Bush's Approval Rating Drops Sharply (Bush approval: 59%)

Washington Post ^ | 07/12/03 | Richard Morin and Claudia Deane

[Pokey78]

Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Bush's overall job approval rating dropped to 59 percent, down nine points in the past 18 days. That decline exactly mirrored the slide in public support for Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, which now stands at 58 percent.

And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

Still, only 26 percent said there had been more casualties than they had expected. Three in four say they expect "significantly more" American dead and wounded.

[Digger]

I think every president since Reagan deserved to be one-termers. None protected U.S. sovereignty, borders, language or culture (Reagan and his amnesty get a pass only because it wasn't as clear then that open borders were destroying America). Bush Jr., who has none of Clinton's charm (sleazy as that might be) not to mention economy, and who is even more inarticulate than his father, will go down like a ton of bricks, once his only plus factor, the War on Terrorism fades in voters' minds or is seen to be ill run. The desperate pandering of massive illegal-alien amnesties, Africa trips, and "diversity" advocacy will help not a whit. The Democrat Left will always out-left a RINO.

Are you reading my mind? As many have said,it is GW's to lose & he is approaching the make/break point so with his abysmal record on the home front/social issues he is getting close to a meltdown. What has all his pandering got him? Absolutely nothing with the socialists & he has turned some conservatives (mainly social conservatives) to a point of sitting out the next election. If Hillary runs & proposes closing the borders this guy is in trouble.

[Jorge]

Jorge, if you want to believe the presidents transparant semantics fine. He doesn't want every illegal amnestied, just 90%. Your repeatedly stating Bush's disengenuous "no blanket amnesty" claims is a more than a bit hollow.

This is too funny.
I make a claim about Bush's position on amnesty and back it up with articles and qoutes from Bush.

And you deny it all.

But you make claims about where Bush supposedly stands..that you cannot back up with ANY documentation of any kind, or a single quote from Bush.

And YET you expect us to believe that.
Incredible.

So you claim to know that everything Bush says is NOT his real position is on immigration. YOU are the REAL expert and know better where Bush stands than Bush does himself.

Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what?

[Jorge]

Nice handling of my question on Illegal HISPANIC immigration.

Of course it was. Notice your lack of response.

You Pro wetback types are a joke.

How do you know where I stand?

Oh that's right. You Bush bashers know where Bush stands better than he knows himself.
So anything he says that contradicts your accusations is a lie in your mind.

Therefore anything I say that defies the "pro wetback" position you've assigned me must also be a lie.

Anything to maintain your delusions.

[dagnabbit]

without so much as a SINGLE shread of documentation to back up ANYTHING you say.

While it's not the job of people who have read newspapers in the past two years to explain their contents to those who haven't, I'll go ahead and print out some of the link you'd prefer not to address, just to make it easy on everyone.

Guest worker plan pushed by Cornyn falls short of Bush's

Houston Chronicle ^ | July 10, 2003 | KAREN MASTERSON Posted on 07/11/2003 3:11 AM EDT by sarcasm

WASHINGTON -- Texas Sen. John Cornyn introduced guest worker legislation on Thursday that would allow illegal immigrants to work legally in the United States for three years, but falls short of a plan President Bush is preparing to unveil.

White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said Bush administration officials have met with Cornyn, a Republican, to discuss his bill, but did not commit the president's support.

Rather, Bush is set to pursue bold policies similar to those he had advocated to boost relations with Mexico early in his administration.

Those discussions, which included possible amnesty for some illegal immigrants, came to an abrupt end on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon.

"We are working with Mexico toward more orderly, humane, safe and legal migration, as well as consideration of a new temporary worker program that provides some path to citizenship," Mamo said of the White House's plans to restart negotiations with Congress over immigration proposals.

Cornyn's bill would allow illegal immigrants to temporarily work legally in the United States through employer sponsors. But instead of providing those workers with eventual amnesty, they would have to return home after three years. Once there, their applications for green cards would receive expedited consideration.

Cornyn acknowledged he would need the president's support to bolster his bill, but said he chose not to wait for Bush to unveil his immigration proposal because the time was right to begin pushing the issue.

Mamo did not know when the White House would officially release its plan, but sources in the Republican congressional leadership said there have been initial discussions with the White House over what might be possible in time for the 2004 elections.

Republicans hope a renewed interest in immigration issues will persuade Hispanics to support GOP candidates and not only help the party solidify its hold on Congress but also deliver Bush an easy re-election victory.

The goal may not be so handily won.

There are few issues that fracture Republicans more than immigration. And it is unclear whether even their popular president can move those in the GOP who have made a career out of opposing legislation that would give amnesty to illegal immigrants.

"We should never, ever, ever reward people for illegal behavior," said Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, the House's most outspoken Republican favoring limited immigration.

[zarf]

Bush needs to keep his mouth shut and let this synthetic, pre fab "controversy"manufactured by Terry McAsswipe and friends blow over.

[dagnabbit]

Hope you were only suspended Kuleana.

[Jorge]

While it's not the job of people who have read newspapers in the past two years to explain their contents to those who haven't, I'll go ahead and print out some of the link you'd prefer not to address, just to make it easy on everyone.

How generous of you to post the article your broken link didn't lead to, in order to "just to make it easy on everyone". LOL!

But that's right, nobody should have to explain any article they are talking about to anyone who's read a newspaper in the past two years. Too funny.

