Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WSJ says: 29% of Americans believe Bush is doing a good job More

WSJ says: 29% of Americans believe Bush is doing a good job

Comments Filter:

  • Well (Score:2)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) *
    Given the choice between a really awful president, and equality for gay men and lesbians [cnn.com], the voters clearly decided in favor of bigotry. At least in Ohio, which made the difference.
    • Texas too, although that issue alone wouldn't have made the difference here.
    • equality for gay men and lesbians,

      Its like saying Nazi's weren't equal to Jews in 1930 because the Third Reich hadn't happened yet.

      You keep it up though, I can't stand your ignorance but it must be really comfortable for you.

      • wha? (Score:2)

        by sulli ( 195030 ) *
        You're saying anti-gays are like Nazis? I wouldn't go that far, even the God Hates America crew isn't advocating murder.
        • You're saying anti-gays are like Nazis?

          I love that saying, anti-gay. Its like the Nazi way of branding people who dissented from their position as traitors. Anything short of stealing to pay them is anti-gay.

  • Ahhh (Score:2)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) *
    Looks like I adjusted my sig just in time :-D I am so tempted to wear one of these tshirts to work.......

  • Still, you have to admire the 29% for sticking to their guns. I guess.

    I work with one or two of those guys, and although they won't start political discussions anymore, they'll still go through some amazing acrobatics to defend their boy. I do think the fact that they don't initiate the conversations anymore does speak to the fact that, somewhere in there, they know something's not quite right.

    • You have to wonder exactly what it would take for them to change their mind. Cheney having his way with a goat on live tv maybe??? I mean damn, wtf???
      • I'm not sure the goat thing would matter. They know to get the right kind of lawyer. [blogspot.com]
        • Could someone list what they think deserves the low approval numbers?

          Imagining goat sex is a red-herring, and a rather pitiful one at that.

          While its always reasonable to dissagree, I've not found much reasonable dissagreement. You keep your goat fantasies to yourself.
          • "Could someone list what they think deserves the low approval numbers?"

            I could, but I only have half an hour. Maybe someone with more time will give it a shot?
            • Pay no attention to the man without the time behind the curtain :)
              • I'll see what I can manage in the next couple days. I'm kinda booked up what with mothers' day and all.
                • I'll tell you what. Make it one thing, your best shot. Then if/when that fails you can scramble for more.
                  • Fine. Let's start here, with the complete enumerated powers of the Presidency:

                    Article II

                    Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

                    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
                    • Please quote me the bit that enumerates the power to capture and analyze the communication traffic patterns of ordinary US citizens who are neither combatants nor are suspected of a crime

                      I'm not sure why you are hung up on the presidential powers in regards to obtaining and analysing communication traffic. It is something available to you and me at least. I use this quote from Powerline but others have found this:

                      Maybe I'm the only one who didn't already know this, but I was astonished to learn that there i

                    • "I'm not sure why you are hung up on the presidential powers in regards to obtaining and analysing communication traffic."

                      You said name one, and I had (still have) limited time. So... I named one. [shrug]

                      Let's put the Fourth on the table here for easy reference:

                      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and parti

                    • The law may or may not agree with me that this is unreasonable, of course.

                      This sentance is probably the bottom line here. Then the law should change. I asked for your dissagreements with Bush, not the law.
                    • "I asked for your dissagreements with Bush, not the law."

                      No, you did not. You asked why anyone thought he deserved bad poll numbers. I told you one reason why I thought he did.

                      That aside, I have argued that what Mr. Bush's minions have done is plainly unconstitutional or illegal unless both he and the law view these searches as "reasonable". I don't know what the law is, but as you say that's not really relevant. Since I view it as "unreasonable" I might (or might not) agree with the law, but I almost certa
                    • You asked why anyone thought he deserved bad poll numbers.

                      If that is your tack, then that 63% of US citizens polled don't think this program is a problem. If you mean just yourself, well you already dissaproved of the president.

