१९ डिसेंबर, २००५
Bush's approval rating is back up to 47%.
See? He just needs to keep talking to us, answering his critics. Standing by silent, hoping people will notice what you've done, unfortunately, doesn't work.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
Except his critics have been criticizing him for not talking to the American people for over a year now.
So I would say the critics were right.
Wow, a couple more good speeches and the Dems will faint dead away.
So, downtownlad, that means what?
He shouldn't start "talking to the American" people now because he's been criticized for not talking to them?
(I would question, assuming that the "over a year now" refers to not talking as opposed to critics criticizing, the accuracy of the time frame. I mean, he has talked to us, although maybe how and about what some people thinks he should have done.)
I mean, it seems to me that if someone does something you've been wanting them to do, that should be a step forward for you. But apparently not.
By the way, I don't think that Ann's words in this post actually addresses, either way, whether she thinks the critics are right or wrong, on any specific issue or the whole array. She's silent on that point here.
What is it that you're assuming and reading in?
"NOT how," not "how".
I was critical of him for not speaking more in the past. I think he was assuming people would judge him on his acts and look critically at what his opponents said, but that was overestimating us. So, yeah, I'm critical of his overestimating us.
Reader_iam - It means that many of Bush's critics were critics because he has not been levelling with us. Why exactly are we still in Iraq? What is the exit criteria? What does "victory" mean?
He's finally trying to address these issues.
Good.
"He just needs to keep talking to us.."
Oh, please. Nobody watched that speech. And he needs to learn to speak before be needs to keep speaking.
You live in a dream world if you think a 47% approval rating for a President during an actual war is somehow good. It is pathetically low.
Bush implied in his interview with Brit Hume that he was trying to elevate the Iraq war above partisanship, which is why he didn't respond to the baseless attacks from the media and Democrats. That strategy obviously failed as the media did not lift a finger to question lies spewed by democrats.
Democrats will hate bush until they day they die just as Americans went to their graves hating James Madison, Lincoln, and FDR. Wars have a tendency to bring out the worst in people.
Ann: That, I got. I just didn't necessarily take it as your criticizing the critics, in this particular post.
But, as always (words I try to live by): I can be wrong.. And don't I know it! (Along with everyone else in my orbit. So it goes.)
: )
Mark, you think Bush is the "most" everything. Your hatred of him is so obvious in everything that you write, I am surprised your head hasn't blown off. You can't help yourself from hating him. It's hilarious...the emperor would be pleased with you.
And to say Bush is the most partisan? Go read a book on American history and report back.
The democrats are the partisan ones. The Senate and house democrats are the most obstructionist since the civil war. They are the ones filibustering judges and threatening to surrender. Now they are threatening to filibuster a defense bill becuase it includes the ANWR amendment. Even though the ANWR amendment recently passed in the Senate as a stand alone amendment. Now they are filbustering the patriot act, an act that has majorty support in both houses an act that passed with 99 votes only 4 years ago. Can't they accept an election? They hold a press conference every day to explain why they think Bush lied or cheated or defrauded etc...they compare American soliders to Nazi's and Saddam.
Bush is unfortunate that he has to deal with such rabble.
Who are the partisans?
Mark, cite me a specific example where Bush has been partisan solely for political reasons. The examples you give are not good examples.
You talk about the extreme agenda? What about the Bush agenda is extreme? I don't understand this. Is it the war in Iraq where 25 Democratic Senators supported?
Filbustering judges? I don't recall republicans filibustering judges. Yet you imply they did. Remember, Justice Ginsberg, the former head lawyer for the ACLU was allowed a vote in the US Senate and was overwhelmingly supported because she appeared qualified. Would Democrats allow a vote to the chief lawyer for "Focus on the Family" if he or she were nominated? That to me is the conservative alternative to ginsberg.
ANWR in the defense bill? How is that "dirty" when ANWR has been specifically voted on and already passed the Senate just last month (See Senate Roll Call Vote 288) It's in the defense bill because of a compromise between house and senate conferees. At this point both houses have voted in favor of it. How does this matter impune partisanship on Bush?
The Patriot act that was just filibustered was a compromise between the House and Senate Conferees. The Senate Democrats filibustered. Why are they filibustering the bill? They can cite a single instance of abuse they claim to be protecting?
"....If American troops aren't coming home in 6 to 9 months, his approval ratings will be even below they were last month...."
Oh the negativity! The despair! I can't wait to hear the critics... "Bush is only bringing troops home for political reasons..."
Bubble burst a day later:
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 12:56 a.m. EST (05:56 GMT)
CNN -- President Bush's approval ratings do not appear to have changed significantly, despite a number of recent speeches he's given to shore up public support for the war in Iraq and its historic elections on Thursday.
A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll conducted over the weekend found his approval rating stood at 41 percent, while more than half, or 56 percent, disapprove of how the president is handling his job. A majority, or 52 percent, say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, and 61 percent say they disapprove of how he is handling Iraq specifically. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Mark,
From another observer, you do seem a bit over the top. Bush is always the "worst" whatever, and every post strives to prove that what you see is not what you get. Bush's policies resemble more LBJ than Hitler--and I lived through LBJ.
As for slurring the troops, how about Durbin's and Kerry's remarks? People are tired of bilious sound bytes from these guys--what exactly are the policies of the 'loyal' opposition?
"What does "victory" mean?"
duh
"....A majority, or 52 percent, say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, and 61 percent say they disapprove of how he is handling Iraq specifically...."
Funny that in 1952 some 75% of the American public said sending troops to Korea was a mistake. Yet today, 75% said it was worth it.
It's funny how victory changes peoples minds.
Well said Ann. Actually it's good career advice too.
"Standing by silent, hoping people will notice what you've done...?"
Funny, I would have described his strategy as "Making a lot of irrelevant noise to divert attention, hoping people won't notice what you've done."
I'm glad someone (I doubt it was Bush himself) has decided that the strategy needed changing. Muzzle Cheney, start taking unscripted questions at public appearances, and admit there are problems, or at least issues. How hard was that? It's what he should have been doing for the past three years.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा