President Bush has consistently stated that he does not let polls determine his actions. However, the USA Today/Gallup poll stated yesterday that Bush approval rating hits new low.

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

In other words, does the message inferred from these poll numbers really matter to the American people, or will Tracey Schmitt's words ring true?

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?

I think that it could hurt the GOP in the 08 Presidential elections, but Congressional elections are slightly different. The incumbent has a 99% chance of being re-elected if my statistics are correct. People tend to have a very positive view towards their own congressman while having utter disdain for congress as a whole. I think as long as the GOP congressman and senators show to their constituency that they have worked in their interest...than the president's troubles shouldnt really be of large importance.

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

Not while the GOP controls both houses of Congress. Also, i do not think the people would support such an action. This call for an investigation if coming from the far left fringes that is not consistent with mainstream Americans. But just out of curiosity, what would they be investigating? The invasion of Iraq that got support from both parties in Congress? The NSA eavesdropping program whose legality has still not been determined by a court?

In other words, does the message inferred from these poll numbers really matter to the American people, or will Tracey Schmitt's words ring true?

I honestly do not get the huge disapproval rating that Bush is getting. I mean God knows that I disagree with the man on a large number of issues including foreign policy, immigration, and federal spending among other things. But we have to look at a comprehensive picture. The economy is flying high with the NYSE reaching record levels. The growth that our economy is sustaining has gone under the radar and for some reason people are not putting two and two together.

I suppose Iraq is a big reason for the disapproval and I can absolutely agree that the situation has not been what we expected it to be. But incremental progress has been made. As General McCaffery (outspoken critic of SoD Rumsfeld) said from his recent trip to Iraq, victory is possible but:

McCaffery Memo



This is the real question in the debate over the Iraq situation.

I think that all these poll numbers show is that that their perception of the Bush administration is just not favorable an they won't vote for him in the next election .

1. Realistically? Sure they can. Let's say Bush actually captures or kills Osama Bin Laden. Helllllllooo, approval ratings back in the seventies. A scandal could break loose and cripple the Democrats (but Patrick Kennedy smacking into a concrete divider won't do it). The math still rules against the Democrats taking either house of Congress.

For example in the Senate: Today there are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent, who lines up with the Democrats. To take the Senate, the current analysis goes, Democrats need to win six seats.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/08/gre...rats/index.html

And in the House:

...analysts caution that a GOP wipeout in November is unlikely. Polls of generic support for the major parties are notoriously unreliable as a predictor. In 1996, Democrats enjoyed a 14-point advantage over Republicans in congressional races only two months before the election. In the end, they gained only nine seats, and that was before sophisticated gerrymandering dramatically shrank the number of competitive districts and after Republicans won some heavily Democratic districts in 1994. Jonathan Last, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, also reminds us that "Democrats have shown time and again that they can blow a lead like nobody's business."

The other problem Democrats still face is that the public thinks almost as badly about them as they do the Republicans. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds just 33% have a positive view of the Democratic Party, with 39% having a negative view. Republican numbers are worse, but just barely: 35% positive, 43% negative. Just after the 2004 elections, Democrats had a 44% favorable rating while Republicans had a 46% rating, numbers that came close to matching that year's election results. Even Howard Dean, Mr. Mehlman's Democratic counterpart, admits that his party has to "earn the public approval of our right to govern again."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008347

I tend to agree with lederuvdapac that while the mood toward Republicans is pretty nasty nationally, all politics are local and locally, I don't feel a groundswell of Democratic support.

The Democrats WILL do better this fall. But I'm not convinced they have any reason to think voter dissatisfaction with Bush and the GOP translates into overwhelming victory in November. The public doesn't like Republicans but that doesn't mean they're in love with Democrats.

2. I sure hope not. The WORST thing the Democrats can do is spend the last two years of a lame-duck president trying to get revenge. I'm as partisan as it gets, but I'm not going to vote for a Democratic candidate just to lynch Bush. I want a alternative to Republican rule that is better for the American people. Spending time, effort and money on a "Get Bush" crusade seems like a lousy waste of a vote.

The urge to stick it to Bush while he's down is a powerful one, but while that may fire up the base, I doubt it will draw independents and ticked-off Republicans is large enough numbers to deal a 1994-like shock to the GOP. Playing the game of reclaiming power and immediately going after your enemies is a losing strategy. As Paul Newman said in The Sting, "Revenge is for suckers."

3. The GOP is in trouble. Two years ago it was Democrats in the dumpster. Is it really necessary to go over the wailing and gnashing of teeth Democrats, liberals, and progressives engaged in after John Kerry went down and the Republicans solidified their grasp on Congress? Well, rather than the Dems developing a clear alternative to the Republicans, the GOP in their own stupidity, arrogance, hubris and incompetence blew their advantage. There's no more talk about a permanent Republican majority. They will be popping champagne if they don't get stomped in November.

I saw this today and it left me scratching my head. It comes from Stuart Eugene so I can't vouch for the numbers. If true I am not sure what the political significance of the approval number are if the only thing American's feel are gas prices. The economy, Iraq, terrorism, all seem to dwarf to the gas prices. As far as I'm concerned this kind of selfish apathy is frustrating for people who care deeply about this country from both the Right and the Left. While I disagree with many on the Left about Iraq I can understand why an issue such as war in the middle east is fiercly debated. If Americans are so fed up with gas why are they still buying SUVs left and right?

