I've Heard of Lame Ducks, But This Is Ridiculous

El Presidente's approval ratings have dropped to 26%, according to Newsweek's latest poll. Pollster.com has his approval at 29%. We're below Carter territory, verging into Nixon pre-resignation. Unbelievable. Graphic:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...70619large.png

A couple of questions:

(1) What, in your opinion, is causing the Republican base to desert him? Is it really just immigration, or cumulative mismanagement, or something else?

(2) What consequences do we face from having a president for one and a half years who is not only reviled all over the world, but wildly unpopular at home?

I think people everywhere, regardless of politics, are frustrated with the unabashed hubris and outright dishonesty of his administration by now. The mismanagement of Iraq, diplomacy, American standing abroad, not to mention immigration and his horrible education policy.. its almost like Bush just cant do anything right. People had high hopes for him, heck, I voted for him twice. but now his 'true colors' show, I suppose.

Not only Nixon, but he's still got Truman to beat too. Right now, he's still hovering around the Carter/Bush Sr. range.

Originally Posted by :
(1) What, in your opinion, is causing the Republican base to desert him? Is it really just immigration, or cumulative mismanagement, or something else?

Yes. :wink:

Originally Posted by :
(2) What consequences do we face from having a president for one and a half years who is not only reviled all over the world, but wildly unpopular at home?

I don't think we'll notice the difference. They were too feckless to accomplish any meaningful reforms even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Now that they don't and Bush is wildly unpopular, I expect this long established tradition to continue.

What's even more precious is when he and his administration dismiss these polls and claim they are still doing what is right, best, and what the people want. That, and I seriously doubt he gives a crap anymore. The dems have all but proven to be toothless cowards so there's no real chance of him getting impeached at all.

Os there a point where if he drops below say 20% we can exile him?

Maybe because the media is to afraid to say anything positive?

Originally Posted by Lemur:
A couple of questions:

(1) What, in your opinion, is causing the Republican base to desert him? Is it really just immigration, or cumulative mismanagement, or something else?

he is pushing a immigration bill his base dosent want thats had to have shaved at least 2-5% off his poll numbers.

Originally Posted by :
What consequences do we face from having a president for one and a half years who is not only reviled all over the world, but wildly unpopular at home?

it can go either way really, he does nothing, or he continues to find a way to ensure legacy. The later could be a problem.

I can only speak for my own dissatisfaction. The president has a proven track record of attempting to be a centrist, (laugh if you wish) with a very aggressive foreign policy. He is also the strongest advocate of corporate welfare this nation has ever seen. Say what you want about Clinton, in many ways he walked his walk of reducing agricultural and industrial subsidies.

When you couple this with rampant arrogance, you just have a formula for disaster. Forget about the public at large or the party faithful, the president appears to have no sense of responsibility to his own party leadership. He's been shafting the Republicans in the House for 7 years now. The Senate has been like a billionaires club, naturally they've been more in line with the White House agenda. But even with them, the president doesn't bother to make any explanations or defenses of his policy.

And frankly, the whole Alberto Gonzalez saga has become an albatross around W's neck. It really paints him in a bad light. Regardless of whether the Attorney General did anything illegal, he did much that has been patently stupid and grossly incompetent. The president has decided to play it safe and not risk another AG confirmation hearing with the Democrats in charge. But since he has this bad habit of not bothering to explain himself, just ruling by fiat, he has allowed the Democrats to paint this a sense of misguided loyalty and some questionable judgement on the part of the president himself. In truth, I get the impression that Gonzalez is persona non grata in the White House these days, but given the humiliation and spectacle another AG confirmation hearing would mean, Bush has decided to see this one through. I predict in 6 months, when the Dems are tired of playing the bash Berto in the media game, will start some process to actually force Gonzalez to resign. If that's not humiliating enough, I stronly suspect that if Bush or Cheney say one word to defend him, they'll start impeachment proceedings as well.

Frankly, the part that I find surprising is that 25% of the country still thinks he's doing an acceptable job. Don't they have television in Alabama?

the thing that really upset me was the other day when King George said something along the lines of "They [the senate] can have their no confience votes if they want.-- (and here is me summarizing), but I will still do whatever I want."

Doesnt he know how our system works? The man is either insane or thinks he's some sort of god-king.

Uhm, Zak, I think you're the one who doesn't know how the system works. No president has ever asked the Senate permission to conduct their daily affairs. Nor have they adopted policy on the sole basis that the Senate (or the House for that matter) told them to. The executive branch is its own branch and is supposed to operate independently.

