Posted on 12/02/2005 2:04:57 PM PST by Daralundy
Why Wait Three Years for Our Next President?
NEW YORK--By August 2003 California Governor Gray Davis' approval rating had plunged to 22 percent. Two months later, he lost a special recall election.
Now it's George W. Bush's turn to take a drubbing. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that only 37 percent of Americans think he's doing a good job, a record low for him and a dangerous drop below the historical benchmark of 40 percent.
"When a president falls below 40 percent approval in public opinion polls--as President Bush has done twice in the past two months--it's usually a sign of serious political danger," writes Richard Benedetto in USA Today. "Since 1950, five of the eight other presidents who fell below 40 percent--Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush--lost their bids for reelection or opted not to run again. A sixth, Richard Nixon, was overwhelmed by the Watergate scandal and resigned. Only two, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, turned things around." But even Clinton never regained his former appeal. His hand-picked successor, vice president Al Gore, won the 2000 election by such a narrow margin that Republicans were able to steal it away.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"His hand-picked successor, vice president Al Gore, won the 2000 election by such a narrow margin that Republicans were able to steal it away."
They will never give up on this, even after countless recounts confirmed Bush's victory. What a bunch of dorks.
Isn't the congressional approval rating around 26% ?
I can think of few things more likely to re-energize Bush's base.
This has got to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
"STOP ATTACKING US WITH FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- the left.
I guess Ricky does not get that President Bush cannot run for another term.
Yahoo actually posted a news item that said Bush "stole the election away"?
I guess though they are right, Bush won't win re-election.
BTW, note how they talk about the "8" since 1950 who went below 40% (before Bush). Well, there were only 10 during that time, and 1 died after 3 years. The other one, the one that never dropped below 40%? Eisenhower, who couldn't get HIS VP elected either, even though he (unlike Clinton) didn't suffer from falling below 40%.
The libs always like to ignore the constitution and the rules when it favors what THEY want to do. Yuck.
Given Bush's accomplishments in nearly 5 years.....strong economy......defending America from the terrorist enemy.....low unemployment.....record home ownership.....
I believe Bush would soundly beat Gore if there was an election in 2 weeks!!
If I happen to run into someone of this mindset I just tell them I'll be voting Bush/Cheney in 2008, since obviously Bush wasn't elected President in 2000. Usually the conversation is over after their head explodes.
Cheers,
CSG
To the left of the article, it said it was an op/ed by Rall. He certainly has disdain for our Constitution.
We should start a lot of mass rumors that Bush is already making plans for this.. just to make the DUmbasses' heads explode.
It's by Ted Rall. He has it on his website.
bttt
I say we tick them all off and have the new supreme court reselect Bush for another term. Freep 'em if they can't take a joke. LOL
How can this nonsense pass as news? I have seen more sensible articles in the Onion. I believe I may be a bit dumber for having read it and hope God has mercy on my soul.
Friggin Yahoo...ROFLMAO.
"Since 1950, five of the eight other presidents who fell below 40 percent--Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush--lost their bids for reelection or opted not to run again"
Another fool who's forgotten GWBush isn't going to run again. And, as one who actively participated in the California recall, let me tell you Pres. Bush's present "unpopularity" (even assuming it exists and is not just a bunch of rigged polls) is nowhere near what the anger against Davis was. Pres. Bush still has the strong support of 80% of Republicans, I think I saw somewhere; so if you take 80% of Republicans and 0% of dems, you probably get somewhere around 35% popularity. Not a poll I'd care to stake a recall on.
NOTE TO THIS NIMROD: if you are serious about this. There is a CONSTITUTIONAL process in place. So get busy and try to put your "recall" in the US constitution.Otherwise shut up!
writes Richard Benedetto in USA Today
Richard benedetto, = liberal Moron
USA Today= Liberal Rag.
Sum Total...Worthless Story.
"I say we hold them to their words that Bush never won in 2000 (and 2004?) and, on a technicality, argue that it is constitutional for him to run again in 08...
Just for spite.."
I've used that against them for a long long time now. They do a 180 so fast it makes your head spin.
What a bunch of crying babies. The President was elected by the process our country agreed upon many many years ago. We are not going to change the rules just because the DimoRATS are now out of power - they still have control of the LIBERAL COURTS. We need to get that back under control. They have done so much damage to this once great nation, that it is doubtful we can ever fully recover.
I'm feeling very lazy today.
A hypothetical question.
Just suppose the commies got their way and GWB was recalled, then Dick Cheney would fill the slot.
Is there anything in the laws that would prevent Dick Cheney from naming GWB as his VP?
You mean that guy who won the '92 election with only 43%?
Does Ted Rall really think his lunacy will get a warmer reception if he doesn't attach his name to it? Why is it unsigned at Yahoo!?
If one did not know that this was America's 'Rat Party, one could easily believe this was some third-world country political party.
Sad.
LVM
Cheers,
CSG
In fact, President Bush is doing a fine job, polls be damned. Those same poll numbers may start rising soon and this kind of gibberish about non-constitutional 'recall elections' from the deranged left will quickly subside.
The booming U.S. economy - once the rationale the Clinton defenders used to justify his weak presidency - the slow but steady success of the democratization of Iraq and the rarely talked-about safety of the nation from terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 all add up to a successful presidency that the left - naturally - hates. Tough.
Were Bush actually all that politically vulnerable, the congressional Democrats would have had the guts to vote 'Yes' when given the chance to end thr Iraq 'war' just a few weeks ago. They did not. Not even close. End of story.
