SO Presidential approval poll

[slickdawg]

Do you approve of the job performance of president George W. Bush?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

This makes me wonder too, have any of you ever been polled over Presidential Performance? They always throw it out there and I haven't and I don't know anyone they have ever asked.

[Hamhock]

My president is Charlton Heston.

[slickdawg]

This makes me wonder too, have any of you ever been polled over Presidential Performance? They always throw it out there and I haven't and I don't know anyone they have ever asked.

Never. Nor do I know anyone that has been polled. It's a weird science.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I would be willing to bet that those things are highly inaccurate. Like Clinton's aproval rating made no sense because every Christian down in the Hills over 40 was angry about the whole Lewinsky affair. I guarentee they weren't asking the older conservative age group

[mdklatt]

This makes me wonder too, have any of you ever been polled over Presidential Performance?

Yes, and also about who I would vote for and what I felt about certain issues. Maybe once you answer one poll they put you on a list and keep calling you.

[SicEmBaylor]

You're more likely to be polled if you donate money, you're a regular voter, etc.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yes, and also about who I would vote for and what I felt about certain issues. Maybe once you answer one poll they put you on a list and keep calling you.

They do.
In fact, you have to be careful what you tell a pollster because in theory that information goes into a database to be used later. For example, your average annual income, how many kids you have, etc.

[slickdawg]

Usually, they poll around 1,000 people, and extrapoloate that for
200 million or so.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well they haven't EVER called me to allow me to say nay or yay and I haven't missed an election in quite a while.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How come we can't see who voted for who :P ;)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Donating money would seem like a horrible factor as well. If I am donating money, I am probably either avoiding taxes or far left or far right. People like Tuba and imjebus(if Mom lets him) donate money not average people.

[Beef]

I didn't know the SO has a president. I thought this place was a monarchy.:hmfic:

[jdsooner]

I wonder how Laura would vote on his performance??!!;)

[slickdawg]

I didn't know the SO has a president. I thought this place was a monarchy.:hmfic:

Technically, I think it's an oligopoly.

[jeremy885]

Donating money would seem like a horrible factor as well. If I am donating money, I am probably either avoiding taxes or far left or far right. People like Tuba and imjebus(if Mom lets him) donate money not average people.

Whatever :rolleyes: . I donated money to McCain in 00 and Lieberman in 04. I wouldn't consider myself to be like Tuba or imjebus or to the far side of either spectrum.

[BeetDigger]

You're more likely to be polled if you donate money, you're a regular voter, etc.


Or a member of a group that is more than likely to give the answer that they want. They say a poll of 1000 registered voters. They don't tell you that all of them were located in New York City.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Look at who you donated money to...now name 5 other candidates that are as moderate as those two...now put one and two together and see if what I am saying still makes sense ;)

[OUthunder]

I voted for him but besides getting that nice tax refund the past few years, he has done a very poor job IMO. He''s not the worst President in history but he's closing in on that dishonor rather quickly.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Jimmy better watch out ;)

[jk the sooner fan]

i voted for him as well, i think this is one presidency where history will be the final vote on whether his legacy is good or bad

i hate polls like these, while there are things about his presidency that i dont like, there are things that i do

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I voted for him but besides getting that nice tax refund the past few years, he has done a very poor job IMO. He''s not the worst President in history but he's closing in on that dishonor rather quickly.:eddie: So, are you sorry we didn't get Algore or the esteemed Vietnam veteran. Who is the worst pres. in history?

[OUthunder]

So, are you sorry we didn't get Algore or the esteemed Vietnam veteran. Who is the worst pres. in history?


If your're asking me if I would have changed my vote the answer is NO. But that is only based on the $3500 & $4444 rebate checks that I have gotten the past two years.

With Clinton in the White House, he could have at least provided me with KY during tax season.

[mdklatt]

i hate polls like these, while there are things about his presidency that i dont like, there are things that i do

Yeah, but that's why polls in general are misleading. I'm surprised Bush is doing so poorly. I guess Tuba hasn't figured out how to vote more than once yet. :D

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well the liberal posters get baned more so they have to have alternate screenname or two ;)

[KaiserSooner]

Who is the worst pres. in history?

A lot of people think Grant and Harding are near the bottom. During my lifetime (going back to Carter) , I'd say W is definitely the worst.

[C&CDean]

The problem with polls - and stupid people in general - is that every time something goes bad (high gas prices, war on terrorism, Katrina, etc.) it's suddenly the president's fault. All the other *********s in Congress who help make the decisions are suddenly blameless.

And the same goes for when things are going good. Clinton got way too much credit for the whole .com boon (and not enough for the bust). I think I read somewhere on the back page in very small print that unemployment is way down, wages are up, and the economy is rocking along pretty good. Of course that's not Bush's fault, but when it's in the ****ter, the media will tell you it is.

My life is grand. My family's lives are grand. We make more money each year. We all have good healthcare. We take care of one another. I am secure financially, emotionally, physically, and pretty much every other way a person can be secure. So, Bush is doing fine.

But then again, I was doing fine when Clinton was in office too. Responsible, hardworking, dedicated, honest people will thrive irregardless of which dickhead is in the White House.

[jk the sooner fan]

i agree with Dean in many respects.....its like yelling movie in a crowded firehouse, everybody wants to jump on board and run out at the same time

we keep hearing about how many people hate president bush, so it just seems like the natural thing to do

everybody else is doing it right?

my life is generally pretty good.....

[SicEmBaylor]

Or a member of a group that is more than likely to give the answer that they want. They say a poll of 1000 registered voters. They don't tell you that all of them were located in New York City.

Right well that's why it's important to look at the sampling data when it's available.

[VeeJay]

I am a Conservative and Bush doesn't even come close.

I second OUThunder's comment.

Enough already. The Bush fatigue is setting in and we've got 3 years left yet of this knucklehead who couldn't carry Clitnon's jockstrap on seeing which way the wind blows.

[C&CDean]

Right well that's why it's important to look at the sampling data when it's available.

No, that's why it's important to completely ignore them. People should judge what's going on by what's going on. Not what the media tells them is going on.

[OklahomaTuba]

I voted for him but besides getting that nice tax refund the past few years, he has done a very poor job IMO. He''s not the worst President in history but he's closing in on that dishonor rather quickly.

What in particular do you think he is doing such a poor job at in your view?

I'd really like to know from someone that says they supported him.

I have some key things that I don't like being ignored, but nevertheless are being ignored.

[OklahomaTuba]

I am a Conservative and Bush doesn't even come close.

I second OUThunder's comment.

Enough already. The Bush fatigue is setting in and we've got 3 years left yet of this knucklehead who couldn't carry Clitnon's jockstrap on seeing which way the wind blows.

I think the reason Clinton looks so good right now is because Clinton didn't really do anything. Not because Clinton was lazy or anything, but because thems was the good ol days.

If he had gone after AQ (passed up capturing osama what, 4 times? Let us get attacked how many times without a response?) or dealt with Saddam like he said he would (iraqi liberation act of 1998) or gutted the CIA, would we be at war now? Hard to say.

I doubt he could have done much with the tech bubble bursting or the economic collapse that started right before he left office, so maybe it was just good timing on his part?

Nevertheless, I think Bush is doing fine overall considering the world right now is close to WW3 breaking out and the instability in the energy sector. Overall though, we havn't been attacked since 9/11, Unemployment is below 5%, inflation is low, interest rates are reasonable, the markets could be better but they aren't in the toilet either, and I have a job, my wife has a job, we are both making more $$ than ever and life is good.

I've often compared Bush to Truman, who at the end had poll #'s in the 20-30 range, and I think that comparison becomes more valid every day.

Like I said in another thread, when you have a press in this country that hates Bush more than Dean hates the longhorns, than its gonna cause some problems IMO.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A lot of people think Grant and Harding are near the bottom. During my lifetime (going back to Carter) , I'd say W is definitely the worst.Let me get this straight. You think W is worse than Carter and Clinton, right? How on earth can anyone come to that conclusion? W is worse than Reagan, but better than Nixon, or any silly-*ssed dim. You guys are in such denial of reality.:eddie:

[soonerscuba]

Lots a people like Clinton, what Clinton does not get credit for is the guy was the best administrator since Wilson. Administration isn't sexy, but it is an important function, my main beef with W is that he simply does not have a domestic policy apparatus, it is all politics. For example, all tax cuts are good, all abstinence programs are good, all positions regarding reproductive health will be fill by pro-lifers, it makes for bad policy.

[KaiserSooner]

Let me get this straight. You think W is worse than Carter and Clinton, right? How on earth can anyone come to that conclusion? W is worse than Reagan, but better than Nixon, or any silly-*ssed dim. You guys are in such denial of reality.:eddie:

Yes, W is worse than Carter. Carter was and W is incompetent. Carter left the country, shall we say, less well positioned internationally, whereas W has simply made it more dangerous to be an American in this world.

Though I don't agree with everything either one of 'em did (in fact, both did some pretty ****ty things...and some good things), Reagan and Clinton are far above Carter or W.

[jk the sooner fan]

kaiser - tell us a president that you think was good...in the modern era,

who was GREAT?

[critical_phil]

i voted "no".

i am also a 2x W. voter. the first time, because Al Gore is a nutjob. the second time because......i don't know. i guess it was because i couldn't ****ing stand theresa heinz kerry.

one of my best friends is a bleeding heart lib. we had a bet on the last election. he congratulated me when he paid up, and he asked me if i really thought the right guy won. i told him, "well, he's got no excuses not to get things done (like social security, REAL tax reform, getting the budget under control etc..). we'll see.

since that time, W has done nothing. nothing.


the dude has everything going for him, and he's managed to screw it up. he's spent a gazillion dollars "fighting for freedom", and social security is still FUBAR'd, the medicare Rx deal is pretty much worthless, and don't get me started on taxes.

without a vision, the people perish. thanks :texan:.

[Howzit]

i voted "no".

i am also a 2x W. voter. the first time, because Al Gore is a nutjob. the second time because......i don't know. i guess it was because i couldn't ****ing stand theresa heinz kerry.

one of my best friends is a bleeding heart lib. we had a bet on the last election. he congratulated me when he paid up, and he asked me if i really thought the right guy won. i told him, "well, he's got no excuses not to get things done (like social security, REAL tax reform, getting the budget under control etc..). we'll see.

since that time, W has done nothing. nothing.


the dude has everything going for him, and he's managed to screw it up. he's spent a gazillion dollars "fighting for freedom", and social security is still FUBAR'd, the medicare Rx deal is pretty much worthless, and don't get me started on taxes.

without a vision, the people perish. thanks :texan:.

ditto.

[VeeJay]

Bush is losing his base. If he hasn't already lost it. Hell, even the rubber stampers are getting fed up.

I give Clinton credit for being a good steward of the nation's economy - and that's what got him re-elected, IMO. There's not much else I can say positive about him. Bush has had the good fortune to preside over a healthy economy also.

When government breaks down and there's no effort to fix things, all other problems become quickly magnified. Katrina has been a disaster. Harriet Meiers was a disaster. Ports sale was a disaster. "I don't know Abramoff" was a disaster. The ballooning deficit is an embarassment.

Bush's cronyism is probably going to be his legacy - or a defining part of it. He has three more years to royally screw it up even more for somebody to come in and try to repair.

And for the record, I've never voted for a Democrat for president in my life.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[QUOTE=VeeJay]
I give Clinton credit for being a good steward of the nation's economy - and that's what got him re-elected, IMO. There's not much else I can say positive about him. :eddie: You give him too much credit. His meddling with the economy via the big socialized medicine(Hillary-care) push, and the retroactive tax hike within his first year in office were 2 of the main reasons the Repubs. were voted in as majority in congress in 1994. A not-so popular Bob Dole and the rerun of Perot in '96 are what got Clinton re-elected with only a plurality(43%). He remains a national disgrace to this day. Please don't even consider voting for his sorry-*ssed marxist wife in '08.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yes, W is worse than Carter. Carter was and W is incompetent. Carter left the country, shall we say, less well positioned internationally, whereas W has simply made it more dangerous to be an American in this world.


:rolleyes:

Wow.

Blame Bush much?

I guess it was Bush's fault all them rag-heads hate us, huh? What an intelligent observation.

You must have skipped the chapter dealing with the 1970's in your history class. Or did the fact that Carter pretty much let the USSR march around the globe untouched while gutting the US military and destroying the economy with "price controls" causing double digit unemployment and "stagflation" just slip your mind???????

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:rolleyes:

Wow.

Blame Bush much?