The reason why I think Gonzalez is a moron and should be fired for incompetence is because he started bending over for the Senate in the first place. The whole thing stems from the dismissal of US Attorneys. All the Attorney General had to say was "they serve at the whim of the president" and that was the end of the story. If Bush wakes up and decides any US attorney with a "T", a "P" or an "R" in their name should be replaced, he is entirely within his rights. The Senate's role of advise and consent begins and ends at confirmation. Gonzalez screwed the pooch when he came up with this cockamamie 'they were incompetent' story (they weren't, but that was irrelevant) and then tried (unsuccessfully) to coeerce all his underlings to back his lame story.

Frankly, I was no big fan of hers, but on this particular issue, Janet Reno handled it exactly right. She kept sitting down in front of the Senate panel each and every time they summoned her, and said, in much more polite and legalistic terms "None of your business" to all of their inquires. She was right to say that to Orrin Hatch back then, and Gonzalez should have said it to Patrick Leahy now.

There is no oversight power of the Presidency by Congress, at least not on day to day business. It's bad enough we invented this role for Scotus. We don't need to invent it for Congress too.

Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
the thing that really upset me was the other day when King George said something along the lines of "They [the senate] can have their no confience votes if they want.-- (and here is me summarizing), but I will still do whatever I want."

Doesnt he know how our system works? The man is either insane or thinks he's some sort of god-king.

That is how the system works though. No-confidence votes are nothing more than meaningless political theater. It was just Democrats pandering to their base. Had they actually been serious about it, they could have moved to impeach Gonzales- but they weren't and they didn't.

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
That is how the system works though. No-confidence votes are nothing more than meaningless political theater. It was just Democrats pandering to their base. Had they actually been serious about it, they could have moved to impeach Gonzales- but they weren't and they didn't.

Too far out from the election, check back in February.

This is nothing , the good old Democratic congress has hit the lowest approval rating in history at 14% :laugh4: :help:

Can single digits be next?

The congress does have oversight over the President. It's called 'checks and balances'.

The AG is criminal in his actions, the sheer arrogance of the shrub administration thinking they can get away with this kind of behavior is impeachable alone. (Too bad they are getting away with it).

Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
the thing that really upset me was the other day when King George said something along the lines of "They [the senate] can have their no confience votes if they want.-- (and here is me summarizing), but I will still do whatever I want."

Doesnt he know how our system works? The man is either insane or thinks he's some sort of god-king.

Er, Zak when you voted for him twice did you realize he was getting messages from god? Bush, believes he is doing god's work - god being a billionaire in Texas. ;} Not picking on y'all btw - but, fool me once shame on him ....

It was fear that got him elected the second time (he wasn't elected the first time, the Supreme Court gave it to him) - do we all remember the red alerts every other week? Without any real causes being given for them - then after the election, they stopped. He got the soccer Moms to vote for him by instilling the fear the Kerry couldn't do a better job protecting them from those islamic-fascists (say what?).

And, no he doesnot know how the system works, nor do his advisors. The Bushys believe they are above the Constitution, above the Law of the land, and are shielded from any form of prosecution by "Executive Privilege" (just as Nixon did). It isn't arrogance so much as ignorance (of the system - guess things work differently in Texas), and the belief in that the privileges he was raised under raise him above the laws that govern the common man. It's alot like Paris Hilton thinking she was too.

Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
The congress does have oversight over the President. It's called 'checks and balances'.

The AG is criminal in his actions, the sheer arrogance of the shrub administration thinking they can get away with this kind of behavior is impeachable alone. (Too bad they are getting away with it).

And the checks and balances that are relevant, in this particular case, was confirmation hearings. They don't have any say over who the president chooses to fire or replace. As soon as Bush or Gonzalez decide they want somebody gone, they can can them, no reason given. Congress has nothing to say about it.

Read up on those 'checks and balances'. It doesn't mean "The president must do whatever the Congress says".

Originally Posted by KafirChobee:
It was fear that got him elected the second time (he wasn't elected the first time, the Supreme Court gave it to him) - do we all remember the red alerts every other week? Without any real causes being given for them - then after the election, they stopped. He got the soccer Moms to vote for him by instilling the fear the Kerry couldn't do a better job protecting them from those islamic-fascists (say what?)..

If the Democrats had put forward a halfway believable candidate I would have jumped ship. I would have taken Lieberman or Wesley Clark over Bush. I would have seriously considered Gephardt or Bob Graham, men who know how to take action when they eventually have to.

But I knew fairly early on the Democrats had laid a turd in the way of offering choices. They asked John Kerry what he would have done differently on 9/11. He said "I would have called our allies. I would have built a coalition. I would have gotten assurances it was okay to proceed...."

In other words, he would have asked permission. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry, I could have forgiven a lot from Kerry, in terms of spending and liberal social policies (wouldn't have liked it, but I would have tolerated it). But no, asking for permission to defend ourselves after 9/11? What was he thinking?