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

Based on the partisan standard used to impeach Bill Clinton, I think Bush has done more than enough to warrant impeachment and removal from office.

As a tactical move, I do not favor impeachment talk, unless of course, it is coming from the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats should concentrate on trying to to win one or both Houses in 2006.

There are things that could happen that could life bleaker for Republicans. One of those is the possible indictment of Karl Rove.

MSNBC Correspondent David Shuster thinks Rove will be indicted.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12703141/

A Rove indictment could only help Democratic fortunes.

Should Democrats win either house, endless investigations making Bush’s last two years a hellish nightmare would be better than impeachment.

Party Chairman Howard Dean as mush as said this in an interview with Norah O’Donnell on Hardball, May 1.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12580289/

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?

Sure, that's always possible. However, it'll be one heckuva magic trick. I'm suspecting that the usual dirt won't be missed this time around, and will backfire big time.

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

It's always a guess why the poll numbers get so low, but my guess is that the people are fed up with the all-Republican form of government. Just for variety Democrats will win, along with a sense to give someone else a go at it. The gerrymandering won't work either, because independents will be the deciding political side, not R or D. Colorado's registration is at an all-time high for independents, called non-affiliated here.

Edited: To answer the question, maybe. Investigations seem like a waste of time to me at this point. November will come soon enough, and after that there might be room for investigations. If things go the way I think they will, President Bush will need to find the veto pen. This could set the stage for 2008.

In other words, does the message inferred from these poll numbers really matter to the American people, or will Tracey Schmitt's words ring true?

I think what matters to the American people is very complicated. Maybe most people are so dim that all they can see is gas prices. I don't think so though. My guess, again, is that the American people have finally figured out what the contract on America was all about, and it isn't pretty.

- Oil/gas exploitation in the West
- Incompetence in government
- War and more war
- Corruption
- Pollution
- Lip service
- Theocracy

Maybe the voters don't love Democrats, but they are probably looking pretty darn good anyway. It's last call in the bar. The Repubs look like floozies, the Demos like movie stars. There's no requirement to love the one you're with.

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?

Well I'd never say no. After Kerry lost to Bush, I have firm faith that I have no faith in the American people to make a good choice. Rove just needs to shoot another "gay marriage" issue and wammo! the Republicans are back.

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

Not as long as we have Republicans in the house....and on the take.

In other words, does the message inferred from these poll numbers really matter to the American people, or will Tracey Schmitt's words ring true?


Who is Tracey Schmitt? I think the poll numbers reinforce negativity toward Bush and the Republicans. Any bad press, even just opinion polls, is not good for Bush.

Very interesting question, I think it's the best one of those that you posted. Polls are potentialities, not finalities. The GOP's fortunes could change for the better if we find ourselves locked in yet another war in Iran or some other state and we have an upsurge of patriotism again. Perhaps if we were struck again by terrorists? The GOP could also reverse their fortunes by admitting that they've fallen short in regards to spending and promising to focus on reducing government size, as well as to hammer home the typical social issues that they love to trot out whenever an election rolls around-abortion, partial-birth abortion, vouchers, etc. I'd say that they can and will turn their fortunes around. It will be due to more of the latter reason given, though the former would cement it.

RedCedar, Tracey Schmitt is the GOP spokeswoman quoted in the opening post for this thread. Here's the paragraph in which she was mentioned:

I think Republicans should be shaking in their boots about the upcoming election. Just how they could possibly blame the Democrats for failures in a Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency is beyond my ken, but I'm sure they'll try.

But there is a lot of business money backing the GOP candidates. Here in Michigan, we have a big-business Republican, Dick DeVos, running against Governor Jennifer Granholm. It's ironic that he is talking about knowing how to save businesses and get more business into this state while he, as CEO of Amway, shipped many Amway jobs overseas that his Michigan employees will never see again.

There isn't a week that goes by when I am not contacted by the state Democratic Party and solicited for funds that I cannot provide (but would if I could!).

I am going to be working for a candidate who will not be funded by the Democrats to run against our U.S. Representative, Peter Hoekstra. The Democratic party does not think we can win, and they choose to back races they deem winnable. I think it's a shame, because this Congressman benefitted from money from Indian tribes thanks to Jack Abramoff, and he feels that he doesn't need to return the money, and then it is revealed that he took measures to stall a vote for a casino that would benefit the Gun Lake Indian tribe ostensibly to look like he was against having another casino in the area. If nothing else, he looks duplicitous. But that's another story...

Call me cynical, but regardless of what the American people think, I'm afraid this election can and possibly will still be bought and paid for by those who can afford to do it, because it seems we are too accustomed to making our decisions based on who has the best and most-often aired commercials. Something needs to change.

So I do think it is entirely possible that the Republicans still have a rabbit in their hat. It's called money.

As far as the other question I posted goes, while I do not think that an investigation will go forward into the Bush presidency (and yes, I do think there is plenty to investigate--the trick is to actually find an objective group to do it), I would strongly encourage investigation into the Bush presidency during the next presidency. This president needs to be held accountable for his seeming disdain for the law and for the legitimate concerns of the American people who don't buy his "I'm doing it for your own good" spiel.

