Bush leads in polling

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by SeniorGeek, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    I guess we should expect Bush to lead in any poll by Faux News.
  2. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    His poll numbers are at a all time low, YET, I bet he'd still beat the piss out of Hillary Clinton in an election. I will be glad to see Bush go. He wasn't the worst president ever (especially compared to Bill Clinton) and he sure as hell wasn't a great one either. I'm a little worried about what we'll have next. When I look at the list of possible candidates for 2008 I'm not really encouraged. Who are people in the Oregon area leaning towards? Or are they too busy burning the U.S. Flag and effigies of our soldiers?
  3. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    When Fox does this same poll in 2008, I suspect Bush will still have a high score, even from Oregon.
    I hate it when a bunch of Young Republicants masquerade as participants in a peace rally, and take advantage of the fact that the true pacifists will be too stunned and threatened to do anything about these outrageous acts. What an underhanded way to distort the message and undermine the people who want to bring our troops - their family members and friends - home from occupied Iraq.

    I imagine that most of the country got a 15-second news story that made it sound as if the consensus in Portland is against the troops, when the consensus is like the rest of the country - against the war. The most-outrageous banner the masked Republicants carried was fuzzed out on TV and in the newspapers, but was obviously intended to incite, not inform.

    Those 30-or-so masked cowards have managed to hide their identities and their true intent. The other 15,000-or-so people who attended the rally have not been able to identify the mask-wearing miscreants.

    I do know one thing: today's hippies would not emit greenhouse gases by burning an effigy. Unless the effigy is made of patchouli incense.

  4. I'm impressed, for once he wins something that I agree with
  5. I don't tend to disagree with you often arrow, but I don't think Bush was better president than Clinton. The country was in the best shape in years, (out of debt, etc) we had EXTRA money (or surplus if you will) and GW :censored2: that away rather quickly. Clinton did have personal troubles, but his personal life doesn't affect the country. Clinton lied about screwing around with the intern and we wanted to impeach him, but bush publicly screws everyone in this country (granted not under oath) , so much so that even some of the "red states" aren't going along with him anymore.

    I'm not going to say too much on the war, I think going to war with Saddam was a mistake, I do. However, I don't think going into Afghanistan was. I agreed with that decision. Now, we still haven't found Bin Ladden yet we were fighting someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 and for what?

    You can call me a liberal democrat (I'm actually more middle of the road) if you want. I don't burn flags, I don't attend rallies, I have family over there so I support our troops and have nothing but the utmost respect for them and their duty, but I do not support this president or his cause.
  6. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Whether or not Bush or Clinton was the better president is in the eyes of the beholder. As bad as Bush is I'd elect him over EITHER Clinton any day. That is my opinion. I'd say Clinton dropped the ball when it came to fighting terrorism. That is my biggest beef with him. He was too soft. Then we have Bush. He is quick to pull the trigger, and rightly so, but doesn't have the balls to truly fight a war.

    As far as the media perception of the rallies in Oregon...Yes, they did report the rally in such a way to make people think that the consensus in Portland is that of Anarchy. But you know what....the liberal media does that every day. Welcome to our world. And I don't believe that it's possible to be "For the troops but against the war." That is just absurd. You think the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen get a lift out of seeing footage of Americans protesting the war? I doubt it.

    And back on the original topic....one can list many reason whys Clinton was the better president. Being out of debt and having surplus money seems to be the popular answer for those who say Clinton was the better president. One could also list reasons why Bush was the better. Clinton didn't have two wars going on during his presidency and many Republicans blame Clinton for the circumstances that lead to the wars having to take place anyway. Clinton may have been saving us money but he was appeasing our enemys while doing so. The two arguement are the main talking points when comparing the two. And like i said....the better president is in the eyes of the beholder. Westsideworma....I am somewhere in the middle as well. I'm a "Centrist" according to several political surveys.
  7. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

    There are more Presidents to blame than just Clinton.

    When it comes to the Iraq war the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of Bush and the spineless Congress that gave him the authority.
  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I wonder if we can ever have a president that keeps a positive rating in todays world when the opposition spends so much time bringing him down.
  9. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Not likely.
  10. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Amazingly, you have to go all the way back to 2001 to find such a rare occurence :wink:.
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Good question on Tie's part and Big's answer of "not likely" would appear to me also to be the right answer. It's funny this came up because in recent time I've thought much on the current political situation we find ourselves. As I look back at various 2 term President's I seem to always see problems and scandels emerge within the 2nd term of various President's.