I guess it was Bush's fault all them rag-heads hate us, huh? What an intelligent observation.

You must have skipped the chapter dealing with the 1970's in your history class. Or did the fact that Carter pretty much let the USSR march around the globe untouched while gutting the US military and destroying the economy with "price controls" causing double digit unemployment and "stagflation" just slip your mind???????:confused: Are these guys just too young, and indoctrinated by our stellar public school system, or are they without memories? It's gotta be one or the other.

[OUthunder]

What in particular do you think he is doing such a poor job at in your view?

I'd really like to know from someone that says they supported him.

I have some key things that I don't like being ignored, but nevertheless are being ignored.


1.) Iraq. Get the hell in or get the hell out...ALL THE WAY!

2.) Assault Weapons Ban. Letting that expire was complete BS!

3.) Hurrican Katrina. Could he have ****ed that up any worse than he has?

4.) Health care for seniors. Another ****ing joke. Let's confuse the elderly even more!

5.) His VP is a total ****ing joke and he makes me embarassed as hell to admit that I supported the campaign.

That's enough for now, I need another drink.

[OklahomaTuba]

1.) Iraq. Get the hell in or get the hell out...ALL THE WAY!

2.) Assault Weapons Ban. Letting that expire was complete BS!

3.) Hurrican Katrina. Could he have ****ed that up any worse than he has?

4.) Health care for seniors. Another ****ing joke. Let's confuse the elderly even more!

5.) His VP is a total ****ing joke and he makes me embarassed as hell to admit that I supported the campaign.

That's enough for now, I need another drink.

Heh.

Very valid points, and I agree with many of them. I would also throw in the spinlessness to do anything about the border and some of the people he appoints as well. But I also think that for the things you list here, the postives are much more important (no attacks, winning the GWOT, booming economy, low inflation, excellent SCOTUS justices, etc) I don't think Reagan conservatism can work during a time of war. Just my opinion though.

[jk the sooner fan]

the border is my biggest source of discontent.....

[OUthunder]

Heh. I live in Minnesota an most Canadians that cross the border actually try to work and add something to society even if they have a funny accent, act like the French and drink ****tay beer. :D

Yes, the border thing is a black eye on this presidency as well.

[lexsooner]

Heh. I live in Minnesota an most Canadians that cross the border actually try to work and add something to society even if they have a funny accent, act like the French and drink ****tay beer. :D

Yes, the border thing is a black eye on this presidency as well.

Aha, so now I know why you get to enjoy so many fine ISM cigars! The Canucks tax the crap out of them, I suppose.

[SicEmBaylor]

Heh.

Very valid points, and I agree with many of them. I would also throw in the spinlessness to do anything about the border and some of the people he appoints as well. But I also think that for the things you list here, the postives are much more important (no attacks, winning the GWOT, booming economy, low inflation, excellent SCOTUS justices, etc) I don't think Reagan conservatism can work during a time of war. Just my opinion though.

You don't think Reagan conservatism can work in a time of war???
Please explain...

Tuba, I want to be sympathetic with you I really do. However, you've got to take off the GOP colored glasses and stop with the "bumper sticker conservatism."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You don't think Reagan conservatism can work in a time of war???
Please explain...

Tuba, I want to be sympathetic with you I really do. However, you've got to take off the GOP colored glasses and stop with the "bumper sticker conservatism."Yeah, tuba, what part of Reagan conservatism won't work in time of war?

[mdklatt]

Yeah, tuba, what part of Reagan conservatism won't work in time of war?

Lowering taxes while increasing spending isn't the best idea in the world.

[SicEmBaylor]

Lowering taxes while increasing spending isn't the best idea in the world.

Well that depends. Generally, I'm in favor of tax cuts only when coupled with spending cuts but there are exceptions.

Reagan's defense build up allowed for offsetting post-cold war defense cuts.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Lowering taxes while increasing spending isn't the best idea in the world.As you might know, lowering taxes usually leads to INCREASED tax revenue, because of increased economic activity. Defense spending is(doh!) necessary in time of war. Lowering social spending could happen, though, and we would be better off.:)

[jeremy885]

Heh. I live in Minnesota an most Canadians that cross the border actually try to work and add something to society even if they have a funny accent, act like the French and drink ****tay beer. :D

Yes, the border thing is a black eye on this presidency as well.

Like any other President has done a thing about the border problem.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Like any other President has done a thing about the border problem.And it appears that NOBODY wants to tackle this issue, certainly not during the campaign-not passionately.

[mdklatt]

As you might know, lowering taxes usually leads to INCREASED tax revenue, because of increased economic activity.

Tax revenue tends to increase over time all on it's own as the econonomy grows. Did Clinton lower taxes? How do we know that tax revenue wouldn't have increased even more with higher tax rates?

[Frozen Sooner]

As you might know, lowering taxes usually leads to INCREASED tax revenue, because of increased economic activity. Defense spending is(doh!) necessary in time of war. Lowering social spending could happen, though, and we would be better off.:)

No, it does not. It only does so if the Laffer point has been exceeded.

Hey, I know! Let's lower taxes to -5%! That'll give us all KINDS of tax revenue.

[Czar Soonerov]

http://x10.putfile.com/3/6911591727.png

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You guys are either naive, misinformed, or purposely ignoring the reality that lowering tax rates has almost always resuted in rapid economic improvement, which rapidly brings in increased tax revenue. Also, common sense tells us that it is ludicrous to think there is no point at which further lowering of taxes won't decrease revenue to the govt. (Our tax rate has not EVER been lowered to that point, as far as I know.)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Tax revenue tends to increase over time all on it's own as the econonomy grows. Did Clinton lower taxes? How do we know that tax revenue wouldn't have increased even more with higher tax rates?Clinton didn't lower taxes, but he did enough scary things to result in the GOP winning congress in th '94 elections. If Bob Dole wasn't such as wuss, and Perot didn't come back, Clinton probably would have lost in "96, with a weak 43% vote. You silly guys!

[NormanPride]

i have been polled. they called me, and before i could hang up, i answered whether or not i approved of the way the government worked.

[Jerk]

2.) Assault Weapons Ban. Letting that expire was complete BS!



Okay, I don't think you even know what the "assault weapons ban" really was. You probably believed the media back when it expired when they claimed "AK-47 machine guns will be back on the streets."

