AP Poll: Americans Hopeful on 2nd Bush Term

AP ^ | Jan 16 | WILL LESTER

[West Coast Conservative]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A majority of Americans say they feel hopeful about President Bush's second term, but those hopes are clouded by doubts about when the bloodshed in Iraq will end.

People say Iraq should be the president's highest priority, according to an Associated Press poll that found that those surveyed are not optimistic a stable government will take hold there.

After winning re-election, Bush is preparing to pursue an ambitious agenda that includes efforts to change Social Security, federal tax laws and medical malpractice awards.

Ahead of Bush's inauguration on Thursday, six in 10 people said they feel hopeful about his second term and 47 percent said they were worried. Most said they were neither angry nor excited about his final four years in office.

Iraq was cited most often as the president's highest priority, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Some 53 percent of those questioned said it is unlikely that Iraq will have a stable government.

"Iraq remains the kind of thing that could completely take over the term, if the situation gets a lot worse," said Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "It's a good idea for the president to push new domestic proposals. He has to find a way to have the whole second term be about more than just Iraq."

More than 1,350 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. Deadly attacks by insurgents are on the rise as the Jan. 30 elections near.

Bush is presiding over a nation much changed from the one when he took office in January 2001. The Sept. 11 attacks have changed everything, from the shape of government and the health of the economy to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

Half of those questioned in the AP poll said relations with other countries are worse than they were four years ago, while four in 10 said they are the same. One-quarter of Republicans said relations with other countries are worse.

Bush's domestic wish list - with its focus on allowing private accounts in Social Security for younger Americans, limiting lawsuit awards and overhauling the tax laws - could gain momentum from the increased GOP majorities in the House and Senate. But Republican lawmakers are showing a willingness to challenge Bush's proposals.

Close behind Iraq in public concerns for Bush's second term is the economy, which moved past terrorism as a top concern in AP polls in the past two months. Social Security was named as a top issue by only 9 percent, taxes by 2 percent.

After picking up in 2004, the economy probably will slow this year, influenced by rising interest rates, higher energy costs and the lack of a new tax cut, economists say.

People were relatively optimistic about their own personal finances in the next year. Four in 10 said they expect their own situation to improve and a similar number said they expect it would stay the same the same, according to the poll of 1,000 adults that was taken Jan. 10-12. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Three years ago, more people in an AP poll thought their finances would be getting better in the year after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Public perceptions of the president's personal strengths are his biggest asset today.

Almost two-thirds of those polled described Bush as likable, strong and intelligent. A majority said he is dependable and honest.

"These times are probably the most stressful and insecure times in this country's history," said Evelyn Hicks, a Republican from Gainesville, Fla. "But I'm confident with my president. He's genuine and has convictions. He's not intimidated into trying to say the right things.

People were evenly split on whether Bush is arrogant - a divide that followed party lines. Democrats said Bush can succeed purely by his doggedness.

"What concerns me most is that he's doing everything that ought not to be done," said Ron Luckie, a Democrat from Atlanta. "If he's successful in everything he's attempting to do, it will not be good for our country."

[zzen01]

Bet that this killed the AP to publish this one.

[txradioguy]

LOL! Yeah you can almost hear the bullets being loaded in the chamber over at DU when they read this headline! LOL!


Here's a new catchphrase the RNC should run up the flagpole:


"Liberalism - Out of touch with mainstream America since 1968".

[Soul Seeker]

Almost two-thirds of those polled described Bush as likable, strong and intelligent. A majority said he is dependable and honest.

I suspect we can hear another round about how Americans are ignorant, too stupid to understand G.W. is a lying war monger. Kerry must be in shock that 2/3rd's believe the President is intelligent given reported commentary of his reaction to Bush in private. This will just confirm to the Libs we are not competant to vote.

[Ramonchito]

The result of last year's elections is very notable. It is the first time that a war just concluded by the United States was a subject of an electoral contest. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, American Presidents simply refused to discuss the election issues involved in those wars. Truman refused to run for re-election and so with Johnson when he started the Vietnam War.

Although the results of the elections were quite close, it does not mean the victory of the anti-war movement. Kerry did not promise that he would immediately withdraw US troops in Iraq or not involve the US in any war during his term. What Kerry promised the voters is that the United States would not act alone in going to war unless it receives the nod and blessings of its allies in the United Nations. Bush likened Kerry to a liberal while he pictured himself as a conservative.

Had Kerry won the elections, it only meant that the United States would not act independently of the United Nations and would not go to war unless the United Nations gave it her permission. Under Kerry's formula, going to war would be a little bit more complicated because the Americans have agreed to abide by UN rules in military engagements.

Now that Bush won, it means that the majority of Americans believe that the Iraq war was justified even though it did not pass the UN vote. This means in the future the United States will act independently of the UN should circumstances dictate to do otherwise. However, because of the closeness of the votes, American hawkish Presidents have to consider the wishes of the opposition. It means that the US will not wage war without UN approval not unless there was a serious provocation by a belligerent power. If Iran or North Korea suddenly decides to use their nuclear weapons against the United States, the US will do what it can to protect its nation and citizens. Also, if Iran or North Korea uses its nuclear weapons to destroy the cities of its neighbors, the United States may act without authorization from the UN. In short, there must be a serious provocation for the United States to act to maintain international order. What led to the first Iraq war was the occupation of Iraq of Kuwait, which was condemned by all nations, Christians and Muslims alike. The second Iraq war was caused by the widespread suspicion that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorism. The second Iraq war was supported by the US Congress and later on by the US electorate.

