Simple “solutions” to complex problems will always be popular so long as their simple minds to appreciate them.
He’s already made speeches laying out his case. He’s made it very clear. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago he further bolstered his case for a preemptive strike in his inimitable fashion :
The problem is his case is currently lacking the evidence that would justify a slaughter.
Yes, Bush is losing some ground in the latest poll numbers. Is anyone really surprised? If so, why?
As to underestimating Bush, I’m with December and ElJeffe. He seems to have a curious grasp of political timing, and it’s not consistent with others’ political machinations of the recent past.
As for Iraq: I don’t at this moment in time support military action. I lean that direction, but I, too, want to see the hard evidence. Make the case, Mr. President. I do expect that to occur in the next week, as the UNMOVIC reports to the UNSCR and the SOTU speech take place. If Bush cannot make that case persuasively to the American people and the world, I will then have to reassess my position.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I’m not opposed to the war because I think we won’t win it it. Of course we would it. Iran was selected precisely because it poses no risk for Junior to attack it. There is no conceivable way that he can botch it. A monkey could (and will) preside over a war against Iraq. Winning it is not the issue. What is the issue is that it’s illegal and * immoral* to attack innocent people who have nothing to us.
Your supposition that Junior will be vindicated by a discovery of some hidden cache WMD’s is a fantasy. We have no evidence whatsoever that any such weapons exist. The argument that Iraq is a threat to the US is pure crap. Junior can’t find one, old, sick little Arab in the mountains, so his handlers have devised a plan to kill a “surrogate” (Junior’s word) instead. Americans are, by and large, morons and they bought the Bushista dog and pony show for a while. But now they’re getting laid off, their 401k’s are going into the toilet, and they’re starting to wise up a little bit.
If it comes down to a choice between worrying about imaginary nukes in the desert or paying their house and car loans, Junior’s gonna have to go back to bilking oil investors for a living.
Cynic, your ability to succinctly put the kibosh on the blabbering apologists and sycophants makes me envious.
I wish I could say it as well.
One of the advantages, it seems to me, of the Westminster system is that you don’t have “fixed terms of office”. It can be a random thing between 3 and 5 years sometimes. Accordingly, there’s more “pressure” on a government to be on their “game” all the time, as it were.
Well, that’s the theory at any rate. You still get shithouse governments in the Westminster system too sadly. But you get Churchills occasionally too. But even he was punted out (rather unfairly) with about 6 months of WW2 left to go if I recall.
So obviously, being a war hero leader counts for nothing in a democracy. Still, there’s something cheap about being seen to be “buying” popularity - it’s far, far better if you “earn” it I rather think.
One thing bush is succesfully reversing is the idea that Republicans are better at handling the economy. Republicans seem to be using their popularity from 9/11 to enact their goals and this will create a backlash from the moderates. The only thing I have seen Bush do that is popular is challenging Affirmative Action. The attack on Iraq could backfire because Bush keeps a large amount of his popular support from 9/11 and Bush seems to be trying to make everyone forget about it and focus on the war on Iraq.
Bush’s best bet is Democratic incomptency that will outshine his own. Which is quite possible looking at the mid-term elections.
Originally posted by ElJeffe
Nothing is sweeter than incompetency in the opposition.
Depends upon whether or not the Supreme Court selects them as the winner.
I guess you mean the Florida Supreme Court
Then again, you get prime ministers and their party sequestering tax revenue year after year into a hidden piggy bank. When the PM finally calls an election, all this hidden tax revenue magically appears, doled out to fund often long-needed projects in questionable electorates.
While the US system has its own pork barrelling, using tax dollars for blatent political partisanship just doesn’t cut it.
From Gallup, 61% approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president (with 34% dissapproving). This is up from last week, where it was at 58% (37% percent on the other side.)
And just what liberal self-delusion juice do I need to drink to interpret those figures as ‘Bush losing support’?
It’s probably bad form to quote oneself, but as there appears to be a different crowd in this thread, I’ll just repeat what I said before:
No need for self-delusion - it’s there in your cite:
(reformatting and bolding mine)
His disapproval ratings for the period between Jan 10-16 2003 hasn’t been that high since Sept. 7-10 2001.
And then there’s the old “one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points” which covers the differences in the numbers you posted.
Gentlemen, there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.