Is Bush doing a good job as president.??
 

I recently saw an article about the approval rating of our president, they stated it's around 34%. Now this seems very low so I was wondering what the FOFC opinion is..

Well, at least you put a trout option. :)

I think you should have made this title "The American Public Hates Bush!!!!!"

That would have gone over much better.

Truman's approval rating was like this during his tenure as president and he turned out just fine. Approval ratings are for losers.

In this case that certainly seems to be true! :p

I've heard that sometime he just "zones out" -- but it *looks like* he's working!

I'm sure the recent news that he was warned about the fact that Katrina could well cause the type of havoc that did occur on the day before the storm hit will affect his approval rating, considering he played the ignorance line up till now...

I think he's doing a pretty crappy job, but I might just vote yes to balance things out. I mean, he's a medicre-to-poor, but some of you people act like this is the Grant administration and he's the devil incarnate. Pretty ridiculous.

Words of wisdom from Schmidty. I take back everything bad I ever said about Yzerman.

Mr. Yzerman and I are honored.

I voted no, but that doesn't mean a Democrat would do any better.

They're all losers.

just wait till the FEMA/Bush pre-Katrina briefing video makes the rounds.

My thoughts exactly and pretty much the only reason I voted yes. :D

Someone once said 'you're only as good as the people around you." Bush is paying the price today for bad personel choices and cronyism. Plus, I think he ran and was elected as a 'social conservative' and really turned out to be a 'corporate, country-club' republican. So a large chunk of his base is saying 'see ya.'

Yzerman is too good and too pure a soul to support Bush. He would vote a resounding "NO!" to this pole. I am sorry, but it's true.

Yzerman for President! (with, of course, Fedorov as Veep)

We would have to by-pass that whole born in the U.S. requirement, but I think The People would be willing to do that for Steve Yzerman. He is one of the greatest leaders in sports. Think what he could do for this country. I am sure he would also have room for Petr Klima in his administration.

I would rate him as the worst president of my lifetime.

Worst, or Most Incompetent? I suppose I can understand worst (not sure though), but there's no way he's more incompetent than Jimmy Carter.

One big problem...getting up and down the stairs for Air Force One would not be very pretty with ice skates on, so I think this would be a very bad idea.

With the news today of shocking new confidential video proving that Bush could have prevented the levee failures, I don't see how anybody could approve of him.

I love the logic at work here (and think it explains a lot of the current problems): even folks who want to support the President think he is not doing a good job, but just to stick it to folks who believe the same thing they'll lie about their public position on the matter. For what effect? Not to send a signal to the person they feel is doing a bad job -- strictly to skew the statistics to reflect a result that neither side believes is accurate.

Says a lot about a person who would take that kind of approach, and is depressing to boot.

I'm confused. :confused:

Are you assuming that I want to support Bush? I didn't even vote for the guy this time (or Kerry), and I'm certainly not a Republican. So what are you insinuating?

(If I misunderstood what you meant, sorry)

I don't know about ignorance. He spoke months ahead of the time that One of the largest potential National Disasters looming over the United States was a Cat 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans. As far as him learning the day before...what expectation is there in terms of a presidential reaction to that notification? Does he call Mike Brown, and ask him if he's doing his job? Does he call the governor and tell that by God if the levies break he's going to have Federal authorities assume control of the crisis, whether she wants to relinquish it or not?

You misunderstood. You posted that even though you feel that he is doing a bad job, you would vote that he is doing a good job. The reason? "Balance" -- except no balance is possible, because the people voting no don't secretly believe he's doing a good job. It's an illogical position, and one that reveals a lot about the underpinnings of a person's political philosophy, I would argue.

Bush makes Carter look like a Mensa high level guru. Carter was an excellent foreign policy man, he just sucked at internal policy. Bush on the other hand...shit in one hand, put his positive qualities in the other and see which one fills first....I'll give you a roll of TP....


Bush is by far the worst President, with the worst administration that I can even think of. Granted I'm not a historian and there may be worse ones during the 1800's, but as for the last century? Bush leads the "I'm a dumbass Git" category.

