Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

Yoohoo, Democrats? Calling all Democrats. Wounded president over here. Time to show up and lead the country out of this. Anyone?? No, no, Hilary, sit down. Would the real next leader please stand up?

Attention Wes Clark...
hehehe

Perhaps the situation in Iraq is bleak right now. Sure, it's on the brink of civil war, but did President Bush necessarily cause it? Sunni and Shia Muslims have been at each other's throats since Muhammad's second successor died.

I believe President Bush's popularity is more the result of the constant bashing he receives in the media. Television tells those who don't know any better what a supposedly bad job our president is doing. After a while, they believe it.

Of course, President Bush is not perfect, but I don't think his performance warrants these low numbers.

It's not just Iraq, and it's not just the media.

tax cuts for the rich
$8.2 trillion budget deficit
misconduct of the "war on terror"
authorized torture as a counterterrorism strategy
unlawful domestic surveillance
+ surveillance of anti-war groups
+ surveillance of GLBT groups
contempt for allies' opinions
contempt for international organizations
political use of secrets
energy industry writing energy policy
contempt for science, scientists, scientific results
civil liberties panel that has never actually met
$1.6 billion in federal funds spent on promoting various administration-sponsored programs (PR)
37 million Americans live in poverty
$725.8 billion trade deficit in 2005 (up 17.5% from '04)
45 million people with no healthcare
Hurricane Katrina response failure
failure to see Hamas winning election
failure to see theocracy take hold in Iraq

I wonder what question was specifically asked in each of these categories, and how an answer falls under "support" or "disapproval". Example:

"Do you think President Bush is doing a good job in Iraq?

A) Yes (20 people)
B) In some situations (50 people)
C) No (20 people)"

There's your 70% disapproval, even though the number of actual disapproval is the same as approval. Because the "maybes" count as "no", I'd say it was not a fair question and/or criteria. Not saying the above polls are skewed incorrectly, but I just wonder...

Perhaps the situation in Iraq is bleak right now.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... yes, PERHAPS.

Republicans cry and cry about the media bashing the president. FOX is full of right-wingers! NewsMax as well. He's got Drudge, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh on TV and AM radio all getting his back. If they aren't pimping the president enough, maybe there isn't much to pimp.

Rather than just blaming the media all the time, consider the biggest news topic last week:

The president enthusiastically supporting a deal to allow Dubai Ports World to control American ports. Mr. National Security who practically beat us over the head with terrorism in order to get reelected didn't even know about the deal until after it was publicized. It is understandable that he might not have known, but he simply just came out and said it was fine. Anyone who stakes his presidency on national security can't come out of this looking good.

May I remind everyone who seems to think the media is responsible for a president's approval rating, you have a place right here on Newsvine to post and seed stories. There are plenty of right-wing news outlets, doing their best to provide the best news possible about the right-wing. Seed it, that is your prerogative. Hopefully, you'll be able to find at least a few stories that aren't simply anti-Hilary hit pieces, but there should be at least a few.

Most polls can be found here within a day or two after they come out.

http://www.pollingreport.com/

It's not just Iraq, and it's not just the media.

No, well lets just look at some of your points then, shall we?

tax cuts for the rich

hmmm, yeah, right. Keep in mind that these tax cuts have prompted incredible growth in the amount of taxes being collected. 40% increase in taxes collected on dividends just one of the areas it was claimed was just for the 'rich'. Also even after these cuts the top 50% of earners still pay 98% of all taxes (my numbers may be off by a percent but...) and the top 10% pay like 50+%, so I think the 'tax cuts for the rich' statement while being catchy and fun and all is also just wrong.

$8.2 trillion budget deficit

I happen to think the man spends like a drunken democrat or Ted Kennedy (but I repeat myself) but the president does not control the budget, Congress does. Give the president line item veto power and everyone complain about spending to your local congressman. Don't reward pork spending by re-electing them.

misconduct of the "war on terror"

what, because you don't agree with it, you call it misconduct? I think the fact that there has not been another attack within the US is a good thing.

authorized torture as a counterterrorism strategy

um, yeah, right. you make me laugh. get your facts straight.

unlawful domestic surveillance

I don't expect you to agree with me here but if you did the research you would realize that it is neither unlawful or domestic in nature, but since this has helped with the fact that we haven't had an attack since 9-11 perhaps you don't want to hear about it.

+ surveillance of anti-war groups
+ surveillance of GLBT groups

Every president has had surveillance of anti-war groups etc. Not sure where this is coming from, perhaps you could provide some detail, or does it end after you throw out the accusation.

contempt for allies' opinions
contempt for international organizations

Disagreeing with your allies is not the same as contempt, just like I don't agree with many people, but I don't have contempt for them, perhaps you are projecting your own reactions here? international organizations falls under the same response.

political use of secrets

I am sure you would prefer it if he was telling our enemies everything he was doing but... Did you have any actual point with this one or did it just 'sound good at the time'?

energy industry writing energy policy

Um, can you show us where the energy industry is writing energy policy? I mean really.

contempt for science, scientists, scientific results

see comment above concerning contempt remarks. LOL

civil liberties panel that has never actually met

again, what are you talking about?

