Bush's White Elephant (Are Bush's High Approval Ratings Useless?)

American Enterpsrise Institute ^ | Septemnber 2002 issues | Grover Norquist

[LS]

Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way to that "powerful" and "conservative" Libertarian (pro abort) party or the "powerful" and "conservative" (pro-abort) Reform Party. Barring a total catastrophe, Bush will be elected by a substantial electoral majority.

[LS]

I agree, and further think that there is still HUGE "news" out there re: OBL and other things that has not been made public yet.

I keep getting the sense re: Iraq that Bush has some info on Saddam and bio weapons that he is just holding in his pocket, much like he let those idiot Dems hold a whinefest hours before he started bombing the Taliban, making them look like total fools.

Likewise, he didn't single out Enron, but launched an attack on "corporate crime," KNOWING that the Dems would go for Enron and that the Rubin stuff would come out sooner or later.

In Grover's (bad) "white elephant" analogy, sometimes you don't have to "put the elephant to work": give it a forest to eat, and it puts itself to work, almost without anyone knowing it. In this case, Bush's approval numbers work every day---they drive the Dems to do totally nutty and self-destructive things.

[LS]

It's amazing how many people want to criticize politicians for "lacking principles," yet don't run themselves. And, when they do, poet, suddenly THEY "have no principles." Funny, isn't it?

If you want to tell me that J.D. Hayworth and J.C. Watts and my own Dave Hobson and Rob Portman have no principles, then you live on a different planet than I do. I KNOW some of these people and you don't know what you are talking about.

[Miss Marple]

I would further like to say that the President has used the bully pulpit constantly; anyone who has Fox News knows that he has spoken on a variety of issues including judges, military funding, excessive lawsuits, and permanent tax cuts almost every day.

Because the networks don't carry it does not mean he is not speaking. This is one reason he makes so many trips outside the Beltway, because local media WILL cover his speeches.

So, poet, please drop the accusation that he is not using the bully pulpit. It is simply untrue.

[republicman]

they drive the Dems to do totally nutty and self-destructive things.

And how are these nutty and self destructive things they are doing hurting them?

[republicman]

Bush should be using his approval numbers for congressional gains. For example--He should say we need more judges, the democrats are obstructing them, time for the democrats to go.

But, he won't. Because he knows that the minute he becomes political this immense approval rating will drop (because the fairweather friends who normally vote for only democrats will leave.) and of course the press will all gleefully report the drop and its "partisan" cause.

So instead of nationalizing the election, politicizing the issues, saying he needs the people to elect more republicans to pass his stuff, he is hoarding his approval rating, and he is enacting liberalism into law (He has yet to veto even one bill). All to keep those numbers up.

You may want to Bear that in mind next time you see a Bush approval rating--that it's at best totally worthless, and at worse an immense detriment.

Don't believe me? Look at the evidence. WHat do we have to show for this great approval rating?

Answer: Lots of liberalism: federal airport screeners, no ANWR, record education spending, steel tarriffs, etc etc.

It used to be that those who appear to love Bush unconditionally would rationalize that this as all being for republican gains in congress. But of course there's no sign of any.

Bottom line the fruit born by these wonderful approval ratings--No change in congress, lots of liberalism--White elephant

[poet]

"If you want to tell me that J.D. Hayworth and J.C. Watts and my own Dave Hobson and Rob Portman have no principles, then you live on a different planet than I do. I KNOW some of these people and you don't know what you are talking abou"

How did these gentlemen vote on the obscenity called the p.a.t.r.i.o.t act? If they voted no as did Ron Paul, then I should have said "by and large" relative to honorable people. If they voted yes, then they violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Also, how did these men vote on the obscene spending binge of the bush administration? 190 Billion here, 25 Billion there etc., etc., builds into trillions of OUR money spent on social programs.

How did these gentlemen vote on the airport "security" law wherein more then 68,000 NEW people were added onto the government payroll with liftime jobs?

Need I go on and point out the socialist programs of the dems being usurped by your great "conservative" republicrat party?

Evidently, cloning is illegal except for political parties.

[Reagan Man]

Whining and complaining accomplishes nothing.

This is hardball politics, within an environment that is pure gridlock and stalemate. Pick up any book on American politics and you will get a rough outline in how the game is played. Learn about the gamesmanship required for a President to develope good leadership qualities. This has been going on since the days of the Founding Fathers and the system works still works today.