                      Since I view it as "unreasonable" I might (or might not) agree with the law, but I almost certainly disagree with Mr. Bush.

                      As it is, your quarrel is with the law which finds no violation of search and seisure. You'd probably agree with the layer of annonymity that Pres Bush imposed o
                    • As an aside you charged that I moved the goal posts on you. I'm not sure what you wish to go with this. The full quote is:

                      Could someone list what they think deserves the low approval numbers?

                      Imagining goat sex is a red-herring, and a rather pitiful one at that.

                      While its always reasonable to dissagree, I've not found much reasonable dissagreement.

                      While its anticipated that dissagreement with the president would be the natural reason for the low poll numbers, I left it open for people who agree with the pres

                    • [rolls eyes] Only one of those sentences is a question, OnLawn. They're signified by that little squiggly mark at the end, you know? You asked a question, I gave you one answer to it. I even gave you an answer to a different question that you claimed to have asked, but actually didn't in this thread.

                      I don't want to go anywhere with this, because there's utterly no point in it.
                    • "If that is your tack, then that 63% of US citizens polled don't think this program is a problem."

                      Hardly surprising, considering that probably more than 80% of the population does not understand how powerful traffic analysis or aggregate data can be.

                      "If you mean just yourself, well you already dissaproved of the president."

                      I can only speak for myself, and I'm only speaking to the question you asked of why I think he deserves low poll numbers, as opposed to why he actually has low poll numbers. Polls are agg
                    • Yet another person trying to run away from something they so confidently proclaimed ability to do, and trying to blame me for that in stupid baseless ways.

                      I pity the people who are persuaded by your dishonest tactics.
                    • I can only speak for myself, and I'm only speaking to the question you asked of why I think he deserves low poll numbers

                      Which were, on two counts, found baseless. 1) You felt he deserved low poll numbers before, 2) the existance of low popularity of the president co-incide with popularity for this program. Its all as simple as that.

                      Did you expect to be able to through out a reason, and not have to withstand scrutiny? What kind of empty minded echo-chamber are you used to dealing with that sucn nonesense goe
                    • "I've so far given you a pass on this point, but it is arguable."

                      Well gosh! It's just the core of the whole matter. No biggie.

                    • Which is mostly why you came off to me like the no-income-tax zealots. Sure the law and the constitution say one thing but you still think its wrong and yada-yada.
          • A general perception that the Administration isn't doing a terribly compitent job.

            High gas prices (the big one IMHO)

            Katrina

            Dislike of the way the President has handled the Immigration issue (either thinking his position is too soft or too hardline)

            (Note I'm just going with reasons the public might be giving the President low numbers)
            • All of those except Katrina I'd wager.

              The immigration issue probably plays a big-big role. I'm hearing Bush lambasted by his most ardent supporters (even those who will support and defend higher gas prices). Its litterally split the republicans in half on the issue. I'm not sure there is a way to please everyone, or even half of the populace with a solution to illegal immigration.
              • Well from the left and the center there is the general perception that something needs to be done as well though most aren't as hard-line as some on the right are.

                From the voters (as opposed to the business lobbies) I believe the consensus is more or less the following:
                * More enforcement against those who've entered the country illegally
                * More enforcement against those who hire illegal workers (not popular with the business lobby but seems to have support almost everywhere else)
                * Better border controls (wha
                • I seem to see the same thing.

                  Although I think the business lobby is only part of the problem. I also see the politicians as wishing to use the inflow of money to offset the problems in social-security. I see the teaching lobby loving the money illegal immigration puts in classrooms. There are many politically ingrained lobbies benefiting here.
                  • Well I'd say Democrats are divided on the issue as well, just the fireworks haven't gotten to the level they have on the GOP side.