$1.6 billion in federal funds spent on promoting various administration-sponsored programs

care to share eny evidence here?

37 million Americans live in poverty

considering how strong our economy is at the moment I don't think you can blame this on Bush. (yeah I know you hear bad reports, but look at the numbers, look at the facts for a change) wait, what was I thinking, you will blame everything on Bush including the fact that it is raining and your bike tire is wet...

$725.8 billion trade deficit in 2005 (up 17.5% from '04)

Again, I am curious how you feel Bush is responsible for this.

45 million people with no healthcare

Many of whom are illegal aliens, self insured or have turned down healthcare for one reason or another. I am not saying that there are not people that don't have insurance, just that it is not the fault of GWB and that you are throwing out a number with no concept of where it came from

Hurricane Katrina response failure

I will not argue that the federal government could have done a better job with Katrina, but you have to look at the local response first in the case of a natural disaster. Had the local governments done the jobs they were trusted to do, things would have been better for the people there. I think Bush trusted the people that he had in charge and they failed him.

failure to see Hamas winning election

so now he is responsible for what the palestinian people do? LOL And what should he have done to 'prevent that' and should he 'prevent that ' from happening? What do you see as his responsibility. What do you think is the real difference between Hamas and the PA?

failure to see theocracy take hold in Iraq

Theocracy has not taken hold in Iraq. Democracy has. Stop expecting to see an American system in place there. GWB doesn't and you shouldn't. They are their own people and they are forming their own government. their own form of democracy. Doing it rather quickly too in the grand scheme of things. Faster then many other places. course we are helping, but you don't want to give credit where credit is due...

The president enthusiastically supporting a deal to allow Dubai Ports World to control American ports.

Um, NO actually you are wrong here. He enthusiastically supported a deal for a foreign company to continue to control several TERMINALS within our ports. They would not control our security, our ports etc. The unions that run the labor now would continue to do so, jobs etc. would remain Americans (at least as much as they are now) Whether you agreed with the deal or not ( I have my misgivings) you really should at least get your facts straight. I thought you guys and gals on the left were against profiling? isn't that what you are doing in this 'port deal'? Or are you saying that we should cancel all foreign ownership of terminal operations? ( you do realize that it is almost all run by foreign companies now, don't you?)

the deficit is nowhere near $8.2 trillion.

you reveal your ignorance of economic terms.

you are off by more than a factor of 20.

Re: Polls, there's an AP story about this Poll in the Wire right now and it details what questions were asked.

Re: $1.6B in PR spending...

"The public-relations gloss that has long wrapped the Bush administration is fast becoming a blemish on the White House, according to lawmakers who have uncovered some $1.6 billion in federal funds spent on promoting various administration-sponsored programs.

A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's research and auditing body, tracks more than 340 contracts negotiated between several government departments and PR, advertising and media firms from 2003 through the first part of 2005.

The study, requested by the House of Representatives Democratic leadership, found that from 2003 to mid-2005, the administration racked up some $1.4 billion in contracts with advertising agencies to broadcast positive messages about its policies and initiatives. Another $200 million went to public-relations companies, and $15 million were spent building connections with media outlets. Individual members of the press received a total of $100,000 in promotional contracts." - Source

No Healthcare...

"The percentage of native citizens who were uninsured rose in 2004, while the percentage of non-citizen immigrants who lacked coverage fell. " Source

"White House civil-liberties panel created in 2004, still hasn't met" - The Seattle Times

Re; Energy Policy written by Energy Industry...

"In developing the National Energy Policy report, the NEPDG Principals, Support Group, and participating agency officials and staff met with, solicited input from, or received information and advice from nonfederal energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists." - Source: GAO (.pdf file)

Most people would agree that the President is responsible for what goes on during his term of office, and the legislature has been Republican-controlled for about the last 14 years. You do the math.

I think I've proven my point. The rest, you can Google.

#9 : Cite your sources on your comments, too.

Pay attention now, I made no statement as to how I felt about it. I made a hypothesis as to why he sunk in the polls last week. Republicans and Democrats were up in flames about it and I believe that is why he went even lower.

I don't remember mentioning profiling.

Two points... One -- The poll is of 1000 Americans, NOT 1000 likely voters. Among pollsters, this difference in selection means the difference between a waste of time and a useful poll. Two -- For better or for worse, national poll numbers don't really make a difference in terms of the Dems' chance of retaking the House. As I understand it, the 17 seats that Republicans are defending are, based on voting record, some of the most Republican in the country. The realities of political competition mean that there probably won't be a whole lot of change -- again, for better or for worse, depending on one's perspective.

According to the Washington Post:

Driven by the cost of hurricane relief, the federal budget deficit is expected to balloon back above $400 billion for the fiscal year that ends in September, reversing the improvements of 2005, a White House official told reporters yesterday...