Btw, Bush campaigned on education reform, so you shouldn't be surprised this would be a priority for him. He said he would promote his education agenda and he has.

The federalization of airport screeners was a consensus, non-partisan issue, that was supported by the vast majority of American's. Opposition to it, especially following 9-11, would have been a political death warrant.

No president is perfect and no president will make every faction of his constituency, satisfied all the time.

[LS]

Ron Paul is a joke. Sorry to say, but what legislation has he actually produced? What changes has he made? He is as relevant as that socialist Bernie Sanders is on the other extreme---a do nothing, say everything. I like Paul's politics, but as far as ACCOMPLISHING anything? Forget it.

Oh, and I like the patriot act, so my representitives voted my wishes precisely.

Try reading some of the Founders---not what you THINK they said, but what they actually said. You'll find that your views have little in common with those of Washington, Madison, Adam, Franklin, or Hamilton, and less in common than you might think with Jefferson.

[Miss Marple]

Are you not watching the President's appearances? I believe he has said at least 100 times that he needs a majority in the Senate, that he wants the judges approved, etc.

It isn't the President's fault that you aren't listening.

[poet]

"Ron Paul is a joke. Sorry to say, but what legislation has he actually produced"

That's precisely why I like him. I don't judge a pol on his/her legislation because the less laws that are passed the better off we'll be.

As for your liking the obscene p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act, I wrote this for and people like you who want to be "cuddly safe" in the arms of big governement:

In the Name Of Security

The p.a.t.r.i.o.t act sticks in my craw
because it’s really a Gestapo Law
the FBI gets more powers
to spy on us for 24 hours

In the name of security

Let’s not forget history
of what happened in Germany
the majority went along
together in public throngs
embracing all the wrongs

In the name of security

Cameras here, cameras there
cameras everywhere
on the corners, in the mall
as our freedoms fall
attached to traffic lights
losing our privacy rights

In the name of security

Soon we’ll get ID cards
as they build more prison yards
they want us to watch the other guy
an entire nation to spy

In the name of security

Giving power to strangers,
to people we don’t know
presents future dangers
as their power continues to grow

In the name of security

Ben Franklin said it best
want to be like all the rest?
trade liberty for security
then, only those in power will be free

In the name of security

Justification has begun
we must keep terrorists on the run
in the name of security
you must give up your privacy

Give it up for security,
just don’t include me
you want safety
I want to be free

Copyright © 2002 By John J. Lindsay. All Rights Reserved
June 1, 2002

[LS]

Sorry, but this is bogus. Reagan had tremendously high approval numbers---and attempted to USE the "bully pulpit" on Nicaragua to influence the 1984 and 1986 elections. The result? No change in 1984, an he lost the Senate in 1986.

There is, and always has been, a huge disconnect between what people THINK a president can do for other members of his party and what he actually can do.

Washington LOST party support in Congress in 1790 and 1794 (although he gained some in 1792); Jackson LOST seats; in 1830 and 1836, even though he was personally up for reelection; Teddy Roosevelt lost forty seats in 1904, when he was re-elected; FDR LOST BIG TIME in 1934 and 1936; Truman lost seventy seats in 1950; and the Democrats lost THREE SEATS under JFK in 1962.

Now, do you seriously want to argue that Bush should be able to do something that Washington, Jackson, TR, Truman, JFK, Reagan, and even LINCOLN could not do? Do you really want to make that argument based on public opinion polls?

Or maybe, just maybe, these politicians have to actually make it on their own; and the only time we had an upheaval (1994) in Congress was when there was a fusion of TREMENDOUS national sentiment against "big government," anti-gun, and Hillarycare in 1994 along with a (yes, you are right here) NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL strategy.

But you and others here need to realize that right now---despite what you and I WANT---there is NOT a national sentiment for "less government," "lower taxes," or controlling federal spending. So whatever Bush's popularity, it is not, and never has been a "mandate" for his (admittedly middle-of-the-road) policies.

Moreover, with or without Bush, it is significant that neither Gilmore nor Schundler (and now, apparently, Simon) can win on a "conservative" agenda alone. You need a GOOD CAMPAIGN, as well as STELLAR PERSONAL CHARACTER and that intangeable called "electability." So, please, get off Bush. There is no "white elephant."

[FreeReign]

President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.

President Bush did say that the CFR bill has unconstitutional provisions in it and President Bush did say that he is confident that the Supreme Court will remove the unconstitutional parts of the bill.

