The majority is wrong about Bush

The Charleston Gazette ^ | 4-16-06 | Don Surber

[veronica]

President Bush’s approval rating is pretty low. He is behind car salesmen, but still ahead of journalists and Congress. A recent Gallup Poll found that only 37 percent of the public approves of the job he is doing as president.

Picky, picky, picky.

Now George W. Bush is too nice to say this, but maybe the problem is with the American people. We are a nation of ingrates.

Let me give you an example. The New York Times painstakingly examined the investment tax break and came up with a list of the counties that benefited most from this change in policy.

Among the chief beneficiaries was Marin County, Calif., outside of San Francisco.

How did Marin County voters show their appreciation? In 2004, 73 percent voted for John Kerry and 25 percent voted for Bush.

Come to think of it, the five most affluent states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland and New York — all voted for Kerry.

At the other end of the scale, all 10 of the poorest states went with Bush in 2004.

Increasing the child tax credit to $1,000 and ending the marriage penalty helped drop taxes by an average of $1,083 in 2003 for the nation’s 92 million taxpayers.

And people saw the results in other ways. The unemployment rate shrank from 6.3 percent in 2003 to 5.1 percent in 2005 to 4.7 percent last month.

That is pretty good considering that the attacks of Sept. 11th knocked the stock market out for nearly a week and that oil prices rose to $70 a barrel.

It is even better when one considers the United States just lost a major city to Hurricane Katrina — or rather, New Orleans failed to properly maintain the levee system given it by American taxpayers.

Indeed, the same poll that found 60 percent disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy found 59 percent of Americans rate the economic condition of the nation as good — and 60 percent said they expect that a year from now the economy will be good.

It is not the economy, stupid. It is the war.

Iraq is not so much Vietnam as it is Korea. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower ran for president promising to end the war in Korea. He did.

Our troops are still there, as is our commitment. Americans surely knew going in that there would be a long-term commitment in Iraq.

In judging the Bush presidency, Americans must not overlook the No Child Left Behind reforms, which shifted the emphasis in education from the bureaucracy back to the child.

Much to my surprise, the convoluted Medicare prescription plan seems to be working. A survey showed three-quarters of those who signed up say they are saving money.

My guess is that 60 percent of them nonetheless would say Bush is doing a poor job handling the prescription program.

The war overwhelms all that, which is not surprising. I would guess that if Gallup asked, 60 percent would disapprove of his handling of the weather.

The president takes it in stride. Bush spoke at Johns Hopkins University earlier this month. He was asked about the polls and the protest.

“Yes, I hear the protests,” Bush said. “And I can understand why. I can understand why people are concerned about war. Nobody likes war, particularly me.

“I knew exactly what was going to happen when I committed these troops into harm’s way. I knew there would be — people would lose their life. And I knew I’d be trying to comfort mothers and fathers and grieving wives. I knew exactly what was coming.

“And if I didn’t think it was the right thing to do, I wouldn’t have sent them. And if I didn’t think we could succeed in Iraq, I’d pull them out.”

President Bush bet his presidency on Iraq. Like Harry Truman before him, Bush had no choice. States that sponsor terrorism must be brought in line.

Truman was not appreciated in his time. Bush is not appreciated now. Most of the time, the majority is right.

This is not one of those times.

[marron]

Bush's "loss of popularity" doesn't translate into support for Democrats. Democrats hate him because, well, he's not a Democrat. Those percentages haven't changed (other than the fact that Dems continue to bleed Christians). Republicans are mad at him because he's too nice to Democrats. Some are disappointed because he has, in effect, enacted the DNC's program. Sometimes as a ploy, sometimes out of conviction; thats who he is.

Republicans who are mad at him for not being Republican enough skews the polls, and the chatterers are eating it up. But they should not take any false hope from it; more-conservative-than-thou Repubs aren't going to be crossing over to pull the lever for Clinton II.

[Muleteam1]

>>The more polling "news" I read, the better I understand why Hannibal Lecter ate the census taker who tried to quantify him.<<

LOL! Made me spit my coffee on the screen! Hmmm, I wonder if Zogby runs around with a clipboard?

[hinckley buzzard]

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower ran for president promising to end the war in Korea. He did

Bad history. Eisenhower ran on the pledge, "I will go to Korea." The implication was the revered five star Supreme Allied Commander would straighten out the mess once he had a first hand grip on the situation. He did not run on a plank to "end the war," to my knowledge. It wouldn't have helped him if he did. We didn't think that way back then.

[raybbr]

Its time after this immigration debate ends and we have some sort of conclusion for all to get behind this President.

