The President’s Re-election Prospects Have Nearly Disappeared

Varied Internet sources, via Google ^ | 9/25/03 | Coop

[Coop]

Why?

-We’re engaged in a long-term war against an enigmatic enemy, with no end in sight

-American military members are suffering and dying at the hands of terrorists on foreign soil

-The media makes a concerted effort to only portray the President in a negative light

-The President’s job approval numbers are well under 60%, with just over a year left until the election

-The President scores well under 50% on polls asking if he should be re-elected

-The economy is struggling to emerge from a recent recession

-Defense spending is way up

-Budget deficits are a serious concern

-National unemployment is over 6%

-The Democrats have assembled a formidable, diverse group of contenders that criticize the President constantly, including one quote: "If [our soldiers] were sent there to fight, they are too few. If they were sent there to die, they are too many."

[Coop]

And here's a national poll from mid August.

On the day Baghdad fell in April, when Bush’s approval rating was at 77 percent, 95 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Democrats said they approved of his handling of the presidency. In the new poll, GOP support is statistically unchanged

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/951647.asp?0sl=-10

I think I've proven my point. Bush's GOP/conservative base is not upset with him, despite the handful of disillusioned conservatives 'round here telling us it is.

[sully777]

IMO, Bush has marginalized conservatives. He never made friends with his socialist enemies, despite every effort to hand them the keys to the treasury. Other than that, I think the rest like him but they don't vote.

Solution is simply dance with the one you *brung*, not with all the other girls.

[Coop]

IMO, Bush has marginalized conservatives.

Then please explain his solid numbers up above with Pubbies and indies. Unless you think all the good conservatives are still found in the Dem party. :-)

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Illegal immigration is a gigantic problem that needs to be fixed soon. But placing all of the blame at President Bush's feet is disingenuous.

I'm not laying all of the blame for the problem on Bush. I'm laying all of the blame for allowing it to continue, even encouraging it with talk of "amnesty". You said it yourself, it needs fixing soon. Well? W is the man in charge. All he has to do is enforce the law as it is now written. He's had 3 years to get going. But I guess I'm not supposed to be critical of His Highness. After all, those illegals will be voting soon (if not already), and their votes are more important than mine right? I mean where else can I go with my vote, right? As another freeper just wrote. I'm supposed to just shut up and pay the bills. No criticism is allowed, otherwise one of those dirty dems might get in. Well, I've got news for W and the party. They'd better $%$# or get off the pot. My vote is not to be taken for granted, now, or ever.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

To be honest, I couldn't care less about polls. I don't care if his approval rating is 30% or 100%. What I care about is the lunatic domestic agenda marching across our land: Free pills, Illegal immigrants with drivers licenses (and voting rights), huge increases in socialist spending, government bloat and increases in intrusiveness only dreamed about during the reign of Klintoon.

[Coop]

To be honest, I couldn't care less about polls.

Fair enough, but they are quite effective at smashing the "Bush is losing his base" talk.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Fair enough, but they are quite effective at smashing the "Bush is losing his base" talk.

I really don't care what the "talk" is either. All I care about is what the man is doing. On foreign policy, I give him a B+. I'd raise it to an A+ if he would stop publicly coddling the Saudis. On domestic policy I give him a D. He would get an F if not for lowering taxes. I calls 'em like I sees 'em and vote accordingly, regardless of the strategic outcome. If a dem gets in, well that's too bad. If that's what is required to stop the GOP from being run by RINOs who expect me to pay for someone else's pills, so be it.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Fair enough, but they are quite effective at smashing the "Bush is losing his base" talk.

They are also convenient for changing the subject away from all the crap that has been foisted upon us during his adminstration: Campaign finance "reform" (constitution shredding party), Socialist pill programs, invasions of illegals, etc, etc, etc,..... Go ahead, cite some more polls! Tell me how popular he is among "Pubbies"! Maybe I'll stop criticizing him! NOT

[Naspino]

I think I've proven my point. Bush's GOP/conservative base is not upset with him, despite the handful of disillusioned conservatives 'round here telling us it is.