The only way for those of us of the "loyal opposition" to make any headway is to encourage everyone to be informed on the issues and then vote as if their lives depended on it. Then we might see some real change.

Economic security? Why is it that just because the stock market is doing well and faux numbers for employment are low, that that means the economy is doing well? This administration has not had much public support for their handling of the economy despite all these "good numbers".

And throw in the ports deal, Bush walking the Saudi Prince around like he's the godfather, and the dismal war in Iraq, and I doubt too many people will be frightened by the prospect of change. Most indeed will want change, IMHO.

But like I said, I'll never say never. How this president won a 2nd term just shows how inept the democrats are at taking advantage of a bad situation.

Fixed quote. -Amlord

Just for the record, these are same tired arguments made by Dole/Kemp in 1996 when the economy was doing well. If not for American's fascination with gas prices, the economy would be Bush's saving grace.

The deficit is falling (over the past two years), the economy is growing, the housing market is still strong, no terrorist attacks against America in almost five years, crime is low, tax revenue is coming in at record levels, federal spending is growing at around the rate of inflation (finally), unemployment is historically low, and the stock market is at an all time high. Bush should go watch some speeches of Clinton during the 90s. That man was the King of citing laundry lists. If we’re going to blame Bush for everything, he might as well take credit for any piece of good news that comes his way.

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?
Of course. Just look at their opponents. According to the New York Times, the would-be Democratic standard-bearers are even less popular than the President.



The Bush poll numbers are driven primarily by conservatives expressing their displeasure with the President. These could turn around with some actual governance on spending and immigration over the summer, coupled with continued success in Iraq. Not to mention, as lederofdapac noted, the incumbents have a huge advantage in re-election in most states due to gerrymandered districts and fund-raising advantages. 2006 is a Congressional election, not a referendum on Bush. The opposition typically gains in off-presidential elections, but I'd be very surprised if they re-took the majority.

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?

It is certainly not out of the question. For one thing, politics is local. Although many people disagree with what Congress is doing in general, most generally support their current Congress person. After all, they elected their Representative a mere 2 years ago (and Senator 6 years ago, if applicable).

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

If they are then that would make the investigation a political witch hunt by definition: going after the unpopular guy. If the Democrats think there should be investigations, they can call for them. For the most part, they have not. The Democrats even were silent on Feingold's motion to censure Bush. One has to wonder why if they think Bush has done wrong. I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the minority cannot push for investigations. All they have to do is go on TV and appeal directly to the people. I see plenty of Democrats on TV and not many of them are calling for impeachment or investigations.

In other words, does the message inferred from these poll numbers really matter to the American people, or will Tracey Schmitt's words ring true?

The general feeling is that Congress is filled with do-nothing idiots (or worse!). But the general feeling is "MY Congressman is doing fine!"

(OK, for the record I personally disdain my Congressman Dennis Kookcinich). But Kucinich is critical of his fellow Democrats:



Time to run for President again, Dennis!

In general, incumbents have always had a huge advantage and now thanks to McCain-Feingold, an even bigger one. For example, in Ohio (18 House seats) only two or three races are in much doubt: Bob Ney's seat (Ney is a key target in the Abramoff, Ted Strickland's 6th Congressional district (Strickland is running for governor). If Democrats can't pick up seats in Ohio (where even most Republicans are moderate and the Republican run state government has been widely criticized) what does that say about the broader US? Race resource in Ohio

-The deficit, in real dollars, is as hgh as it has ever been in the entire history of the united States of America.

-The economy posted above average growth over the last quarter, lets hold off on anything else, shall we?

-The housing market, according to both outgoing federal chair Greenspan and incoming federal chair, as well as every major economist in the US, is a bubble about to burst, and one of the larger threats to the current US economy.

-No terrorist attacks in 5 years... true, meaning Bush only has one so far during his term. Notably, there were none the 5 years before Bush Jr either, so hardly relevant.

-Tax revenue is less than it was during the last years of the previous president.

-Federal spending is currently at (in real dollars) the highest rate in the history of the United States, and Bush Jr has presided over the single largest growth in both size and power of the federal government in all US history.

-Unemployment is at 4.7%, lower than it was a few years ago, but still higher then it was when Bush Jr took office.

-The stock market is ALWAYS at an all time high. Barring rare dips for specific recessions, the stock market has been at an all time high on every single day, 99 days out of 100, for the last decade.

Now, look at rate of savings in the United States. Look at average debtload. look at the value of the US dollar. Look at trade balances. Look at debt commitments.

And of course, look at Social security and Medicare, the two single most important issues when Bush jr took over, still entirely untouched.

You were saying?

I just have to ask myself this simple question that Reagan put so eloquently. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? And I have to answer a resounding, YES!

Now I am no cheerleader of Bush, as I don't think he is anywhere close to a fiscal conservative. To thwart vermillions bullet points..

- The stock market is over 60% higher than it was after it's lowest point after 9/11.

- April was the second highest tax revenues ever collected in the history of the US

- I have been hearing we are on a housing bubble for 5 years now.. is this bubble made of steel?

- How come we can compare our gas prices against other countries... but it's not ok for us to compare our unemployment rate?

The only real gripe I have about Bush is his pandering to the center... I wish he would be MORE conservative and less of a panderer.

