There's a rather remarkable article on editor and publisher today regarding Bush's low poll numbers and how they're somehow indicative of an impending crisis for the country. I won't reprint the whole thing here, but here's a link if you're interested: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002383107 The author seems to feel that low poll numbers, in and of themselves, mean that Bush has to go, be impeached, forced to resign, etc., and urges his fellow editors to start digging, crusading essentially, for something, anything really, that can be hung around Bush's neck and force him from office before his term ends. Many posters here constantly trumpet Bush's poll numbers as being somehow indicative of a failed presidency. given all the criticism Clinton took for "governing to the polls", I'm astounded by this attitude. Surely the first function of any leader is to lead, polls be damned. and in any case, if the voters are truly unhappy, our system of government provides for an eloquent method for them to express themselves, six months from now, and two years later. Should elected officials be subject to the whims of popular opinion, as reflected by the polls, or should they be allowed to govern as they were lected to do?
Q. How do you know if there is a Brachiosaurus in bed with you? A. By the dinosnores. I would hazard to say low poll numbers are a sign that the electorate isn't happy with the way someone is doing their job. And if they were governing how they were elected to do the numbers wouldn't be so low. Seems pretty obvious to me
The low poll numbers if they indicate a sea change in the midterm elections will be a very bad thing for Bush. If the Republicans loose a house of Congress, I strongly suspect that 6 years of looking the other way will be followed by what can be charitably called an *anal probe*. Bush would then be lucky if he is not simultaneously censured, impeached, and special proscecuted for the duration of his last two years. WRT your question if governing by polls is a good thing, may yes, maybe no. I think the polls do NOT reflect whimsy on part of the voters, else they would be doing something else besides The Nose Dive. The crux of the problem in the polls is Iraq, which is the biggest cluster f*ck since Vietnam. Whatever the plan is in Iraq, the public does not think it is working. They want change. The want a plan that actually works. What Bush is giving us is the same old sh*t on-the-ground plan in Iraq but trying different PR blitzs to convince us otherwise. All the while the public waits for better news out of Iraq.
maybe bush's poll numbers are low b/c he is a crappy president. he shouldnt be impeached b/c of his low poll numbers. he should be impeached b/c of all the horrible, illegal, unchristian and immoral things he does that lead to his low poll numbers.
I don't agree with the argument that low poll numbers are a crisis; I think the reasons for the low poll numbers are a crisis. But the argument the writer cites is of Bush's making and of his supporters' making. The idea behind it is that it is bad for the country, particularly at a time like this when so many in the world would like nothing better than to destroy us, to be led by such an unpopular, weakened leader. When Bush's numbers were higher you yourself (basso) and others like you on this board and away from it made the argument that criticism of Bush equaled criticism of America which equaled a weakened America which equaled a crisis for us at a time we could not afford one. Now that Bush's approval is at 33% by Fox's own accounting, criticism of Bush is supposed to be meaningless. You can't have it both ways. Of course, back then I said I didn't believe you even believed in that argument yourself, no matter how fervently you made it. You proved here, again, that I was right about that, that you didn't mean it and that you'll say whatever is necessary to defend him. I would say it was incredible that when your own arguments turn against you you co-opt the exact ones we've made against you and Bush for years, but nothing is incredible when it comes to ones such as you. You prove that again and again.
Honestly, BJ, you and your cohorts were defending Clinton when your alta-ego cohorts were doing same... Quit thinking Bush is "Destroying" the Country.. It makes you look stupid and derides any arguments you have had so far. Listen.... Any time... anyone... is... in office... they are handicapped by the House and Senate. Do you truly feel this administration has "Gestapo" law? Quit with your nonsense rhetoric on this board. Your intelligence (and I mean that seriously) is needed elsewhere. As George Washington stated "A two party system cannot exist." Get your head out of your butt.
LOL, yeah Bush and congress are always at loggerheads. Just look at all those vetos he's used in 5 years (listed below).
IMO, he should not be impeached because he is unchristian. He should be derided and despised for it given the number of times he has made statements like the one where he claimed to be following a "higher father" than GHWB. He should not be impeached at all, IMO because Cheney would be a far worse president than Bush, and that is no easy task. Bush should be forced to suffer through a Democratic majority in Congress for his last two years and then enter the history books in the same section as Nixon: Failed presidents who did things that were wrong for the country and very possibly illegal.
Chemtrails=apathy=low poll numbers oh yeah, don't use flouride toothpaste, if you want to at least have a chance to look beyond the veil.
