It's Official

[blzrul]

Effectiveness and popularity are mutually exclusive.

So since he's unpopular, he's effective?

 

I guess if you are in the defense, oil, pharma or managed healthcare industry that would be true.

[Nanker]

So since he's unpopular, he's effective?

 

I guess if you are in the defense, oil, pharma or managed healthcare industry that would be true.

 

Frankly, his numbers are so low because he farted in the face of his conservative supporters.

He ran John Swiftboat's "Kinder, Gentler War" in Iraq when most of his citizen backers wanted the damned hell-hole leveled. Instead of smashing the Dead-Enders like we did in WWII, we had prime-time coverage of Congressmen and Senators declaring the war was lost, it was VietNam all over again, and "Bush-the-idiot duped us" and "He played on our FEARS!"

 

It was his failure to articulate and execute the bold steps required to subdue that enemy that doomed his popularity - not necessarily the policy per-se.

 

The Democrats are now led by the extreme left and have pursued a relentless personal war against Bush that is unprecedented in our history.

 

Unlike you, I take no comfort in the fact that the man's speech patterns are clumsy and make him appear inarticulate and dim. I don't believe his is any less intelligent than Al Gore. Hey - Al flunked out of Law and Divinity schools. At least W got an MBA from Harvard and attended enough TANG sessions to learn how to fly a jet.

 

His unpopularity is as much a derivative of his turning his back on conservatives as it is the hate mongering coming from the left of which you are so enamored.

[DC Tom]

So since he's unpopular, he's effective?

 

I guess if you are in the defense, oil, pharma or managed healthcare industry that would be true.

 

That's not the meaning of "mutually exclusive".

[/dev/null]

That's not the meaning of "mutually exclusive".

 

A President can be popular but not effective (Clinton)

A President can be unpopular but effective (Truman)

A President can be both popular and effective (Reagan)

 

GW Bush is neither popular nor effective

[DC Tom]

GW Bush is neither popular nor effective

 

Didn't say he was. I'm just disputing the "He's not effective because he's unpopular" argument.

 

Though if you want to argue his effectiveness...domestic and fiscal policy, you won't get much argument from me, but people'd be rather surprised at how effective his foreign policy is, if they paid any attention to any part of it other than Iraq.

[Booster4324]

Didn't say he was. I'm just disputing the "He's not effective because he's unpopular" argument.

 

Though if you want to argue his effectiveness...domestic and fiscal policy, you won't get much argument from me, but people'd be rather surprised at how effective his foreign policy is, if they paid any attention to any part of it other than Iraq.

 

Examples please, I believe you. I am simply curious as to why you would think that.

[blzrul]

Didn't say he was. I'm just disputing the "He's not effective because he's unpopular" argument.

 

Though if you want to argue his effectiveness...domestic and fiscal policy, you won't get much argument from me, but people'd be rather surprised at how effective his foreign policy is, if they paid any attention to any part of it other than Iraq.

He wasn't effective when he was popular so it's no surprise he's unpopular now.

[BuffOrange]

And if someone had merely posted that statement without statistical proof, wingnuts would have disputed it.

 

It's really quite funny how desperate little people are to weasel out of admitting that electing this moron was a really really bad way to start out the new millenium.

 

I neither voted for or like the guy. I do think that it proves little in terms of how history will remember him.

 

"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively) but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland added. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 66 percent disapproval in January 1952."

 

Truman is regarded by most non-partisan analysts as one of the top 3-4 presidents in "modern history", or at least above average.

[Adam]

Frankly, his numbers are so low because he farted in the face of his conservative supporters.

He ran John Swiftboat's "Kinder, Gentler War" in Iraq when most of his citizen backers wanted the damned hell-hole leveled. Instead of smashing the Dead-Enders like we did in WWII, we had prime-time coverage of Congressmen and Senators declaring the war was lost, it was VietNam all over again, and "Bush-the-idiot duped us" and "He played on our FEARS!"

 

It was his failure to articulate and execute the bold steps required to subdue that enemy that doomed his popularity - not necessarily the policy per-se.

 

The Democrats are now led by the extreme left and have pursued a relentless personal war against Bush that is unprecedented in our history.

 

Unlike you, I take no comfort in the fact that the man's speech patterns are clumsy and make him appear inarticulate and dim. I don't believe his is any less intelligent than Al Gore. Hey - Al flunked out of Law and Divinity schools. At least W got an MBA from Harvard and attended enough TANG sessions to learn how to fly a jet.

 

His unpopularity is as much a derivative of his turning his back on conservatives as it is the hate mongering coming from the left of which you are so enamored.

Both parties are run by extremists- thats the problem. I would vote for some of the people on this board over the three idiots that we are looking at now.........all of whom would do a better job than Bush

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Both parties are run by extremists- thats the problem. I would vote for some of the people on this board over the three idiots that we are looking at now.........all of whom would do a better job than Bush

 

Sadly, I couldn't agree more. P.S. Clinton was very effective. Combined with a Republican Congress our country was in the best shape fiscally since WWII. Bush managed to screw that up effectively in very short order, but that is beside the point.

 

I agree with some that effectiveness needs to be defined. If you take out the negative and positive determination, Bush and his folks have made things happen.... The problem is that most of it is negative.

[Adam]

Sadly, I couldn't agree more. P.S. Clinton was very effective. Combined with a Republican Congress our country was in the best shape fiscally since WWII. Bush managed to screw that up effectively in very short order, but that is beside the point.

 

I agree with some that effectiveness needs to be defined. If you take out the negative and positive determination, Bush and his folks have made things happen.... The problem is that most of it is negative.

