NEW Gallup: Bush's Soaring Approval More Sustained Than Any In Presidential History

GALLUP ^

[NYCVirago]

Believe it or not, they've rarely put the real brains on the front burner ... for certain not since that sunny day in Dallas, Texas.

Who are "they"? The Illuminati? The NWO? The Bilderbergers?

[NYCVirago]

On the other, Reagan just happens to be shot at by the son of a Bush family friend.

You should be ashamed of yourself for what you're insinuating.

[nopardons]

Ahhhhh... Chopin, one of my favs ! Kill ALL of the Talibans in your day dreams and march onward to the next bunch of " bad guys ". You're a good guy . : - )

[NYCVirago]

Hmmm ... I'll see if I can't figure out some way to admit it's yet an astute observation for me (as I'm lacking your insight) without looking as simpleminded as those who think I've got some crazed vendetta against all things Bush ... =)

You insinuate that Bush was behind the assassination attempt of Reagan. Why on earth would anybody think you had a vendetta against all things Bush?

[Hugh Akston]

The only organization that gets a negative rating by the public is the news media. A majority, 54%, disapprove of the way the media are handling the war on terrorism, while 43% approve.

He he he he

[Hugh Akston]

we're going to the prom thanks to the polls!

I think I will wear a mauve dress...

[Caipirabob]

Here's a recommendation for all Democrats for the upcoming 2002 elections.

[IceGirl2]

Thank God for George W and Rumsfield and Ashcroft and all the other professionals...without them we would be floundering around in mass confusion.

I am told by a friend in the know that if Ashcroft had been approved by the Senate earlier this might not have happened. He had major plans to clean out the Clinton debris when he was planning to take over in January. The Clintons had placed every friend they owed a favor some kind of a job in the DoJ. Old professionals were kicked out and only the ones who held on were able to go up against Clinton. The extra months that no one was in charge (except Clinton's pals) created an atmosphere of total chaos. The number of strange politically correct people in there who spent their lives playing computer games and not bothering to do any work except when it came to the environment or fighting Microsoft is really astounding. Ashcroft was only beginning to put people in charge of various departments and doing an audit of the work that was being done when this happened. It is amazing that he has managed to get as much done as he has.

He is a brave man to be willing to take the heat for rounding up all these people and holding them on various charges. He looked into the face of evil and saw that these people would destroy us. So he has decided to destroy them.

[IceGirl2]

You are so right. I often get calls from newspapers asking if I would like to subscribe. When the NY Times calls I tell the caller to make a note that I do not want a subscription because the newspaper is a liberal rag and their writers (like Safire) are evil.

[Hugh Akston]

Can we stop bickering? We still have to keep an eye out for those ephalents and woozles!

;-)

[ken5050]

Maureen Dowd has totally lost her mind..if she ever had one..but what has been really interesting post 9/11 is the complete transformation of Thomas Friedman, the NYTimes foreign correspondent.....he's really gotten it, and his pieces have been among the more intelligent stuff written, and very supportive of Bush.....interesting to follow his evolution.......

[Hugh Akston]

and he doesn't kick his dog. Socks, on the other hand, is a different story.

Although that might qualify as a saving grace...

[saminfl]

This is the same thing they said about the NASDAQ market until not that long ago.

Until your hero, Bill Clinton decided to destroy Micosoft.

[Hugh Akston]

then now we double cross them.

We double-crossed them?

I guess you missed out on the WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, Somalia, the Cole bombing, and 9/11 then.

[ncpastor]

In the history of Gallup polling, no prior presidents have been able to sustain their high approval levels, with no apparent decline, this long."

Hmmmm...interesting wording. Maybe a slap at Clinton? : )

One can only hope...

[Hugh Akston]

what spoiled frat boy of a politician/banker's son wouldn't like -- or feel somehow entitled to -- that sort of life?

The kind that likes baseball?

No, make that loves baseball.