    FDR as he got deeper and deeper into his 2nd, 3rd and 4th terms had various issues arise. Ironically it was fear of some of these suggested abuses that put fuel to the cause of Presidential term limits of 2 terms only.

    Truman caught a lot of heat his 2nd term so that by the time he left office he was very low in the popularity scale.

    Eisenhower although popular because of WW2, he was catching flak especially from a growing political rightwing for being weak. Robert Welch's book "The Politician" although hardly unknown outside of hardcore rightwing circles is just one small example of a growing dissatisfaction with Ike within political circles that built towards 64' and the Goldwater effort.

    JFK never saw a 2nd term but I'd be willing to bet had history been without Oswald and of course the infamous "grassy knoll" I'd suspect at the least JFK's womenizing might have emerged in his 2nd term.

    LBJ's was the Vietnam failure that prevented his 2nd term. You might say he did it to himself but he gets an A++ for stepping up and taking blame and then stepping aside. Then again, was he told to do so because of political winds?

    Nixon of course the infamous Watergate. This one alone tops them all IMO.

    Carter, IMO is hard to say. I've always to this day thought that Carter was to nice a person for the political game itself. Politically I have many differences but I do think Carter really does mean well even though many people object to his methods. Hard to say what a 2nd term would have brought out.

    Reagan had Iran/Contra and I do think had Bush 1 made a 2nd term more would have come out on Iran/Contra and potentially more would have been made of not removing Saddam from power in the Gulf War.

    Clinton had everything from the obvious sex scandels to the Balkans to Whitewater to.... you know this guy whether be true or false was just surrounded by everything you could imagine. I'm not convinced there weren't some within his own party who wanted to get him. Let's be honest that the DLC and it's moderate positions was not a favorite of the hardcore left of the Democratic party who made up much of the grunt forces of the party itself. Besides, you gotta admit the late night show monologues were a blast when Clinton was President.

    Now we have Bush 2 and everything from the Iraq war to allegations of secret corp. alliances for the means and purpose of profit. Cheney and Halliburton to the war for oil or the war for Israel. Take your pick!

    It just seems that any 2nd term is almost assured of scandel or turmoil no matter who or party involved and that this is the life of American politics. I also believe as time goes by those scandels raise to a higher level of threat to the life and liberty of the American experience as we know it. They either present a real and present threat or we become numb to such continuing allegations that in the day that they really are true, whith the motion of a hand we laughing shrug them off and continue on in our life of oblivion.

    Chasing skirts is one thing but when you violate the law itself no matter at what level and when at the time you hold the highest level of Federal position over the executive branch of gov't that has the duty to setdown public policy that goes directly to the heart of federal law enforcment, then yes I'm very concerned over this and sadly all of the above mentioned men have engaged in actions that could be seen as threats to that very core with some more gross acts than others. We justify it with "well the intentions are well meaning" or even worse "hey this is our guy in there so I'm safe and happy so don't screw with us or else!"

    When you wake up on the 1st Wednesday morning of November 2008' will you still have that same warm and secure feeling if a certain women sit's atop the political pile? After that first year will you then find yourself a socalled "hardcore lefty" opponent of the Patriot Act or better yet will some of those "lefty" opponents now become "righty" proponents because it's their dog in the lead?

    In Rome's declining days, it's political leadership was surrounded by acts of evil and intrigue among it's highest leadership. In about all cases it's root cause was the desire to achieve personal power regardless of the human cost to the individual and the innocent while at the same time underminding a political opponent. In many cases murder itself was used as a tool and we have our own allegations of murder, death of JFK and most recently Vince Foster being among the most noted. We scoff at such allegations today because we are a civil and sophisticated peoples compared to the Romans of the late BCE and early CE period of history. I wonder if the Romans of their day on their Browncafe boasted with vaulted arrogance like ourselves to fluff off such suggestions of conspiracy and then to only learn in the years ahead how true many of those conspiracies turned out to be and in some cases even worse than imagined. Have political humans really evolved that far to avoid such unpleasantries? I personally think Big's own words are dead on the money again.