No surprise that basso started a thread and once it got a response he went poofy poof. But it's delightful to see that weirdo Fatty show up. And boy is he weird. 'Honestly Fatty' no I wasn't. Not only have I never defended Clinton, but I never even voted for him. "Honestly." I love this argument when there is no argument. This 'you do the exact same thing you accuse others of' argument, when no. No. No, I didn't. Every presidency is not exactly the same, by the way. I mean that seems to be your 'point.' They're not. Regardless of that though, I opposed Clinton throughout his entire eight years. I didn't oppose everything he did, but I opposed the majority of what he did. Even if I hadn't though, this two sides of the same coin thing is the laziest craze going. Plus, it's just not true. I deplored Clinton and I've said that repeatedly here. You are so freaking weird I don't know where to start ("Quit thinking" something? What?). Okay, let's start with your weird use of quotes. Because, you know, usually people use quotes when they're quoting someone. You seem addicted to quoting things you made up in your head which is totally baffling. So I'll leave that there and move on. Let's talk about me looking stupid. I look stupid because I am stupid -- not because I criticize Bush's policies. But when I do criticize Bush's policies on a forum dedicated to and created for debate, I don't know, I kind of expect a response in kind. You know, one that actually cites the arguments I made instead of quoting random made up things and calling me stupid for saying things I never said. But, again, that's like number one on the list of reasons I'm stupid. I've been here for years and it's been a long damn time since someone on the other side actually tried to engage me in debate. And somehow I keep posting here expecting things to be different. Stupid. Yes. Totally. I love this. This I love. This means you're about to say something important. Goddammit Fatty, you got me again! I thought you were going to say something important so I listened and then you said something ridiculous. My bad. I'm stupid. Let's take it as it comes though. No. Again, no. Not at all true that anytime anyone is in office they are handicapped by Congress. In fact, no modern president has ever been less handicapped that way. The Republican party controls every branch of government now. As a result the Republican president is not handicapped at all. And, in fact, even if he was, he has already told us all in no uncertain terms that he has no issues with asserting presidential power to act outside the law. It's a wild thing he did that, specifically because he has had zero meaningful opposition from Congress in his entire time in office. In fact, the first time they spoke up at all was to oppose Harriet Miers and the upshot was that he got someone he wanted even more. My second favorite part of this 'Congress handicaps everyone' idea is how incredibly dumb it is. My favorite part is how you talk to me like I'm dumb for not understanding a thing that you made up in your weirdo head. Again with the quotes of a thing I never said. And, again, no. I didn't say that. If I "truly" (see how the quotes work? you actually said that so I quoted it) thought that, I would have said it. My "intelligence" (again, see?) is not needed elsewhere or here. I am not particularly intelligent. We covered that. But it tickles me dearly to get advice from you on such a thing. Thanks. For real. Whaaaa? See? Freaking weirdo. That doesn't even make sense. Here's one for you: As Steve Martin stated, "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night..." I'll do anything else you ask, Fatty. Just for the fun of it. But I will never, NEVER get my head out of my butt. For one thing I'm bald and it's warm in there. For another, I look freaking funny with my head in my butt.
fine this isn't a parliamentary system and the pm can't get everything thru basically no matter what. but this congress has been a rubber stamp or rather the president has had a rubber stamp interms of no vetos. so this argument is foolish. yes i truly do believe that we are heading towards it and that we have made great progress towards a gestapo system. the notion that the government can tap any phone call i make without even FISA approving it is fairly gestapo. so is the notion that the president can designate anyone at will as an enemy combatant even if he's captured here without any judicial recourse is fairly gestapo. the notion that people have been tried and convicted essentially for paintballing and having gun magazines is fairly gestapo. and the fact that quakers are monitored for anti-americanism is fairly gestapo.