I think it is pretty clear that one of two things is true. George W. Bush loves baseball, or he was determined enough in his quest to become President that he adopted a public persona during his Skull and Bones days (and that persona was one of a person who loves baseball). And both of those options are incompatible with your idea that George W is, disinterestedly, going along with the flow.

All of the other powerful Bushes had gained experience and expanded the family collective wealth (not that they pooled it or anything) in private endeavors. Not all of these endeavors were of the same type. George W. chose baseball, owning his own team. He had played in college. Even after selling the Rangers, he kept going to games. He speaks as if he knows what he is talking about regarding baseball. After being elected President, he set up t-ball leagues to play on the White House property. He threw out the ball for a World Series game. I think this is sufficient evidence to say that either 1) he loves baseball, or 2) he is trying really hard to make everyone think he loves baseball.

So if he loves baseball and had all along, then why would an already rich guy like him sell the Rangers and go into politics? Jeb was interested in the political route so the family would be covered, and George had the best job in the world (other than player) that a baseball fan could have. And what sort spoiled baseball fan frat boy of a politician/banker's son wouldn't like -- or feel somehow entitled to -- that sort of life?

Kinda shoots a hole in the idea of him just going with the flow created by the stirring of the powers that be above, doesn't it?

Especially when the other alternative (that the baseball thing is all just part of an act) also is incompatible with the idea that he is just a leaf in the breeze.

[anniegetyourgun]

Oh no....don't give up on me!

[Hugh Akston]

Listen to them speak.

Do you equate thinking quickly with thinking well? I don't. A lot of the problems that the two Georges Bush have with speaking is they get tongue tied when trying to think on their feet while already speaking. As a person who has had periods in his life where he has had a borderline stuttering problem, I speak from experience when I say that a person's ability to spit things out while thinking has little correlation to a person's thinking ability overall, unless I have had periods in my life where I inexplicably got dumber, and periods where I inexplicably got better.

I look at what Bush the second has done, and I don't see a stupid man. I see a very shrewd one. Maybe he is, as you basically stated above just a pawn, going along with what those above him tell him to do, and they are the shrewd ones shrewdly making him do many shrewd things while his tongue foibles convince many of the truth, that he is really a dim bulb (shrewd of them to use the dim one, since its truth makes it less likely anyone would pull the string and see their shrewd puppet master moves, eh?).

But for that to be true, then he really would have to be apethetic and going along with the flow to boot, but he loves baseball...

No, I think I will go with my own theory which is equally unpopular as yours, Askel. I think George W. Bush is a lot smarter than people realize, and I think he is more motivated than most people realize.

I do not know exactly what those motivations are, but based on the general direction of his moves (particularly regarding reversing the direction of many things Clinton started with the UN) I tend to think he has earned a good amount of my trust.

[gjenkins]

"Kinda shoots a hole in the idea of him just going with the flow created by the stirring of the powers that be above, doesn't it?"

'The flow' is the fact that he can continue to play around with hobbies like the oil business and professional baseball teams. Do you really think he is some kind of business or baseball wiz? He has connections and that's about it. He is a born and bred politician, and he used those skills in the business world ... or shall we say the parts of the business world where politics is more important than actually developing 'business'. Baseball wise, the Rangers are about the same team as they have always been. Good hitting, poor pitching also rans. He almost got them to the world series though.

[Hugh Akston]

'The flow' is the fact that he can continue to play around with hobbies like the oil business and professional baseball teams.

But he could have continued doing that just fine where he was, as owner of the Texas Rangers.

He gave that up, to go into politics.

He didn't have to. The family had the up-and-coming politico in Jeb, and he had tons of money, and after Jeb there was George P. coming along nicely.

If your seeming theory were true about his intelligence and his being basically a pawn, then it is much more likely that he would have just remained back with the Rangers. And as I said to Askel5 above (adding to her description before), what sort spoiled baseball fan frat boy of a politician/banker's son wouldn't like -- or feel somehow entitled to -- that sort of life?

Did his connections get him the Rangers? Sure, probably. But it was his decision to give them up. He did not go along with the flow. He made his flow politically.