I see no evidence that leads me to conclude that President Bush did not sign the steel import tax for national defense reasons.

Unfortunately, The President did raise the Department of Education budget relative to GNP but he also CUT EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT -- that's some 25 other departments -- except the DOD, relative to GNP.

I don't think this Cato article is an objective evaluation of the president.

[FreeReign]

In the Name Of Security The p.a.t.r.i.o.t act sticks in my craw because it’s really a Gestapo Law the FBI gets more powers to spy on us for 24 hours

In the name of objectivity, please elaborate how the PATRIOT act is really Gestapo law.

[LS]

Apparently quite a few. I think we will take the Senate and widen the margin in the House. If the election were held today, according to Roll Call, the GOP would have a net gain of SD, MN, and NJ, with no corollary losses. Simply redistricting will add a half-dozen GOP seats in the House. So, yes, the Dems are hurting themselves.

That said, YOU BETTER REALIZE that there will be no change unless the GOP wins the Senate by at least 3 seats to spare---because Chaffee or McCain will jump. So prepare yourself for that. It isn't just a matter of electing Republicans, but Conservatives, and you should agree that so far the conservatives have not yet done enough to elect themselves (Gilmore, Schundler, Simon).

I'm trying to get you, and others here, to realize that SIMPLY BEING A CONSERVATIVE is not sufficient to get someone elected (any more than, as the Dems claim, it is sufficient to get them defeated).

[LS]

Excellent point. What the heck can Bush do if he is making a speech (as he did on the obstructionist Dems and the judges) and the PRESS CORPS only wants to ask him about some other moronic issue---I forget what it was that day, but I distinctly remember watching the press conference and not ONE question was on the judges, which was the subject of the speech.

I'll tell you what is really eating Grover---and I like the guy---but it is that TWICE now, NJ and VA, you had somewhat conservative tax-cutters LOSE. Now, I believe they lost because they weren't good candidates. But nevertheless, it did put a chink in his mantra that if you ran on "conservative" issues, you were a guaranteed winner. NO. You must also be a good candidate.

[poet]

I suggest you read the act and judge for yourself. Section 802 is the dangerous part to our future freedoms as it has no "sunset" provision.

At my age, I probably won't have to worry about it, but, the young people better get started to have it rescinded or at least sunsetted.

It's the future danger it represents that bothers me. What if, say, people like the clintons and their ilk, or advocates of the new world order decide to use it to restrict dissent such as mine?

The law was not needed in view of the fact that the perps violated laws against hijuacking, hostage taking, theft, destruction of property and finally, murder. In addition the devils crossed State lines which placed them under Federal jurisdiction.

What good are laws if they are not obeyed and are continually violated? Has murder stopped? has rape stopped? has child molestation stopped? has burglary/theft stopped?
have shootings stopped in spite of 20,000+ laws on the books?

Every new law passed is a "feel good" law and limits more of our freedoms.

What is the estimate of the terrorists in the U.S, 5,000? Does that justify limiting the feedoms of of 200,000,000+?

I suggest that on any new legislation of any kind, that you
consider the future benefit rather than the immediate benefit, if any. The people in both houses are the "fast food" purveyors of "feel good" legislation and 60+% of you fall for it.

IMO, anyone that justifies the incredible spending going on
should look in the mirror. they just may discover they are, in reality, liberals posing as conservatives posing as bush republicans. None of you address the issues brought forward and you dismiss them out of hand. All you can reply is either with insults or comments that those of us don't know what we're taliking about or we wear tin foil hats. Oops, mine keeps falling off my bald head.

FReegards to all

[Miss Marple]

I believe you are correct. You MUST be a good candidate...conservatism isn't enough, sad as that truth may be for people to face.

Simon has picked up the endorsement of a major Hispanic group, which is a good sign. Hopefully he will demonstrate some innovative campaign strategies after Labor Day.

[Miss Marple]

I particularly addressed the charge that you made that President Bush wasn't speaking out on the judges. You chose to ignore me.

[LS]

Clever. I'm sure it will be a big hit at militia cookouts and John Birch get-togethers.

In the meantime, I vote for people to DO things, not "take positions." Anyone---obviously you---can "take a position." Yep, that really accomplishes a lot. Glad Lincoln didn't just "take a position" on slavery, or Reagan "take a position" on the Cold War. The politicians I support actually take action when necessary. But I don't think Ron Paul has ever found any action taken by the government to be "necessary."