Jump to content

Bush Minus Iraq


Bush's approval rating  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. W/o Iraq, Bush's approval rating would be around this percentage:

    • 40's
      3
    • 50's
      4
    • 60's
      2
    • 70's
      4


Recommended Posts

I liked President Bush's speech yesterday on the prisons, terrorists, etc. I also prefer the "islamofacist" definition as it's much better than simply calling them all "terrorists", as terrorism is a means to an end, not an affiliation. Still, I've come to realize I'm probably a moderate democrat and will vote along those lines in Nov. I personally believe that the Democrat party can move more to the middle than the current conservative Republican party can, and that if it does so we'd be better off. Plus, the lefty looneybins would probably break off and produce their own looney party, which would always run a distant third, like the Liberal Democrats of England.So, if there was no Iraq war, say everything else was still around, with the economy, GITMO, Afghanistan, Katrina, and other social issues, where do you think Bush's approval rating would be right now? Not interested in what you think it SHOULD be, because if you don't like him, you didn't before Iraq, and wouldnt if we left tomorrow.I went with high 50's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would definately be higher than it is now, but because of things like the katrina fall out it still wouldnt bet stellar. it really is impossible to say though, because nearly every decision of the administration has been in some way effected by iraq. even the aftermath of katrina probably would have been somewhat different if it weren't for all the time/money/attention that iraq has been getting from the administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hard telling since he doesn't say anything that doesn't involve the war on terror. It is a good move for his party. but I think if it wasn't for the war the polls would be lower.
he doesn't say anything but the war on terror, but does a lot of other stupid and idiotic things. He has basically fucked over the EPA by hamstringing it in what it can do and he has rolled back a lot of anti pollution laws and has also cut back a lot of corporate restrictions that had been in place for a long time. Lets also not forget his heightening of the war on drugs to insane levels, and putting very conservative judges on the court recently. He has bungled enough things that his approval rating wouldn't be over 50%. Donkslayer, this democratic party is hardly to the left at all. If they moved any more to the right they'd be moderate republicans. RIght now they are barely to the left and IMO it has hurt the party as a whole. All centrism does is keep the status quo, which IMO is a bad thing
Link to post
Share on other sites
he doesn't say anything but the war on terror, but does a lot of other stupid and idiotic things. He has basically fucked over the EPA by hamstringing it in what it can do and he has rolled back a lot of anti pollution laws and has also cut back a lot of corporate restrictions that had been in place for a long time. Lets also not forget his heightening of the war on drugs to insane levels, and putting very conservative judges on the court recently. He has bungled enough things that his approval rating wouldn't be over 50%. Donkslayer, this democratic party is hardly to the left at all. If they moved any more to the right they'd be moderate republicans. RIght now they are barely to the left and IMO it has hurt the party as a whole. All centrism does is keep the status quo, which IMO is a bad thing
Yeah, but the average american voted gives fuk all about the epa and corporate restrictions. The people who do care about those things wouldn't give bush positive approval ratting anyway. I think bush would be rockign a 60's approval rating, because people are dumb. As long as bush didn't outlaw cable, or get involed in an endless war ( whoops) His rating would be soaring
Link to post
Share on other sites
he doesn't say anything but the war on terror, but does a lot of other stupid and idiotic things. He has basically fucked over the EPA by hamstringing it in what it can do and he has rolled back a lot of anti pollution laws and has also cut back a lot of corporate restrictions that had been in place for a long time. Lets also not forget his heightening of the war on drugs to insane levels, and putting very conservative judges on the court recently. He has bungled enough things that his approval rating wouldn't be over 50%. Donkslayer, this democratic party is hardly to the left at all. If they moved anymore to the right they'd be moderate republicans. RIght now they are barely to the left and IMO it has hurt the party as a whole. All centrism does is keep the status quo, which IMO is a bad thing
Yeah, but the average american voted gives fuk all about the epa and corporate restrictions. The people who do care about those things wouldn't give bush positive approval ratting anyway. I think bush would be rockign a 60's approval rating, because people are dumb. As long as bush didn't outlaw cable, or get involed in an endless war ( whoops) His rating would be soaring
Good. KDawg, I know arguments can be made from the opposite side of the spectrum, but I wanted a realistic evaluation...I think BigD is on the money when he said your concerns were likely not those of the average American, at least not consciously.
Donkslayer, this democratic party is hardly to the left at all. If they moved any more to the right they'd be moderate republicans. RIght now they are barely to the left and IMO it has hurt the party as a whole. All centrism does is keep the status quo, which IMO is a bad thing
KDawg, I think it's awful ambitious to try to define the Democratic party in any way right now unless you identify each sect OR say it's simply an affiliated opposition to the Republican Party. There are many, many grassroots leftists that drive the Democrat leaders more left than they probably want to be...plus they need to be in opposition of Bush. I disagree with your evaluation of "Centrism." Unless your impression of Centrism is that the government is so divided it doesn't get anything done, I think centrists like Clinton, Mark Warner, McCain, Feingold, etc. would do very well for this country if they were in the top leadership positions. They are willing to entertain progressive ideas while recognizing current successful trends and self-defeating populism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good. KDawg, I know arguments can be made from the opposite side of the spectrum, but I wanted a realistic evaluation...I think BigD is on the money when he said your concerns were likely not those of the average American, at least not consciously.KDawg, I think it's awful ambitious to try to define the Democratic party in any way right now unless you identify each sect OR say it's simply an affiliated opposition to the Republican Party. There are many, many grassroots leftists that drive the Democrat leaders more left than they probably want to be...plus they need to be in opposition of Bush. I disagree with your evaluation of "Centrism." Unless your impression of Centrism is that the government is so divided it doesn't get anything done, I think centrists like Clinton, Mark Warner, McCain, Feingold, etc. would do very well for this country if they were in the top leadership positions. They are willing to entertain progressive ideas while recognizing current successful trends and self-defeating populism.
No, what the democrats do is ease the blow of global corporatism from getting hit by a bus, to getting hit in the head with a brick.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, what the democrats do is ease the blow of global corporatism from getting hit by a bus, to getting hit in the head with a brick.
Nicely put BigD!At the fundamental level, there's no real difference between the "big time" candidates of the major parties. Let's look at the last presidential election. Effectively, our two choices were:1) The rich, elite, Yale-educated, skull and bones, bilderberg approved, globalist; or2) The other rich, elite, Yale-educated, skull and bones, bilderberg approved globalist.The same body is controlling both puppets.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicely put BigD!At the fundamental level, there's no real difference between the "big time" candidates of the major parties. Let's look at the last presidential election. Effectively, our two choices were:1) The rich, elite, Yale-educated, skull and bones, bilderberg approved, globalist; or2) The other rich, elite, Yale-educated, skull and bones, bilderberg approved globalist.The same body is controlling both puppets.
ITA, however what's happening now is very interesting. There are significant splits in both parties and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. The Democrats have yet to find a united voice and therefore are very unclear on where they stand. The republicans have three issues which are causing friction with the party: immigration, too much spending and the war. A surprising number of republicans have sided with the democrats on wanting Rumsfeld out. The spending issue is really a big thorn in the side of fiscal conservatives who think Bush is doing great harm by running up the national debt and the immigration issue has put the Whitehouse at odds with several Republican govs. The key is which party can get it together long enough for the upcoming elections.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...