Posted on 01/21/2005 9:24:03 AM PST by Mikmur
So let's take Bush's 49, compare it to Clinton's 60 and Reagan's 62 and stick with Clinton for just a second. I want to try to demonstrate to you here that the Bush approval, the 49% is more valuable to the nation than Clinton's 60% was. And I'm gonna do it on the basis of what you've all heard discussed and that is political capital. Political capital is the actions a leader takes to do the right thing regardless of political costs. For example, if the president had cleaned out Afghanistan and not followed through in Iraq, how many of those who disapprove would be in the approve column? If he hadn't spent political capital doing the right thing in Iraq, what would his approval number be? It would be higher, would it not? We got the Taliban out of Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda is on the run, but we don't go to Iraq, that might be 10 or 15% in addition to what he has now. So you could say the 51 approval, let's make that 66% approval right there if we're not in Iraq. If he had not talked about Social Security, and he's been talking about it since the election, what's he get, 5, 10% if he doesn't tackle Social Security? So we can put him up over 70% approval if he doesn't go to Iraq and if he doesn't do this Social Security. In other words, he's spending his political capital, and there is a cost associated, and it shows up in the approval numbers.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
It really is quite logical. I don't know if it's true or not but it's a great theory. That's why I like Rush so much, I know he often gets a bad rap here but he has a unique ability to see things clearly.
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.