Voters Don't Want Bush Re-Elected - Poll

Voice of America ^ | 8/24/03

[truthandlife]

The majority of American voters would not like to see President Bush re-elected to another term according to a poll by Newsweek magazine.

The survey released Saturday showed that 49 percent of registered voters would not back the president for a second term if the vote were held now. Forty-four percent would support Mr. Bush's re-election.

The poll marked the first time in a Newsweek survey that supporters of Mr. Bush were out-numbered by those who would not like to see him back remain in office. In April, 52 percent of voters backed the president for a second term, while 38 percent did not.

The Newsweek report attributed the decline in the president's popularity to public disenchantment over the Iraq war. The poll found 69 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the United States will be bogged down for many years in Iraq without achieving its goals there.

Nearly half of those polled said they were concerned that the cost of the war will lead to a large budget deficit and seriously impact the U.S. economy. And more than half said they thought the estimated $1 billion per week the United States is paying for the war effort is too much and should be scaled back.

However, 61 percent still believe the United States was right to take military action against Iraq in March.

Only 18 percent of those polled believe a stable, democratic government can be set up in Iraq in the long term. And only 13 percent of respondents said U.S. efforts to establish security in Iraq and rebuild the country have gone well since May 1, when combat officially ended.

The Newsweek poll results are based on telephone interviews with more than one thousand adults aged 18 and older. It was conducted on August 21 and 22. The margin of error is plus or minus three percent.

[MississippiMan]

All correct, Truth. And as I've been saying since early in his term, unless something drastic is going on during the time of the 2004 election, something that causes the nation to rally around him, he will be a one-termer. He has vacillated and caved, abandoned his base, turned broken-glass Republicans into why-bother Republicans, and this will cost him the election. I only hope and pray that the Democrat running against him isn't Hillary.

This is the truth, no matter how tightly the blinders are laced on so many freepers, whose first response is always to attack the poll instead of looking at the underlying facts of how he has conducted his presidency.

I hate it, truly, because while he has been a huge disappointment, I still hate to see the Democrats reclaim the White House. He and the Republicans had a golden opportunity to do something. They did nothing. The minority Democrats effectively control the Senate. How ludicrous is that?

MM

[janetgreen]

I want a job-creating Conservative-Republican to be nominated. Not a Clinton II.

Agree 100%.

[Old Professer]

This poll is meaningless if the respondents weren't given a choice of someone to take his place; it is nothing more than a dissatifaction poll on current events.

[MtnMover]

The Un-agile Economy: So with a republican president and a republican congress, where is the economic environment that will incentivize economic development and job creation here in the US? My sense is that the Perot sucking sound is loud and clear. Approximately 50% of most recent college graduates did not receive a job offer. A strategy to place low technology manufacturing production overseas may be fine as long as we develop an agile economic infrastructure to create more wealth and opportunity for our citizens. Why waste the talents of our recent graduates by turning them into waitresses and clerks? Why encourage early retirement? Are human resources really scarce? Is demand really weak? Look around the world - people are impoverished. I'll bet that demand for goods and services has never been stronger! There is more work to do than we know how to do! Why not put in the infrastrucure that empowers people to adjust to new economic realities? Even Adam Smith recognized the value and need for strong labor. Both the previous and current administrations have had a proposal to create a tax free and regulatory free economic enterprise zone - online - that would incentivize new business initiatives while providing employment opportunties that would eliminate welfare and move us rapidly to full employment. Both administrations have done nothing with it. Not even called an Economic Summit to discuss the economic transformation needed to address the affects of globalization.

The Compassion Tax is in the Bush: The hidden tax that Bush won't tell you about is the equivalent of the points of light his father imagined. Compassion is a volunteer who provides professional services to others without compensation. In other words - work for no pay. Now that is not capitalism. It's necessary because when your laid off, or retired (early), or if you are a recent college graduate looking for a job, you might as well volunteer your services for free in order to stay with your chosen profession (or work in a related or new profession). And if you are a professional at work, you might as well dedicate a few hours each week for a just cause. In other words in stead of getting paid for what you do, let's be compassionate so that the nation can provide the services it needs. The democrats would tax your income and pay for the additional compassionate services (pay for work), the republicans will lower the tax, deny the income resource that would pay for work and ask you to provide the services anyway. The net is the same, the services are provided by taxing the productive capacity of the people. The Bush Compassion Tax is a little more deceptive. You work harder but earn less. It sounds goody-goody and touchy-feely (just like the democrats are accused of), but it doesn't pay the bills. Still, the work needs to be done - doesn't it?

The Truth: So who do you believe? Clinton will deceive you about his sex life while he pardons criminals. Bush will deceive you by mis-stating the facts and by obscuring clear thinking using generalizations and demogogy to take you to a pre-emptive war on terrorism in Iraq when the war on terrorism was supposed to be against those who struck at the twin towers. You know it didn't take Jim Woolsly more than one day after the 911 attack to get on the channels and blame Iraq. Why was that? What did he know that the Administration did not know and still has yet to find out? The truth is that informed consent is clouded with words that hide real agendas that can't be disclosed lest the people discover the true intent.

