RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress

RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cyberdude611 -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:05:05 PM)
Fred Thompson is probably going to throw in his hat. He's got good poll numbers in the battleground states and he's not even running yet. I also would not count out Romney. The guy has been able to raise a lot of money...more than McCain or Giuliani. There is also the X-factor. There is a strong possibility Ralph Nader is going to run again as an independant. If the Iraq war is still going on into next year, the Democrats will lose the entire anti-war vote to Nader. That's 20% of the electorate. The Democrats will have a major defeat if this happends. The anti-war crowd is very angry at Democrats. And that's why congressional approval has fallen so low.

domiguy -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:06:55 PM)
The anti-war crowd has very little to do with the low approval ratings of congress....Please provide link for this astute comment.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:12:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy The anti-war crowd has very little to do with the low approval ratings of congress....Please provide link for this astute comment. So you are saying the war has no effect on congressional approval? You are saying that the anti-war crowd is happy with the Democrats plan to keep troops in Iraq until August 2008? The anti-war crowd does not want to wait until August 2008, they want the troops out now and they want Bush impeached for lying that got us into a war that left many thousands dead. And the Dems are not willing to do either of those things. And you think the anti-war crowd is going to continue to vote for those Dems? A few weeks ago, Pelosi ran out of town to avoid a bunch of Code Pink protesters.

Griswold -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:14:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 According to a CNN-Gallup poll... 38% of Americans say they approve of how President Bush is handling his job 33% of Americans say they approve of the Democrat-controlled congress. Keep in mind, the support for congress when the GOP controlled it in October last year before the election was 32%. It appears as though right now Americans are not happy with either branch of government. And the polls show the reasons are many ranging from the war to border security. These polls also show how wide open the 2008 election is going to be. It is certainly not a slam-dunk for Democrats. I've done my own poll.... 177% dissaprove of Bush....and 234% think he's a dickhead. (Margin of error: 3 - 6%).

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:30:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Condi Rice? Have you seen the mess she made of Iraq? Letting North Korea develop Nukes? Shit, 9/11 happened on HER WATCH AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR! North Korea was Alldim's fault, along with Billary. Same as 9/11. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:34:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Keyes I could vote for. Buchannan though - bzzt, wrong answer. ditto. If Keyes had even the low level of support that Nader has on the loony left, I'd work for his campaign. But he is anathema to anyone on the left side of the political equation. A "conservative" (read classic liberal) black man, who makes his own mind up, and isn't on the liberal plantation? Not gonna happen. Buchanan ... is just ... out there. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Condi Rice? Have you seen the mess she made of Iraq? Letting North Korea develop Nukes? Shit, 9/11 happened on HER WATCH AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR! North Korea was Alldim's fault, along with Billary. Same as 9/11. FirmKY If they're so wonderful, how come everything gets blamed on Bill Clinton? Seriously. In the 8 months prior to 9/11, she couldn't do ANYTHING as National Security Advisor, because things were left too screwed up? Sounds to me like someone chose an incompetent person to be National Security Adviser. No, seriously, before she was in charge of NSA, what? Did she just sit around with her thumb up her ass? If she wasn't able to hit the ground running, then she was the wrong choice. Is COMPETENCE just too much to expect from these co-dependent/insecure losers? I guess so, since they couldn't even hide the double-secret-email-servers properly.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:43:16 PM)
Which president and SecState believed NK, and gave them massive aid so that they "wouldn't" develop nukes? Which Prez and SecState had the opportunity and the support of Congress to take out bin Laden first? Slice it how you want, but you can't sit all the blame on Bush/Condi. Rationally, that is. FirmKY

lockedaway -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:49:44 PM)
Firm is right. Clinton is the one that authorized NK getting the cold water reactors. Clinton is the one that passed on Bin Laden on two occasions when he was a sitting duck; in '96 and '98. But to a certain segment of society, Clinton can do no wrong despite the fact that more scandals plagued his Presidency than even Nixon's.

farglebargle -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:49:58 PM)
"Which president and SecState believed NK, and gave them massive aid so that they "wouldn't" develop nukes? " I'd guess Bill Clinton? And you leave out that in 2001, when Bush took over, North Korea did NOT have any nukes. You wanna play, "Who let the gate open FIRST"? I see you're Clinton Card, and raise: "Ronnie REAGAN between 1985 and 1990" From the FAS... "In 1985" 1985, Sir. Under RONALD REAGAN's SECOND TERM. "In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports. In 1985, under international pressure, Pyongyang acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, the DPRK refused to sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an obligation it had as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In July 1990 The Washington Post reported that new satellite photographs showed the presence in Yongbyon of a structure which could possibly be used to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel." So, was Reagan just too damn senile to take care of North Korea? Explain why Bush#41 didn't deal with them? P.S.: Don't make the naive, simplistic assumption that just because I disapprove of Bush's handling of pretty much everything, and personally believe he carries SIGNIFICANT legal liability for his actions, that I think Bill Clinton wasn't a rat, either. But when my 3 year old daughter blames something she did on an imaginary friend, I do not permit the transfer of responsibility. I believe it's called "Holding people accountable". Simply put, regardless of what passed before, either Condi Rice was competent and able to do the job from the very first minute she swore her oath, or by definition, she way incompetent. Like Mike Browne was Incompetent. Like L. Paul Bremer was incompetent. Like Donald Rumsfeld was incompetent. And the appointment of all those incompetent people, makes honest, traditional conservatives like myself question The President's competence.

