Majority in U.S. Say Bush Presidency Is a Failure, Poll Finds
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aKSlfaIwdI6w&refer=us
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A majority of Americans said the presidency of George W. Bush has been a failure and that they would be more likely to vote for congressional candidates who oppose him, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Fifty-two percent of adults said Bush's administration since 2001 has been a failure, down from 55 percent in October. Fifty- eight percent described his second term as a failure. At the same point in former President Bill Clinton's presidency, 70 percent of those surveyed by Gallup said they considered it a success and 20 percent a failure.

In a poll conducted in January of 2002, after Bush was president for one year, 83 percent of those surveyed said his presidency was a success.

In the new poll, conducted Jan. 20-22, fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for congressional candidates who do not support Bush's policies.

The percentage of Americans who called Bush ``honest and trustworthy'' fell 7 percentage points in the last year to 49 percent, the poll found.

The new poll also found that 62 percent of Americans said they are ``dissatisfied'' with ``the way things are going'' in the U.S., unchanged from a December survey. The percentage of ``dissatisfied'' Americans reached its peak in October of 2005 when 68 percent of those surveyed agreed.

The survey interviewed 1,006 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points. For the questions about whether Bush's presidency is a success, about 500 U.S. adults were surveyed and the margin for error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

You should know that polls don't matter to GWB. Polls are just opinions. So, to extrapolate, our opinions don't matter to GWB.

Have you ever seen a man-on-the-street type interview like Leno does?

Name the President.....Duh
Name the V.P....Duh
Name the 3 branches of Government.....Duh
Name even 1 Supreme Court justice.....Duh
Name one of your Senators.....Duh

Who is Milli Vanilli....Oh, I know, those two guys that lip-sync.
What's your favorite show....American Idol

People are so incredible uninformed and utterly stupid in this country it is scary.

So what do your 'polls' prove? They prove that the mainstream press b.s. works. The polls prove that if you say Bush lied, Bush lied enough times, whether true or not, the sheeple in this Country pick up on that and that becomes their opinion. Why do you think the press always rolls out the polls when the results are bad? The Press firmly believes that people want to be in the majority. It's called the bandwagon effect. The press has used this for years as a method to brainwash people into forming their opinions using the VERY LIMITED (in terms of actual truth) information they are given. Thank GOD for the new media, the Internet, blogging and such.

Unfiltered information is slowing getting to the masses that can't think for themselves. All of sudden, one day a sheep wakes up and sees the light. It is a battle to inform one sheep at a time and it will forever be a constant struggle with the way public education fails our kids in the lower grades and then attempts to further brainwash them when they get to college. Ahh, but don't fret my conservative brethren. Conservative efforts on campuses nationwide are getting more effective and becoming stronger by the day.

So do the polls reflecting badly on Bush surprise me? No. Is Bush actually doing a great job but the press won't reveal it? Yes! Why? Because then the Press, and more importantly, the Democratic Party will lose even more power.

I never in my life saw a more outrageous attempt than the Mainstream Press demonstrated in the last election to work in lock-step with the Democratic Party to defeat a sitting President. It was a truly sad day for America, but thank the Lord it didn't work.

If the Mainstream Press would cover Bush in a positive light, like it should, his numbers would be way up. The sheeple would be told to like Bush and they would. That is just a simple fact.

So, despite history one day reporting the Bush economy and his foreign policy as being one of the best performing administrations in modern times, we won't hear that from the press until he is out of the Presidency. Then the drip, drip, drip will come as the media slowly reports the actual results of this administration. They eventually come clean, the Reagan administration is a perfect example, but always a day late and always a dollar short.

You should know that polls don't matter to GWB. Polls are just opinions. So, to extrapolate, our opinions don't matter to GWB.

I think that one does not govern a country, or a business, based on opinions. or, to put it another way, on common knowledge.

Success in the world is brought forth not by looking at the obvious, but by anticipating the future. In advance.

Have you ever seen a man-on-the-street type interview like Leno does?

Name the President.....Duh
Name the V.P....Duh
Name the 3 branches of Government.....Duh
Name even 1 Supreme Court justice.....Duh
Name one of your Senators.....Duh

Who is Milli Vanilli....Oh, I know, those two guys that lip-sync.
What's your favorite show....American Idol

People are so incredible uninformed and utterly stupid in this country it is scary.

:bowrofl: :iconcur: :(

The truth can be hysterical yet utterly depressing at the same time

I think that one does not govern a country, or a business, based on opinions. or, to put it another way, on common knowledge.