What debate? Bush closed all debate in 2000. He never brought this issue up for a debate before the GOP.

He was hell bent on creating a "new America". If I had known about this speech I would not have voted for him.

THE "NEW AMERICAN"

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

[devolve]

[catholicfreeper]

Well I guess my point is that Bush has never hidden his stance any on this issue. I can remember when he said he wasnt thrilled about Prop 187. So, I can not fault his individual integrity on a position that he has held pretty well since the days he was Gov of Texas. Many people assume that these voters will be Dems. Bush got huge percentages of the Hispanic vote when he was Governor. Its prob the reason he is President today.

[alnick]

I'll bet when the polls agree with the author, he's got a few hackneyed cliches about the "wisdom of the American people ready to go

It appears you didn't read the article. The last two lines: "Most of the time, the majority is right. This is not one of those times."

[Huck]

But his argument makes no sense. Americans elected Bush twice. The libs in Cali voted against him both times, and don't care about tax breaks, so his points there were moot. He goes on to what? Make some basic arguments for the Iraq War. America reelected GWB with the Iraq War the central, hell, the only issue. They were right to re-elect him, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for disapproving of the job he's doing. And it doesn't mean you can use pre 04 arguments to argue for support now. We supported his first term accomplishments in 04 when we voted for his reelection. Now we judge his peformance on what he does now.

Meanwhile, back in the 90s, the argument on the right was that Americans were wrong to approve of Klintoon on the basis of the economy when there were other issues to be considered. Seems now they want to have Americans judge GWB on the economy. And this guy can argue all he wants that the RX plan is "working." But just because subscribers are saving money doesn't mean taxpayers are.

GW was an obvious choice in 04. But judged on his own merits since 04...well, what has he accomplished since 04? Only thing I can think of is two SCOTUS appointments, and one of those was only after a self-inflicted, and still inexplicable debacle.

[raybbr]

Bush got huge percentages of the Hispanic vote when he was Governor.

I am not sure of the percentages in Texas but he only got about 40% of the hispanic vote nationwide. It begs the question "What will the next GOP candidate have to promise to maintain that 40%? Also, does ignoring your base to garner a small percentage of the overall vote mean you are going to win? While Bush alienates millions of GOP voters to gain a tiny amount from the hispanics what does that do to the future of the GOP?

At this point I don't care anymore. The GOP is not a conservative party by any stretch of the imagination.

Bush has disappointed on other issues as well. If there was a better candidate then Bush I would have voted for him. But Bush knew that idea of either a Kerry or Gore presidency would be abhorrent to people like me and he banked on that.

Like many others I voted against Gore and Kerry not necessarily for Bush.

[marron]

One of Bush and Rove's ambitions was to begin the process of peeling Hispanic and Black American voters away from the Democratic Party.

You will never get a majority of either, but in a 50-50 electorate, you only need a few to permanently tip the political balance of power.

The fact that he was able to claim 40% of hispanic votes in some areas was huge, considering that usually Repubs could count on no more than 20 or 25%. He did this primarily with happy talk, just speaking respectfully about hispanics.

The Democrats see this, and have gone spastic over it. That is what is behind the marches and the general craziness in Congress right now. They have to reverse the trend, they have to paint Repubs as the "anti-hispanic" party. They are doing what they always do, which is to play ethnic politics, race politics. Its the only game they know.

If they succeed, they can regain the White House for a generation. Its hard to beat ethnic politics with color-blind politics, but thats what we're up against.

The idea of America as a racist country is a Democratic Party meme, their survival as a political party depends on it. The US admits, legally, with full permanent residency, 200,000 Mexicans every year. Not once, in all of the press hysteria about the issue will you hear that number. It is more important to convince hispanic voters that they are a victim class, in need of DNC protection.

[Luke21]

I notice the very opposite, the Bushbots take a thread apiece and give us their rah rah ziss boom bah about how great the prez is.

You at least aren't arrogant, patronizing, and insulting like most of the Bots are.

[SuziQ]

Solutions to some of our problems require the long haul approach.

Unfortunately, many Americans are of the "gotta have it NOW society", and think they should not have to wait for anything.

[SuziQ]

I am a lot less concerned about Mexicans than I am about Muslims. Mexicans did not fly planes into buildings on 9-11.

With the exception of the Gang members, and there are not that many of them, the Mexicans seem to be wanting to come here and WORK!

[SuziQ]

You're excusing Bush's continued and consistent encouragement of lawbreakers, both to illegal aliens AND to their U.S. employers.