                    I'd also say most people don't really know what should be done on the immigration issue but they do feel something should be done.
      • I think that's just it - there's nothing that would change their minds. Part of the phenomenon of conservative talk radio is the art of spinning any situation into, if not a positive, then at least into a non-issue. Or deflecting attention to something more egregious, like flag-burning, gay marriage, or immigration.
    • Me and my girlfriend were talking about approval ratings the other day. She thought the fact that only a third of the country approves of the president was pretty dismal. My take on it was that of the half that voted for him, two thirds still approve of his performance.

      And your sig amuses me. I’m running sound for a band playing at Bike Week. I was telling a coworker today about a good recording we got last night of the Dead song that ends with that line, but couldn’t remember the name.

      • I am pleased to say that my Grandmother, a staunch Republican, is among the "converted". I don't expect her to ever vote Democrat, but she now regrets voting for this president.

        New Speedway Boogie, in case you're still looking. Great song, I was listening to it Monday on the drive up to Dallas to see Tool (spectacular concert!).

  • It was that the Democrats didn't have anything to offer in return.
    • Bingo. I'm a lesser of two evils kinda guy in the last election.

    • [Long rant about crappy two party election process in America deleted]


      I wonder if the internet can have an impact on this? Could a third party muster enough support with the help of the internet to actually win? It seems like it would be possible in state government, which would be a good start.

      • We could only hope. If I were to guess, a larger number of people do as I did and registering under smaller third parties will eventually cause the two parties to come back closer to the center, and we'll be back to where we were in the 70's and 80's. The third partys are too fragmented to make any realistic impact. Even within the parties, this is the case. There are pro-drug-legalization libertarians, and anti-drug-legalization libertarians. There's no clear goals in many of the parties as they are
      • The problem is the parties themselves if you ask me. The two parties we have are so all over the map trying to create an umbrella that a third party won't fix that.

        In fact it was third party division of popular sentiment that chose Clinton (who for all I liked about him really can only claim he got out of the way of economic prosperity).

        The solution, as I see it is to do away with the parties. Form a San Fransisco like multiple voting system and let special interest endorsements let you know who stands for
      • I've always wanted a "Non of the Above" Option on a Ballot of any kind " so if that gets the majority it would force all party's to withdraw their candidates and select a new one .Of course the main advantage to a two party system , is that you can be 100% sure that you will like neither of the candidates who will likely win .
    • I don't really understand this charge against the Democrats. I reviewed Mr. Kerry's record at the time, and his platform, and I listened to all the mud on both ends, and in the end I found a few things to be objectionable about Kerry's ideas, and a few things to be agreeable.

      More importantly, however, I found that, though he was by no stretch of the imagination an atypical beltway politician, he was a relatively thoughtful and intelligent individual who had come up with a number of plans and ideas.

      I would v
      • I don't really understand this charge against the Democrats. I reviewed Mr. Kerry's record at the time, and his platform, and I listened to all the mud on both ends, and in the end I found a few things to be objectionable about Kerry's ideas, and a few things to be agreeable.

        From my perspective, coming in from the outside without much knowledge of Democrats or Republicans, most of what I've seen in the past few years from Democrats is whining. They don't seem to be breaking out the firehose, they just keep
        • I'll support the troops and gain more allies for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time

          That's a mischaracterization, however, which stems from the idea that you can't be against the starting of a war and still think that it needs to be waged to completion. Mr. Kerry's actual comments indicated that he felt that authorizing the war was a mistake, but that he also felt that it was necessary to ensure that the work in Iraq was completed prior to drawing down troops. This is not a contrarion positio
          • That's a mischaracterization, however, which stems from the idea that you can't be against the starting of a war and still think that it needs to be waged to completion.

            Not it's not a mischaracterization. That's pretty much what he said isn't it? IIRC, just a few minutes before Kerry spoke the famous words, he spoke of how the administration had failed to gain international support for the war and how he would do a better job.

            "I voted to start the war, but I think it's wrong, but I still want to stay and fi
            • I absolutely agree with your characterization of the divide in communications between Democrats and the people. The Republicans very effectively exercised their own channels and got the messages they wanted through, and they exploited the lax communication within the Democratic party to great negative effect.