This Sleeper is where your historical perspective falters.

One could argue that from the time of the founders, to Henry Clay to Abraham Lincoln to Lyndon Johnson ... the centerist tendency is the glue that has held American political insatitutions together.

In fact, I would argue that Bush's "I'm right, to hell with anyone who disagees with me" non-compromise attitude is what's caused his dismal poll numbers.

Reality Check for Bush Lovers

The deficit for the first 6 months of FY2006 came in $52 Billion less than the first 6 months of FY2005




The GDP has been strong the last 2 years. I’m not sure what you mean here.



Kind of like the dot com boom of the 90s? Kind of like “irrational exuberance?”



US Cole?



You mean during the dot com bubble when tax receipts were being fueled by dividends?




It has? This is big news. Wow, the spinning is very

My big point by my last post isn’t the objections that can obviously be raised. These are the same kind of objections could be raised against the Clinton economy. The difference is that Bush is not putting this information out there. The “4.7 unemployment rate is bad” argument is a silly defense. Like I said before Clinton was the master of killing the opposition with good news. Things are rosey on the economic front right now.

I'll give you that Bush is responsible for the stock market climb. Cutting taxes (and raising debt/decifits) on investor income will do that. With the housing market in certain DECLINE and interest rates still relatively low, where are people going to invest? Where their dividends aren't taxed! That's where.

So good for Bush and the Republican congress for putting the nation in massive debt so investors can make more money.

And why is it so important to the average person that the stock market skyrocket? Now plenty of people have retirement there, but really, on a day-to-day basis, how much income for the average person comes from the stock market? It's really only the wealthy who really benefit from the stock market climb and dividend tax cuts. Meanwhile, the rest of us pay for the war in Iraq and the massive debt that this "benefit" is creating.

So really, for the average guy, who cares about the stock market rise?

And look at wages against inflation. They've stagnated. And look at the jobs being lost versus the ones being created. Again, to the average joe, it's not really that "rosey".

There's a reason that people don't perceive this "rosey" economy. Your list of stats are like making a list of how well off the Titanic was after getting slammed by an ice berg: the engines were still running, food was still being served, the band was still playing...

To the average person without a job, or the person who's underemployed or the person about to lose their job to Mexico or China, it's not rosey at all.

Then you have gas prices.....

First of all, let me add again. I am not saying Bush is responsible for the economy. I have taken enough economic classes to understand this is all about perception. I am the average guy, I have a 401k. The 401k helps feed the market. During the 90s I can't count the number of times I heard from people on the right discuss how the stock market does not help "the average guy."

Again your "the titanic economy" is straight out of the Dole/Kemp campaign manual. I went to the old campaign site a few weeks ago and was stunned at the similarities to today’s' arguments from the left. "Stagnant wages" and "low income jobs" being created. It is a losing argument.

Honestly, the Titanic? It must hurt to be so pessimistic.

I never said you did. I did. I told you that Bush was responsible for the increase in stock market investment and it's climb. People get more bang for their buck in the stock market than any where else.

Also the Republicans are responsible for the decline in the dollar.



It must hurt to be so blind.

Look at Bush's poll numbers on the economy. That's really what we're talking about, isn't it? I mean you can drag out all the stats in the world, but if the public thinks the economy is being run poorly, it doesn't matter.

The difference from Dole/Kemp is that Clinton didn't give huge tax breaks to investors (i.e. focused on the wealthy). The difference is that under Clinton the gap between rich and poor wasn't exploding. But regardless, Clinton needed a lot of help to win both of his elections.

[quote]The most recent Gallup poll, taken late last month, shows that only 34 percent of Americans approve of the president's handling of the economy.

Doesn't everyone have a growing stock portfolio? Didn't everybody buy Google stock early? Aren't all taxpayers swimming in cash because of Mr. Bush's generous tax cuts?
<snip>

While the unemployment rate has remained a respectable 5 percent or so, many workers are stranded in jobs that don't pay well and that offer little or no health insurance coverage. If you were once an automotive worker making $60,000 a year, your current job at Wal-Mart may keep you out of unemployment lines but it hardly makes you feel secure.

If the textile plant where you once worked shut down - moving its operations to China - you may have managed to patch together two part-time jobs to cover your lost income. You're not counted among the unemployed, but you're working longer hours for the same pay.

<snip>

Neither the president nor his economic advisers seem to see those ugly realities beneath the relatively good unemployment numbers. (For that matter, neither do highly paid journalists in the Washington-New York corridor. On political commentary shows, they, too, often express surprise that Americans are not more optimistic about the economy.) The income gap keeps growing, and Mr. Bush and his team have lost sight of the have-lesses.

Before you fire off an e-mail screed charging me with invoking "class warfare," consider this: A huge gap between the affluent and everybody else creates social instability and political discontent.

<snip>

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...-oped-headlines

Edited to conform cited portion with forum Rules.

Oh yes, the old “gap between rich and poor” rhetoric… it sure sounds good. Why does this line of thought conveniently end during Democrat administrations? Other than the tax rates our economic policy as remained much the same since Reagan. Most economists agree the tax cuts were the right thing to do, even Mr. Greenspan who you were so ready to cite ealier. This data suggests that the jobs being created aren't all "wal-mart" jobs like some continue to believe. Obviously the spending has been terrible, but it has not effected the ecnomy as of yet. There is a great deal of debate among economists about how much debt we can manage safely. Alexander Hamiton wrote a great deal about that.