You're right, it was fear. Fear that John Kerry would refuse to act, because he's more concerned with what his buddies in the UN think of him then with the lives of American citizens.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
In other words, he would have asked permission. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry, I could have forgiven a lot from Kerry, in terms of spending and liberal social policies (wouldn't have liked it, but I would have tolerated it). But no, asking for permission to defend ourselves after 9/11? What was he thinking?

This is a completely fair point. The question I would ask you (no we probably shouldn't get into this, just for consideration) is at what point does it stop being self defense and more about pushing our agenda in places we don't belong?

Originally Posted by :
You're right, it was fear. Fear that John Kerry would refuse to act, because he's more concerned with what his buddies in the UN think of him then with the lives of American citizens.

Personally, given Bush's first term, I would much rather have had some guy who's rather indecisive and not inclined to get us neck-deep in it halfway around the world than someone who cheerfully ordered such actions. I realize I'm focusing heavily on one or two particular issues and simplifying some things, but I think my point is there. This is exactly why I didn't vote for him the first time or the second.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I would have taken Lieberman or Wesley Clark over Bush.

I was really interested in Clark at the time. If you haven't noticed, I have a long history of picking losers.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Os there a point where if he drops below say 20% we can exile him?

The tribe has spoken ...

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
This is nothing , the good old Democratic congress has hit the lowest approval rating in history at 14%

Thank you for channeling the spirit of Matt Drudge for today ...

@Lemur
Does your:
Wife, Dog, Girlfriend, Significant other, know you said that?

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat:
@Lemur
Does your:
Wife, Dog, Girlfriend, Significant other, know you said that?

Good point, that could be read very much the wrong way. To clarify: I have a long history of supporting politicians who do not win.

Originally Posted by Lemur:
Thank you for channeling the spirit of Matt Drudge for today ...

Here's more for you:
https://img523.imageshack.us/img523/...070621ipj3.gif

From the story: American's Confidence in Congress at All-Time Low

Originally Posted by :
The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.

Continue to dismiss it though. :bow:

Wow and i dont even read Drudge. I heard that on the news a few days ago.

Is it relevant that congress has a lower confidence rating than Bush43 (or the same as Chenney)? Americans want instant gratification, and the Dems haven't been able to satisfy that. They expected a Democratic Congress to end the war in Iraq immediately, not realizing there is a process they must comply to. They expected the Dems to demonstrate more integrity than the GOPists, thinking somehow one group of politicians differ from another in more than rhetorical response to a question. Americans are increadibly naive when it comes to the political process of their nation.

What Americans do grasp, is their desire for instant gratification. End the war in Iraq is favored by 70% of them, and regardless of the "Surge" they want the killing of our troops to end NOW.

Originally Posted by :
ey expected a Democratic Congress to end the war in Iraq immediately, not realizing there is a process they must comply to. They expected the Dems to demonstrate more integrity than the GOPists, thinking somehow one group of politicians differ from another in more than rhetorical response to a question. Americans are increadibly naive when it comes to the political process of their nation.

It couldnt be that the dems made promises they knew they could never keep could it?

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Here's more for you:
https://img523.imageshack.us/img523/...070621ipj3.gif

This country is more cynical than I thought. There is hope after all! :2thumbsup:

HMOs at 15% :laugh4: I'm surprised the police are so high though.

Hmmm.

Military = high marks
SCOTUS = medium marks
POTUS = low marks
Congress = lowest marks

So the folks 'we the people' picked/elected for the job aren't liked, but the guys they picked/appointed/approved of are liked.

Since we're speculating:

Who could parlay such a situation into a power grab? The military guy who solves Iraq*, retires, and runs as independent.

President Petraeus, and VP Bloomberg, anyone?

The odds look long right now, but we have a long way to go 'til Nov 08.

* he doesn't have to win - just not lose Iraq, and be able to pin the blame for failing to win on Dubya, Dick & congress.

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
From the story: American's Confidence in Congress at All-Time Low
Continue to dismiss it though. :bow:

Fascinating article! Thanks, Xiahou. It does confirm what I've been saying in other threads, though, that confidence in/approval of Congress is always lower than the President. From the same piece:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...pr070621ii.gif

So we're talking about an institution that peaked at 30% approval in the last seven years. Those sorts of numbers would be instagib for any individual politician.

American's don't much like Congress as a whole, but 51% or so like their own Congressman. Or have been successfully convinced that the other guy is the devil.

I do think that Congress's low approval is a story, but one that requires some tiny amount of context, and one that does not reflect meaningfully on el Presidente's current situation. So pardon me if I see bringing it up every time Bush's low numbers are discussed as a bit of a smokescreen.

Its all about Washingtons disconnect from the people. The immigration bill is a good example. They simply dont listen to us. Neither side delivered to its constituants. Their all too damn busy playing politics.