Bush approval rating hits lowest point ever

KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON – President Bush's job-approval rating fell to an all-time low – 34 percent – in a poll published yesterday. That puts him not far above Richard Nixon's Watergate-era nadir and raises questions about how effectively he can govern in his remaining years in office.

The poll, conducted nationwide by CBS News between last Wednesday and Saturday, found that 59 percent of U.S. adults disapproved of Bush's job performance. His 34 percent approval rating was the lowest since he took office in 2001, eight points lower than in January. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

“Bush is in trouble,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. “One would tend to think the dip is the Dubai ports issue, which has meant a spate of bad news. But there's been a collection of bad news.”

A politically toxic mix of messes has dragged Bush down, including his handling of Hurricane Katrina, the ill-fated Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, the upsurge of violence in Iraq, and the deal to allow a state-owned Arab company to manage terminals at six U.S. ports.

Bush's approval rating is far below those registered by three of the last four two-term presidents in February of their sixth year: Dwight Eisenhower (64 percent), Ronald Reagan (63.50 percent) and Bill Clinton (57 percent). Only Nixon, at 27.5 percent in February 1974 – six months before he resigned – was less popular than Bush is now.

Bush's slide is prompting many GOP lawmakers to abandon him as they face tough elections in November.

“He hasn't been in a position for some time to press successfully most of the controversial issues on which the country is divided, and there's substantial opposition in Washington,” said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Bush was asked about the poll in an interview yesterday with ABC News. His answer:

“If I worried about polls, I would be – I wouldn't be doing my job. And, look, I fully understand that when you do hard things, it creates consternation at times. And, you know, I've been up in the polls, and I've been down in the polls. . . . I know the American people want somebody to stand on principle, decide – make decisions and stand by them, and to lead this world toward a more peaceful tomorrow. And I strongly believe we are doing that. . . . ”

The CBS News Poll is bogus. Weighted 27% Republicans to 40% Democrats and the rest independents.

Taken from Rush.

So they're out there continuing to spew the results of this poll which are obviously flawed. Listen to how our buddy over at CNN, Bill Schneider, dealt with the weighting. Oh, I was going to say one other thing. When you go through these questions, and you look at the answers, they had something like 27% Republicans in the poll, 40% Democrats, and the rest were independents. Well, if you look at the answers to the questions that the independents gave, they practically mirror the answers the Democrats gave. And I think independents, I think most of them are phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and rollers anyway.

Added in edit!
SCHNEIDER: Well, there were an unusually high number of Democrats in the CBS News poll, but it's not unusual for party affiliations to fluctuate with events, particularly if voters are angry about something, as they clearly are about this ports deal. Sometimes those shifts are temporary.


RUSH: That is unbelievable. He says the oversampling of Democrats in the poll is probably because people are so mad about the ports deal that they're calling themselves Democrats in this poll. CBS couldn't find any Republicans? Come on, Bill, you've got to come up with something better than that to explain -- how many of you people change your party affiliation willy-nilly like this? He can't support the statement.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Hmm... how'd she get my email?

Dear Friend:

I recently was proud to stand with a group of veterans in San Diego who support my legislation to honor certain prisoners of war with the Purple Heart. I wanted to share with you information about my legislation and about these fine veterans in San Diego.

Under current law, all prisoners of war who die in confinement are not awarded the Purple Heart. Those who die of starvation, disease, abuse or other causes are not eligible. My “Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act” would make members of the Armed Forces who die in captivity under any circumstance eligible to receive the Purple Heart. This legislation is retroactive to December 7, 1941, and would therefore include all POWs who have died in captivity since World War II. San Diego Congressman Bob Filner is sponsoring identical legislation in the House of Representatives.

General George Washington wrote in his General’s Orders in 1782: “The General, ever desirous to cherish virtuous ambition in his soldiers as well as foster and encourage every species of military merit, directs that whenever any singularly meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted to wear on his facings, over his left breast, the figure of a heart in purple cloth or silk edged with narrow lace or binding. Not only instances of unusual gallantry but also of extraordinary fidelity and essential service in any way shall meet with due reward.”

Our current law on the awarding of Purple Hearts simply does not meet the eloquent words and sentiment of our first President. The aim of my bill is to honor the sacrifice of those prisoners of war who never returned to us by recognizing their invaluable service with the Purple Heart. No one except those who have been held as prisoners of war can truly know the magnitude of that experience. But for those who do not live to tell their stories, it is up to us to honor them.