By the way...the reference in the article to SOME AMNESTY for SOME illegals working in the US is far from MASSIVE or blanket amnesty.
So much for your sound the alarm hysteria about Bush trying to get every illegal he can into the US.

[ladyinred]

With the 24/7 blitz of lies in the media I don't wonder his ratings are going down. The White House needs to come out swinging like yesterday. The war on the homefront has heated up.

[Aetius]

Sadly, I feel like a liberal in that I bring no documentation to back up what I'm about to say, but here goes:
Bush does favor our current, largely accidental, mostly unwanted policy of unending mass legal immmigration from mostly 3rd world nations. His sickening 'family values doesn't stop at the Rio Grande' quote seems to indicate he is an enthusiastic supporter of unending chain migration of extended family members.
I've never heard or read that Bush favors the mass deportation of illegals.
Bush nevers misses an opportunity to speak spanish. Remember when he gave a cinco de mayo address in spanish? That sends a really strong pro-assimilation message doesn't it?
Ever heard Bush show concern for the property owners on the border who have to deal with the illegal crossings? I haven't, but then again his ranch in Crawford is safe and sound I'm sure.
Ever heard Bush say that the current interpretation of the Constitution that grants automatic citizenship to babies born to illegals should be changed? I haven't.
Bush sounds just like a leftist/Democrat everytime he speaks about diversity, whether he's saying how it 'strengthens us' or in 'recognizing the value of it' in education. He actually tried to put a positive spin on the disastrous Supreme Court racial preference decision, which basically said to use a non-point system when you're screwing over poor, working, and middle class whites (and Asians too, I guess). Immigration reform is likely impossible as long as the President spouts out the same-old, meaningless, irrelevant platitudes that now serve as a substitue for rational, intelligent debate.
I don't hate Bush. I voted for Bush. I bash Bush reluctantly. I'm glad Bush is president and not Gore. Yes, any Democrat (except maybe former Col gov Richard Lamb) would be worse than Bush. Tax cuts are great, and I'm all for them (though I predict Bush will fail in making such things as the estate tax repeal permanent) but social issues are important too. He's terrible on legal and illegal immigration. I wonder if he'll cave on gay marriage, after all doing so would show how compassionate he is. He is bad on racial preferences, and if its true that he's behind the refusal of the party to help the Ward Connerly initiative in Michigan then he might as well be Jesse Jackson. I mean, the Courts have had their say, the only way to end racial preferences now is through legislation and referendum. Its the only weapon left.
What's the most frustrating is that this supposed conservative is unwilling to forcefully fight on issues where the majority agrees with the conservative position, like immigration, and racial preferences. How is it that the entire Republican leadership has come to view immigration reform as a political loser? When polls usually show a majority in favor of reducing legal numbers and cracking down on illegals, why are Republicans afraid to give expression to this popular discontent? Yeah, I know reformers will be called the whole host of names like racist and xenophobe (Tancredo), but if the reformer were to aggressively refute and counter attack, and quesiton the motives of his attackers, then I believe the American people would respect and respond to it. The same for racial preferences. And don't tell it will alienate minority voters. So what, you can't lose what you've never had.

[Once-Ler]

You're confusing me with Bush's policies.

Jorge has you pegged right. You talk like a 'rat.

[Once-Ler]

Well said. I hope the Republican party is actively engage in finding a viable alternative; they may need one.

"Bush is done"-Terry McAuliff 07/11/03
Well, you got one guy that agrees with you.

[Once-Ler]

If Hillary runs & proposes closing the borders this guy is in trouble.

If Hillary runs, Dubya will get 95% of the conservative vote. You will be the only conservative who doesn't vote for him (If you are a conservative.)

Do you think about what you write before you press that post button?

[Trace21230]

Are you reading my mind? As many have said,it is GW's to lose & he is approaching the make/break point so with his abysmal record on the home front/social issues he is getting close to a meltdown. What has all his pandering got him? Absolutely nothing with the socialists & he has turned some conservatives (mainly social conservatives) to a point of sitting out the next election. If Hillary runs & proposes closing the borders this guy is in trouble.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Just because Bush doesn't please the far right fringe of the Republican party is no indication that he will lose in 2004.

This strategy is called triangulation, and it's a proven winner. For every far right vote he loses, he gains 5-10 swing votes.

You may not like it, but that's the reality. The fringe doesn't elect presidents in America, the middle does.

Trace

[Mo1]

I'd like to know exactly how these polls were worded and what choices they were given to answer to

Also .. I can't help by notice all the names WP mention but yet can't print the names of the "top level anonymous sources"

hmmmmmmmm

[Mo1]

If Hillary runs & proposes closing the borders this guy is in trouble.

Anyone who believe anything that women says is fool

[sushiman]

How many " fools " voted for Gore ? And Bill ?

[Z-28]

The Democrats opprobriate President Bush's every good action.

2004 will be a Bush landslide, even against Hillary. Yep. she's running.

Because, overall, the American people prefer the positive, not the total negativity of the left.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Well, the questions actually look pretty reasonable.

[kms61]

The high ratings are unsustainable over time...we knew they were going to come down. This is still a country divided pretty close to 50-50, and barring an event that the public rallies around, Bush's numbers in the long run will reflect that division.

None of these numbers will mean anything until the Democrats have a nominee to go head to head with the president. Unless the Dems self destruct and select somebody like Dean, it'll probably be another close election.