luckydog1 -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:55:26 PM)
So which is worse N Korea possibly getting nukes or Pakistan? It is worth noting that durring the transition, Clinton refused to allow Bush's team (which would include Condi) to sit in on National security mettings( as was traditional), so that they could hit the ground running.

dcnovice -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 6:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Forgetting about the fact she's a homosexual, Got a source for that? Or, better yet, pictures? I've never heard that either. quote: I couldn't believe it when NOBODY picked up on it a few years ago when she slipped and referred to the Pres. as her "husband." Here in DC, folks picked up on that big-time. [:)]

dcnovice -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:00:04 PM)
quote: Same as 9/11. I thought 9/11 was the fault of the guys flying the planes.

domiguy -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:01:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy The anti-war crowd has very little to do with the low approval ratings of congress....Please provide link for this astute comment. So you are saying the war has no effect on congressional approval? You are saying that the anti-war crowd is happy with the Democrats plan to keep troops in Iraq until August 2008? The anti-war crowd does not want to wait until August 2008, they want the troops out now and they want Bush impeached for lying that got us into a war that left many thousands dead. And the Dems are not willing to do either of those things. And you think the anti-war crowd is going to continue to vote for those Dems? A few weeks ago, Pelosi ran out of town to avoid a bunch of Code Pink protesters. No, what I am saying is you tend to state your ludicrous opinions as fact....Please provide something to back up the statement that the low rating of approval for congress is due to the fact of a disgruntled anti-war crowd...Is that too much to ask?

farglebargle -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:03:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 So which is worse N Korea possibly getting nukes or Pakistan? It is worth noting that durring the transition, Clinton refused to allow Bush's team (which would include Condi) to sit in on National security mettings( as was traditional), so that they could hit the ground running. I also heard the pulled off the W keys on all the computers. Oh wait, they didn't. "Bernard Ungar, the agency's director of physical infrastructure, told Salon the media clearly exaggerated the extent of the damage. According to the terse GSA statement that formed the basis of Ungar's conclusion, "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."" Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., the ardent Clinton foe who requested the GAO review, has tried to interpret the agency's findings to mean no "record of damage" had been compiled, not that no damage had occurred. But the lack of records "cataloging" any damages -- which Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer promised in January the White House would compile -- would seem to suggest one thing: Widespread acts of vandalism never occurred. " Oh, Ari didn't deliver yet again?

dcnovice -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:05:40 PM)
quote: It is worth noting that durring the transition, Clinton refused to allow Bush's team (which would include Condi) to sit in on National security mettings( as was traditional), so that they could hit the ground running. I'd never heard that, lucky. Where did you learn it?

lockedaway -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:21:12 PM)
Farglebargle, I think you might be ignoring some facts. You are blaming Reagan? You are off by about 4 administrations: "North Korea began its nuclear work on an experimental scale during the 1960's and 1970's. By 1975, it had produced a few grams of plutonium in a Soviet-supplied research reactor. Then in 1979, it started building a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor with a thermal power of about 30 megawatts (the reactor had an "electrical" rating of five megawatts, despite the fact that it produced no electricity). This was North Korea's first serious step toward nuclear weapon production. At full power, the reactor could generate enough plutonium in its spent fuel for up to one fission bomb per year." North Korea Nuclear Update - 2004 The Risk Report Volume 10, Issue 2 (March-April 2004) We were in a better bargaining position with China in the 90's than we were in the '60's and '70's, do you agree? In fact, with the U.S.S.R. having collapsed on China seeking most favored nation status, we were in a pretty good position in the '90's to bargain with China to apply force on Korea, don't you think? O.K., so are you saying that you would have preferred it if Bush '00 took the same stance as Slick Willy and simply ignored the situation? What are you getting at? How would you have addressed the situation? By the way, you calling yourself a conservative is about as plausible as me calling myself a liberal.

TheHeretic -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:38:41 PM)
quote: It is worth noting that durring the transition, Clinton refused to allow Bush's team (which would include Condi) to sit in on National security mettings( as was traditional), so that they could hit the ground running. I'd never heard that, lucky. Where did you learn it? The version of this I've heard (sorry DC, can't recall where, it's just filed under 'general,' likely a radio commentator) was that the delay had a lot more to do with the AlGore challenges (Sore/Loserman is another thread entirely) than spite from the Clinton administration. But then, I'm also one of those who thinks that 9/11 might not have happened if the Repubs hadn't been keeping Clinton under constant investigational seige.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Same as 9/11. I thought 9/11 was the fault of the guys flying the planes. Point.

lockedaway -> RE: Bush's approval rating higher than Congress (4/9/2007 7:47:49 PM)
"But then, I'm also one of those who thinks that 9/11 might not have happened if the Repubs hadn't been keeping Clinton under constant investigational seige." Ok...so why did the '93 Trade Center bombing take place and why did the incompetent Clinton administration treat it as a problem of law enforcement rather than foreign policy. The War on Terror should have started in '93. Bin Laden should have been taken by the U.S. in '96 and he should have been blown to bits in '98. No amount of Republican investigation of Clinton's putrid conduct, e.g. Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, renting out Lincoln's bedroom, using the IRS to conduct audits on political adversaries...Filegate, etc. excuses Clinton from the gross negligence he showed this country and his making a joke out of the Oval Office. You know, you can come up with all sorts of analogies but here is one off the top of my head. If the chief of police in your town was having all sorts of personal problems, would that excuse him from investigating the murder of your spouse or child?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125