The Basic Problem: You and me - we are the problem. We do not demand an open government. Too many behind the closed door sessions with secret energy documents and the like. We do not demand that our political representatives speak in plain language terms with verifiable facts. We do not demand that our elected officials really have experiences similar to ours. Instead we believe it when they say "I feel your pain". We permit the word "Is" and "Terrorism" and many others to become terribly distorted and blankets for hidden agendas. We do not accept the responsibilty to create our own futures. We look to our institutions to save us. The problem is that you and me have never learned what it means to be free and independent; we have accepted government (public and private) as our leader (and they tell us everyday that they are our leaders and that you need them to lead.) Can't you hear it - "thank you for your leadership" - that is said when the politicians are talking to themselves so that we can hear that they are our leaders! They were at one time our representatives. We must require that our public institutions serve us as long as we are willing to take the responsibility to preserve our liberty, create our own prosperity and remain strong, moral and productive.

In the context of a free and civil society at work
to all according to their needs
and to each according to His Will . . . pipus willabi

[jpl]

Someone at Voice of America needs to go back to school and get some remedial education. 49 percent doesn't constitute a majority, it's a plurality.

[NordP]

Amen.

I'm so glad you got to meet W! Did I not read where you told everyone about it??? How exciting.

Hopefully, just knowing that we all care (or if his "people" that read this--or maybe while on --sort of--vacation, he will) by reading these posts.

WE LOVE YOU W! WE'RE PRAYIN' FOR YOU, AND SUPPORT YOU ALL THE WAY!

Hey, did you see FNS? Even Harry Ford Jr. agrees with W on Iraq (for the most part - they ALways have to complain about SOMEthing! ;-)

[Mike Darancette]

Christian right voters played a pivotal role in electing Bush in his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. He cannot afford to lose them in 2004.

I want to start a "Christian Conservatives For Dean" thread. I'm sure that Dean will address our needs much better than Bush ever did.

I'm sure that the Democrat Party and President Dean will thank and reward Christian Conservatives profusely for our open and vocal support.

[Wphile]

I posted some stuff on the Dose and will be posting pictures tonight if there is a Dose. It was great. He's very nice but he seemed tired to me. Others in the group thought so too. I told him we were praying for him and he said he really appreciated that.

[ex-snook]

A well-done bump for your post.

Bush is a Compassionate Deadbeat Conservative. He increases government debt and sends the credit-chits to the next generation. (Hey, they don't vote)

[lepton]

lost? Look at the actual figures. There has been a net gain of around 2 million. The problem is that there has been an increase of roughly 3 million into the job market.

[rightbanker]

Wonder what it would take for either:

(a) Bush to do an LBJ and decide not to seek a second term

or

(b) somebody to try and challenge Bush (a la Buchanan) from within the republican party during the primaries

or

(c) somebody to decide to run to Bush's right as an independent during the general election.


I don't really see any of these actually happening. Nobody's got the money or standing to challenge Bush in the primaries. Besides they are just around the corner.

The way McCain talked today, though, I can almost see him running on a "let's win this war" platform" in the general election, running to Bush's right on the war, in effect, but to his left on taxes and the like. This would only happen, I think, if Bush refused to follow McCain's advice on the war (McCain thinks 10's of thousands more Us troops need to be sent to Iraq NOWO and, as a consequence the war looked messier and messier.

I could also see Wesley Clary deciding to run as an independent, but not to the right. More likely, though, that Clark will be some RATs (Dean?) VP.

Anyway, like I said I think unless all hell breaks out in the next few months, there is no chance that Bush will do an LBJ and little chance that he will be challenged from within the party.

But if all hell does break out. I think all bets might be off -- especially if it looked like Bush might take the party down with him. Loyality counts less than results in politics and I could see lots of quiet pressure for Bush to step aside.

Am I being crazy?

[xzins]

In Order iMHO:

The Supreme Court rejection of federalism in the sodomy case (Lawrence), the promotion of the massive new entitlement called prescription drugs, the follow-on rejection of federalism in the Judge Roy Moore case, the allowance of a massive budget with tremendous cost overruns rather than cost cuts, the unwillingness to force judicial nominees through the Senate, the promotion of pro-abort/anti-gun/pro-gay marriage Arnold in Calif.

Those are the major indicators that something is terribly misguided at this point. All have reached culminating points this summer.

[LaraCroft]

A big thumbs down to Newsweek.

Not that I've purchased a copy of the leftist rag in 15 years.

[lepton]

They did nothing.

Eh? "nothing?"

[olliemb]

Totally disagree with ya. I hang around with a lot of conservatives. No such truth in your demoralization characterization.

[olliemb]

Sometimes I just wonder about the republican base. The base if it doesn't get its way would prefer to let a democrat win. Go figure.

[olliemb]

Then damn the base---they refuse to go out and work but instead stay home, knitting or reading the bible, while the democrats win the elections. Please, I do not believe this and if this be true , then perhaps I should not be a republican or a conservative.

[olliemb]

Dr. Dean is for abortion, for teenagers getting abortions without their parents approval, for taxes. Are you really a conservative christian? I doubt it very much. Hell, yeah, Dean would be appreciative of the christian conservative if they vote for him. But Dean is for gay marriages and cloning. What part of christian conservativism 101 did you miss??

[alrea]

Conservatives are demoralized over the terrible news of this past summer.

Yeh, my stock portfolio has been rocking since the war started, probably due to the tax cut.

I'd say somebody at Newsweek has been smoking kaka again.

PS: the jobless rate in our area is under 5% and that's practically full employment.

OK, some folks don't have the job they want in that high tech company making six figures. Must be a Chinese thing.

Hey, anybody hear about the STRIKE in Korea. We're exporting labor strife?