ROFL!!!
Let me Guess.
They now don't think they'll capture the House and the Senate, so they cannot impeach him for purely partisan reasoning. So now they want a recall because they think they can win that? LOL
Why endorse a recall anyway? I thought G.W.B. was illegitimate. Shouldn't we be in Gore's second term and Kerry's first?
You know what really frightens them and steams them at the same time?
The prospect G.W.B. will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in our country and prescient Leaders in Time. They hate this man more than they did Reagan or Nixon at this point. The prospect that he will not only serve two terms, but may make gains for the party successfully throughout his terms and rank beyond their reach in history shakes them to the core.
he's shaking down their idol FDR if he makes the Republican Party Majority permanent. He's shaking down Clinton's non legacy (saving impeachment and Monica). he's matching up Reagan, Washington, Lincoln and Churchill (I'd add Truman and to some extents Kennedy and FDR) the greats on what is truly important. WOT. Plus probably reshaping the Judiciary.
The reason the Dems want to replay 2000, 2002, and 2004 in 2006 as a race against Bush is because they feel it's one of the last chances they have to beat him in theory if not electorally. 2008 will be about Bush as well. We beat them in 2006 and 2008 then they've effectively lost the opportunity to ever run against him again, saving in trying to distort history's interpretation of him that will not be successful after their deaths.
How long has Yahoo been publishing its own editorials? Who would pay attention to editorials by a company named Yahoo?
"Is there anything in the laws that would prevent Dick Cheney from naming GWB as his VP?
I suppose the only issue would be if there somehow were legal charges brought against President Bush during the recall or to trigger the recall that he was found guilty of (Note: A recall isn't even given credence in the Constitution, but I don't expect a Lib to know that..)"
Thanks....that's what I thought.
Wish I had the skill to make up a phony petition to have the constitution changed, giving the right to GWB to be able to run again in 2008. My bet they'd soon drop that "GWB stole the 2000 and 2004 elections" chant.
Well, at least for a while.
Michelle Malkin pretty well summed up this "talent" back in July '04 ~ THE BUCK-NAKED BIGOTRY OF TED RALL after he published a crude-toon includes a frame depicting Condoleezza Rice proclaiming herself Bush's "HOUSE NIGGA."
Can we get this idea to Karl Rove? LOL
It is on it, but you have to look hard. Apparently he and Yahoo are ashamed enough of this opinion piece disguised to appear as news, that they don't put the author in a prominent position
so it can be "NEWS"
I'd like to see Free Republic adopt a policy of not allowing garbage like this to be posted unless the author's name is clearly posted on the piece. This garbage could have been written (and probably was) by a homosexual, a pedophile, a drug addict or even a murdering terrorist "insurgent" and we would never know it. Obviously, the moron that wrote this piece was too embarrassed to put his/her/it's name on it. This is just a piece of generic DemocRAT garbage.
I couldn't agree me - this is one president who has balls and went after the terrorists after we had a wuss in the WH for 8 years. Part of 911 HAS to be Clintoons fault and I believe that would have been found in the 911 Omission Commission if Jamie Gorelick was made to testify rather than being on the commission (and if Snady Burgler hadn't been able to mess with the records).
ROFLMAO! Talk about a phony statistic. First, the author can get back to me when he figures out that GWB can't run for reelection, so the above is not applicable.
Second, there have been 11 presidents since 1950.
In 1950, Truman was in what amounted to his second term, because FDR died less than three months after his 4th inaugural. All presidents until FDR respected the two-term precedent set by George Washington. The reaction to FDR's four terms resulted in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution being passed Congress on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by 3/4ths of states quickly, achieving full ratification on February 27, 1951. Truman was exempt and could have run for a third term, but he respected the prevailing opinion of the times.
All of the other 10 presidents since 1950 were limited to two terms. Only half -- Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 -- have won a 2nd term. It can be argued that Johnson's one term was really Kennedy's 2nd. In any case, Johnson was a worn out 60-year-old man with serious heart disease by 1968. He lived less than five full years after leaving office.
Ford was an accidental president, the first unelected president in our history. Carter was a totally pathetic failure, and we didn't need opinion polls to tell us such.
As for GHWB, he was undone by the modern media machine that's tried to get the scalp of every Republican president since Watergate, as well as by his breaking of the no new taxes pledge.
Polls have nothing to do with the actual history of the last 50 years other than the way they have been increasingly used since Watergate to drive public opinion rather than merely report it.
These idiots have no political power, and have nothing better to do with their time than flesh out their delusions.
BRAVO! Nothing like facts, to put it to the lies.
Who wrote this crap?
Grin...when the lies are this easy to refute it's a wonder the Dims keep trying.
Rall never struck me as a particularly smart man. His main emotion in life is anger.
It got me to thinking what pundits must be like in real life, if we can extrapolate from what they write.
Thomas Sowell has his share of angry columns. He also has columns where he talks about photography and the genius of Ansel Adams. He writes about baseball and longtime friends. He comes across as a gruff type, but someone who is basically enjoying life. One could enjoy going to the ballgame with Sowell.
Coulter has her angry columns, but she also seems like someone who has fun in life. Her columns are laced with humor. She seems like someone who would be fun to talk to at a party.
But Rall's only emotion is anger. He sounds like he'd be the guy in a corner at a party going on about how life sucks. I can't imagine how he'd be any fun to have around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.