August 27, 2005

Poll show public's disapproval of Bush at historic high

A recent Gallup poll revealed that the American public is finally cutting through the lies and propaganda and seeing the failure of the Bush administration across the board.

Bush's approval rating is the absolutel lowest of any president at this point in their second term.

Historical Comparisons

There have been seven U.S. presidents re-elected to a second term since World War II (although two of them -- Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson -- had initially ascended to the presidency without being elected). Here's where they stood in August of the year after their re-election (or, in the case of Truman, in June):

President, timeframe, approval rating.

Harry Truman
June 1949 (No July or
August 1949 measure)
58%

Dwight Eisenhower
August 1957
63

Lyndon B. Johnson
August 1965
65

Richard Nixon
August 1973
34

Ronald Reagan
August 1985
61

Bill Clinton
August 1997
61

George W. Bush
August 2005
43


Bush's current 43% job approval rating is the lowest of all of these presidents with the exception of Richard Nixon, who was beset by the woes of Watergate by the summer of 1973. (Of course, Bush's most recent 40% is lower still by comparison.)

7 Comments:

At 8/27/2005 9:46 AM, Blogger Karl Rove said...

As the recently revealed power behind this blog, I was very pleased to see one of your prominent state elected officials representing your area holding a big ticket fund-raiser at The Blue Ribbon restaurant. Reports tell me that it was almost exclusively attended by Republican business figures who showed this politician their affection by opening their checkbooks and making a downpayment on his positions in the future.

Were there any Democrats in attendance? If so, could you provide us some info on how successful this effort was? I'm always happy to see a Democrat politician who's more than willing to take our money and see things our way. After all, a large majority of voters don't agree with our positions, but as long as we can buy votes and positions from politicians who don't care about party or the "little people", but only if our money's green, we'll continue to dominate the government, and the people, and continue to stack things in our favor.

Some Democrat politicians use you to get out the vote, but after they're in, forget it. Money talks, and you peons walk. I'm just glad this politician sees things that way.

It almost makes me wonder why I bothered setting up this blog to work against this politician, since they're already in our pocket. How sweet is it when even Democrats are our willing accomplices? Life is good.

 
At 8/27/2005 7:20 PM, Blogger shamalamadingdong21 said...

Karl,
Have you always been this quick? We got some Republicans around here that believe in good government of the people, by the people and for the people in the tradition of a REAL Republican, Abraham Lincoln, who would be ashamed to be called a Republican if he were alive today.

The Democratic party believes in a big tent open to all people, even some disaffected Republicans who have seen the light. Our fine young Senator believes in working with all of his constituents. How many Democrats do you see attending George Bush rallies in Davenport. Oh, that's right ZERO, because you wouldn't let people through the gate to see their President without being prescreened. Now I can understand if you blocked them from seeing your stars like Alan Keyes or Pat Robertson, but not the President.

No matter what party you are elected from, or even appointed from, once you are in office you represent all of the people, even Republicans. You will find out that we actually agree on more of the same goals than we disagree on, its just the means that are different.

Republicans believe in big government spending if it benefits themselves and deficits to pay for it because the tax burden in this country is on the poor and middle class, so why would they care and then more tax breaks for the themselves, while Democrats believe in fairness, justice, freedom, education and opportunity. We are a party of ideas and they are a party of self-serving hypocrisy. But that doesn't mean that we can't find a few young Quad Citians who were born into the Republican party who actually have found a soul and want to be a part of the solution. Why is it OK for children of Democrats to grow up and be Republicans, but a mortal sin when the opposite happens?

It's OK to be a Democrat. I am proud to be a Democrat. I am proud to know people who have grown up under the mind controlling, hypnosis of the republican ideology who have broken free from their enslavement.

By the way, There is ONE ruling party in this country and it has two wings, Republican and Democrat, these two wings set the agenda and the wing that is in power controls the priorities and the methods. Forget about liberal and conservative labels, because they don't fit the reality. George W. Bush is a radical, divider, who lacks the compassion for the mothers of the soldiers he sent to their deaths for a lie in Iraq. Yes, we do have a serious problem in dealing with the hatred and envy of America in this world that has led to random acts of violence against civilians. But the solution isn't to kill al of the people who hate us, because for every 1 we kill, we create 10 more that hate us.