The Assault Weapons Ban was the ultimate "feel-good" legislation for soccer moms, but it practically did nothing so far as limiting the capability of a semi-auto rifle. All it did was to ban certain cosmetic features...features that may look agressive.

When it expired, I simply took the muzzle brakes off my rifles and installed flash hiders. It didn't make the rifles more deadly, shoot faster, more accurate, or anything. They are not as loud but you still need hearing protection around them or your hearing can be damaged. And..even the price of high-cap mags stayed the same for most military rifles because there are millions of them floating around. I never had problems buying "high-caps" during the ban.

I got a bayonet lug on some of my rifles now, whoo-hoo, looks very cool, but practically it means nothing.

I don't understand why people like you support legislation which only affects the non-criminal type. The habitual felons are going to break the laws, anyway. How do you think more useless legislation will stop them?

Don't take away my rights just because we have a criminal element in this country - who won't follow the rules.

I bought an AR-15 last year with all 5 evil features which were previously banned - (Collapsable stock, detachable mags, flash hider, bayonet lug, pistol grip) just because some old post-menepausal biotch in California says I don't need it.

You tell me I shouldn't own something, I'm going to want to have it.

Bush's DOJ did something this past summer which will have a far greater effect on the future of military rifles in civilian hands by pretty much ending the "kit" business by banning imported receivers and barrels. Even Clinton didn't think of that. But as long as it's made in the USA, and it's not a machine gun, then we can buy it.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

This really surprises me. A year or so ago, I conducted my own poll to discover a vast majority of posters on here were Republicans.

[SicEmBaylor]

This really surprises me. A year or so ago, I conducted my own poll to discover a vast majority of posters on here were Republicans.

It seems a vast majority of posters are, but many of them like myself have become a bit disillusioned with the Republican Party by varying degrees.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

Not too long ago, those of us who disagreed with the President seemed to be in the minority on this board and at times were chastised for voicing such things.

[Jerk]

It seems a vast majority of posters are, but many of them like myself have become a bit disillusioned with the Republican Party by varying degrees.

Yes.

For me, it's immigration. There is currenlty no control of our border, and GW wants it that way - for cheap labor.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yes.

For me, it's immigration. There is currenlty no control of our border, and GW wants it that way - for cheap labor.

It's a huge concern for me as well. It's why I'm totally disillusioned with the TX GOP which isn't concerned with the border either especially Gov. Cabana Boy Perry.

I would like for every Governor of every border state to deploy their national guard to the border for the purpose of enforcing Federal immigration law. I'd even like non-border state Governors to order the state's police to specifically target illegal immigrants.

But lord knows it doesn't start and end with immigration. The GOP has just gotten too comfortable in power and abandoned its small government roots. I vote GOP because they're suppose to be committed to reducing the size of government but since they've abandoned that principle I have no reason to vote for them on the Federal level.

[Jerk]

It's a huge concern for me as well. It's why I'm totally disillusioned with the TX GOP which isn't concerned with the border either especially Gov. Cabana Boy Perry.

I would like for every Governor of every border state to deploy their national guard to the border for the purpose of enforcing Federal immigration law. I'd even like non-border state Governors to order the state's police to specifically target illegal immigrants.

But lord knows it doesn't start and end with immigration. The GOP has just gotten too comfortable in power and abandoned its small government roots. I vote GOP because they're suppose to be committed to reducing the size of government but since they've abandoned that principle I have no reason to vote for them on the Federal level.

Yes, I'm afraid Repubs are going to have to be booted out to have some time to re-evaluate themselves. I never voted for giant government.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not too long ago, those of us who disagreed with the President seemed to be in the minority on this board and at times were chastised for voicing such things.I would think that you could always have gotten almost 100% of the posters on this board to disagree with W on more than one thing. It just depends on what the subject is for agreement or disagreement, and whether that subject is presented correctly and dealt with thoroughly enough.
Most people on this board, even dims, want to deal with illegal immigration and the porous borders, for example. The prez obviously doesn't-nor does either party in congress.

[OUthunder]

Okay, I don't think you even know what the "assault weapons ban" really was. You probably believed the media back when it expired when they claimed "AK-47 machine guns will be back on the streets."

The Assault Weapons Ban was the ultimate "feel-good" legislation for soccer moms, but it practically did nothing so far as limiting the capability of a semi-auto rifle. All it did was to ban certain cosmetic features...features that may look agressive.

When it expired, I simply took the muzzle brakes off my rifles and installed flash hiders. It didn't make the rifles more deadly, shoot faster, more accurate, or anything. They are not as loud but you still need hearing protection around them or your hearing can be damaged. And..even the price of high-cap mags stayed the same for most military rifles because there are millions of them floating around. I never had problems buying "high-caps" during the ban.

I got a bayonet lug on some of my rifles now, whoo-hoo, looks very cool, but practically it means nothing.

I don't understand why people like you support legislation which only affects the non-criminal type. The habitual felons are going to break the laws, anyway. How do you think more useless legislation will stop them?

Don't take away my rights just because we have a criminal element in this country - who won't follow the rules.

I bought an AR-15 last year with all 5 evil features which were previously banned - (Collapsable stock, detachable mags, flash hider, bayonet lug, pistol grip) just because some old post-menepausal biotch in California says I don't need it.

You tell me I shouldn't own something, I'm going to want to have it.

Bush's DOJ did something this past summer which will have a far greater effect on the future of military rifles in civilian hands by pretty much ending the "kit" business by banning imported receivers and barrels. Even Clinton didn't think of that. But as long as it's made in the USA, and it's not a machine gun, then we can buy it.



I suppose you're one of those people who believes the phrase "Guns Don't Kill, People Do?"

If so, that's the biggest pile of horse**** that i've ever heard.

BTW, I'm happy for you that it takes a gun to make you feel more like a man. I'm sure the ladies dig it. :rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I suppose you're one of those people who believes the phrase "Guns Don't Kill, People Do?"

If so, that's the biggest pile of horse**** that i've ever heard.

BTW, I'm happy for you that it takes a gun to make you feel more like a man. I'm sure the ladies dig it. :rolleyes:Yeah, that's funny:D I get it.

[Jerk]

I suppose you're one of those people who believes the phrase "Guns Don't Kill, People Do?"

If so, that's the biggest pile of horse**** that i've ever heard.

BTW, I'm happy for you that it takes a gun to make you feel more like a man. I'm sure the ladies dig it. :rolleyes:

Oh, STFU. You don't even know me.

You didn't even respond to my post....just some jibber jabber because you're so damned ignorant on the AWB and what it is.

When my wife hugs me, I feel like a man. I'm confident in myself and who I am, regardless of what you want to believe.

I just have guns to annoy little snivel nosed do-gooders. You make me sick. I want to vomit. Stay the f*** out of my business and what I can and cannot do.

[soonerscuba]

Dudes, Jerk is getting into rap and needs some street cred. be nice...or you'll get gat.

[85Sooner]

I am dis-illusioned with W but way more so with the Repubs in congress. These are mealy mouthed no good losers and need to be replaced. They are nothing more than big government democrats in rhino clothing. THATS who I'm blaming for not dealing with issues ie: health care, schools, boarder etc...
The repub leaders are just as big in the loser department as the dems.
Its THEM spending the money. Its THEM ignoring their constituants. Maybe then again its the US ignorant population that is not holding these dorks accountable. REVOLUTION I SAY REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jerk]

I am dis-illusioned with W but way more so with the Repubs in congress. These are mealy mouthed no good losers and need to be replaced. They are nothing more than big government democrats in rhino clothing. THATS who I'm blaming for not dealing with issues ie: health care, schools, boarder etc...
The repub leaders are just as big in the loser department as the dems.
Its THEM spending the money. Its THEM ignoring their constituants. Maybe then again its the US ignorant population that is not holding these dorks accountable. REVOLUTION I SAY REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HEh,

You spelled rhino wrong.

It's RINO- Republican In Name Only.

For example, most Republicans in the Northeast are RINO's.

[85Sooner]

HEh,

You spelled rhino wrong.

It's RINO- Republican In Name Only.

For example, most Republicans in the Northeast are RINO's.


My Frustration made me do it!!!!!!!!1

[jk the sooner fan]

thunder is anti-gun.......learn something new everyday

[Jerk]

thunder is anti-gun.......learn something new everyday

That's nice. He (or she?) can chose whether or not to own one. It's a free country, at least, until they only give you one option.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

thunder is anti-gun.......learn something new everyday;) His/her response was so cliched, I think there was some funnin' going on.

[usmc-sooner]

I don't have a problem with people not approving of the President but I have a problem when they don't think it through.

Would Kerry have us in better position today? Absolutely not

Would Clinton have us in a better position today. Former President Bill---who knows maybe but maybe at best

Hillary--no freakin way

I'll probably never bitch about the war because I'm a veteran.

I do have a problem with the border control issues as it allows drugs and possible terrorists access to our nation.

I have no problem with the economy since I'm doing better now than I ever have. However I really don't give any President credit or debits for the economy since anyone with any common sense must realize no one man can take credit or blame for that.

What I would be willing to do is listening to solutions, instead the everyday bitching and whining and obstructing that the Democrats are now doing. O.K. so you don't agree with the President so what? What's your plan? Attacking Bush now is retarded with a capitol R. Focus on who you want in the office next, not what the guy who can't be re-elected faults are.

This is why the Democrats lost the last election all complaints no answers.

[JohnnyMack]

I didn't know the SO has a president. I thought this place was a monarchy.:hmfic:

:dean: = Cheney

[SOONER44EVER]

Not too long ago, those of us who disagreed with the President seemed to be in the minority on this board and at times were chastised for voicing such things.
Exactly!

[usmc-sooner]

I don't have a problem with people not approving of the President but I have a problem when they don't think it through.

Would Kerry have us in better position today? Absolutely not

Would Clinton have us in a better position today. Former President Bill---who knows maybe but maybe at best

Hillary--no freakin way

I'll probably never bitch about the war because I'm a veteran.

I do have a problem with the border control issues as it allows drugs and possible terrorists access to our nation.

I have no problem with the economy since I'm doing better now than I ever have. However I really don't give any President credit or debits for the economy since anyone with any common sense must realize no one man can take credit or blame for that.

What I would be willing to do is listening to solutions, instead the everyday bitching and whining and obstructing that the Democrats are now doing. O.K. so you don't agree with the President so what? What's your plan? Attacking Bush now is retarded with a capitol R. Focus on who you want in the office next, not what the guy who can't be re-elected faults are.

This is why the Democrats lost the last election all complaints no answers.

I must be on all the Democrats ignore list

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I must be on all the Democrats ignore list:eddie: Sometimes they JUST GET TIRED of making all their whiney-*ssed, cliched, illogical bull*hit remarks.

[Vaevictis]

Okay, well since you wanted a response ... :)


Would Kerry have us in better position today? Absolutely not

With respect to Iraq, I doubt he would also. At this point, I don't think anyone would. However, I don't think we will even begin to be able to go down that path until we have a new administration.

The situation as it is is only long-term solvable through diplomacy, imo. The military is a part of the solution, but it can't get us there alone. At some point, we're going to have to convince these people to lay down arms, and we're not currently willing to give the military the green light to do whatever it takes to pacify them. (keeping in mind that what's needed to pacify them is the same stuff that Saddam is on trial for doing). That leaves diplomacy.

And I don't think this administration is in a position -- in terms of credibility with the other side -- to succeed with diplomacy, even if it wanted to pursue it.


I do have a problem with the border control issues as it allows drugs and possible terrorists access to our nation.

I think that better border control could help with the drugs, mostly because increasing border security would make smuggled drugs less affordable... but with the terrorists, not so much.

Stopping terrorists is... different. Drug smugglers have to move contraband. Terrorists just have to move themselves, and that can be done legally, if they're patient enough. It's not like we do extensive background checks on each and every person to enter the country.

We just don't have the resources to secure everything. That's the sad, bitter truth. Any perimeter can be breached, given an intelligent, tenacious foe with an arbitrary amount of time. *shrug*

To make it short, Bush is correct about us needing to stop them over there. I just think he was wrong about the means. The military was not and is not the correct solution. You have to cut off recruitment, and you don't do that with stuff like Abu Grahib, and "collateral damage" in the news.

Take a lesson from the political arm of Hamas. They know how to win this kind of war; it's too bad they're on the other side.


However I really don't give any President credit or debits for the economy since anyone with any common sense must realize no one man can take credit or blame for that.

Yeah, I discount most blame or credit for the economy on all White Houses. Yeah, the White House can make it worse if they blow it, but making it better... even if they did make it better, it's hard to see evidence of that. There's just too many variables.


What I would be willing to do is listening to solutions, instead the everyday bitching and whining and obstructing that the Democrats are now doing.

Personally, I think someone needs to be doing some obstructing. Clinton cannot take all the credit for all of the good of the 90's. The oppositional Congress curbed some of his bad ideas -- and he curbed some of theirs.

What I want to see is some opposition between the White House and the Congress. When you have that, the stuff on both the far left and the far right gets shot down, and you may not get a LOT done, but at least what gets done is something that is generally considered reasonable or acceptable by everyone. Compromise is a good thing.

(My ideal state -- assuming a two party system is a given -- is that one party controls the White House, and the other party controls Congress, with who controls what alternating periodically.)


This is why the Democrats lost the last election all complaints no answers.

No argument, really. Most people go with inertia for interia's sake, unless someone presents an alternative. "This is the wrong way" just doesn't cut it. You've got to point out a better path.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

Stay the f*** out of my business and what I can and cannot do.That's what gay people say too.

[WhiteRiverSooner]

Answering yes or no to this poll leaves out a lot of information that can cause the result to be misconstrued.

The fact that I don't currently approve of the President's performance should not lead you to the conclusion that I have not approved of many of the things he has done while in office.

It also does not mean that I would change the way I voted during the last 2 elections. I would not now nor then vote for Kerry. It does not mean there are any fewer republicans than before.

Nonetheless, I am currently disappointed in his performance.

[Scott D]

I don't approve of the performance of our government...at pretty much any time.

[soonerscuba]

I don't have a problem with people not approving of the President but I have a problem when they don't think it through.

Would Kerry have us in better position today? Absolutely not

Would Clinton have us in a better position today. Former President Bill---who knows maybe but maybe at best

Hillary--no freakin way

I'll probably never bitch about the war because I'm a veteran.

I do have a problem with the border control issues as it allows drugs and possible terrorists access to our nation.

I have no problem with the economy since I'm doing better now than I ever have. However I really don't give any President credit or debits for the economy since anyone with any common sense must realize no one man can take credit or blame for that.

What I would be willing to do is listening to solutions, instead the everyday bitching and whining and obstructing that the Democrats are now doing. O.K. so you don't agree with the President so what? What's your plan? Attacking Bush now is retarded with a capitol R. Focus on who you want in the office next, not what the guy who can't be re-elected faults are.

This is why the Democrats lost the last election all complaints no answers.

I'll take a shot at this.

First, one must break down the government policy into to very broad arenas, domestic and foreign. It would be hard for anybody to be worse than Bush in terms of domestic policy, because he doesn't formulate it to changing situations, it is all a political arm of the West Wing. I cannot state how much damage one can do if there is not an objective, long-term policy apparatus in the White House, I have to think Kerry would do that, and if he didn't I would bitch about that too. As for foreign policy, who the hell knows, Iraq is a mess that is going to have to clean itself, because we clearly lack bargaining power, all of our diplomacy problems extend from our treatment of prisoners. Not just the torture, but the hazy legal status moreso in my opinion, another candidate could move on that. Other than Iraq, I've actually agreed with a lot of his moves, the Kyoto agreement is a crock of ****, anybody who took a look at it realized it was.

Would Clinton do better? Does the Pope **** in the woods?

Would Hillary do better? Couldn't tell you, but I tend to say yes. Because if she runs the same policy factory with half the vigor of her husband, it would work, once again changing policy for changing situations is a good thing. Some call it a finger in the wind, some call it strategic planning.

And finally why Democrats get their *** beat. Well, there are a couple of factors that go into this. First, and I'm not bitching because it is a fact of life, gerrymandering. Did you know that Democrats received 4 million more votes than Republicans in the 04 Senatorial race? It is hard to tell since they picked up seats, the election map is simply favored on Republicans, you know the "Bush Country" map, it is stupid because there are more people in LA than all of Oklahoma, but when your covering that much map in a Congressional setting, the deck is stacked. Second, Republicans have framed the debate, an example of this is the estate tax that was favored until it became the death tax, bravo. We all know the Democratic platform: progressive taxation, protectionism, sustaining entitlement, limited engagement of the military, and equality. The reason you aren't hearing a lot of noise out of the Dems is that at this point the Republican ship is sinking on it's own, no need to send them a life raft in the form of a Dean scream.

The Dems need a populist to run, that is why I'm banking on Edwards in '08, but I'm pretty sure Hillary is going to get the nod, and if the Republicans put up Frist, she will be the President.

[OUthunder]

I hate political threads.

[usmc-sooner]

I'll take a shot at this.


Would Clinton do better? Does the Pope **** in the woods?

Would Hillary do better? Couldn't tell you, but I tend to say yes. Because if she runs the same policy factory with half the vigor of her husband, it would work, once again changing policy for changing situations is a good thing. Some call it a finger in the wind, some call it strategic planning.



Clinton is part of the reason we have a mess in the Mid-East. He was very weak in dealing with terrorists nations.

And the type of government Hillary is pumping, well you can look at Canada to see what she wants, and many a Canadian will tell it's not working.

[soonerscuba]

Clinton is part of the reason we have a mess in the Mid-East. He was very weak in dealing with terrorists nations.

And the type of government Hillary is pumping, well you can look at Canada to see what she wants, and many a Canadian will tell it's not working.

Meh, no one is good at mid-east policy. Carter was a *****, Reagan armed and trained a good number of future terrorists (like bin Laden) and gave Saddam all kinds of fun WMDs, Bush I did the best from everything I can tell, Clinton towed the line and fired missles into Iraq, and Bush has jumped the shark.

The only policy I think can work over there is scale down our support for Israel, stop buying their oil, and send every missionary on the planet into the region. Let China and India feed their energy appetite with that monster and make it their problem. Will it get rid of global terrorism, hell no, but I'd rather some Chinese or Indian fella get it, better them than us.

[usmc-sooner]

Meh, no one is good at mid-east policy. Carter was a *****, Reagan armed and trained a good number of future terrorists (like bin Laden) and gave Saddam all kinds of fun WMDs, Bush I did the best from everything I can tell, Clinton towed the line and fired missles into Iraq, and Bush has jumped the shark.

The only policy I think can work over there is scale down our support for Israel, stop buying their oil, and send every missionary on the planet into the region. Let China and India feed their energy appetite with that monster and make it their problem. Will it get rid of global terrorism, hell no, but I'd rather some Chinese or Indian fella get it, better them than us.

good points

I just think W. Bush does better than most people give him credit for.

