Posted on 04/16/2006 6:50:10 AM PDT by 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.
I have no problem with US citizens who are on welfare having
the jobs given to illegals.
Should have read as follows:
The GOP President is not a conservative party by any stretch of the imagination.
The President is indeed no kind of conservative...not no way, not no how. The next Bot that jumps into to decry this statement needs to explain the ignomiminous failure to veto a single solitary unconstitutional bill or excessive spending authorization. Or explain how the only two times he has even threatened to use his veto...it was wielded expressly to undermine Conservatives worried about national defense preparedness [Duncan Hunter's bill] and port security! [Peter King's bill]
The President is not the Party if we stand up to him...and take it back!
And that is our ONLY option. Third-Party status is oblivion. Ask Pat Buchanan, or the Constitution Party. Frankly, all conservatives of all walks should all gang up and do a PreCaucus Caucus to restore the Republican Wing of the Republican Party to primacy. This would be a last gasp of patriotism. Akin to the time three or four hundred years ago the English, pushed to the wall by the power-spawned rule of the Star Chamber courts, pushed back and recaptured their rights. We need to recapture the Republican party.
There are solid Congressmen. There are even some solid Sentators (albeit a lot fewer).
We need to thwart the RINO's interference from the White House with the State Selection process. We need to take the RNC away from this President. We need to make damn sure he has NOTHING to do or SAY about the replacement nominee we select. No more slander from him...or his proxies... will be tolerated.
We need to restore the Party. And then enforce Constitutional values and principles on every US Senator and Congressmen ...no more Chris Shays. No more John McCains. No more Bushes. And the judges pushing for unconstitutional perversions of law...need to be promptly impeached and convicted. And censure for the RATs en masse.
If we don't stand up for the Constitution...then we stand for nothing but raw political power. And I believe we need to be adhering to Barry Goldwater's rhetoric in that regard.
Good post bump
There is nothing to debate about the CFR article; it's a fact. Read the report for yourself. (Building a North American Community [PDF]). BTW, there IS a difference between free trade and selling America and Americans down the river in the process. What has been planned has less to do with free trade than with tearing down America's sovereignty. By other of your comments, you've already indicated which side of the "debate" you're on with that score.
As far as fixing "loopholes" so that America has a "more sound immigration policy," that's just as likely to happen as current immigration laws being enforced. If you think it's more likely that "new" immigration laws will be enforced, you're fooling only yourself.
"The indefensible canNOT be defended. Only diverted and obscured by smoke and mirrors." -- Liberator
I am not for some trinational union of Canada, USA, and Mexico. I am for lowering trade borders etc. I am also not an open border extremist that believes let anyone walk across. I have read excerpts from the CFR and comments about it. However I will read the whole thing to see if there is any fire there.
We are programmed to listen to the "facts" from the "objective" media. It is the Demorats most powerful weapon.
That was one of the most uplifting articles that I have read in ever so long. Prospective is everything. Thanks!
Well said.
Boy, you can say that again. Try debating anything with a liberal. The second you point to facts (like the actual text of a bill, law, etc.) the libs get this sort of glazed-over look in their eyes and they start with the "Bush is a lying murderer" statements as a basis for all their arguments.
nicmarlo, that was the best post I can remember.
Funny how all the others immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. A read of this thread best illustrates that.
True conservatives right now see right through Bush's BS. He is too dense to know it now, but after he loses both houses (because the conservatives stay home) he will rue the day he turned his back on the true American conservatives.
Sounds good, but do you honestly think welfare workers can be FORCED to take those jobs? It's been hard enough just getting the program to the point where they can be required to do ANY work in order to get benefits, if they are able to work.
Bush is his own worst enemy when it comes to poll numbers. He's under some delusion that he can persuade Democrats to join him. The only persuasion I'm interested in is their defeat. Bush doesn't get it.
I was referring to the President's speech about what he expects from Immigration reform. It didn't sound much like what folks have been claiming about his views that I've been reading here on FR the last few weeks. I think people have gotten themselves worked up about it based on mis-information, and are attributing ideas to the President and bashing him for them, when they may not be his.
Great post and your tagline gave a hearty laugh.
Yeah, I know it ain't gonna happen. Especially since, IMHO,
the Republican party is morphing into Democrat light. They
should be forced to take jobs like I'm forced to pay taxes.
Well said, Nic. I agree completely.
He calls them "guest workers." Guests means they're INVITED. Illegal aliens aren't "invited" any more than trespassers or burglars are "invited" into your own home. They're criminals; they're lawbreakers.
He further insults our intelligence, and those of law enforcement, by saying things such as, "we want our Border Patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drug runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work." (Aw...those Border Patrol agents are such meanies....going after those "good-hearted people.")
There Are No Jobs Americans Don’t WantThe President does everything but flip over backwards to obfuscate what he wants for illegal aliens: amnesty. He refuses to state that illegal aliens are illegal aliens, much less criminals. On the other hand, he's more than willing to demonize the Minute Men by calling them "VIGILANTES."The President again engaged in his double talk "that rejects amnesty," but “permits temporary guest workers. This is an outright lie. The way you can tell if it is amnesty or not is "Does the illegal have to return to his home country and come back?" There is no such requirement for Bush’s scheme. Therefore, it is amnesty.
Compare the above language to that of Tom Tancredo's:
"People who are here illegally -- they need to be deported," Tancredo said. "People who hire them need to be fined. If they keep doing it, they need to be sent to jail. It's against the law."Amnesty by any other name
...The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenses against the government, and illegal aliens committed crimes by entering the United States illegally and then using fraudulent documents to get a job. The Bush plan excuses them from prosecution and punishment, so isn't amnesty the proper term, or shall we call it stealth amnesty?The amnesty of 1986 was promised to be a one-time deal, but it proved to be not a deterrent but an invitation to attract more illegal aliens, so we now have four times as many illegals as we did then. Can anyone believe that the Bush amnesty will be any different?
Will those who get temporary worker cards also get driver's licenses? If so, what kind of ID will be acceptable?
Bush's plan includes support for the State Department giveaway package called "totalization," a bureaucratic code word for a plan to make illegal aliens eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though they committed fraud in using a Social Security number or failed to pay into the system for 10 years (40 quarters) as U.S. citizens must do. Will illegal aliens who get temporary worker cards be treated better than Americans who fail to comply with Social Security regulations?
[snip]
True conservatives right now see right through Bush's BS....
True, true.....and it may not only be he who "rues the day." I think many who are so adamantly in favor of protecting whatever Bush wants and says will, too.
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.