Ok, I understand, although I still think that he's not nearly as bad as a lot of people do. It's like a lynch mob mentality at this point. You have people taking facts that really are legitimate, getting pumped up emotionally and then pumping up other people emotionally and escalating the situation, until eventually Bush is like Pol Pot or something.

There HAS to be some balance in my opinion.

Anyway, sorry I misinterpreted what you said. And now that this becoming a "serious" political discussion, I will show myself the door. :)

No problem. The balance occurs in the wording of the poll (and is actually favors a bit of a positive spin): do you think he's doing a good job? If a person's public stance (reflected by the poll) doesn't represent their actual stance, it damages that balance by introducing erroneous data.

Actually, that briefing in the video was 4 days before the hurricane hit. It clearly states that there would be widespread damage if the levees broke. That goes directly against the statement Bush made after the damage where he said that no one predicted that the levees would fail and that it caught them offguard in their ability to respond.

Nice job by Dutch to try and deflect attention away from the fact that this isn't related to the response after the hurricane or the ability to prevent the levees being breached. :rolleyes:

This all brings up a whole other set of discussions. Would people have taken the evacuation order more seriously had the President weighed in on the matter, rather than just the usual local notifiers? If the disaster scenarios regarding a levee breach were discussed, why was the decision made to do apparently nothing to mitigate it. Instead, from all appearances, after the briefing Bush went back to Crawford to finish his vacation and just hope for the best.

That scenario sounds a whole lot like the one surrounding the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America" briefing. It was spelled out what was possible to happen, yet the Administration acted completely suprised once it did actually happen.

Bush lied? NO WAY! I'm shocked! The saddest part is that the people around him are so pathetic that they let him continue to embarrass himself with lies like this.

Also, the Admin. saying no one expected the levees to break? I think it was pretty much a foregone conclusion based on all of the reading and forecasts I've done.

How out of touch these people are.

Ah, the conservative Bush slappies. How I would love to spend but a few minutes in their world where things like facts and reality just don't mean a darn thing. It must be a magical, mystical world full of elves, gremlins, and eskimos!

minus the your/you're issue, I agree with every word of this. The apocolypse must be right around the corner.


Additionally, I agree with Kodos in that I feel pretty damn strongly that Bush is the worst president of my lifetime. I wasn't alive when Nixon was in office though.

It's funny - because both sides spin doctor, talk out of both sides of their mouths, etc., but you would swear that the administration in power (whether it be Republican or Democrat) invented the entire process.

Whoever wins, it's 4 years of the opposite side swearing for change, indignant calls for justice, etc. Then the opposite team wins and we all swap sides.

In the meantime, hopefully we all have jobs and can feed, clothe and shelter our families. The political posturing on both sides grew tiresome sometime around the ancient Greeks.

I think that people claiming the president was pleading ignorance are mis interpreting his statement.

He said no one predicted that the levees would fail. Since he is on record months before citing the potential disaster of a Hurricane hitting New Orleans, that really doesn't add up. I think he was saying that no one knew that the levies were going to fail during Hurricane Katrina. That was how I interpreted the statement at the time. Because honestly anyone with the History Channel, National Geographic , or CNN for that matter, knew what would happen if a big hurricane hit New Orleans. IIRC Katrina was pretty severely downgraded by the time it reached landfall. When Bush was briefed four days ahead of time Katrina was a raging monster headed for New Orleans. In the intervening days, it diminished to the point that most didn't feel the levies were going to be an issue.

My point is that I think those going after the President on this issue are essentially mis-quoting him in an attempt to discredit him. They are at very least narrowly construing his words, in a manner that best suits their purposes, without really considering that they might be wrong.

Personally, this is the first time I've heard that the President of the U.S. is personally responsible for FEMA foul-ups (and FEMA has a long and proud history of SNAFUs long before Bush took office). Sure you can take Bush to task for appointing a Texas pal who apparently was in way over his head...but then Clinton did the same thing when he appointed one of his Arkansas cronies as the head of the agency. I think there is plenty of blame to be spread around here -- in particular to "School Bus" Nagan, who was on the Today Show recently, whining about how the Director of the National Hurricane Center didn't personally call him to say how bad a CAT 5 Hurricane would be if it hit N'awlins (sorry, Ray...it's not his job), and Governor Blanco, who perfected her "deer in the headlights" expression throughout the entire ordeal.

