirely privatized alternative. Dave

  • Nancy

    If your only response is to call names instead of arguing issues, you have both a very weak mind and a very weak argument. Grow up before you blog again, please.

  • Who was calling names? I certainly never called you names, Nancy. You’re a paragon of reason and virtue and would never fall for something simple minded like the idea that Bush stole two elections. Only lemmings believe that kind of silliness that spews directly from moveon.org – surely never you.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Actually, I don’t believe it was stolen, despite the efforts of numerous people to tell me so. I’ve talked to enough people on both sides (and to quote a phrase, some of my best friends are conservatives and liberals) to know that the 51% who voted Bush and the 49% who voted Kerry were totally sincere. I also think if there HAD been evidence of funny business going on, they (the Dems) would have made more hay of it then they did. But they didn’t, ergo no issue. And, I also believe that corruption and nastiness dwell on BOTH sides of the political aisle – i.e. that ALL politicians of both parties are basically amoral, unethical nasties or they wouldn’t be politicians. It’s an inherently low calling. Unfortunately, but this is nothing new: there are transcriptions of clay tablets 5,500 years old in which someone is decrying the corruption of the officials of Lagash.

    But, if you weren’t calling names, and I was too quick to take offense, I do apologize.

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: Who was calling names?

    You were. “Trenchant idiots” and “lemmings”, to be exact.

    You can pretend you weren’t directing them at anybody here, but you were still introducing them into the debate.

  • Only for those who choose to accept them, JR. And they’re not insults to those who think Bush stole two elections. If anything they’re kinder words than that sort of aggressively deluded person deserves.

    Dave

  • wow, you are the master of verbal smoke and mirrors.

    call people names, then redefine your terms midstride.

    deluded?

    right.

  • I thought I was awfully clear, Mark. Let me spell it out in simpler terms for you.

    If you genuinely believe that Bush stole two elections in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, then you are a (pick your own favorite term for someone who is incapable of accepting reality when it stares him in the face).

    Dave

  • oh thank you oh Captain of Condesending.

  • JR

    I thought I was awfully clear: it doesn’t matter who you were calling names, it’s just a shame that you drag the discussion down to that level.

  • Ok, my apology for calling anyone names. It just gets tiresome to hear the same whining BS over and over again thrown into an otherwise sensible post as if we ought to just accept it and move on. I sometimes feel like every time I give someone a pass on something like Nancy’s offhand comment about the ‘stolen’ elections I’m contributing by my innaction to a gradual process of eroding the truth away.

    Dave

  • but calling a post “sensible” doesn’t mean that everybody’s got to accept it.

  • Nancy

    What do you think constitutes whining? Obviously you never met my mother…. I would like to know (really), because I hear this word thrown around a lot, but when I read what it’s applied to, I can’t see where anyone has been whining.

  • >>What do you think constitutes whining?<< It's very subjective, isn't it? I'd call it things I hear over and over again that annoy me. Like MCH and his chickenhawk twaddle. Dave

  • >>So, what can Bush do to salvage the situation? Well, first there’s oil. No doubt getting oil prices down is near the top of Bush’s ‘things to do’ list, because the price of oil varies inversely with Bush’s popularity. Even a few cents off would make an impact.< < Unfortunately for him, that sore point with the voters (high gas prices) is something that he has no control over whatsoever. Because of the lack of excess capacity in oil production worldwide, and the geological fact of life called Peak Oil (which indicates that our production rate now is very close to being as high as it is ever going to get, regardless of new investment in oil production), the only way to get oil prices back down is for the U.S. economy to go into recession. Of course, recession would make him more unpopular than high gas prices do.

  • Nancy, I agree with your comment 4 except for 2 points. I don’t think Americans are stupid, but we are intellectually lazy. If you write a blog more than two paragraphs, you’ve lost at least half the people who wandered to your blog, it seems like.

    And the other thing is that I don’t think he needs to be too concerned with approval ratings, granted they aren’t inconsequential, but they aren’t as important when you are a lame duck.

    in terms of this part of comment 5:
    Scantiest of margins? By that you mean the largest percentage victory in the popular vote since 1964 and the largest numerical victory of all time – if I recall my figures correctly.

    we need to keep in mind that some of those people (to the tune of millions) were voting against Kerry rather than for Bush. They were voting on Iraq policy and voting against same-sex marriage. When you factor out those millions or 10’s of millions, the number who voted FOR Bush is much smaller. Know what I mean?

    Also, it should be noted that more Americans voted against Bush than any other President in history.

  • “Also, it should be noted that more Americans voted against Bush than any other President in history.”

    And now that I think about it, I would think it’s safe to assume that most of those votes were anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, do you think?

  • MCH

    One thing that GW might do to help him in the polls would be to send his two daughters to fight in Iraq, you know, to show that he’s really not a phoney and willing to sacrifice something precious of his own to prove the righteousness of the invasion.

  • “And now that I think about it, I would think it’s safe to assume that most of those votes were anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, do you think?”

    I’d say in any presidential election where a candidate is seeking a second term, it is usually viewed as a referendum on the candidate’s first term. So there usually is a high number of voters who vote for the opposition not so much because they like them, but because they don’t support the person in power.

  • Shark

    What Bush can do to stop his approval slide?

    1) Encourgage and/or stage another terrorist attack against a major American city.

    2) Invade ____, dismantle their weapons of mass destruction, take their oil reserves, and install a “legitimate democratic government”. (nudge nudge wink wink)

    3) Bomb Florida into oblivion.

    4) Remove the feeding tube from *Bill Frist and Tom Delay. (*neck bolts optional)

    5) Approve federal funding for post-partum abortions for Fundamentalist Christian Republicans.

    6) Replace Social Security payments to the elderly with monthly stock options from Halliburton.

    7) Martial Law.

  • >>6) Replace Social Security payments to the elderly with monthly stock options from Halliburton.<< Sounds like a damned fine alternative to social security at the rate Halliburton stock has been going up. Nice to see you coming around and seeing sense. Dave

  • Shark

    BTW: I am available as a freelance political and marketing consultant.

    Email me:

    kill_em_all@liberaltraitor.net