But that's exactly the way Clinton governed: with one moistened finger in the air.

I may be a little off topic, but I'm curious what you guys think of Pres. Bush calling the US Constitution "It's just a goddamned piece of paper". Yes, I know, it was written on Parchment.

I'm not trying to stir anything up, just curious.

Pres. Bush calling the US Constitution "It's just a goddamned piece of paper". Prove that he said it first.

I wan't there, and I don't have it on tape, therefore, it would be a little difficult for me to prove that. But the same can be said with all you all's articles for and against him. PROVE he said something. And article is just that. I'm sure if you ask your friend Google, he might come up with a bunch of links reporting what he said.

How about him ON CNN saying if this country was a Dictatorship, it would be a lot better so as long as he was a Dictator? I'm sure you can find that video on the net too.

I wan't there, and I don't have it on tape, therefore, it would be a little difficult for me to prove that. But the same can be said with all you all's articles for and against him. PROVE he said something. And article is just that. I'm sure if you ask your friend Google, he might come up with a bunch of links reporting what he said.

How about him ON CNN saying if this country was a Dictatorship, it would be a lot better so as long as he was a Dictator? I'm sure you can find that video on the net too.

Sorry, "pal," we don't respect unfounded assertions here. If you can back up your claim, well and good. Until then, it's not ours to disprove.

You are using the Mary Mapes model of journalism, which is, "I report it, you have to disprove it or else it's true." Keep in mind where Mary Mapes is right now, disgraced and ignored by the press, lacking any credibility.

You are following in her footsteps. Typical liberal.

Prove that he said it first.

You mean this?

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the :q:q:q:q that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

So David,

How does crow taste?

Sorry, "pal," we don't respect unfounded assertions here.

Unfound this.........

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

Johnny, Thank you Sir.

You mean this?Name some names. Let me guess. These are protected sources. :bsflag:

Show me some names on the record saying Bush said this, otherwise, go fly a kite.

Unfound this.........

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

And what do ANY of these quotes have to do with the comment Bush is accused of making? Of course, nothing, as usual.

And what do ANY of these quotes have to do with the comment Bush is accused of making? Of course, nothing, as usual.

Freudian slip on how Bush wants to see himself as... 'SUPREME ULTIMATE RULER' :D

The guy was joking. Sheesh. And what he is saying is true. If Texas was a dictatorship, he could say what goes and end of discussion. BUT TEXAS ISN'T A DICTATORSHIP! See the difference? :rolleyes:

The Big Grin emote was supposed to mean I was joking too. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well, what do you want, Sir? A signed, taped confession form Bush about what he said in regards to the constitution?

I didn't link the story, you said "prove it" Story was linked, and now you want names on the record.
I don't think hard core political debaters such as yourselves (both dem and lib) will ever be happy with news reports, for I've noticed, almost every time, the defending side wants more proof, and cites the sources as unreliable...

With respect sir, I don't think the above mentioned hypothetical signed confession would dissuade you.. which is fine, I am not trying to change your political affiliation or your love for shrubs.

I didn't like Clinton. His administration cut our pay drastically. It really didn't bother me too much, for I was in it for the adventure, but it did hurt a lot of military families.

I like Bush on certain issues, such as letting the AWB expire. but I do not like him for what he is doing to this country.

I merely asked if anyone had heard of it. That's all.

Well, what do you want, Sir? A signed, taped confession form Bush about what he said in regards to the constitution?

I didn't link the story, you said "prove it" Story was linked, and now you want names on the record.
I don't think hard core political debaters such as yourselves (both dem and lib) will ever be happy with news reports, for I've noticed, almost every time, the defending side wants more proof, and cites the sources as unreliable...

With respect sir, I don't think the above mentioned hypothetical signed confession would dissuade you.. which is fine, I am not trying to change your political affiliation or your love for shrubs.

I didn't like Clinton. His administration cut our pay drastically. It really didn't bother me too much, for I was in it for the adventure, but it did hurt a lot of military families.

I like Bush on certain issues, such as letting the AWB expire.

I merely asked if anyone had heard of it. That's all.

I didn't see any link. All I saw was a name, Doug Thompson. Who the heck is that? And who are his sources? Anybody could have made up that story. How come it wasn't reported by any major news sources?

More left wing wacko baloney.

:bsflag:

MonsterMark is blind to the faults of GWB, as are most RW on this site. Some will admit his failings and come up with lame excuses, just like GWB.