Its ok to support a more conservative 3rd party candidate until the election comes around and there is no chance on earth that the candidate will win. Then you have to ask whether you want a semi-conservative like Bush in office or a radical socialist -- wannabe UN representative like Dean, Kerry, or Clarke? Anyone that votes emotionally with their conservative principles instead of with a rational thought process will unfortunately be damning the country to socialist oblivion.

[Coop]

You live in your world, I live in mine. I give him an A- for foreign policy/national defense, and I give him solid marks for the economy. Geez, it took a trillion dollar hit on 9/11, and look around. Things are going well! Not perfect, but well.

It's quite simple for me. Who is going to give my children the best chance of growing up in a loving world, as opposed to being slaughtered while riding the school bus? President Bush and his fine team of advisors.

I recognize that we're at war and fighting for our very survival. I'm not sure if you do.

[Naspino]

If a dem gets in, well that's too bad. If that's what is required to stop the GOP from being run by RINOs who expect me to pay for someone else's pills, so be it.

Sorry thats just not thinking clearly. Everytime the "new" democrats get in power you are going to lose BIG and next time free pills will be the least of your worries. All to teach the GOP a lesson?

You might as well move to France if Kerry, Dean, or Clarke wins. The only way conservative principles will come back is to remove the radical leftists out of office and not put them in position where they can entitle 20 million more people and put a nail in our coffin.

I'll be voting straight (R) to keep the (D)'s out. I think the dims are close to being put out of their misery. Another devastating defeat and they'll literally go insane and thats going to make it all the easier to continue winning and plus the media will have to recognize the change in climate and start lessening their biased grip on the minds of our children.

When an election occurs where a burn America candidate has no chance of winning -- then I'll vote my principles.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Yeah, Sadam scrubbed his country clean, but they found gear to protect Iraqi soldiers from those weapons. I predict they met the same fate as the fighter jets -- buried in the sand, and located by gps coordinates that we don't know and won't find until someone talks.

The question to ask is could you hide something that would go undiscovered for years if you wanted to? and had earth moving equipment and the right to kill the people who buried it for you? Of course you could.

True, he might have moved them to Syria, but I think not all of them.

[HapaxLegamenon]

It should be 525 to 13. Mondull won Minnesota (10) and D.C. (3). Regean won the rest.

[WOSG]

Let's not get carried away here... in 1983 we [Reagan] sent troops to Lebanon to "protect" a peace (that was no real peace) -over 200 were killed in one bombing attack. We skeedaddled out of there That was an attack on 200 military personnel on foreigh soil. It is 10 orders of magintude below the slaughter of 3000 American cvilians on our own soil.

The fact remains that in 1983 terrorists attacked our troops - an act of war - and we didnt respond by destroying the organizations that did it. Hezbollah did this to us, and Hexbollah and the terror masters who ordered the attack on American marines still live. Reagan retreated and reaped the beruit kidnappings, which led to the iran-contra mess. ... this pattern was of course not exclusive to Reagan, every president from Carter to Clinton has done similar things; the most spineless was Carter wrt to the Tehran hostage crisis, and at least Reagan bombed libya in response to libyan terrorism. Clinton also managed to do even worse - turning terrorists into 'legitimate' political power brokers by cozying up to Arafat and the IRA - that only encourages it.

The only true and clear leader in my lifetime whose stood up to terrorism wholly and without restraint is G W Bush. Pretending Reagan post 9/11 would have done more is historically ignorant.

[Don Carlos]

Thanks for your replies (#7 and #98). My question was tongue-in-cheek, and your answers validate what I thought but wasn't sure of - that 46% for BJC was "good", but under 60% for President Bush was the kiss of death.

Sigh! How much more of this BS can my head take before it splits?

[Coop]

but under 60% for President Bush was the kiss of death.

Quite the contrary. Anything over 50% is gravy.

The point is, all these handwringers worrying about how much trouble President Bush will have with re-election really have nothing to stand on. He's in good shape.

[Coop]

I neglected to flag you to this thread. Thought you might enjoy the historical perspective.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I'm not seeing much difference, as far as domestic policy is concerned.

Since there is more to being president than domestic policy maybe we should remember that when voting.

[Coop]

Over here! :-)

[Coop]

Since there is more to being president than domestic policy maybe we should remember that when voting.

Amen to that! Especially when perfect domestic economic policy doesn't do too well when airliners are flown into strategic office buildings and fields.