At least two San Diegans would be awarded the Purple Heart if this legislation passes. Fred Dennis Chestnut was a major in the U.S. Army who died in captivity during the Korean War. Eugene M. Morelli also died while a prisoner of war in Korea. He fought bravely and was captured near Hoengsong, South Korea. Although these brave servicemen received many posthumous honors, they still need one more: the Purple Heart.

If you would like to see photos of my event with the San Diego veterans, I encourage you to visit my website at http://boxer.senate.gov/photo/sdVets/

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

---

Account frozen...

Sorry about the thread stretch...it didn't do that with my Safari browser, but IE is another matter. Sh**....!

On the lighter side of politics...Who says America doesn't have royality.

---

Account frozen...

...two things about the investment advisors masquerading as intelligence analysts known here as Stratfor.

In their article outlining what they call Bush's grand strategic strategy.... they claim it was just happenstance that it came about at all.

That's a believable premise for Bush to aquire a grand strategic strategy, eh?

It's not like Bush could come up with one by employing his powers of reason......

Read the paragraph:

In effect, Bush's strategy and his domestic politics have intersected with potential fratricidal force. The fact is that the U.S. strategy of dividing the Muslim world and playing one part off against the other is a defensible and sophisticated strategy -- even if does not, in the end, turn out to be successful (and who can tell about that?) This is not the strategy the United States started with; the strategy emerged out of the failures in Iraq in 2003. But whatever its origins, it is the strategy that is being used, and it is not a foolish strategy.

The 'so-called' strategy is defensible and sophisticated.... even though it's not planned and only arises out of mistakes in what really was a previous strategy?

Though not being sure if it will actually work or not, and whatever it's origins aside, it's claimed to be the strategy being used? And it's not a foolish strategy?

Well, I guess if you're going to 'invent' a strategy for Bush and you're going to sell it to investors as a grand strategic scheme to forecast investments.... you'd best claim it's not foolish....eh?

Who can tell about that?

What wonderful and specious speculation.
_______________________________

Where was the praise here in this forum for Stratfor when they warned that Bush was not invading Iraq because of WMD's.......

I guess that when choosing sources for analysis that you want to imagine as representing your particular ideology, .......it's best not to acknowledge or recall that which the same source produces that may contradict that ideological 'belief'.........
_______________________________

........thanks, indeed .....octagon

the revelations just keep comin'.......

---

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Sorry about the thread stretch...it didn't do that with my Safari browser, but IE is another matter. Sh**....!

On the lighter side of politics...Who says America doesn't have royality.

You gotta put a space between the pics.

No mercy!



Cunningham's crimes warrant 10-year term

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

March 2, 2006

In the long history of Congress, Randy “Duke” Cunningham stands alone as the most corrupt lawmaker ever nailed by federal prosecutors. This singular notoriety must not be overlooked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns when he imposes sentence tomorrow on the former Rancho Santa Fe congressman.

Given the enormity of his crimes, Cunningham without question deserves the maximum 10-year prison term stipulated in his plea agreement with U.S. Attorney Carol Lam. Although his lawyers are seeking a reduced sentence of six years, anything short of the decade behind bars recommended by prosecutors would send the wrong message that Cunningham's monumental betrayal of the public trust is less than the horrific offense that it genuinely is.

At an hour when multiple corruption scandals have erupted simultaneously on Capitol Hill, Judge Burns can send a very healthy warning that exchanging cash for favors will not be tolerated at the bar of justice. The way to do so is to impose on Cunningham the maximum time in federal prison.

Consider that disgraced former Rep. James Traficant of Ohio was sentenced to eight years in 2002 for receiving several thousand dollars in bribes. Cunningham, by stunning contrast, pleaded guilty to taking not less than $2.4 million in bribes from defense firms in exchange for helping them gain lucrative federal contracts.

Documents filed in U.S. District Court by the U.S. Attorney's Office show that Cunningham brazenly solicited a panoply of both substantial and venal bribes – hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in some instances and oriental-style rugs and free car repairs in others. In one of the most sordid episodes ever recorded in Congress, Cunningham sold his high public office, quite literally, to the highest bidders.