There are a lot of high profile negative things occurring that impact the immediate perception of success or failure. I'll be curious to see how the administration is viewed in 20 years. I think a large part of how he'll be viewed historically will be how the Iraq war concludes.

Domestically, from a personal impact perspective, I really have no major complaints. I do think Dick Cheney as VP was one of the worst personnel decisions ever made and altered the whole legacy of his presidency. Pick someone different and I think the whole administration performs completely differently.

What he said.

And don't lie about you knew and what you didn't know beforehand after a catastrophe that is the worst natural disaster in the US for a generation.

There's a saying about don't lie if you are likely to be found out: if you are the president of the world's biggest democratic power, this should be doubly so.

Dola,

And obviously he personally could not have done anything to reinforce the levees - but more could have been done publicly in advance, and this video makes the seemingly shambolic and slow (I say 'seemingly' as obviously I am far removed from NO) response even less forgivable.

Even before his numbers tanked, I felt that we wouldn't know what kind of President Bush was for a good twenty to thirty years. His legacy will be determined largely by the progress of Democracy in the Middle East.

Wow.

Just... wow.

I can't... wow.

How on earth can you say he is being misquoted? Here is a copy of his EXACT statement from his appearence on GMA: ""I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html

The levees didn't breech until after the Hurricane had passed. In fact, most of the news orgs covering Katrina had been commenting about how N'awlins had dodged the bullet for the most part until they noticed that the water level was starting to rise.

*edit*
Of course, we all know Bush ordered the Army Corp of Engineers to blow up the levees after he saw that mother nature hadn't done her job and wiped out the minority population in the area.

*dola edit*
Make that Cheney...since we all know he is the Shadow President. Bush is just his puppet.

The point is that the levees did breach, just as was described in the briefings. How could he say that no one could have anticipated they would be breached when that was the exact scenario raised to him just a few days before?

Thanks for adding to the intelligent discourse with your edits.

Then why the hell didn't the mayor of New Orleans evacuate his city? All you saw on the news for days before the hurricane hit was how the city would be devastated by a direct hit. Anytime a hurricane gets close down here, the state and local goverments order and coordinate evacuations from the Florida Keys.

I'm confused? What does that have to do with Bush's statements?

He was briefed that there was a possibility that the levees could be breached causing massive damage. He afterwards said no one could have predicted the levees would be breached.

If there were one million people in NO, or no one at all, the levees were still breached.

The Army Corp of Engineers has been warning about the levees in New Orleans breaching during a major hurricane since the mid to late 1980s.

If you want to play a stupid game of "gotcha" with Bush, please feel free.

Ray Nagan has been caught in a good number of misstatements or outright lies about his city's preparation and response to the disaster. Where's the outrage toward him? Or the governor of the state?

It's there, but the title of this thread is "Is Bush doing a good job as president".

Hmm. I guess this REALLY points to how well the president is doing. The only approval votes he can get are pity votes. :D

Well, this thread has gone exactly where we all knew it would end up. Only the typists have changed.

I'd be interested in reading a good argument for a "yes" vote other than the stupid balance argument made earlier.

I like Ray Nagin just because of his "Chocolate City" speech

Typical response. :rolleyes:

I am not sure what your point is about the timing of the flooding, but here is a brief synopsis of the timing of the flooding.

Katrina initially made landfall late Sunday night in Plaquemines parish. During the night, there was catastrophic flooding in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, extreme eastern Orleans, and St. Tammany parishes. The storm made its final landfall in Mississippi early Monday with by far the highest storm surge ever observed in the US. It basically hit the same place as Camille did, so the comparisons between a "weak" Katrina and a very strong Camille are easy.