Do you even know what the PRESIDENT has said HE wants from Immigration reform? Most posters who are all lathered about what 'Bush stands for' don't seem to even know what he has proposed. All this screaming about 'amnesty' and 'letting criminals go free', is NOT what the President has proposed. I believe most of the people against Immigration reform are reacting to different proposals from some who want to mess up the works by adding things to the legislation they know will make Republicans angry and turn against the President.

President Bush has proposed a way to make it easier for people to come into this country to work, but in order to do so, they have to be identified and there is a way they can work to become citizens. By reducing some of the red tape, it's likely there will be fewer who feel the need to sneak over the border in hopes of finding whatever work they can. Also, it will help those coming over by taking away the power their employers have over them right now. At this point, employers can take advantage of them by threatening them with exposure. If they are in this country with a work card, that threat is removed. That takes some of the trafficking aspects out of it.

I see nothing wrong with people coming here with the intention of becoming citizens, as long as it is clear to them just what is expected. In the past, immigrants arrived, learned the language as quickly as they could and assimilated into our society. Most Americans are rightly annoyed with those who come to the country and have no incentive to assimilate because their society has literally been moved from their home country to the US, and they can do almost any business they need to do in their native language. Maybe we shouldn't make it so easy for them to separate themselves from American society.

[nicmarlo]

I can not fault his individual integrity on a position that he has held pretty well since the days he was Gov of Texas.

I can. It's called opening your eyes, seeing the danger, admitting your ON THE WRONG COURSE...and LEAD THE CHARGE TO STEER CLEAR OF DANGER.

That's what any RESPONSIBLE captain would do to protect his ship and crew.

[sinkspur]

I disagree, Bush is doing a terrible job and will rate as one of the worst presidents in US history.

We've done a little research here and found that many, many of those posters who signed up in 2004 (as you did) were DU plants to oppose Bush in the election as faux conservatives, and that they 've now come back to pile on.

You give yourself away as being one of those.

[sinkspur]

You're another one of those "2004" sign-ups that curiously came aboard six weeks before the election.

And, naturally, you have nothing good to say about Bush.

You 2004ers are not fooling some of us.

[catholicfreeper]

The problem is I don't think he is wrong. He wants tough border enforcement, wants to know who is here, and have some sort of sensible guest worker program. I have no problem with that. The current House bill has zero chance of being passed without some sort of Guest worker program and deals with the proposed citizenship questions. IMHO, people would be better off arguing the size of the guest worker program as well as to requirements there would be for eventual Citizenship to those who want it. Thats where the debate should be.

I think what the Prez knows and mnay others know that those are the political realities.

[nicmarlo]

Do you even know what the PRESIDENT has said HE wants from Immigration reform? Most posters who are all lathered about what 'Bush stands for' don't seem to even know what he has proposed. All this screaming about 'amnesty' and 'letting criminals go free', is NOT what the President has proposed....

The question is, do YOU know? Sounds like you don't. See my post above, #36. When you're done reading about the terrorists coming into our Country, via the porous border that your pretend doesn't exist, you might want to read what Senator Sessions has to say; after that, you might want to read about the plan made by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

SEN. SESSIONS ON SECURING USA BORDERS ACT [Hagel-Martinez Was A Loophole-Ridden Deception]
Senate Web ^ | April 6, 2006 | Senator Sessions

SENATOR SESSIONS ON SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

Loophole 8: The bill benefits only those who broke the law, not those who followed it and got work visas to come to the United States. That is a plain fact. If you were here legally on or before April 5, 2001, you will not get the benefit of this amnesty. This amnesty benefits you only if you came here illegally.

Loophole 9: The essential worker permanent immigration program for nonagriculture low-skilled workers leaves no illegal alien out. It is not limited to people outside the United States who want to come here to work in the future but includes illegal aliens currently present in the United States who do not qualify for the amnesty program in title VI, including aliens here for less than 2 years. Under the bill language, you can qualify for this new program to work as a low-skilled permanent immigrant even if you are unlawfully present in the United States.

The bill specifically states:

In determining the alien's admissibility as an H-2C .....

The program is specifically intended to apply to absconders. There are 400,000 absconders out there now that we are trying to apprehend and trying to deport. They have been ordered deported yet they absconded; illegal aliens who were in removal proceedings and signed a voluntary departure agreement but never left, many of them did that, and illegal aliens already removed from the United States but who have come back.

CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada [Bye Bye USA]
Eagle Forum ^ | July 13, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."

The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[nicmarlo]

The problem is I don't think he is wrong. He wants tough border enforcement..

And I strongly disagree. A stroke of a pen....if he wants "tough." Rather, rewarding lawbreakers is the President's plan.

Period.

I am against crimigrants and those policies which reward them. Shamnesty does just that.