STORM2K

I heard this over the weekend and it made me sick!

According to recent polls, Bush's approval rating is down to I think 52%. He is dropping at a rate of about 2 % points a week! This is unbelievable!

Do you realize that Clinton's approval rating never droppped below 62%, and THAT was in the middle of perjury and Impeachment, cigars, Whitewater....!!!!

What is wrong with people?

It's unbelievable...Bush is doing an unbelievable job IMO...first getting us through the 9/11 stuff and then the war...he is doing GREAT.

I don't think you REALLY want me to answer that question j!

Bush is doing a terrific job and I am very proud of him.

Yes I do Southerngale......please please !!!

That is shocking news to me. I think Bush is doing a great job leading our country. Perhaps it's the state of our economy that has his approval rate declining. Not that I think it's his fault, but you know how liberals tend to think. LOL

It dropped because of the recent nitpicking of his State of the Union address. And the continued media play about soldiers being killed in Iraq. He has said all along that this was not going to be an easy task. We have won the battle but are far from winning the war.

I think its the state of the economy and also - Bush has done a great job on the IRAQ war and 9/11 events - but the economy and unemployment are not in the best conditions right now - and face it people - when you don't have a job and can't find one - moral hits bottom. This is my opinion - as Americans - we have to have money to survive and live and when you don't have a job and interest rates aren't paying anything on investments - its gonna have a domino affect and one of it is his rating. If and when the economy picks up - maybe his rating will too.

This is just my two cents.

Patricia

I believe you may be right with your two cents ticka. That was certainly why Bush Sr. lost his re-election.

If the media had jumped on Clinton with how he was handling things overseas at the time, we would have definitely seen a decrease in approval. But now with Fox News it is not so one-sided anymore.

some analysts say the "recession" has been over for well over a year now. THe GNP is on the rise, Mutual funds have turned the corner and are making money again.

Lets just cut to the chase..like my tag team partner Lindaloo said..its the body bags and the Media right on top of things. When is the last report you've seen about the positive side of what is happening in Iraq?? Bet you can't remember the last one.

The death toll stands at 150 something I believe. That many soldiers were being killed at a time in the jungles of Vietman. I think people forget that this is War, and what is going on now can't be avoided anymore than the sniper that was picking off people around DC.

It wouldn't matter if we had a million troops in there...we would still be subject to sniper attack. President Bush never promised a quick end to this, and those same people who were with him then, must have completely forgotten what he told us up front!

Well all I can say is it comes with the territory. Media only shows what the public wants to see - as in ratings and commerical revenue. If you had a chance - what would you show as a positive light in Iraq war instead of the killings?

I don't know about the recession and mutal funds being on the rebound. What I hear and see is more of my friends and family getting laid off and my parents investments (being) retired aren't making anything - but lucky they are from the depression era and know how to be frugal.

I don't think its one thing "J" - your viewpoint on the negative media is indeed a part of the lower rating for President Bush.

I've just recently become a little more focused on where my money is being invested and there are a number funds that over the past few months are showing double digit returns. But granted, the recovery is a slow one. Ive re-finaced my home, as have just about everybody I work with. If your with a company that hasn't had to lay off workers, its not by sheer luck. It is because they have taken the steps necessary to position themselves during a weak economy.

I'm not trying to sound cold here. but you can't always blame the economy for people not being able to find a job. I for one, have taken every single oppurtunity that my company has afforded me to advance myself. If I ask to take a course, they will always say yes. I take some personal time to go to demonstrations or seminars so I can be in a better position should that day come where I am shown the door.

I feel for people who are out of work...I've been there myself, but I also realized that I might not have been the one to go, had I been a little better than the next guy!

ticka1 wrote:Well all I can say is it comes with the territory. Media only shows what the public wants to see - as in ratings and commerical revenue. If you had a chance - what would you show as a positive light in Iraq war instead of the killings?

I don't know about the recession and mutal funds being on the rebound. What I hear and see is more of my friends and family getting laid off and my parents investments (being) retired aren't making anything - but lucky they are from the depression era and know how to be frugal.

I don't think its one thing "J" - your viewpoint on the negative media is indeed a part of the lower rating for President Bush.