I wouldn't say poll #'s indicate a crisis in America. It just means Americans hates GWB. But the amount of additional damage he can cause now is minimal because thankfully he is a lame-duck president. After mid-terms his lame-duckiness will increase even more, thankfully.
i thought george w. bush didnt pay attention to polls. thats what i constantly hear from the apologists, but now we have this new 5 point plan to increase his poll numbers and sagging popularity. in response to the thread starter i would say that president monkey boy certianly thinks his poll numbers are a crisis. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1186527,00.html Can Josh Bolten Rescue the Bush Presidency? He started by shaking up the staff. Next comes a five-point White House "recovery plan" By MIKE ALLEN SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHORBackground: Behind the White House Reshuffle Posted Sunday, Apr. 23, 2006 At the George W. Bush campaign headquarters in Austin, Texas, in 1999, policy director Josh Bolten was a low-key Washingtonian in a building full of brash Texans. He assembled a best-and-brightest team with resumes bristling with brand names like his own—Princeton, Stanford, Goldman Sachs. "He used to brag that he had all these Supreme Court clerks from Harvard working for him," recalled a campaign veteran. Bolten was happy to let others preen in meetings while he waited to make a killer point at the end. He has thrived by showing, very quietly, that he is indispensable. Now as President Bush's second chief of staff, he is suddenly in the spotlight. Last week he appeared before large groups of worried aides in a White House theater, where Bush occasionally holds press conferences, to convince them that a few discomfiting changes, along with a lot of harder, smarter work, could turn around a second term that has disappointed so many of them. "We have a thousand days to get the job done," he said, according to attendees. The rearranging of staff in the Administration, which has included moving out some loyalists from Texas and is likely to continue, reflects the President's insistence that Bolten rethink an enterprise that had a series of horrible quarters. The real deadline is not 1,000 days from now, when Bush leaves office. The marker that is uppermost in the minds of Bush's inner circle is Nov. 7, when Republicans could lose control of the House and even the Senate. "If we don't keep Congress, there won't be a legacy," said a presidential adviser. "The legacy will be investigations and fights over Executive privilege" with newly empowered Democrats. So the White House is now on a survival footing, and Bolten is essentially planning a six-month campaign that will not only prevent a Republican hemorrhage in the fall but might even produce accomplishments for Bush in his lame-duck years. The new chief recognizes that he needs to show results quickly, since aides have claimed to be rebooting the second term so many times (at least three, by Time's count) that even their allies have lost track. The revamps have come every few months and then been hit by unexpected crises like the uproar a proposal to let a Dubai company operate some key U.S. ports. The new chief, who packed some of his own boxes for the move across West Executive Avenue from his old office, had been on the job just one full day when Rob Portman, the Trade ambassador and a strong communicator, was named to succeed him as director of the Office of Management and Budget. The next morning, press secretary Scott McClellan appeared on the South Lawn with Bush to announce to reporters in a choked voice that he would leave his job in two or three weeks, a few months short of three years at the podium. McClellan, considered "family" because he had worked for Bush in the Texas Governor's office, made no effort to hide from colleagues his sadness about going early. But top Republicans were being consulted about his replacement within days after Bolten's promotion was announced, and the loyal Texan got the message. Friends said McClellan wanted to get it over with, to short-circuit the absurdity of having to refuse to speculate about his future to reporters. Bush praised McClellan for his "integrity," a pointed absolution for the fact that McClellan was left in the dark about the involvement in the cia-leak case of White House officials he had defended. Offers from speakers' bureaus and other businesses have rolled in, and most of the week's photographs showed McClellan smiling. Two hours after the South Lawn appearance, the White House announced that Karl Rove, whose name is synonymous with unchecked authority in this Administration, would be yielding his day-to-day policy duties. "I've been asked by the President and my new boss to focus on big strategic questions and the bigger issues," Rove told Time. The idea, according to an aide, is for Rove to focus on "immigration, not the definition of seaward lateral boundaries." But Rove relishes his role at the nexus of policy and politics, and had dived into the governing responsibilities Bush gave him at the start of the second term. He tackled both fundamentals and minutiae, from formalizing the elaborate steps aides must take when preparing for policy time with the President to revising the official calendars handed out at Friday meetings of policy deputies so that they could record progress on topics raised at previous meetings. He even spent hours editing memos written for the President by specialists on everything from levees to student test scores. The Democratic National Committee called the change in Rove's role a "demotion," and some insiders viewed it as a slap. "This is Josh saying there's a new sheriff in town, and there will only be one chief of staff," said a former West Wing tenant. A Bolten friend said Rove had been reined in by Bush, who realized that even Rove can do only so many people's jobs. Aides said Rove, 55, who retains his titles of senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will move across the hall from his high-ceilinged office in the West Wing and turn it over to the new deputy chief of staff in charge of day-to-day policy, Harvard-trained wunderkind Joel Kaplan, 36, one of the former