Wars on ideas don't work. War on Poverty, War on Drugs, get the picture. You have to treat the problems not the symptoms.

If you work for Justice, you will achieve Peace.

 
At 8/28/2005 12:10 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Shama, great to see you again, and as always, thanks for the excellent comments.

You really ought to consider submitting a guest post on anything that grabs your interest.

Get in touch if there's something you'd like to write on.

 
At 8/28/2005 3:55 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Shama - that "two wings" idea is not working for me. Sorry. But I feel that the way the US Supreme Court is soon to be crafted it will likely be the ONE party - the Right Wing Party whatever group that ends up to be soon making the laws of the land.

And hate to burst your bubble - but you don't really sound much like a Democrat to me.

Oh and Dope, in case you forgot, Bush does actually share with Truman and Johnson the distinction of not being elected the first time in 2000. Remember he was appointed just like the young senator mentioned by Karl Rove above.

Do you sense a theme here??

 
At 8/28/2005 5:23 PM, Blogger shamalamadingdong21 said...

Maybesomeday,

I am disappointed in your lack of knowledge of history. Harry S. Truman, who authorized the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan, after warning the government to surrender, was elected Vice President of the United States and took office upon the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Truman was then elected to the Presidency by a slim margin in 1948.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, was elected Vice President in 1964 and became President upon the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Johnson chose to not seek election to the office in 1968. Some of the conspiracy theorists claim Johnson was behind the assasination in order to grab power, but he certainly was not appointed.

Now Gerald R. Ford was appointed Vice-President to replace Spiro T. Agnew, who resigned and became President in 1974 upon Nixon's resignation.

Maybesomeday you will study the history of politics of this country and learn that Democrats have many diverse ideas and opinions and we join together in a coalition of the majority, while the self identified Republicans are more homogenous in their ideas and purpose and have been succesful in organizing their minority into more votes on election day.

You seem to be attacking Democrats, not on ideas, but on personality, not on substance but on anything and without a basis in fact. But you don't "sound" like you are a Republican either. This attitude and lack of tolerance is part of the problem the Democrats need to overcome to get more voters to the polls and more votes counted on election day.

If you take a survey and just put forward Democratic ideals vs Republican Ideals, Democratic Sponsored programs v Republican Programs and do not identify the party associated with each position, time after time people are more likely to identify themselves with the democratic position. We need to do a better job of communicating and be proud that we are members of the party that has achieved so many great things for this country.

I appreciate your comments because it helps me understand the source of the disconnect between reality and the perception that even professed Democrats have about their own party. If you don't understand how can you be the messenger and help our party grow and bring more voters to the polls on election day, then we need to talk. That is the job of every Democrat, to talk to our friends and relatives about the future of this country, we can't remain quiet anymore, Rise up and Take back our country. I am no Howard Dean fan but he did alot of things right and we can learn from his successes and his mistakes.

Bring it on!!

 
At 8/29/2005 6:47 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Shama - you sill miss the point.

Being elected Vice-Pres is not the same as being elected President.

And I am a Howard Dean fan and was during the primary when the press did the hatchet job on him.

Guess that explains why you and I am not going to agree on everything.

You don't have solid wisdom on history. No one does. But I sill think my points stand on elections and history.

Bush was never elected Pres in 2000 and barely made it in 2004 after his annointing by the Supreme Ct. We could argue for hours about the problems with the 2004 voting system. It's broke and needs fixing.

If you want to give accolades to a guy who has not yet earned them that's your right. But Mike Jacobs has not yet been elected Senator let alone dog catcher. He will probably get his wish next fall. Will he be a great legislator or a visionary? Likely not. Will he be a dissapointment to me? Hope he surprises me but I am not holding my breath. From what I have seen thus far not likely.

 
At 8/30/2005 11:40 AM, Blogger diehard said...

I have more respect for Nixon. At least he worked for what he got in life.
He didn't get us into war for his own political benefit.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home