[85Sooner]

good points

I just think W. Bush does better than most people give him credit for.


I agree. There are some serious issues going on in the world right now. The US was AWOL for most of the 90's when alot of these things picked up steam.
Other than W, I don't know anyone who would have been better and at least he has the balls to set his sights and move forward regardless of what his monday morning QB's and the communist press are saying about him. What s interesting to me is that most of the people spewing crap at W would immediately be executed/killed under the regimes we have been fighting. So maybe its an unconcious death wish. We should stop fighting and let them have their way.THen they can get what their asking for.

[Jerk]

That's what gay people say too.

Yeah, no sh**. I've never told them what they can do or can't do in their own bed.

[OklahomaTuba]

It would be hard for anybody to be worse than Bush in terms of domestic policy, because he doesn't formulate it to changing situations, it is all a political arm of the West Wing.

:rolleyes:
This, my friends, is another great example of liberal analysis based on things other than facts.

In other news, the economy just created 250,000 jobs last month.

Opps, there I go with those facts again.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think most people here are totally off base in regards to the Bush Domestic Agenda. Either you hate it becuase you're a liberal and you have such a pathalogical hatred of the Bush administration that you're unable to enjoy the liberalism of his domestic agenda even when it's glaring you in the face, or you're a sunshine pumper who can't stand the thought of appearing on the side of liberals by questioning the Administration.

The Bush Domestic Agenda has been VERY EFFECTIVE. Hate it or love it, he's been effective at progressing large tracts of his 2000 agenda and some parts of his 2004 agenda.

Speaking from a policy and not ideological standpoint there was a LOT of promise in his 2004 agenda. His whole "Ownership Society" could have been very very appealing to most Americans had he more effectively packaged it and sold it to the American people. The concept behind it is that Americans should own and control more in their lives. They should own a bigger part of their retirement, their home, a small business, etc. The entire package was centered around individual control and ownership. This is precisely what I think most Americans truly want. However, it was never sold well to the American people and the Administration tried to pawn it off piece meal instead of part of the entire ownership society package.

From an ideological standpoing it truly sucks. Becuase while the government is giving you more individual choice that choice is facilitated via the Federal government instead of delegating that authority back to the state governments to either set up their own programs or delegate the authority back to the people directly. The "Ownership Society" is very reminescent of Margaret Thatcher's program in Britian. It worked in Britian becuase they don't have a federalist system of power divided between state and federal government. It doesn't work here because all of the programs proposed by Bush in one way or another use the Federal government to return control to the individual when the Federal government has no authority to do so. They need to return that control to the state governments who then can return it to the individual.

It's too populist for me and I hate it but from a policy standpoint it could have been really great.

[soonerscuba]

I never said it wasn't effective, I just said it was a political arm. Take for example Bush 41 raising taxes, it was the smart thing to do, but not smart politics, I think his son has vowed not to walk to down that path to the determent of the country. Another situation is the Clinton deficit reduction package in '93, Republicans screamed bloody murder and predicted the doom of the economy, they were dead and under no uncertain terms wrong.

They get their stuff done, I just hate their stuff for a variety of reasons beyond the fact that I disagree. I loathe rosy scenarios, and think the are the single most dangerous thing an executive branch can play with. Also, props to Bush for trying to get the line-item back.

[OklahomaTuba]

I never said it wasn't effective, I just said it was a political arm.
And this is different from other presidents how??

Again, I would love to see some facts backing up your statement that his domestic policy is so bad, when the unemployment rate is below 5% and incomes are rising.

[JohnnyMack]

Here's a question:

If W had nevar invaded Iraq, where would his approval rating stand?

(Tuba, this is the part where you talk about the people he's liberated and then you should gloss over the thousands of troops killed and trillions of our dollars wasted.)

[OklahomaTuba]

Also gotta love Hollywood doing their part...

Hot off his best picture win for "Crash," Paul Haggis is in final negotiations to direct and produce "Against All Enemies," a project based on Richard A. Clarke's best-selling memoir chronicling the Bush administration's handling of terrorist threats.http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2006-03-13T024818Z_01_N12233259_RTRUKOC_0_US-HAGGIS.xml&rpc=22

I bet they forget to cover that whole chapter relating to Clinton and his 8 years of not giving a rats *** about terrorism vs Bush's 8 months.

Also interesting to note that hollywood has or is making how many movies blasting Bush on the war, but have yet to make one on 9/11?

[OklahomaTuba]

Here's a question:

If W had nevar invaded Iraq, where would his approval rating stand?

(Tuba, this is the part where you talk about the people he's liberated and then you should gloss over the thousands of troops killed and trillions of our dollars wasted.)

Funny.

At least you finally mentioned something about people being libertated.

Baby steps JM, baby steps.

[SicEmBaylor]

Tuba,
I notice you say you're a brewer. What do you brew and can I have some?

[slickdawg]

Here's a question:

If W had nevar invaded Iraq, where would his approval rating stand?

(Tuba, this is the part where you talk about the people he's liberated and then you should gloss over the thousands of troops killed and trillions of our dollars wasted, and did not give a rats *** about the people in the path of Katrina.)


Fixed that for ya'

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba,
I notice you say you're a brewer. What do you brew and can I have some?
Not a brewer, just like sam adams.

And yes, you can have some.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Fixed that for ya'Sounds like you're gonna spend some more time cursing Bush about Katrina, when you should be thinking about moving to an area that doesn't get the full force of hurricanes. If you lived in NOLA, your local and state govt. should have long ago made those levees able to withstand cat #5. Your living in Gulfport is a game of Russian roulette.

[IronSooner]

Also gotta love Hollywood doing their part...
Also interesting to note that hollywood has or is making how many movies blasting Bush on the war, but have yet to make one on 9/11?

Dude, Hollywood has been, is, and probably will continue to be pretty freakin' liberal. Like it or not, that's the situation. My guess is that it just so happens that the type of people attracted to the entertainment industry happen to be liberal-minded types. There are also the types who like to use the media to criticize the government out of principle, which is fine. Just don't get too ruffled about it, it is what it is. Until more conservatives decide to weave their way in that's the way it'll be for a while.