Anyway, the poll numbers are what we’re talking about. As I stated before the White House is doing a poor job talking about the economy. Lets face it that is all the Clinton White House talked about for five years. The economy was growing at a rate a little lower that in is today going into the 96 election, but it was doing well enough to be the issue that sunk any hope that Dole had at winning. It is obvious the press does not care to report the good news, as the MRC pointed out earlier this month.


Given where we stand in Iraq and the standoff with Iran the War on Terror has kept the White House from touting domestic achievements. Now that Americans are tuning out on the war, this is having a bad effect on the poll numbers. Gas prices are the major contributor to this perception (as cited here). As I've mentioned before notice how the press reports the housing boom as a bubble at every opportunity and in contrast the dot com boom was reported as a perfectly great market expansion. I am not a conspiracy theorist but 24/7 has taken a negative bent over the past few years.

The Republicans are in a hole right now to be sure, but it is improper to use Bushes approval ratings as an exhibition of that hole. While Bushes low ratings may be dramatic, they are irrelevant. What matters is what voters will do come November, and Bush isn't going to be up for reelection again.

When asked: If the 2006 election for U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?" (Or variations of that question)

Voters have given Democrats an average of around a 10% lead over Republicans for the past 8 months.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

Unless geography pulls off some amazing stunts, I just can't see the Republicans maintaining control of the house with things how they are. Every single seat is going to be subject to an election, and seats are distributed in proportion to population.

The Senate i'm less optimistic about. Only one third of it will be up for grabs, and that third is from the last congressional election in which Democrats won a net positive number of seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...lection%2C_2000

Elections are 6 months away, and the Republicans still have an opportunity to climb out of their hole. However, knowing that they haven't done so in the past 8 months, gives me confidence that they might never do it in time for the polls.

An article I recently read, alleged that Bush is now flooding vacancies with very conservative canidates, in an attempt to promote Democratic outrage like that which seemed especially prominent in 2005. At that point, the country was angry at the government, but not specifically at either party. The article also alleged, that divisiveness could wake up conservative voters, many of whom are peeved at the GOP for its actions on things such as immigration.

Media emphasis often seems to try to spark whats not there; to supersize insignificant words and/or occurences. I am therefore led to question whether the articles appraisal was accurate or just a hook. Unfortunately due to goggle newses transient nature, I can't find it to post a URL, but anyways...

This is not the case. The mainstream economic community was uncharacteristically unified in their disdain for the Bush tax. So much, in fact, that many professors signed in protest of it.

There are some pretty big names on here too, perhaps the biggest being Olivier Blanchard, who literally wrote the book on macroeconomics (it sets the bar for an undergraduate understanding of macroeconomics). No paul krugman to many detractors amazement! Link

The tax cut was also one of many reason Paul O'neill left the white house, which you can find in the book, "the Price of Loyalty."

Of course, Greenspan is not going to publicly come out against the tax cut when in charge of the federal reserve. That type of political ambiguity can lead to unwelcome speculation.

Magic tricks seem to be something this administration does fairly well. The negative poll numbers reflect on Bush, not the members of congress. Overall, as I believe another poster has said, people tend to think their senator/representative is doing well, but have a negative perception of congress as a whole. The real danger for a congressman right now is being too associated with Bush in states were the tide is turning against this administration. As the election draws nearer, the promising of spending reductions and moral righteousness seem to be picking up exponentially. I doubt most voters will be angry enough to vote out their representatives, though I hope I'm wrong.

Doubtful. The real power for change lies in the hands of disgruntled republican congressman. They are probably much too fearful of a republican backlash to vote for something like an investigation into the whitehouse.

No matter how you slice it, these poll numbers are not a good thing for republicans. The real question is just how bad will they effect the elephants tight grip on our nation. Sadly, I doubt they will have enough impact to actually change anything.

*Edited for spelling

Greenspan took a lot of heat for publicly endorsing tax cuts. It was an uncharacteristic move for a Fed chief. I studied economics, it was my major in college, the professors at my school (which I guess is not mainstream) seemed to think the tax cuts were a good idea as well as many other economists (Including one of the authors of my econ textbooks). I have to admit though; I think I'm going to start phrasing everyone who agrees with me as the "mainstream community." It is very persuasive.

The current deficit problems are due to the out of control spending, and the fact that during the post Cold War pre 9/11 period we reduced the funding for the military. However, it is very difficult to argue that the tax cuts did not help jumpstart the economy after the dot com bust.

Since some are gearing up for the 2008 election season with economic arguments, which don't sell well during midterms, I just want to point out the stats that people really care about:

About 200,000 jobs were added the last reported month. For a robust recovery, 400,000 need to be added per month. For a boom, you need more than that. People don't care so much about the overall economy as their little immediate economy, or in a common term, the pay check.

Reported unemployment is between 4 and 5 percent; however, this is still too much. At least that's what it is looking like as we get ever more into the global economy. Reported unemploymet between 3 and 4 percent is more like it, maybe even between 2 and 3 percent. That's because of outsourcing and foreign workers here on visa.

