Bush's Approval Rating-"~Still Slip Siding Away~"

http://www.expediterworld.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/normal_schiavo-prayer.jpg

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point
By E&P Staff
Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM
NEW YORK It's not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a "popular" leader or even a "very popular" one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.

President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.

Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.

Bush's current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.

More bad signs for the president: Gallup's survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the "state of the country" while 59% are "dissatisfied." One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it "only fair" or poor.

Gallup noted that more challenges lie ahead for Bush, including public doubts about his Social Security plan and Iraq policies.

Here are the approval ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup (all for March):

Truman, 1949: 57%.

Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.

Johnson, 1965: 69%.

Nixon, 1973: 57%.

Reagan, 1985: 56%.

Clinton, 1997: 59% .

Bush, 2005: 45% .



-------------------------------------

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232

-------------------------------------------

[Gary]

Big deal, he's running the country. Not for re-election

[Jimbo]

I got one thing to say about your post Gary.....


BINGO!!!

[Hillbilly]

If you make the kinds of hard decisions in your family, that he HAS to make for this country, see if the kids don't get pissed. The ADULTS will understand the necessity.

[Gary]

Unfortunatley for your party, people of this country are starting to wake up and see the the demoncrats for who they really are.
Using activist judges to legislate from the bench to get what they can't get through the ballot box. Accuse everyone else of the wrong doings that they themselves are really doing. Trying to use the constitution as a living document to get their power back. I could go on and on.....

Your party is quickly becoming obsolete since, the public is finally getting BOTH sides of the story, thanks to the new media.


BTW, how's that misunderestimating President Bush thing going for ya? :rofl: Keep it up, that's what we like :cheers:

[Gary]

If you make the kinds of hard decisions in your family, that he HAS to make for this country, see if the kids don't get pissed. The ADULTS will understand the necessity.


Quoting a wise man;

BINGO!!! :) :)

seems like nobody remembers the feascal clinton put this country threw as to president bush he did back down after 9/11/01 like his predisor did a few years before as a driver i seem to speak my mind every ware i am some things i disagree with bush on and some i do like getting suddam out of power why it didn't happen sooner beats the hell out of me on that point bush finished the war that was started when his father was in office because all they had was a seac fire agreement and suddam didn't honor his end of

[Hillbilly]

The biggest problem the 1st time in Iraq, wasn't that Bush 1 didn't want to finish the job, it was that the UN sanction did not allow for it. He tried to get the UN to ammend it for that purpose, but they would not allow it. So, in order to maintain the credibility of the US in the coalition, he had to stop. Then we had the fiasco of Clinton, which sidetracked the attention of the country, from what was important, to what was the latest scandal in the White House. Not to mention the fact that Clinton didn't have the cahonies to do anything that REALLY had any real effect on the Middle East. Once he was in office, no one with any real sense(political), actually expected anything substancial to happen til he was gone, and that is exactly what it took!

i think if hillary get in the white house this country will go to hell in a hand bag. as with Jimbo and the others i support the troops and well bush did what he said he would do and stuck to his guns. back the first day of the war in iraqu round two portesters was hanging the flag that i hold dear and true over the railing of an over pass well let be known that i was ticked off gave them sobs a peice of my mind. they said truckers were supporting them i tome the leader that sence 9/11/01 every time a trucker sees the flag they'll giye a blast of the airhorns in rememberance of the lives lost in the twin towers

[dockbumper]

WE WON!!!!! :harhar:

[merkurfan]

Why wait till 08? Defeat Hillary in 06!

Bush is doing what he thinks he has to do. And I think come 08 the republicans will be able to run and win on what Bush has done.

[Uncle Fester]

I find it ironic that he didn't include the approval ratings for Jimmy Carter, which were ALWAYS pretty low.
Funny thing about Carter, when he gave his speach about what a strong President is and should be, I almost drove off the road laughing because the only things Carter knows about a strong president is, he was succeeded by one-REGAN!

You know McBride, many times doing the right thing isn't always the popular thing and there's one thing that your party just doesn't offer-SOLUTIONS.
Take Social Security for example, the dems are SO OPPOSED to privatizing any part of it simply because the private accounts would allow for people to actually OWN part of the money that was taken from them in Social Security taxes but the government couldn't have.
Sure, the dems cry about the market dropping before they retire, but I'd sooner take my chances with the market, which has a proven history of increases as opposed to letting politicans decide what I can and cannot have when it comes time for me to retire.
Have the dems offered one solution for the Social Security mess?
No, they haven't but they are hell bent on scaring the bejesus out of and LYING to senior citizens about the proposal and the sad part is, the changes that Bush is proposing won't even effect those receving or those will be receicvng benifits of any kind for at least another 15 years.

BTW McBride, you can worship at the alter of opinion polls all you want, but as someone who use to do polling for a living, you can make polls dance to any tune you care to play and here's how:

*Item: These polls are usually a sample of anywhere from 100 to 2000 people, hardly representative of a majority of the over 260 MILLION Americans.
*Item: Depending upon the "qualifier" questions, you can eliminate people whose opinion you don't want and seek only the opinions of the people you DO want.
*Item: With the proper phrasing of questions, you can almost pre-determine the answers that the group of people you select will give.
*Item: It doesn't say, or was it conviently left out that where you conduct the poll, geographic areas have a lot to do with the kinds of answers you will get.
*Item: Despite the fact that you gleefully rejoice over what you percieve to be bad news for President Bush, it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are taking a beating in election after election and President Bush rceived a higher percentage of the black vote than has any other Republican before him.
How do you explain the fact that one of the Democrats most loyal voting blocks is increasingly turning to the Republican party?
Put it another way, why are more blacks turning away from the democrats?
Could it be your unwaivering support of gay marriage?
Could it be your support for abortion?
Could it be your lack of viable alternatives to the problems people face?
Could it be your lack of compromise?
Could it be your lack of ability to create opportunities, insisting that it's someone eles's fault?

The last time that the Democrats had control of all three branches of government was in the two years after Clinton was elected. Americans received the largest tax increase in history and the market was less than inspired.
During the next mid-term election, the house was handed over to the Republicans, you have since lost the senate and the White House and you've been whining ever since.
What is worse, now you've got a certified wacko running the DNC in the person of one Howard Dean!
Get use to losing elections, McFly, I mean, McBride.

The time before that was during the Carter administration, unemployment was at 17%, interest rates were about 21%, there were lines for blocks waiting for gas stations, the Russians were in Afghanastan, the Iranians overran our embassy in Tehran and the amount of government beaurocy<sp> increased about a million percent.

And you dems wonder why you keep getting your butts kicked at the voting booth?
Look, if you dems keep shooting yourselves in the foot, you'll keep losing elections.

that your party

I don't remember even indicating what party I was a member of..in fact, I don't recall ever indicating I was registered under any party at all.

The fact that I don't like George Bush's policies has nothing to do with any political parties. FYI, I don't vote party lines. Being a more open minded person and more tolerant of others views allows me to see and appreciate several differing opinions.

For you to automatically assume you KNOW my political views and/or opinions is purely up to you...however, don't post and then claim your posts content to be an accurate assessment of my view and/or opinions.

[dockbumper]

He is still your President! :harhar: