Third Party & Independents Archives

Bush Seeks Negative Approval Rating

Not even Tom Cruise gets as much media attention as President Bush’s poll numbers. “All-time low!” we are told, and then the next day we read the same headline. Why even waste the ink to print something that will be outdated in 24 hours? “Even lower than yesterday!” will read tomorrow’s newspapers, blogs and journals.

But what does this mean for the president and the GOP? Absolutely nothing!

The Democratic Party, completely devoid of a clear agenda by which to lead (oh wait, they promise to catch Osama bin Laden!), is putting all of its chips on a Republican implosion. They look at Bush's poll numbers with glee, hoping that this November Americans will be desperate enough to vote for Democrats again.

According to the most recent USA TODAY poll -- yep, you guessed it -- "Bush approval rating hits new low." It's at 31%, which I guess is worse than when it was at 34%, bleaker than when it was at 36%.

For Democrats, polls give them solace. They think bad polls for Republicans translate into election victories for Democrats. Pop-Quiz: How many times have Democrats won a majority vote in a national election since FDR?

Answer: Two! Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. The former was damaged so badly by Vietnam that he opted not to run for re-election, and it took someone like Richard Nixon and his vice-president for Americans to give Democrats another chance. They elected Jimmy Carter, but then fixed that mistake by limiting him to one term in the White House.

But Democrats don't look at history. They look at polls; meaningless polls. As one political pundit put it so perfectly:

And then — despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush — a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

If history is an accurate predictor, Democrats should win Congress easily this year. They should have won it in 2004. Traditionally, the president's party loses Congress in the midterm elections. And we know how bad the Republicans are because Democrats keep reminding us. But then why do Americans continue to keep them in power?

Posted by Scottie at May 8, 2006 3:33 PM
Comments
Comment #146273

Scottie:

Pop-Quiz: How many times have Democrats won a majority vote in a national election since FDR?

Answer: Two! Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Actually I believe the correct answer is THREE! Al Gore won the majority vote in 2000, but did not win the majority of the electoral college vote.

The Democrats are still vilifying Bush. If they continue to do so without allowing the country to see their plans for the future, they will not see success in this strategy. They will soon not have Bush to fight against, but a new contender. If their solution is seen as “Get rid of Bush”, then the public might just accomplish that by electing another Republican.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 8, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #146278

You’re right, Gore did win the popular vote but not the electorate. Only twice has a Democrat who became president won a majority. I should have made that a little more clear.

Posted by: Scottie at May 8, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #146282

Why would you look to history to determine what will happen in November?

1 - we’re in a very unique situation that I highly doubt has existed before

2 - there’s still 6 more months before the election - and the terror alerts have not been put into motion yet.

3 - who ever thinks they have a bead on how the electorate will vote is fooling themselves. Voters do not use logic when they vote - I have no idea wht they use, but it’s not logic. I think it’s pretty much operating on the “Weeggie Board” theory… the pen shall guide my hand.

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #146285

What’s unique about the situation we’re in? Were we not in a war in 2004? Did Democrats like Bush in 2004? The terror alerts are being used, as useless as they are, and what logic is required to cast a vote?

Posted by: Scottie at May 8, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #146286

“What’s unique about the situation we’re in? Were we not in a war in 2004? Did Democrats like Bush in 2004? The terror alerts are being used, as useless as they are, and what logic is required to cast a vote?”

Seriously? In 2004, did the public have the same opinion about Iraq as they do now? Did they see such failures at home (Katrina)? Did we have the actual indictments of key REPs? Was Abramoff in the news yet? What about Libby?

People keep talking about Ohio as a key state - and one of the key candidates is getting ready for a federal indictment.

We are more than $2 TRILLION in debt than we were in 2004.

Both parties are in the low 30% approval ratings…

Gas is $3+ per gallon

We are now practicing for escalation with Iran and North Korea is still going psycho…

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #146288

There’s no question the GOP keeps screwing things up, and my point is that it doesn’t matter because Democrats don’t respond with a clear agenda. I don’t care about the polls, and I don’t think gas prices are going to help Democrats until they address how they will handle it when in power.

Posted by: Scottie at May 8, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #146295

So basically Scottie what you are saying is that the voters will prefer to go with the “devil they know” as opposed to the one they don’t know since the Democrats have not yet offered clear solutions or plans.

That’s entirely possible yet I think it depends on individual races. I do agree that quite a bit of this focus on polls does not prove that there will be a sweeping win for Democrats in November. If anything what the Democrats need to watch is that they don’t create the impression that Republicans have no chance of winning because it could keep voters who are only mildly interested from bothering to vote as well as could rally more Republican voters to counter that.

There is really only one poll that counts and that is election day. Granted it’s an old statement but it is still true.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at May 8, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #146298

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2993&kaid=105&subid=121

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200603%5CPOL20060315b.html

I’m not saying that I’m buying all that is in the links, but the point is that the agenda is out there. The issue, until the election season really kicks off, nobody cares about a Democratoc agenda - there’s far too much other news that is sexier.

I agree - and have been blasting this for 2 years now that DEM must define themselves if they want to retake power in DC. REPs are extremely good at defining their opponents immediately and sticking with those definitions.

I’ll be curious to see what happens when election season rolls around - but I will say I’ve heard this DEM agenda discussed on many talkshows… it’s just not making the 6 O’clock news yet.

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #146302

Personally, last election I think Bush won because the country really believed this was a time of war and wanted to stay in Iraq to finish what it started. That’s the most positive spin I can put on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they voted for a ham sandwich to be our next president.

What really gets me is that with all our problems what seems to really be getting through to voters is rising gas prices, which is number 1000 on the list of things I don’t like about Bush.

Posted by: Max at May 8, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #146303

If the Democrats develop some real solutions for the problems facing this country. And present them in a logical manner. They have a chance of taking Congress back. But they won’t. They hate Bush so bad that they can’t think straight. And that’s what’s going to defeat them in November.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 8, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #146306

$3 a gallon? Where?

The only reason Bush won in 2004, the ONLY reason, is that the Dems thought they could trot out any worthless nominee and get him elected. IT *almost* worked but not quite. That’s how bad Kerry was (and Gore for that matter) to not win that election by a landslide.

And the dems look like they are going to do it again, when they are running a race against someone who won’t even be on the ticket in 2008! They’ll be running against Bush still while ‘insert name of candidate’ will be tearing them to shreds.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #146317

I fear the Dems will nominate Hillary, and the voters WILL stay with the devil they know….with a new face….Jeb Bush.

Posted by: Billy at May 8, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #146318

“$3 a gallon? Where?”

OK - $2.969 for a national average… not sure what your question is…???

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #146322

Whoa! Do any of you take the time to listen to the DNC and Democratic analysts? Apparently not. For if you did, you would hear a plethora of ideas that are clearly different than those of the GOP and Pres. Bush.

It is true, there is a division and lack of unity regarding the Left’s thinking and ideas, but, if you listen close, you will discover that these policy differences exist between the Democratic Party officials and Progressives. Democratic Party politicians and officials approach policy from the point of view that government programs and taxes can remedy problems. Progressives are coming at the problems from the perspective that changes in public behavior or foreign nation’s behavior have to be the solutions.

Example, Democrats solution to corruption: add another layer of agency oversight. Progressives solution: put teeth into the laws that seriously diminish corrupt behavior by punishing the offenders. Democrats in office don’t like the Progressives solution because it could bite them in the ass right along with Republicans in government.

Beware the Progressives. If they profer candidates in the numbers they hope to, both Republican and Democrat incumbents may be forced to cooperate to defeat the Progressives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #146336

“Beware the Progressives. If they profer candidates in the numbers they hope to, both Republican and Democrat incumbents may be forced to cooperate to defeat the Progressives.”

You are aware that there are quite a few Progressives that vote DEM…. right?

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #146339

David

Beware the Progressives. If they profer candidates in the numbers they hope to, both Republican and Democrat incumbents may be forced to cooperate to defeat the Progressives.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 8, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #146341

David
Don’t know what happened to my reply to you.

Are these Progressives in the Democrat party or are they a third party?

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 8, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #146342

tony, yes of course. You are aware that some true fiscal conservatives also vote for Republicans, but, that does not make the GOP fiscally conservative now, does it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #146344

OK - we agree. Now let’s kick the assholes out. NOW NOW NOW NOW.

I want a truly progressive DEM party - and about the only issue I agree with REPs is being fiscally conservative. Personally - I think you can have both. However, you can’t have either with those in power currently.

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #146346

Ron Brown, progressives are more closely aligned with the Democratic Party, and no, they are not a third party. They are citizen’s action groups, think tanks, and 527 organizations seeking to stear the Democratic Party toward a more practical platform with a much wider appeal in the public than the more conventional tax and spend Democrats.

Some Progressive groups are Campaign for America’s Future and Progressive Majority.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #146348

tony, we agree entirely, about kicking the current lot out to make way for those who won’t buy into the D & R status quo putting power and money before the interests of the nation and her future.

I personally don’t care if Democrats or Republicans or Greens or Libertarians control government as long as they move this nation toward freedom for its citizens, prosperity for her children, and security in our homeland and homes. In other words, as long as they accomplish the goals and aspirations of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, instead of just paying lip service to them for votes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #146356

Yes - we agree.

Now what? (I would prefer to not become a grumpy old man… at least no more than I now.)

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #146374

Just an aside:

” The third-highest official at the CIA, under investigation over ties to a defense contractor linked to a Capitol Hill bribery inquiry, has decided to step down, intelligence sources told CNN Monday.” (CNN)

So, how will it play in this election, when intelligence is such a strong concern… that #3 man steps down due to a hooker scandle… and #1 man resigns just 3 days prior?

You don’t there’s any chance they are connected, do you? :-O

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #146383

tony:

Why did you think they put Hayden in charge now? Now we will talk about NSA Wiretapping and National Security instead of gay Republican prostitutes.

Posted by: Aldous at May 8, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #146386

Aldous -

It makes you wonder if this (gay prostitute scandle) is actually information gained from the NSA domestic spying… it’s one hell of a way to get a promotion!

Posted by: tony at May 8, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #146449

Rhinehold:


The only reason Bush won in 2004, the ONLY reason, is that the Dems thought they could trot out any worthless nominee and get him elected. IT *almost* worked but not quite. That’s how bad Kerry was (and Gore for that matter) to not win that election by a landslide.

You’re right. The dems, instead of dealing with issues that affect Americans, played to the polls and played to marketers. They played the War-card and trotted out a decorated war veteran. They wanted to neutralize Bush on, what the press stated at the time, was his strength: a war-time President. But what they (the dems) found out in the end was that the American people didn’t want a decorated war veteran for President. No. they wanted a priest.

Posted by: john trevisani at May 9, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #146454

Sorry for another aside to this post: but let’s review the scandles —

Ney, from Ohio is getting ready to be indicted, especially after his top aide confessed and is now working with prosecutors… on allegations stemming from activies involving Abramoff - already convicted.

Gross & Foggo have now, in a surprise move, both stepped down from their posts while allegations of bribery and prostitution in connection with a convicted felon gaining Homeland/CIA contracts & in connection with pokers parites with Cunningham - already confessed to said crimes.

Rove is facing potential indictment from Plane leak case shortly after he was moved away from policy roles (to focus on the election…???) as Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation and Libby is seaking to put Rove on the stand.

Delay - also in connection with Abramoff, is awaiting trial.

Hayden, who was in charge of the NSA program - which is still being investigated as an illegal activity set up by President Bush is now positioned to take over the CIA - if he can get by Spector, who has been knocking on the White House door to get adequate information for the NSA domestic spy program.

Am I missing anything?

And that’s the tip of the iceberg for Tuesday, May 9th, 2006

It’s like trying to dogde the chunks of ice standing out in a hail storm.

Posted by: tony at May 9, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #146469

tony-

But remember that was the Republican strategy in ‘96 on Clinton. It included Whitewater, Flowers, Rose Law Firm, Web Hubbell’s resignation, and in Congress the House Banking issue, PACs, and Rostenkowski’s indictment/stepping down from Ways and Means. There was more but those are the ones I remember.

Getting people elected has everything to do with organization and cash, especially at the local level. Right now the Republicans are whipping the Democrats at this game. Scandals are going to make the job more difficult, but they won’t seriously impact the party loyal who do the heavy lifting. Howard Dean is right on about this and wants Democrats to fight and provide funding at the local level, but the knifes are out for him and they’re being thrown by Washington Democrats.

We’ll see if the Democrats can be more successful with the scandals than the GOP was in getting Clinton.


Posted by: George in SC at May 9, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #146542

I caught part of Pelosis news conference yesterday and it was more of the same dribble that progressive dems dole out whenever a microphone is in their face.

After, listening to a long list of benefits to be provided by the government (not one benefitting me), she stated that they would not increase the deficit. Despite hard questioning, she refused to admit that additional taxes would be required to fund the new initiatives she supported.

I have been considering supporting democratic candidates in the upcoming elections to balance the conservative swing in abortion rights, but now I am frightened by the prospect of runaway taxes. Until the democrats can be honest about their agenda and the way they intend to fund it, I do not think they can draw moderates from the republicans.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 9, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #146543

tony:

Even hardliner dems are backing off their opposition to the NSA program and Rove has been continually informed that he is not the focus of Fitzgeralds investigation.

Your shmear is showing.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 9, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #146569

goodkingned. They don’t have to draw moderates from the Republicans. They only have to rely on moderate Republicans either not showing up on election day, or cherry picking over and bypassing certain Republican incumbents who have disappointed them on the ballot.

One Yellow Dog Democrat said recently, I don’t vote Democrat just because they are Democrat anymore. If I don’t like them, I skip them on the ballot. That is going to be the way of a few million moderate Republicans on November 7.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #146572

George, you are correct about the fund raising difference. As of April 28:

Democratic Party $252,429,919
Republican Party $354,617,987

However, you overlook the how energized and motivated Democrats will be to turnout on Nov. 7 like sharks to wounded tuna in the water, and how demoralized a good many moderate and conservative Republicans will be on that same day.

Having enough money to get the message out is essential, but, with a motivated and energized constituency, after a certain point, money is not that crucial, volunteers are.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #146573

David R.:

If the dems would present a more palatable image, you could be right about repub mods abstaining, however with baiters like Pelosi driving voters back to the GOP I cannot agree.

I suspect that the dems will not select a presidential candidate that repubs could support. Dems go to the left in presidential races, despite the fact that these candidates are unelectable.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 9, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #146589

“Even hardliner dems are backing off their opposition to the NSA program and Rove has been continually informed that he is not the focus of Fitzgeralds investigation.

Your shmear is showing.”

??? What does this have to do with me? Did I make anything up? Put it something false or misleading?

This is basically the bed the REPs have made for themselves, and this represents a single day’s perspective. Good lord, Cunningham had a “bribe menu” so people could actually price out what their brides would be… they used The Watergate Hotel!!! And FREE GAY PROSITUTES!

There’s a difference between smear and noticing the truth. Can you tell the difference?

Posted by: tony at May 9, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #146592

As far as Rove goes… you might want to read some new news…

“Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation into White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s role in the CIA leak case by weighing this central question:

Did Rove, who was deeply involved in defending President Bush’s use of prewar intelligence about Iraq, lie about a key conversation with a reporter that was aimed at rebutting a tough White House critic?”

(Washington Post, May 7th) but it’s also getting extensive coverage on Hardball, CNN… Rove has testified 5 times before the grand jury, and they are solely focused on Rove. he may get a pass on this, who knows… but to suggest that he is not a focus of the investigation… hardly.

Posted by: tony at May 9, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #146616

goodkingned, I was referring to Nov’s elections. 2008 is a political eternity away.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #146621

Scottie,

I don’t know why I am trying to talk you out of your cherished illusions, but the polls showed Bush beating or tieing Kerry pretty much throughout the 2004 campaign.

Posted by: Woody Mena at May 9, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #146738

Scottie, thank you for joining WatchBlog as a writer and injecting new perspectives, information, and fuel for debate. I love this site because of writers and debaters such as yourself who challenge and task myself and 10’s of thousands of other visitors to think, evaluate, and draw conclusions - all vital elements of a democracy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2006 12:40 AM
Post a comment