The question has been posed if I'm better off now than four years ago. Over the past four years, I've worked a total of 18 months. I'm between gigs again. Does this answer the question? Ask me if I'm better off now than in the year 2000.

Oh, and because the 18-month gig was as a contractor, no record of unemployment. How about that.

Anyway, the economic arguments are pretty meaningless right now. Local issues will be more important, like how do we get more jobs in Colorado, or reclaim jobs from illegal aliens, or provide water for future growth, or a plethora of non-national situations. The one exception I can see is the Congress angle. Get more non-Repubs in Congress.

Oh, one other thing. Repubs have been backpeddling so much on the economy that suddenly taking credit for recovery, which is actually moving along at half speed, rings hollow. Either White House policy is responsible for the economy or it isn't. Make up yer minds.

Meanwhile, Congressfolk Rs ought to start brushing up the lobbyist resumes. There very well might be a flood in that job market coming up.

Yes, and what is that deficit exactly? How does it compare to the pervious administration, to previous administrations? And we still have an unfinished occupation and 2 years left to go...



The GDP growth in real terms has been at or below average for the last two years, it has surged the last quarter, but as I said, lets just wait on that. It may continue, it may not, a quarter's growth is hardly enough to base predictions on one way or the other.



Uh, yes, much like the .com boom of the 80s, and with the same damaging effects when it bursts, except with an economy that has far less leway,m a far higher debtload and people with far fewer avings to adapt. What was your point with that retort?



Ah, my bad, when you said terrorists attacks against America, I assume you meant terrorist attacks against America. Silly me.

If you mean Americans killed in attacks anywhere... well, I believe the running tally for Bush Jr post 9/11 is about 2200 dead in Iraq, and another few hundred in Afghanistan...



No, its not big news, its standard reality. Barring small aftereffects of recessions, point out a time during the last 15 years when the stock market was NOT at an all time high. Oh, and for what its worth, its rate of growth under Bush Jr has been far less than under the previous administration...



And as far as I know, nobody has said such a thing. People have pointed out that the unemployment rate, which spiked under Bush Jr the last few years, has dropped, but is still higher than it was when Bush Jr came into office. Is that fact wrong?



Well, both retiring and new federal reserve chairs, the Economist, the Wall street Journal.. and oh yeah, over 2/3 of the American people disagree with you.

HERES THE REAL ANSWER:

IT DOESN'T MATTER - TO AN EXTENT...

Bush's success cannot and should not be determined for a long, long time. His policies are one's of length meaning we can't evaluate their success or failure at the immediate time.

**Edited to remove content which has been determined to be SPAM and therefore violates the forum Rules

I just read another headline about "Iraq war drags Bush approval to all-time low" yada yada. If you read the news, it would seem that this is the all-time least popular president ever. Which is ridiculous. Here is an article which shows poll numbers for recent presidents, along with some historical context. This morning, Bush's average approval rating at realclearpolitics is 33.8%. Which puts his low point about the same as our last several presidents. In my humble opinion, Carl Bertstein is 1 for 5 in impeaching Republican presidents, and he's itching to get back in the game.

Approval ratings

Prez avg. high low
Kennedy 70 83 56
Eisenhower 65 79 48
Bush 61 89 29
Johnson 55 79 35
Clinton 54 73 37
Reagan 53 65 35
Nixon 49 67 24
Ford 47 71 37
Carter 45 74 28

Yes, it is rediculous, which is why nobody is claiming that. I don't know why you would presume that anybody would.

After all as you yourself showed in your chart, Bush is certainly among the lowest, but has several points to go before he becomes the lowest. Why would you create a strawman argument that nobody is making so that you can disprove it?

As they say “all politics is local" so this may not be as bad as it seems. Also the Dems really have no “message” that distinguishes them from the Repubs. They do the usual negative spin on everything Republican. Is this enough to get them elected??? Not sure



Not really. Typical political nonsense. The approval rating for the “Congress” is 25%. Should we “investigate” them?

This in itself, is but another talking point. Ken Mehlman couldn't have said it better.

If you check www.dnc.com, you will find a detailed agenda.

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

If by detailed you mean pretty rhetoric that offers no specifics then I agree. It's funny, you click on a link for "more specifics" and there's one paragraph and then a list of "bush this" and "GOP that."

If you look immediately below the "blue box and video," there are statements on a number of issues. There's no mention of Bush or the GOP unless you click one of the sub links.

It will matter no matter how long the republican party apologists try to talk people out of it.

I am so mad at the apologists for this sorry excuse for a republican party, I could scream. It took years and years to take away control from the democrat party. They finally gained control in 1994 only to remind people why nobody trusted them with the keys to the house and the senate for all those years. They are frauds.

The numbers are low and will matter because a decent percentage of republicans - like me - to say it nicely, "disapprove". Content people don't vote. Malcontents like me want change. Unfortunately, my fellow republicans tout their 2nd amendment right to violently overthrow their own tyrannical government, but are too cowardly to vote for somebody out of their party. With enough republican defectors like me, the balance will shift. I am not afraid to vote for a democrat because I have no problem putting principle over politics.

Apologizing for the republicans who have started a war of choice, bloated the government, increased spending more than all other presidents combined, and now are in our daily lives by spying on us, has enabled these phonies to continue pushing this agenda - right into the ground. Had we had this revolt when we should have had it, we might not be in as bad shape as we are. But they let it continue.