              However, perhaps we should pull in the quote to which your referring regarding the contention over Mr. Kerry. I believe that I'm not familiar with it (or at least can't picture it right off the top of m
            • If you have to spend more time explaining your message than you do stating it, you've got some issues.

              I think this statement may be untrue for issues of any significant complexity, like for example the Iraq war.
          • GOP controls White House, House of Representatives, the Senate, and the SCOTUS. Where is this conservative utopia we were promised? Where is the utter deregulation? Where are the fruits of exploiting the Laffer Curve? Why haven't the faggots been rounded up? The niggers? The kikes? Why are women still working outside the house?

            Face it, the GOP is a complete and utter farce. Never has one party so dominated the US political landscape. And never has so little positive been accomplished.
            • And I'll restart the root of this thread again.

              The Democrats aren't bringing anything to the table either. Their platform for the last few elections has been "we're not them." Luckily for them, that may be enough for them to do well with the next election.
              • I agree with the Grandparent. I ask myself of the Republicans, what have they done for me lately?

                I don't have my medical savings account, or the option to put my social security towards where I see fit. I don't have flat taxes or even a very simplified tax code. I don't have the reduced minimal government (I remember Regan promising to veto bills solely because of their enormous size).

                Bush has low approval ratings, but in the polls I've seen Congress has even worse. The Republicans have gone far by being no
                • Dear Diary:

                  On-Lawn agreed with me today. In other news, hell is getting their first ski-lift ready.

                  But seriously, if the GOP were to nominate Jack Kemp, I'd give some serious thought to voting for the man. (And if the Democrats vote Hillary in, I may go with Silicon Jesus and vote Badnarik or whoever has taken Larouche's mantle this time).
                • Bush has low approval ratings, but in the polls I've seen Congress has even worse.

                  Oh, I had forgotten about that. When Bush dipped down to 29%, Congress had fallen below 20%.

                  The Republicans have gone far by being not as bad as the Democrats, but they can't collectively get the will to be very good either.

                  I fear I disagree here as well. It seems like the circle has completed and the Republicans are the early 90s Democrats. If only people would stop this nasty little cycle. They'll put democrats in this year
                  • I agree it is a self-perpetuating cycle. Weren't you the person I just replied to who said people voted for Kerry because Nader didn't have a shot?

                    Perhaps you have a strategy to reconsider.
                  • I should also remind that as far as front-runners go Dean was ahead of the pack. He was pro-gay marriage, and wanted to bring the troops home yet the GLBT who was an early supporter of Dean abandoned him for Kerry who had the the platform they were less inclined to accept.
                    • I'm sorry, but what indicated to you that I might be interested in continuing this discussion after you decided to insult me personally [slashdot.org] out of the blue for no reason other than that I politely stated my opinion and chose to decline to press a case?

                      If you wanted to have a mature, intelligent discussion on the matter, you should have chosen to keep the discussion mature and intelligent while we were having it. If I wanted name-calling and personal insults, I could simply post in about any story that Slashdot
                    • you that I might be interested in continuing this discussion

                      I don't care if you are interested or not, but do be civil enough to not create spurrious charges to cover from your inadequacies in this discussion.
              • I'll grant you that voting LP is a helluva lot better than voting GOP. And I accept your reasons for not voting Dem, especially in Maryland. But what about this fall for the goober election (I'm too lazy to look up gubernatorial and make sure I spelt it corektly)?

                I would claim that there is a substantial (although far from dominant) segment of the Democratic party that is fed up with their GOPlite mindset. DailyKos shows a bit of this. DU goes way further. Look at how many lefty blogs are supporting the guy
          • This is not a contrarion position.

            The problem with Kerry vs Kerry's positions was the alignnment of his support. The emphatic endorsement of the GLBT while denouncing same-sex marriage, and the emphatic endorsement of Code Pink while endorsing the war indicated that something was wrong.