Now that Bush has got his four year term, there is nothing that the American populace could do except be patient with the outcome of the Iraq insurgency. Once the Iraqi armed force is duly constituted, the new Iraq government might ask the Americans to leave. Probably the new Iraqi government would take over the task of maintaining peace and order throughout the country while the Americans are confined in their Iraqi bases, just like what is happening in Kuwait. The new Iraqi government said in its website that the Americans will leave only if there is no more insurgency in Iraq.

That the new Iraqi government has the capability of maintaining public order throughout Iraq is a foregone conclusion. During the time of Saddam, Iraq had the largest armed force in the Middle East. It is unthinkable that the new Iraqi government could not create a huge army to protect its citizens and government considering that it has received incentives from Western governments like debt forgiveness, promise of military aid and etc..

It only takes time to build a dependable armed force. Some say that the US made a mistake of disbanding Saddam's army soon after the fall of Saddam. Whatever mistakes in policy that the Americans made soon after the fall of Saddam is a matter of public debate, but there were advantages in totally disbanding Saddam's Army after the fall of Iraq. One thing, the army that the new Iraqi government has does not have previously loyalty to Saddam's regime. Hence, this army could be completely relied upon by the new Iraqi government to maintain public order. As for Saddam's old army, they could negotiate with the new Iraqi government to give Saddam's former military officers a role in the army in return for their loyalty to the new Republic. Every thing could be discussed which gives this new Iraqi government an immense advantage over Saddam's former government. Saddam did not permit dissent in his government even though the criticism was well meant. The result was a disastrous military policy. Saddam embarked on the Iranian war which she could not win because of the lack of capability of her officers. Iraq's participation in the first Iraq war was disastrous because of the incompetence of Saddam's officers, but Saddam refused to acknowledge this deficiency in his government. The next Iraq war was even more disastrous for the Iraqi army was wiped out by the Americans in three weeks of fighting with negligible losses on the part of the Americans. With the occupation of Iraq, one of the Middle East's finest army was destroyed.

The insurgency in Iraq is just one of the pains that the Iraqi nation is undergoing to make a transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. This pain is only temporary. In the Iraqi insurgency, the Americans who at the moment is fighting the insurgency, is suffering negligible losses while the insurgents are the ones taking the beating in terms of causalities. The Iraqi insurgents are raging like a wild animal in the forest. Soon its voice will drown and a new page in Iraqi history will be written.

Armies in the Middle East have a reputation of being paper tigers being easily beaten in military confrontation with better organized armies like Israel. During the Iraq-Iran war, Iran was dependent on Israeli aid to drive the Iraqis from their territory. When Israeli aid was withdrawn, Iran could not sustain its invasion of Iraq. Democracy in Iraq will prove that Middle Eastern officers are competent themselves if they are not bowed down by a dictatorship that is suspicious of dissent. Saddam had 12 years to fix the deficiencies of his army, but he did not do anything about it although he knew that American invasion was imminent. With democracy in place in Iraq, the new Iraqi army will be a force to reckon with in the Middle East. It will destroy the myth that the new democratic order is incompatible with Islam.

If you will read the website of the new Iraqi government, there is always a quotation from the Koran in explaining the actuations of the new government to the Iraqi people. This means that many devoted Muslims feel that democracy is not contrary to the tenets of Islam. Unfortunately, Islam grew under the patronage of authoritarian regimes and Muslims have a difficulty to see an Islamic government thriving under republicanism. When Ataturk established the first republican government in Turkey, it was a bold experiment in government in the traditionally Islamic nations of the Middle East. Yet Ataturk and his supporters knew that there was no incompatibility between Islam and a republican form of government and that both can blend beautifully without contradictions.

That democracy will be implanted in Iraqi soil by the Americans is a foregone fact. The insurgency is just a phase of an animal who refuses to die quietly. Pretty soon it will normalize. This is why the Americans are insisting on elections so that the Iraqi people could quickly decide what is the best government for them - sans Saddam's dictatorship. It will be a democracy fashioned after the aspirations of the Iraqi people, not a government imposed upon them as losers in a battle. Only Saddam lost the war, but the Iraqi people were the ultimate victors in the Iraq war.

[Revolutionary]

Several polls have just come out from generally liberal sources that show Bush well over 50% and climbing. A key note is that all of these polls are Adults over 18. Translate this to likely voters, what really matters to the politicians and you can add at least 5-7% to the media's numbers. That puts Bush close to 60% on job approval and many other policy initiatives. What out for fake polls. There was one recently on Social Security that used the word extreme when referring to Bush's plan.

[SunkenCiv]

Fascinating, since the "news" here tonight ran the usual garbage about our recently reelected president having an approval rating of just over 50 per cent.

Yeah, 53 per cent of those who were concerned enough to show up at the polls, the only poll that counts, which took place in November; not once since LBJ in 1964 has a Democrat won or lost with at least half of the votes cast, and that includes the fraudulent votes that are always cast for the Dim candidate.

I'm optimistic as well as realistic. We've got more **** ahead of us in Iraq.

And we get to listen to Ted Kennedy bleat about Social Security reform.

When he and his were in charge, SS became a dole program. My mother complained about that tonight, and actually tried to blame our current president for that. I pointed out that the Dims ran both houses of Congress with two short breaks from 1933 to 1995.

And the idea of delayed benefits for retirees is often offered as a panacea, yet some don't seem to realize that it's already on the books, and has been since the 1970s.