Inside the levee system in New Orleans, the first flooding (which was all due to levee failures/breeches) was probably in the lower ninth ward and was caused by water being pushed in from the south. The most destructive flooding (by whatever measure, dollars, deaths, area) began sometime Monday morning and was apparent to everyone by late Monday. It was caused by water being pushed into the city from the lake by north winds.Only winds from the north can flood the city (otherwise the water is pushed elsewhere), and this, technically, only occurs after the storm passes. The levees along the 17th St. Canal and the London Ave canal failed as more and more water was pushed into them.

Word of the devistation to the city was slow to come for a few reasons. First the new media was set up downtown and the French Quarter which escaped most of the flooding. To them everything looked fine. Power and communication lines were down which prevented information from getting out from the flooded areas.

And to address your early shot at the La. politicians (Nagin and Blanco, both democrats suprisingly), by any objective measure the evacuation of the city was a huge success. 80% of the people left with minimal difficulty (as compared to Houston with Rita a few weeks later or Georges in N.O. in 1998). Prior to the storm, FEMA and other's models predicted only 60-65% of the people leaving. In almost all cases, people who stayed behind did so by choice, not because they were not put into school buses. The crisis only developed later as more and more were forced from their homes and into increasing smaller areas of the city as the flooding grew. At that point, the city or even local region had no ability to handle the crisis. All of the local resources were destroyed or scattered. At that point, the state or federal government has to step in. That is the whole point of having an organization like FEMA. Its purpose is to step in when a disaster is of such a magnitude that it overwealms the locals ability to respond. FEMA failed, perhaps becuase it had been reorganized into something to handle an unlikely event over more likely disasters. This reorganization of FEMA and the creation of the DHS occured under Bush's administration and thus they must accept some of the blame.

Well this post sure went off on a tangent. I guess it sort of fits here -- I voted "No".

That's a pretty convenient way to look at things. Better yet, it works for all of Bush's problems.

People were warning about a Bin Laden attack for years.

People were warning about sectarian violence in Iraq for years.

People were warning about massive debt for years.

People were warning about cronyism for years.

People were warning about Medicare Drug problems for years.


There's really nothing that you can't dismiss with this!

Neither Nagan nor Blanco are very popular in New Orleans right now.

edit to add a bit of a source

From NOLA.com

It's going great in Iraq and Iran!

It's always interesting when a group of people try and force their "morals" on a completely different culture.

I'd be interested in reading this as well.

SFL: I forgot one thing. There is a huge difference between Clinton appointing James Lee Witt and Bush appointing Michael Brown. I'll see if you can spot it!

Previous job before FEMA:

Michael Brown: Running an Arabian Horse Association

James Lee Witt: Running emergency management operations for Arkansas

I'll even help by saying one of them had been praised nationally for tornado and storm recovery efforts!

MMMmmmmmm

You're doin' a heckuva job Phillips

I'll have a stab: taking the thread title to mean 'job' as it does in pro-wrestling, then there can be no dispute: he is making other presidents look fantastic :D

Well, when you post nonsense like that you shouldn't expect anything but. ;) Heck, I even through a little Homer Simpson quote in there far ya. More than your post deserved, I tell ya.

Besides, we all know the score. . .

I made my comment towards the news story and this topic of this thread, not towards you. I don't think that deserved for you to make it fair game for a personal attack on me.

I did not vote because I live in a different country. But how can a President that is spending his country into oblivion be any good? (that seems to apply to all US Presidents of both parties lately)

Apparently you've never lived in Arkansas. I have.

At the risk of getting flamed, there was actually a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's term. There were a lot of reasons, namely the dotcom boom, but there was a positive number at the end of the budget year.

That's another reason I had to vote no. Bush has let Congress run roughsod with spending. He has yet to veto any bill, much less a spending one. So far this admin has run up $2.5 trillion extra on the national debt total, and the projection is another $2.5 trillion more over the next 10 years, at the current spending pace.

It was argued that deficits don't matter, using the Reagan years as an example. The main difference between then and now is that under Reagan, we were a world wide creditor, meaning that other countries owed us $1 trillion more than the amount of our national debt. Now we are $7 trillion plus in the hole and climbing.