After four years of budget surpluses, the government fell back into a deficit in fiscal 2002, after which the deficit climbed to $378 billion in 2003 and $412 billion in 2004. In 2005, the tide of red ink receded to $319 billion.

None of those figures is anywhere near $8 trillion.

Well, looking at those poll numbers, I guess Bush's hopes of reelection are dashed. ;)

@Aine

"No health insurance" does NOT equal "No health care"

Your comment is misleading

daweb, you bring up some excellent points, though it seems to border on inflammatory. Perhaps I'm reading it with the wrong emphasis. I just have one thing to add:

Many of whom are illegal aliens, self insured or have turned down healthcare for one reason or another. I am not saying that there are not people that don't have insurance, just that it is not the fault of GWB and that you are throwing out a number with no concept of where it came from

I'm just not sure how self-insured equals no health care, statistically speaking. Can you clear this up or point me somewhere that can? I'm just curious how any poll would take "self-insured" to mean "lacking health care."

In a polarized election year, few lawmakers from either party believe much work will be done to reach a bipartisan consensus on cutting spending and raising taxes to quickly address the budget problem. In the week between Christmas and New Year's Day, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow notified congressional leaders that the government would reach the statutory debt limit of $8.2 trillion by mid-February, the fourth time in five years the debt limit will have been reached.

"At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," Snow warned." - Source

That date has since been revised to March 20, 2006.

#15 : The figures you quote are "fiscal year" debts... that's PER YEAR, not total debt.

Exactly the point. The "47 million" figure that bounces around is overinflated in the first place, but is supposed to actually be the uninsured.

If you decide to pay for your health care out of your own pocket, for example, you have health care but lack health insurance.

The original comment above "45 million people with no healthcare" is therefore misleading.

@Aine

Your original comment was "$8.2 trillion budget deficit"

Do you understand the difference between debt and deficit???

The poll is of 1000 Americans, NOT 1000 likely voters.

That is who you poll when you want to write:

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

It doesn't say voters, it says Americans. If you want to get the opinion of America, you poll Americans, if you want to know about voters, you poll voters. I didn't get the memo that they changed the polling techniques from 2001, when his approval rating was 93%. It seems all of this opposition has come up all of the sudden about technique. If it has changed any, I'd like to read about it. Curious.

CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS "PAY FOR THEMSELVES" IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE:
Data Show No "Free Lunch" Here
by Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine

"In recent statements, the President, the Vice President, and key Congressional leaders have asserted that the increase in revenues in 2005 proves that tax cuts "pay for themselves." In other words, the economy expands so much as a result of tax cuts that it produces the same level of revenue as it would have without the tax cuts.

President Bush, for example, commented in a February 8 speech, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase."[1] Similarly, Vice President Cheney has claimed, "The tax cuts have translated into higher federal revenues."[2] Majority Leader Frist wrote that recent experience demonstrates, "when done right, [tax cuts] actually result in more money for government."[3] The Vice President also has stated, "The evidence is in, it's time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury."[4]

In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, recent economic growth and revenue growth have not been particularly strong, and revenues remain lower than had been predicted before the tax cuts were enacted.

* Over the three years since enactment of the 2003 tax cuts (2003-2005), revenues were a combined $316 billion below the levels that had been forecast by the Administration for these years before these tax cuts were adopted. This is hardly the picture that would have emerged if the tax cuts paid for themselves.

* Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth in 2005, revenues over the economic recovery as a whole have fallen at an annual rate of 0.6 percent, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. During the average post-World War II recovery, revenues grew at an annual real per-person rate of 2.7 percent.

* Revenues in fiscal year 2005 were above what CBO projected in January 2005, but this was not the result of unexpectedly strong economic growth. Real economic growth for the year was marginally below CBO's projection.

* Overall, this economic recovery has been slightly weaker than the average post-World War II recovery. In particular, GDP growth and investment growth have been below the historical average, despite recent tax cuts specifically targeted at increasing investment.

Those who claim that tax cuts pay for themselves might argue that 2005's stronger revenue growth represents the beginning of a new trend, and that the tax cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term. Neither the historical record nor current revenue projections support this argument." - Source

Each year's deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending, it's called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt. We haven't had a surplus since Bush became president. In short, the policies of this administration are digging a hole so deep we may never see daylight again.

Hey, wasn't it Bush who said A president should have an exit strategy?

@Aine

Well, you finally got it down correctly.

It was incorrect in your original comment. That was my comment. I did not offer opinion on whether a "deficit" is good or bad.

Still, it may be helpful to ask what $400 billion deficit really means. I can take on a $20,000 loan without too much pain if I make $2 million, but it is a bit of a stretch if I only make $15,000 annually. Similarly, the most relevant figure is based on the deficit proportional to the size of the economy.

Let's look at it from an international perspective. How did the sophisticated nations of Continental European do in this respect in 2005?

The deficits as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) were: France 3.2, Germany 3.9, Italy 4.3, and the U.S. at 3.7.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, France and Germany are not fighting with us in the Global War on Terror.