Us Opinion Of Bush Changing?

[libitina]

Editorial

Waiting for a Leader

Published: September 1, 2005

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/opinion/01thu1.html

Edited September 1, 2005 by libitina

[Scarecrow]

Support for Bush was already in decline before the hurricane

Polling numbers indicate Bush is leading a nation far less convinced than he is about the war. A Harris Poll released Wednesday found increasing dissatisfaction with the direction the nation is headed and shows that the war has taken a significant jump as the top issue Americans want addressed.

In a June Harris Poll, only 24 percent identified the war as the top issue. This month's poll, conducted Aug. 9-16, showed that 41 percent said the war is the most important issue.

The economy — inextricably linked to gasoline prices — was second on the list, named as the top issue by 19 percent of respondents.

The poll put Bush's approval ratings at the lowest point of his presidency. Only 40 percent of the 1,217 survey participants said they had a favorable opinion of Bush's job performance, down from 45 percent in June.

Fifty-eight percent said they had a negative opinion of Bush's job performance, up from 55 percent in June.

Bush's popularity hit a Harris Poll high shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when 88 percent of respondents gave him a positive rating. In November 2004, when he was re-elected, his approval rating was at 50 percent. It has been below the 50 percent mark since then.

An American Research Group poll released earlier this week showed Bush's approval rating at 36 percent, with only 33 percent approval for his handling of the economy.

Source

[aclwalker]

I wonder if he'll come out with a "war on weather". It would suit the sound-bite government we have in 'the West' at the moment.

It's incredible to think that Bush and Blair are the two 'best' people we could find out of 360 million people to 'lead' our two countries.

They are "a couple a' f@nnies", to quote the neds around here (not that they know much about politics right enough).

[FernandoMorientes]

Well they picked the useless half wit the same as we picked the other half of the dimm twins...Blair.

I can only say I am pleased I didn,t vote for the useless moron.

[libitina]

Link posted by Bored Train Builder in the chaos thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4204292.stm

[BoredTrainBuilder]

Link posted by Bored Train Builder in the chaos thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4204292.stm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry I should have posted this in your thread which made the same point but a bit more sharpish than me!

[tonification]

Bush's speech was indeed awful. His awkward dyslexic delivery and word mangling doesn't inspire confidence.

[penbat1]

Deleted

Edited September 1, 2005 by penbat1

[theChuz]

Did you know that the CIA are constantly trawling the internet and anywhere that says phrases like "kill George Bush" is instantly flagged up and the originator will have his door kicked in by the CIA in no time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I got a feeling that there arnt enough agents on the planet. The people that really want to do him in work from internet cafe's anyways.

[dipstick]

Been thinking this week that we are all held a bit to ransom cos we are frightened of "wasting" a vote in an election.

But in the end it all comes down to voting for a loser out of a bunch of carp in the first place.

I mean whaddaya do?

Then I thought who would get the most votes out of this bunch:-

Hitler

Bush

Brown

Blair

Forrest Gump

I know where I would be putting my X

[aclwalker]

Been thinking this week that we are all held a bit to ransom cos we are frightened of "wasting" a vote in an election.

But in the end it all comes down to voting for a loser out of a bunch of carp in the first place.

I mean whaddaya do?

Then I thought who would get the most votes out of this bunch:-

Hitler

Bush

Brown

Blair

Forrest Gump

I know where I would be putting my X 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never understood it when people say that they voted for the favourite because otherwise it would be "wasting a vote".

Surely if they really think that the favourite is going to win anyway, then giving that person any more votes is DEFINATELY a wasted vote? How can it be justified in any way at all that voting for the most likely winner simply because they are likely to win is not wasting a vote?

The whole point of vote is not to be in the winning camp, like supporting Man Utd or Rangers or Celtic cos they are current champions, but to express your views on who is the best (or least bad) candidate.

I well understand tactical voting, but in my opinion the ONLY wasted votes are cast by those who vote for the favourite simply because THEY ARE the favourite!

[Karen]

Been thinking this week that we are all held a bit to ransom cos we are frightened of "wasting" a vote in an election.

But in the end it all comes down to voting for a loser out of a bunch of carp in the first place.

I mean whaddaya do?

Then I thought who would get the most votes out of this bunch:-

Hitler

Bush

Brown

Blair

Forrest Gump

I know where I would be putting my X 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

stoopid is as stoopid does.

The U.S. is very divided right now.

49.5% of Americans voted aganst Bush in the last election. And an odd thing. I still see signs for Kerry. In the past signs for the "looser" went down with in weeks.