SFL: No, I'm sorry that;s not the right answer!

The correct answer is:

Clinton's appointee, James Lee Witt, had emergency management experience and was seen nationally as a good choice to run the agency. He rewarded this faith by proving exceptional in his job and earning the praises of none other than George W. Bush!

You are now free to report to the loser's lounge.

You need to read the thread "Party of Davos' and check out the link. This is covered in Mr. Faux's book and talks. There will be dire consequences in the near future. Warren Buffet has stated that with the 'decline' of American's standard of living due to large trade and budget deficits 'political upheaval' will also occur. Sleep tight and dream of those 'wearing tinfoil' at your peril.

Budget surplus wasn't in Clinton's vocab before the Republicans took Congress away from the Dems during the midterms. In fact when Clinton took office, his people were projecting mammoth deficits for the foreseeable future, and the Slickmeister blamed the Reagan and Bush I admins for handing him the deficits "worse than I ever imagined."

Of course, the Republicans initiated Welfare Reform and other spending reform measures that Clinton signed (making sure his complaints were loud enough to be heard by the other Dems), and suddenly everyone is talking about surpluses. Personally, I don't think there was ever a "cash" surplus (just as there isn't a 'Social Security Trust Fund') that Clinton and the Republicans were crowing about, but hey, it sounded good.

Why? Are they going to come to life in my dream like Freddy Krueger and murder me before I can wake? Seems like they may be more dangerous than previously thought!

Cartman: I think all your billions should be trillions.

Dang it, I knew I opened to edit for a reason. :redface:

So why is it now, with the same Republican controlled Congress, that spending is so far out of control?

Hmmm, Bush has also lauded Clinton as a man of "virtue," so I chalk things like that up more to "politico-speech" than anything else.

SFL: It was Clinton's tax package that was most responsible for the extra revenue that led to a budget surplus. (There really was one BTW!) Spending went up during the Clinton years.

The problem with Bush and this Congress is that revenues are going down due to tax cuts while spending is going through the roof. Its unsustainable, but we all know people have been warning about fiscal crises for years, so.....

Because the Republicans have apparently decided they would rather spend like Democrats.

SFL: So you believe Bush is a liar?

Cause I do too!

Wrong, tax cuts spur business spending. I think you guys call it "trickle-down."

As tax burdens increase, business will find ways to cut costs...i.e. downsizing, since human resources are generally the highest expense most business have and people tend to restrict spending of their disposable income.

i think he has been the best US president of the past 4 years.

I'm not sure about Bush, yet. But I know Clinton was.

So at least on that point you agree that Clinton was a better president than Bush. Since Clinton actually vetoed spending bills and told Congress to get spending under control.

SFL: Please explain the post tax cut 90s economic boom using your theory. If that won't work you can also explain the boom of the 1950s.

BTW- Tax increase(provided its not too extreme)=increase of revenue.

I've never understood this attitude. "They're both bad/the same so let's not call them on any of it". That's a load of crap and intellectually lazy.

SI

I'd say he was better than Clinton
better than Bush I
not as good as Reagan
better than Carter (worst prez in my lifetime)
better than Ford
better than Nixon (had a good first term, but like Clinton spent his second term embroiled in scandal)
better than LBJ

I'm amazed that anyone actually believes in trickle-down economics anymore.

SFL: I should mention that if you can prove that business tax cuts always spur economic growth there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Actually, if you look at the numbers, the econom was rebounding during the election year. Unfortunately, whether it was because of the ineptness of Bush I campaign managers or brilliant spin of Clinton's people, that never really got into the mainstream. So Clinton had the advantage of coming into office with a strengthening economy. Also, if you look at the numbers, the economy didn't really "take off" until after the mid term elections in 96. This is one reason I think "gridlock" is good. The more politicians argue back and forth means the less they can muck with the economy, allowing it to follow its natural cycle. Now since all the big companies were apparently "cooking their books" during the late 90s, one has to wonder just how well the economy was really doing during that time, especially since I did notice that the economic numbers starting falling and big corps started doing some major "downsizing" during Clinton's final year in office.

Trickle-down economics has never, to my knowledge, been tested. Both Thatcher and Reagan claimed to support the theory, but their actual policies were pure Keynesian.

SFL: So the economic boom of the 90s was due to Bush1's tax increase? It still doesn't seem to fit with your theory.

No, Bush caused his own recession with those tax increases. They also weren't helped when the Fed bailed out all those S&Ls, which went belly-up when Reagan signed into law the Dems measure to close all the loopholes in real estate investing, which the S&Ls were heavily invested in.

Reagan also raised taxes several times, but with the Democratic promise that spending would be cut...didn't happen....higher deficits.

SFL: So tax increases and cuts don't effect the economy?

I'd swear if I didn't know better that you were arguing that whatever Repubs do is good and whatever the Dems do is bad.

Just an observation here.. Currently, 18.7 percent of people here believe he is doing a good job, and that is based on 23 votes. One assumes one or two pity votes are thrown in there.

The trout option has almost as many votes, with 16.

The No option has 84 votes.

To get to my point - I think that a 34 percent approval rating is pretty dead on with what I would expect from our small cross-section.

Somebody has been drinking a little too much of "Karl Rove's Kool Aid"

What good is a poll like this if it is not open?

Dude, Grammaticus.. your post count at this time is frightening.

Yes but Bush had mentioned in a speech some months before that HE KNEW one of the greatest potential disasters confronting our nation was a Category 5(he may have said 4 or 5) directly hitting New Orleans. It makes NO sense to apply his comments above as him saying he had no clue this could ever happen in New Orleans. Yet that is exactly what you are doing. If you are going to resolve his statements, I think concluding that he was talking about Katrina specifically makes sense.

What is so hard to follow?

Reagan tax cut -- good -- awakens stagnant economy resulting in growth unseen since post-war 50s. Despite naysayers, tax revenues grow.

Reagan tax hikes -- bad -- especially since Democrats don't implement promised spending cuts. Removing tax shelters on real estate inadvertantly result in S&L collapse of the late 80s.

Bush tax hikes -- bad -- leads to recession that costs Bush re-election, especially since he alienates supporters with his "read my lips," promise.

Clinton tax hikes -- bad -- keeps a recovering economy essentially flat during his first term.

Republican Revolution -- neutral to good -- talk of NAFTA, welfare reform and fiscal responsibility stimulate markets and economy. After trying to socialize medicine during his first term, Clinton wisely moves to the middle and basically rubberstamps major items on the Republican agenda while mouthing Democratic rhetoric to show that he still "cares" for the little guy. Gridlock and Clinton scandal during his second term allow economy to roll along without much interference from Washington politicos.

But is it really the best economy in the past 40 years? Considering boom is largely driven by highly speculative dot.com stocks (most of which have lousy P/E ratios) and cooked "profits" from major corps, one has to wonder. Massive corporate layoffs during the last year of Clinton's administration indicate economy may be softening.

Bush tax cuts -- good -- spurs economic growth for an economy that was already heading south when Bush came to office, and was made worse by aftermath of 9/11. Economy grows at an even higher rate than when *gasp* Clinton was in office and unemployment drops to 40-year lows.

Alan Greenspan -- good -- can probably take more credit for the economy than either Clinton or Bush.

I voted for the Trout option not because I think he's not doing a bad job (he pretty much is) but one cannot even begin to assess his presidency when we are in the middle of it and waaaayyyy too close to it. Compare it to, say, the Buchanan presidency.

But even knowing how Bush is turning out, I would STILL vote against Gore and Kerry. I think it has been said that all the Dems had to do was to put a trained monkey up against Bush and he would win. They couldn't even do that.

This is kind of my thinking as well. I didn't vote for Bush last time (I did the first time around), but there is no way in hell I would have voted for Gore or Kerry.

I 'tend' to like his foreign policy.
I 'tend' to dislike his domestic policy.

I voted 'yes' because I'm not convinced Gore or Kerry could have done better in GB shoes.

SFL: Its breathtaking the way you are able to connect the economic ups and downs to tax policy so directly. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you need to collect your Noble Prize.