Supreme Court clerks from the Austin policy shop. Kaplan, a former Marine artillery officer who shares Bolten's boyish sense of humor, has been his deputy for the past five years. The Massachusetts native married a Texan earlier this month, with Bolten reading in English seven blessings derived from a traditional Jewish marriage ceremony. Aides were still searching last week, according to one, for "someone with credibility with the markets" to replace Treasury Secretary John Snow, who has come to be viewed as an ineffective messenger. They are also on the hunt to replace Jim Towey, director of the President's faith-based initiative, who left saying the effort had "faced a steady headwind from Day One." At one point, say g.o.p. officials, the White House was even inquiring about a possible ambassadorship for White House counsel Harriet Miers, but Bolten issued an unusual public denunciation of reports that she would be replaced. Bolten, 51, hopes to have most of his staff changes in place within a couple of weeks, and his aides are planning a "rollout" of public appearances for him then to discuss the new structure, on the theory that news coverage of change will benefit the President. But the musical chairs is just the first of a two-act makeover. Friends and colleagues of Bolten told Time about an informal, five-point "recovery plan" for Bush that is aimed at pushing him up slightly in opinion polls and reassuring Republican activists, whose disaffection could cost him dearly in November. The White House has no visions of expanding the g.o.p.'s position in the midterms; the mission is just to hold on to control of Congress by playing to the base. Here is the Bolten plan: 1. Deploy Guns and Badges. This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration. Under the banner of homeland security, the White House plans to seek more funding for an extremely visible enforcement crackdown at the Mexican border, including a beefed-up force of agents patrolling on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). "It'll be more guys with guns and badges," said a proponent of the plan. "Think of the visuals. The President can go down and meet with the new recruits. He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an atv." Bush has long insisted he wants a guest-worker program paired with stricter border enforcement, but House Republicans have balked at temporary legalization for immigrants, so the President's ambition of using the issue to make the party more welcoming to Hispanics may have to wait. 2. Make Wall Street Happy. In an effort to curry favor with dispirited Bush backers in the investment world, the Administration will focus on two tax measures already in the legislative pipeline—extensions of the rate cuts for stock dividends and capital gains. "We need all these financial TV shows to be talking about how great the economy is, and that only happens when their guests from Wall Street talk about it," said a presidential adviser. "This is very popular with investors, and a lot of Republicans are investors." 3. Brag More. White House officials who track coverage of Bush in media markets around the country said he garnered his best publicity in months from a tour to promote enrollment in Medicare's new prescription-drug plan. So they are planning a more focused and consistent effort to talk about the program's successes after months of press reports on start-up difficulties. Bolten's plan also calls for more happy talk about the economy. With gas prices a heavy drain on Bush's popularity, his aides want to trumpet the lofty stock market and stable inflation and interest rates. They also plan to highlight any glimmer of success in Iraq, especially the formation of a new government, in an effort to balance the negative impression voters get from continued signs of an incubating civil war. 4. Reclaim Security Credibility. This is the riskiest, and potentially most consequential, element of the plan, keyed to the vow by Iran to continue its nuclear program despite the opposition of several major world powers. Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. "In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose," said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House. However, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this April 8-11, found that 54% of respondents did not trust Bush to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran." 5. Court The Press. Bolten is extremely guarded around reporters, but he knows them and, unlike some of his colleagues, is not scared of them. Administration officials said he believes the White House can work more astutely with journalists to make its case to the public, and he recognizes that the President has paid a price for the inclination of some on his staff to treat them dismissively or high-handedly. His first move, working with counselor Dan Bartlett, was to offer the press secretary job to Tony Snow of Fox News radio and television, a former newspaper editorial writer and onetime host of Fox News Sunday who served George H.W. Bush as speechwriting director. Snow, a father of three and a sax player, is the bona fide outsider that Republican allies have long prescribed for Bushworld and would bring irreverence to a place that hasn't seen a lot of fun lately. "White Houses are weird places," he told a 2004 panel on White House speechwriting. Snow had his colon removed after he was found to have cancer last year, but his doctors have approved the possibility of his taking the grueling post. Veterans of this and other Republican White Houses said that although they believe Bolten's first corrections have helped, they have not gone deep enough, mainly because most key decision makers—including Bolten, Rove and their staffs—continue to be people who have been in the Bush bubble for six years or more. "Where's the innovation? Where's the perspective?" said a friend of Bush's, who described the staff as so insular that it is hobbled by what he calls the "white-men-can't-jump syndrome"—the inability to soar. So now Bolten must prove to his many constituencies, internal and external, that although he's a veteran of the Bush team, he can still get it off the ground.