            Either 1) Kerry was fooling them, or 2) Kerry was fooling us. Seeing as the GLBT and Code Pink were active behind the scenes of his campaign and absolutely vehement on thier positions that it was unlikely it was the former. H
            • Does it seem that uncommon that groups ally with the "best" available candidate? Considering the connections, even if Kerry wasn't going to be of any direct help, it seems far more likely that he would be in a better position to make appointments who would. Even though Bush has shown a significant level of tolerance, the fact that he's connected primarily to people who have no interest in the subject of homosexual marriage doesn't bode well for the group.
              • Does it seem that uncommon that groups ally with the "best" available candidate?

                Was that Kerry? Seems that would be Nader.

                While what you say is not impossible, let me remind you these people weren't disgruntled come-alongs they were avid supporters volunteering large amounts of time. You don't get that kind of support from people making do.

                My conclusion, Kerry was not being honest with the public at large.
                • Was that Kerry? Seems that would be Nader.

                  Ideologically, maybe, but "the best" candidate would be one that also had a realistic shot at becoming president, and that wasn't Nader :)

                  My conclusion, Kerry was not being honest with the public at large.

                  Then we shall have to agree to disagree. Mr. Kerry specifically stated, as I recall, that he did not support gay marriage. Speculation may occur as to why pro-gay-marriage groups continued allying with him, but that, to me, has nothing to do directly with Kerry.
  • I couldn't find this anywhere. Could you point me to a link?
  • While I wait for someone to explain what Bush did wrong, perhaps its more straightforward to say that the lack of approval is not in Bush's position but in his failure to deliver that position. He was elected with a 50%+ majority, which hasn't happened in the US for a long, long time. His ideas are great, but he hasn't delivered and now some are frustrated.

    Dayton hasn't struck me as frustrated with Bush's inability to deliver on his core ideas, he's more someone who felt like he's failed and is happy someon
    • While I wait for someone to explain what Bush did wrong, perhaps its more straightforward to say that the lack of approval is not in Bush's position but in his failure to deliver that position. He was elected with a 50%+ majority, which hasn't happened in the US for a long, long time. His ideas are great, but he hasn't delivered and now some are frustrated.

      IIRC, papa Bush was the last person with 50%+1. Not sure why Clinton missed it in 1996.

      You give Bush too much credit in claiming the man has ideas. Other
      • but I haven't seen any evidence that Bush has any.

        Read nospeedbumps.com? He basically outlines Bush's ideas.

        Medical Savings accounts for universal healthcare, retirement savings accounts for social security that is transferable however you want, and a flat tax.

        Bush plans to send people to Mars and set up a lunar base.

        Bush plans to follow Brazil and move the US to a renewable energy society (using nuclear, agrarian, hydrogen). He's spent more than any other president on such research, IIRC.

        He's termed it the
        • Meanwhile, his friend Mr Blair's "ideas" largely consist of throwing money around and hoping some of it sticks somewhere useful. Blair hit these approval levels years ago (32% in 2003), and his party was obliterated in the local elections this year - yet there's still a good chance of his party staying in power, with Blair handing power to his disastrous sidekick Grasping Gordon, perpetrator of $7/gallon gasoline, dismal economic growth and an exploding government payroll.

          Before the left gets too happy ab

          • I agree, Hydrogen isn't even a very good medium when you get down to it. Storage is a pain.

            Whatever medium hits cars it will have to be

            1) Liquid
            2) Volitile
            3) Dense with potential chemical energy

            We'll see what shakes out.
  • Either that 29% of Americans are too incompetent to click the right box in a form or that they are dumb enough to actually believe Bush is not ruining the US economy (USD is nearly equal to the Canadian dollar , it used to be a 2 for one sale )
    Both I would Imagine .
    Totally avoiding the Classic War/Terror/Invasion of privacy/Fuck the constitution/ Demicrrrrrats Vs. Republicons arguments .. Sticking plainly to the fact that the US economy is looking worse month on month .. I am shocked there has been so l

Slashdot Top Deals

If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.

Close