You guys don't think the public has a right to know their troops are dying???? I guess now that they didn't find any weapons..it's embarassing to show us troops dying..maybe thats it All I know is something doesn't add up..I am starting see why I hate politics..As I said they are ALL liars and if we knew the truth .............. This is my last post about politics!!!!

j wrote:Yes I do Southerngale......please please !!!

Sorry j...I really don't want to get into that. As for the economy, you can't blame Bush for it. See my post in the "Is a Bush/B.Clinton combo possible?" for a fairly brief explanation.

ticka...my parents have actually lost a lot in their investments but they don't blame Bush for that. If you have to place blame, they blame their stock broker who really did them wrong. They don't blame Bush and even though Clinton never did anything to stop this train wreck waiting to happen, they don't even blame him. My parents particular brokerage has been hit with millions of dollars in fines and penalties by the Bush Administration's SEC for misleading their investors.

The media, and by extension the public, are not taking into account what damage was done to our economy on 9-11-01...remember? One large, well-known brokerage lost its entire employee staff, save for one manager and a secretary; others fared almost as badly.

Then. there's war itself; always a costly enterprise, and no one has stepped up and said that this would be easy, cost-effective or quick (best estimate from the "military specialists" on the various news stations? 20-25 years). The question I still have...and I raised this just after the WTC/Pentagon attacks...does the U.S., as a country, have the stomach to prosecute this to its only rational conclusion, i.e. victory?

The "media" doesn't want us to think so....the Dems skip the question entirely (as well they should; not a "war President" in the lot of the nine "wannabes") and harp on only those sacred cows that get them elected (welfare, entitlements, micro-managed economy, etc.), and the American public is all the less informed...and this is hoped will win the Dems that White House and control of the House and Senate, if we aren't careful.

And that would never do.

streetsoldier wrote:The media, and by extension the public, are not taking into account what damage was done to our economy on 9-11-01...remember? One large, well-known brokerage lost its entire employee staff, save for one manager and a secretary; others fared almost as badly.

Then. there's war itself; always a costly enterprise, and no one has stepped up and said that this would be easy, cost-effective or quick (best estimate from the "military specialists" on the various news stations? 20-25 years). The question I still have...and I raised this just after the WTC/Pentagon attacks...does the U.S., as a country, have the stomach to prosecute this to its only rational conclusion, i.e. victory?

The "media" doesn't want us to think so....the Dems skip the question entirely (as well they should; not a "war President" in the lot of the nine "wannabes") and harp on only those sacred cows that get them elected (welfare, entitlements, micro-managed economy, etc.), and the American public is all the less informed...and this is hoped will win the Dems that White House and control of the House and Senate, if we aren't careful.

And that would never do.

My only comment on what I have bolded is that if this is something that helps them get elected, maybe it's because that's what the public does want afterall? Are we now ignoring what the general population needs?

As far as prosecuting the war to it's most rational conclusion is actually, yes, people I think want this war with Iraq to end, they want to see Osama Bin Laden captured/killed, but they also want to see and TO KNOW that there is a solid, workable game plan that will help bring these to a conclusion. Right now all we're seeing are our troops being used as target practice.

Jessica Lynch returning home and reports that Saddam's son were "very likely" killed in a firefight.

Hmmmm...I'm thinking those numbers are going to change again. Approval ratings tend to go up when the country's morale goes up.

GalvestonDuck wrote:Jessica Lynch returning home and reports that Saddam's son were "very likely" killed in a firefight.

Hmmmm...I'm thinking those numbers are going to change again. Approval ratings tend to go up when the country's morale goes up.

It'll help. If his sons were captured, at least it'll make people feel that we're heading in the right direction.

Well he's gotta be doing smthg wrong for it to be dropping like it is.

JQ Public wrote:Well he's gotta be doing smthg wrong for it to be dropping like it is.

Not necessarily! Some people tend to blame the president for things that can't possibly be his fault.

Also read the thread "Is a Bush/B.Clinton combo possible?"

I agree. The President in office can easily be blamed for something he had no control over. Also, there is lag time involved in the federal economy... so the sitting President's approval rating may not have anything to do with the current economy, especially days, week and a number of months after the new President is sworn in.