Don't forget that Clinton benefited from the dot com boom- now don't take that as a put down for him- the opportunity presented itself, and he took advantage.

[Nanker]

1.) Sadly, I couldn't agree more. P.S. Clinton was very effective. Combined with a Republican Congress our country was in the best shape fiscally since WWII.

 

2.) Bush managed to screw that up effectively in very short order, but that is beside the point.

 

I agree with some that effectiveness needs to be defined. If you take out the negative and positive determination, Bush and his folks have made things happen.... The problem is that most of it is negative.

 

1.) If it weren't for Y2k there wouldn't have been the "good Clinton economic years".

2.) If it weren't for 911 there wouldn't have been a slow start to the Bush administration.

3.) If t weren't for the Democratic controlled Congress, the Bush tax cuts would be permanent and at least one of the reasons we're in the current pickle wouldn't exist.

 

http://www.smartmoney.com/invisiblehand/in...2&hpadref=1 It's all a ruse anyway.

From the comments to that article - one of my favorites:

"you are an idiot if you can't get who pays for corporate taxes. If you raise the corporate tax rate by 50% do you think all of a sudden the people taking the risk to bring you your big screen tv would not expect to be compensated for it. People invest to get a return not pay taxes. People also work for large profitable companies to earn large checks. Those groups are not giving up their money. Now they have to add the tax expense to the price of your TV. Possibly by a couple hundred dollars to equal the tax you wanted them to pay to keep their profits high enough to stay in business, keep their investors, and keep their employees. The only one that goes negative is you. You now have a couple hundred extra balance on your credit card that you have to pay off with your after tax income. Get it?"

[swede316]

People also work for large profitable companies to earn large checks. Those groups are not giving up their money.

I know I do...and nope, don't want to give it up

[/dev/null]

Clinton was very effective. Combined with a Republican Congress our country was in the best shape fiscally since WWII. Bush managed to screw that up effectively in very short order, but that is beside the point.

 

Clinton was effective in signing into law parts of the 94 Republican's Contract With America. Other than that, Clinton benefited from favorable circumstances. The .com boom pumped money into the economy and gridlock with the Republican controlled House and Senate prevented any new great ideas from getting rammed up our backside. Toss an occasional cruise missle into Iraq and bomb some East European country without an Air Force to pad the foreign policy stats

 

Bush on the other hand came in at the end of the .com and start of the .bomb and had 9/11. Plus he had a Republican controlled House/Senate who weren't going to stand in his way. So Bush had nothing to stop him from showing how ineffective he really is

[molson_golden2002]

Didn't say he was. I'm just disputing the "He's not effective because he's unpopular" argument.

 

Though if you want to argue his effectiveness...domestic and fiscal policy, you won't get much argument from me, but people'd be rather surprised at how effective his foreign policy is, if they paid any attention to any part of it other than Iraq.

Yes, I probably would be surprised. Do tell

[molson_golden2002]

I neither voted for or like the guy. I do think that it proves little in terms of how history will remember him.

 

 

 

Truman is regarded by most non-partisan analysts as one of the top 3-4 presidents in "modern history", or at least above average.

Hmmmm....which means very little to Bush's prospects of being regarded such, I'm afraid. Why was Truman so unpopular? He lost the Souther whites with his support of civil rights and integrating the military. Strom Thurman ran for President against him. The War in Korea hurt him as well, but that later turned out ok, something Iraq will not do."Losing" China was a huge issue at the time, later easily forgotten because it wasn't his fault. And the Dems had just been in power too long. That didn't help.

 

Also Truman left behind a long list of major accomplishments that will be remember for a long time. The Truman Doctrine, MARSHALL PLAN, NATO and the Berlin Air Lift. All huge successes. I suppose being a punching bag for that scum bag McCarthy and his kind shed a sypathetic light on his presidency as well.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Quelle surprise.

 

What's that I hear, wingnut heads exploding?

 

Note that his approval rating is not the lowest ever, but his disapproval rating is the highest. So ... he's finally proving out to be a "unificaterer" instead of a "divider-upper".

 

When are you gonna give it a rest, and start hammering on the next president--McCain, like some in your croud.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

It's quite ironic that the war on President Bush is fueled by chants of "He lied, and he deceived us."

The media is beside themselves with disgust that they didn't question the premise for invading Iraq harder.

President Bush is the worst public speaker to ever hold that august office. IMHO.

 

So along comes an erudite loquacious enigmatic young Senator who preaches "change".

And the media apparently never learned the lesson from their bad Bush experience.

They are doing backflips to get out of the way of stories on the right irreverent and repugnant Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rezko.

 

To me Obama is the Putney Swope of American politics. Swope got elected the CEO and promised no change and delivered the opposite. Obama's preaching change for the sake of change. If he does get elected, a lot of people who blindly voted for him and "change" could be shocked at the kind of change he really believes in. He's a closet Marxist that believes the answer to everyone's problems is to be found in the government. He believes the government must be an integral part of everyone's lives.

 

Every time I go downtown, I run into black people asking for change.

[Alaska Darin]

Clinton was very effective.

 

Effective at being in office when virtually every economic star in the world lined up. Big Bird would have been an effective President if energy prices were cheap and stayed that way for the first 7.5 years of his administration.

[Adam]

 

Effective at being in office when virtually every economic star in the world lined up. Big Bird would have been an effective President if energy prices were cheap and stayed that way for the first 7.5 years of his administration.

While I agree to a point, sometimes the toughest thing to do is not mess things up. I rate him above Bush, but I really don't like either of them