Thanks for nothing, republican apologists. We will be forever in your debt. Literally.

Oddly enough, though we agree on the fundamental principle, the complete failure of the Bush Jr. presidency and its deleterious effects on the US economy and society, I disagree with the issue. While the country may remember Bush himself as an abject failure, that does not necessarily translate to the republican party. Popularity of an outgoing 2-term presient, high or low, does not translate to the next election. Clinton left ofice with opinion polls of him in the low 70% range (And how Republicans hated him for that) yet the Democrats still lost the next election.

The dislike of Bush Jr WILL translate to dislike for republicans if they elect as their candidate another from the Bush mold: big government, foreign interventionist, religious conservative. But that may well not happen. Should somebody like McCain get the nomination for example, who is pretty much the diometric opposite of Bush, the republicans may well recover.

The republicans in order to hold onto the White House need to do two things:

One: Put Bush Jr as far behind them as possible, don't get dragged into defending him when putting forward the new candidate.
Two: Stop mocking the democrats as if they were not there, and take people like Hilary Clinton seriously. They may not like her, but that does not stop her from being a serious threat. As The economist pointed out a week ago, if she pulls the same numbers as Kerry, and then due to her gender gets a mere extra 1% of the female vote nationwide, she wins the election.

Backing up to the issue, the polls show that it does matter, and whats more important, it matters to a growing majority of republicans as well. That bodes well for the party, that they as a whole have the capacity to realise their mistakes, even if the administration does not.

My comment was that the tone was ridiculous. The wire services like AP and Reuters manage to get Bush's "all time low" approval ratings into every story, whether it's on gas prices, Iraq, "domestic" wiretapping, immigration, etc. I don't remember the drumbeat being this consistent in Clinton or Bush, or even Reagan's second term. I mean, 62 million people did just vote for this guy. That said, I guess I'd have to agree with DaytonRocker, as even I "disapprove" of the job being done. Which doesn't mean I would take someone like Hillary Clinton to be a desireable replacement. I don't think that these ratings should be newsworthy, given that every president ebbs and flows. The media tell us day after day that the president "is" something, then survey us and are amazed that we believe it. Well, duh.

So, was I using hyperbole, yeah. Kind of like claiming the stock market is at an all-time high 99 days out of 100 I guess.

The media's absolute fascination with polls seems to me a lazy substitute to real reporting. Okay, so let's say Bush's popularity is around 29 percent to 33 percent. WHY?

Sure, the war in Iraq is an anchor dragging Bush down. His happy talk seems to be about an Iraq that doesn't yet exist. But despite gas prices, there are a lot of economic indicators that the President and Republicans can point to as positive news.

However, there seems to be an echo chamber of negativity around the White House. Poll numbers are low. Let's start shaking up the White House staff. Still low? Have a few Congressmen resign. Still nothing? Make a prime time speech about controlling the borders by deploying the National Guard.

STILL nothing? Maybe after a certain time perception becomes reality and Bush really is that unpopular because he has earned it. How that translates into the November elections is unclear. I don't sense a seismic political shift coming, but if you believe the polls, the trends are all unfavorable for the GOP.

But the money isn't through changing hands yet...

In this case, it is translating. Because the Republican Party has been outspoken in their support of this President and in the Republican controlled Congress has been unwilling to stand up to him. This is why the approval rating for Congress is also extremely low at the moment.

Just to take a different point of view on this...
Ratings are low - co-sponsor 'no child left behind' act with Ted Kennedy. Still low? Give seniors prescription drug benefits. Still low? Kowtow to illegal immigrants and Tyson chicken with 'guest worker' talk. Rinse / Repeat.

His approval ratings are prima facie evidence that the nation doesn't want a 'moderate' republican. Clinton could get away with this moderation; it appears that Bush cannot. Every piece of good news is followed by "BUT."
Economy is great BUT gas prices are still high ...
Toppled Hussein BUT can't 'win the peace'
Home ownership at all-time high BUT no one is saving
etc.

I just don't remember reading this type of tone in the late 90's. Those to his left will never approve, and those to his right are fed up. Apparently we were all happier with a DLC prez and a Republican Congress. Except for, notably, the Republican Congress at the time, who impeached him.

Carlitoswhey, you have to be kidding! What moderate Republican? Clinton was the last moderate Republican president, only one in Democratic clothing. Bush has been the most radical reactionary president in American history and incompetent besides. Many of the initiatives you cite as moderate were taken when war hype was holding his poll numbers high. To be sure, they was mostly poorly crafted or under funded and eventually added modestly to his accumulated failure. The main reason people give for disapproving his performance when asked is Iraq. This is because they finally realize they were lied into it, lied to about its purpose, lied to about turning point after turning point that failed to materialize, and now realize that the whole invasion was a failure. Of course gas prices add to the disillusionment.

My real concern is whether his low numbers will prevent him from carrying out an attack upon Iran? My guess is that his gang will try a "hail mary" play shortly before the 2006 elections and try to reignite the war hysteria by bombing Iran. If they do, the entire world will bear the consequences for decades. A congressional resolution asserting the right of the Congress to vote on a declaration of war before any attack upon an additional country might prevent this from happening. Given the control of the Congress by ideological right wing Republicans such a resolution seems highly unlikely. So, in a sense, maybe his low numbers don't matter.