[SicEmBaylor]

Dude, Hollywood has been, is, and probably will continue to be pretty freakin' liberal. Like it or not, that's the situation. My guess is that it just so happens that the type of people attracted to the entertainment industry happen to be liberal-minded types. There are also the types who like to use the media to criticize the government out of principle, which is fine. Just don't get too ruffled about it, it is what it is. Until more conservatives decide to weave their way in that's the way it'll be for a while.

There's not much chance Hollywood is going to be converted to the conservative cause since conservatives tend to get actual jobs that contribute to society.

[yermom]

There's not much chance Hollywood is going to be converted to the conservative cause since conservatives tend to get actual jobs that contribute to society.

like going into politics? :rolleyes:

[SicEmBaylor]

like going into politics? :rolleyes:

Hahahaha right exactly :D

[Octavian]

...since conservatives tend to get actual jobs that contribute to society.

I'm shocked this answer doesn't come up more in the "universities so liberal :mad: " threads..

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm shocked this answer doesn't come up more in the "universities so liberal :mad: " threads..

It's straight from the Republican manual!

[Palermo10]

Also interesting to note that hollywood has or is making how many movies blasting Bush on the war, but have yet to make one on 9/11?


What could you possibly want to see about that?

Everything we need to see about that day we watched live from our homes, offices, schools, etc.

We even have footage of Bush reading a book upside down and not doing anything. Cheney was the one who got things done on that day, but seriously, a movie about it? We even have photos from inside the "war room" or wherever they set up shop.

With war you typically dont get everything broadcast on live television, and therefore there's more to see. But IMO you have to be sadistic to want a movie that chronicles 9/11.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

It's straight from the Republican manual!Is that right after the All Democrats have had 14 abortions section? Or the All Liberals Mooch Off the Government section?

[slickdawg]

Sounds like you're gonna spend some more time cursing Bush about Katrina, when you should be thinking about moving to an area that doesn't get the full force of hurricanes. If you lived in NOLA, your local and state govt. should have long ago made those levees able to withstand cat #5. Your living in Gulfport is a game of Russian roulette.

Having seen the video pre-katrina, where Michael Brown emphasizes the
chance of levee failure, and the post-Katrina reactions - he's out pimping
GWOT, while people in NOLA are sitting on rooftops.

As for the NOLA politics - there is a complete failure in Louisiana.
If I was the boss for one day, every single Louisiana politician would
be removed from office - city, local, state, federal - all of them.
Until you've been down here and seen it in work, you can not understand
the gravity of the corruption in Louisiana politics.

I'm all for giving it back to the French.

[slickdawg]

I'm also curious as to why the federal government was more than willing to
pay off the families of 9/11 victims, but will not do the same for the OKC
victim families?

[OklahomaTuba]

With war you typically dont get everything broadcast on live television, and therefore there's more to see. But IMO you have to be sadistic to want a movie that chronicles 9/11.

Wow, what a weak argument.

I am sure hollywood will figure out a way to completly re-write history in regards to 9-11 to fit their LiberalFantasy someday, as they are trying to do with michael moore and george cLooney's movies.

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm also curious as to why the federal government was more than willing to
pay off the families of 9/11 victims, but will not do the same for the OKC
victim families?

I think many of the bombing families are wondering the same thing.
I think Clinton should have done more for those people.

[JohnnyMack]

No, seriously, what would W's approval rating be if he had left Iraq alone?

[OklahomaTuba]

No, seriously, what would W's approval rating be if he had left Iraq alone?
Hmm, that is an interesting question.

Booming economy is a plus, but energy prices are a huge negative. I'd say about the mid 50's. Iraq and gas prices probably have about the same effect on his poll numbers overall IMO.

[mdklatt]

I think many of the bombing families are wondering the same thing.
I think Clinton should have done more for those people.

Bush should have done less for the 9/11 victims. They were bought off so they wouldn't go running to their lawyers. I assume Murrah victims were eligible for aid under Federal disaster relief. 9/11 victims shouldn't have been any different.

[mdklatt]

Hmm, that is an interesting question.

Booming economy is a plus, but energy prices are a huge negative. I'd say about the mid 50's. Iraq and gas prices probably have about the same effect on his poll numbers overall IMO.

Most of the new jobs being created right now are low-paying service industry jobs, while manufacturing and technology jobs are heading overseas. The Dell call center is hiring, so maybe a few GM workers can replace their $50k/year jobs with $25k/year jobs. Many indicators show that the rich are getting richer, but the middle class and poor as a whole aren't going anywhere. The "booming economy" is a mixed bag. I'm not blaming Bush for this, but that's the situation.

Do you think energy prices wouldn't have gone up without the Iraq war? The Gulf hurricanes had nothing to do with Iraq, and the recent Saudi refinery attack probably didn't either.

[slickdawg]

I think many of the bombing families are wondering the same thing.
I think Clinton should have done more for those people.


Yes, Clinton should have.

But there was a news show on a few months ago, this topic is still in the
courts - and the government is fighting to not pay the OKC families.
This is the same government that handed out checks for 9/11 victims.

Jeez, write them some checks.

Not assisting those families lends credibility to the conspiracy theories on
9/11 - it's almost like the 9/11 victims were sacrificed for a price.

[slickdawg]

No, seriously, what would W's approval rating be if he had left Iraq alone?


I'd say he would be 10-15 points higher in the polls.

High energy costs are going to hurt whoever is in office, 9/11 hurt the
markets, and hurt whoever is in office, but the Katrina thing would
stick to Bush regardless.

[mdklatt]

Not assisting those families lends credibility to the conspiracy theories on
9/11 - it's almost like the 9/11 victims were sacrificed for a price.

:confused:

Wouldn't paying them off so their lawyers don't start asking questions make more sense if there was a conspiracy?

[slickdawg]

So, W's approval rating in the SO is 38% - not far off from the national 34%

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, W's approval rating in the SO is 38% - not far off from the national 34% Well, it matters little at this time. Bush isn't running for elective office, and it's too early to tell the national vote for the '06 mid-terms.

[soonerscuba]

Administration isn't sexy, but it is an important function, my main beef with W is that he simply does not have a domestic policy apparatus, it is all politics. For example, all tax cuts are good, all abstinence programs are good, all positions regarding reproductive health will be fill by pro-lifers, it makes for bad policy.

Well, well, well. It appears that Bolten agrees with me, the dirty lib.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/19/mcclellan/index.html