After taking payments and gifts from Pentagon contractors, “Cunningham bullied and hectored Defense Department officials in order to ensure that his co-conspirators received their pound of gold,” according to Lam. “He did this knowing that the contractors would extract such exorbitant profits from our nation's taxpayers that they would happily continue to ply him with millions in illegal payments and benefits.”

Cunningham brought shame not only on himself but also on the House of Representatives. Worse, he compromised the national security by steering appropriations away from legitimate defense projects and into the pockets of corrupt contractors. This criminal merits no mercy from the court.

---

me@rescam.org

OK Repukes, let's hear your spin on this one...?

---

Account frozen...

OK Repukes, let's hear your spin on this one...?

I thought for a minute my ignore list malfunctioned, but I see this comment didn't come from where I expected.

---

---

Account frozen...

OK Repukes, let's hear your spin on this one...?

First, I'm not a Republican, though I am somewhat conservative. But this situation is an opportunity to demonstrate a lesson in objective listening. If you are looking for fault, you can find it, but sometimes you just manufacture it.

There are two terms being used regarding the disaster in New Orleans: breach, which means broken through, and overtop, which means just what it says, the water (from a storm surge in this case) goes over the top. The effect of these two situations can be much different depending on the size and/or number of the breaches, and the height ot the storm surge that overtops the levee.

Listen again to the video. The president says that no one anticipated a breach of the levees, while FEMA talks about overtopping being foreseen. The funny thing is, you Bush bashers will see my post as "spin" even when you look at the video and confirm that this is indeed what was said.

OK Repukes, let's hear your spin on this one...?

First, I'm not a Republican, though I am somewhat conservative. But this situation is an opportunity to demonstrate a lesson in objective listening. If you are looking for fault, you can find it, but sometimes you just manufacture it.

There are two terms being used regarding the disaster in New Orleans: breach, which means broken through, and overtop, which means just what it says, the water (from a storm surge in this case) goes over the top. The effect of these two situations can be much different depending on the size and/or number of the breaches, and the height ot the storm surge that overtops the levee.

Listen again to the video. The president says that no one anticipated a breach of the levees, while FEMA talks about overtopping being foreseen. The funny thing is, you Bush bashers will see my post as "spin" even when you look at the video and confirm that this is indeed what was said.

The National Huricane Center used the word "BREACH."

---

Account frozen...

The National Huricane Center used the word "BREACH."

Before or after Katrina hit? Did they predict it, or did they simply report it after it happened? So what if the National Hurricane Center used the word "breach"? The video claims an "apparent" contridiction between what the President knew before the storm hit, and what he said afterwards. I showed you why that is not true. Look at the video.

The National Huricane Center used the word "BREACH."

Before or after Katrina hit? Did they predict it, or did they simply report it after it happened? So what if the National Hurricane Center used the word "breach"? The video claims an "apparent" contridiction between what the President knew before the storm hit, and what he said afterwards. I showed you why that is not true. Look at the video.

Look at the Army Corps of Engineers report way before that particular huricane season was even a gleam in the weather mans eye.

---

Account frozen...

The National Huricane Center used the word "BREACH."

Before or after Katrina hit? Did they predict it, or did they simply report it after it happened? So what if the National Hurricane Center used the word "breach"? The video claims an "apparent" contridiction between what the President knew before the storm hit, and what he said afterwards. I showed you why that is not true. Look at the video.

Look at the Army Corps of Engineers report way before that particular huricane season was even a gleam in the weather mans eye.

Pretty lame, DB. Scientists also said that man would never fly. The point of the current media frenzy, which you have swallowed whole, is that Bush is being contradicted by FEMA officials when he said no one saw the likelihood of a breach. There is no contradiction there. So where else can you look for evidence of contradicion?

Man this thread stretch stinks!

---

First, I'm not a Republican, though I am somewhat conservative.

Me neither. I'm a monarchist and a social libertarian.
The latter is a north european invention, which I haven't seen much of elsewhere.

First, I'm not a Republican, though I am somewhat conservative.

Me neither. I'm a monarchist and a social libertarian.
The latter is a north european invention, which I haven't seen much of elsewhere.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, figure that if you can.
Most people I guess call that a Libertarian, beats me.
Anyway this mostly puts me at odds with most any administration.

---