Well, I’d be willing to debate incompetence, but I have to ask you to give me some more backup on this. Bush has given us zero “radical” solutions to domestic problems, you could only be citing foreign policy and even that is debatable. As for being “extremely conservative” you should take a look at what conservatives say about Bush on education, spending and immigration. Reactionary indeed.





So, in order to further his radical, reactionary agenda, this alleged “most radical reactionary president in American history," at the peak of his popularity, does what? Round up gays into internment camps in Vermont? Revoke habeus corpus? Make pornography and abortions illegal? Pull out of the United Nations? Exhort his brownshirts to break the windows of every mosque in town?

No, he passes an education bill, prescription drug benefit and tries unsuccessfully to reform Social Security. He expands government at an increasing rate, and receives criticism from his own base. Your logic is flawed here.

Well, I guess people see what they want to see. This isn't a minor hiccup, this is a slow and steady slide that has been going on for some time now. Secondly, there are an all-time low for Bush Jr, his numbers have never been this low. I hardly thing stating the truth is 'lefty propaganda'.

As for the 'drumbeat of polls', then you misremember, it was just as bad for Bush's father, who scored even lower in the polls at one point than his son currently does.



Yes, they did. And now they wouldn't. Whats the problem?



Well, in this case I think the opposite, the media is not creating the sentiment against Bush Jr, its not like the country secretly loves him, then picks up the paper, hears a fabricated poll and decides based on that not to like him. Instead, the media is reporting the widespread discontent with the current President.



No, that is essentially accurate for the last fifteen years or so, not hyperbole. But whatever.



Is it possible that people are putting 'buts' behind those because they are not in fact good news at all, just what Bush Jr apologists try and dress up as good news?

Economy is not great AND gas prices are high. Toppled Hussein and are now embroiled in an endless insurgency which has consumed lives and half a trillion dollars.

Home ownership is NOT at an all time high, it has in fact dropped from where it has been the last three years, AND the housing bubble with literally every economist in the world is warning about still exists, and is due to cause some damage when it pops. Oh, and yes people are not saving.

I think the trick is, when you have a complaint about the media 'not reporting good news' you should first check to see if the news is actually good at all.

Well, you initially said "10 years" and now it's fifteen. I can't even find two.
During the past 800 days of non-recession recovery since Janurary 2004, just eyeballing this chart, I see about 750 days of *not* all-time high. You are perhaps exaggerating to make a point?

This is just incorrect. The economy is doing very well but none of the positives are being attributed to Bush...only the negative. The biggest proof in my mind aside from the numbers that tell me so is how our economy responded to Hurricane Katrina. Fighting two wars, financing a war on terror, and a natural disaster wiped out one of the largest cities and most important financial centers in the country yet the economy barely missed a step.

Data show economy firing on all cylinders



Gas prices being high has absolutely nothing to do with the strength of our economy. Its just simple supply and demand and something that has to be adapted to. The housing bubble may burst, but only in certain areas...others will be unaffected and thats just how the market works.

I am interested in your comment that people are not saving. What is this meant to imply? We have a consumer driven economy and the idea is for people to spend money to enhance growth.

The real reason Bush's poll numbers are so low? Its because he doesnt speak to the people. He has a press conference every blue moon and does not get his message out through his words. He then allows the media to frame his message and frame his positions on issues and it hurts the people's impression of him. As you see from the recent immigration speech, his poll numbers jumped a bit which is expected. Well, if he was to speak more often and not allow his opponents to frame the debate, than maybe his numbers wouldnt be so poor.

Here's an interesting take on explaining Bush's low poll numbers (which have rebounded slightly over the last few weeks).

Bush's September 10 Approval Ratings



Americans feel comfortable with Iraq now, feel comfortable with the security situation, and so are willing to turn to other issues (specifically gas prices and immigration) to carp about.

An interesting take, to say the least.

Please cite some evidence for a "slight rebound."

Bush's September 10 Approval Ratings



The take may be interesting, but as my grandmother used to say, it’s “all wet.”

Item 4 in the May 15 Washington Post-ABC News Poll poll found that 33% favored the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 66% disapproved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...poll_051606.htm

This is from the latest Newsweek poll.:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

The only poll Bush has done remotely better in is Rasmussen. Rasmussen has him al least five point better than any of the others, hardly a light at the end of the tunnel.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

The word "carp" is defined by The New Oxford American Dictionary as "complain or find fault continually, typically about trivial matters"

Amlord I don't think many of the complaints against Bush, particularly Iraq, fit the definition of "carp."

Perhaps you need to dust off your thesaurus and come up with a better synonym.

This has been consistently the most reliable poll the past five years. It nailed the last election and their sampling is weighted a lot more correctly than some of the other polls out there. However, a 39% approval rating is hardly a rebound.

I would agree in part with this assessment. The gas prices, the media's terrible coverage of Katrina, and a generally sour American public is not helping Bush. I have wondered though if this sour mood benefits either party. I think American's are just in very cynical mood these days.

Things were a lot worse when Bush lost to Clinton in 92 and without Perot in the election there's no telling how it would have ended up.