My advice is to state your source, take the hit, and respond accordingly. Most of the RW posters on this site are very bright but very stubborn.

Welcome on board.

MonsterMark is blind to the faults of GWB, as are most RW on this site. Some will admit his failings and come up with lame excuses, just like GWB.

My advice is to state your source, take the hit, and respond accordingly. Most of the RW posters on this site are very bright but very stubborn.

Welcome on board.

Nice try, barry, but Frogman is no newbie to this board, he just hasn't been around for a while.

Thank you sir. Been here for a while, but I mostly lurk. I am of the firm conviction that arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics... Even if you win, you're still a retard (is that a PC word nowadays?)

MM, with respect sir, there are times when only one reporter files a story. I know, it's a shocking idea and it's shocking how only one reporter may report a story, but it happens now and then. Once the story is filed, various news agencies pick up the story, and report it further. This is a good example:

http://www.google.com/search?q=the%20constitution%20is%20a%20goddamned%2 0piece%20of%20paper&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I know, I know. Most of these news agencies are not mainstream, so in accord with your thinking, they must all be amateurs and Left wing funded organizations, all out there to feed you more left wing BS.
Right?

What are you accusing me of "trying" David? Get a grip.

I didn't see any link.

All I saw was a name, Doug Thompson.

Who the heck is that?

And who are his sources?

Anybody could have made up that story.

How come it wasn't reported by any major news sources?

More left wing wacko baloney.



I didn't see any link.... TRUE!

Who the heck is that..... TRUE..Who is he?

Who are his sources..... WELL?

Anybody could have made up that story.... THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH THE LWW!

How come it wasn't reported by any major news sources?..Because it is a BALD FACE LIE!

More left wing wacko baloney....They love to jerk themselves off, don't they?

What are you accusing me of "trying" David? Get a grip.

He is accusing you of 'trying' to say that Frogman has now joined your camp.

Time to hit the search button.

Frogman lurks 'under the water' for months on end. Last time he came up for air was back in September/October.

Wish I could hold my breath that long.:D

Not trying to join anyone's "camp"....

Going back to the original post, I don't put too much stock in any poll. Its just a snapshot of feelings at a particular time. The outcome of the poll depends significantly on how the question is phrased. Its hard to interpret the true meaning of polls, but the media like them because they can write stories about the.

On the Doug Thompson bit, he writes a e-zine called www.capitolhillblue.com. I've never heard of it, but here it is:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/dtbio.htm

Seems to me the quotes in his article are all hearsay and are presented without any context. Anyone can pull quotes and make up any story around them. I know nothing of Doug Thompson's views, but based on that, I am skeptical of the quotes in his story. Also, I've not seen this incident reported elsewhere, so it is difficult to give it any weight or import. I'm not saying it did or did not happen, but I'd like to see more credible sources reporting on this.

And now for something completely different!

Has anyone ever stopped to consider what the Presidential Oath of Office actually says? Here it is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Note that it says "execute the Office of President of the United States". It does NOT say "execute the Laws of the United States" or "execute the Acts passed by Congress", etc. "Execute the Office of President" means the president is entitled to use all of the Article II powers to fulfill his duty, including his powers as Commander in Chief to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He is NOT restrained by the Laws passed by Congress when he is fulfilling his CONSTITUTIONAL duty proscribed to him in Article II.

Our Democrat friends make a big deal to say the President was acting "unlawfully" or "in controvention of the laws passed by Congress". The bad news for them is that, in fulfilling his duty as Commander in Chief, and in the execution of the Office of President of the United States, he can do damn near anything he wants. Wiretapping is being done on his orders as Commander in Chief, a Constitutional duty. Congress can say little about this. Contrast this with the wiretapping done by Richard Nixon. That wiretapping was done to spy on political opponents, clearly NOT Constitutionally permitted. There is a clear difference here, despite the media and left wing punditry to the contrary.

Exactly right. As Bush said in his press conference, he doesn't view this as a competition with the Legislative Branch, even though the Legislative Branch may view this as a competition with the Executive Branch.

Latest ABC NEWS/WAPO survey.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/abc_lookahead_051230.pdf

Don't expect to see this on the nightly news. The most telling tidbit? Take a look at [d.] And this is a lib rag and lib station doing the surveying.

.................................................. .....................Optimistic Pessimistic No op.
a. the way things are going in this country....................57..........42........2

b. the situation in Iraq.............................................. .54..........44........2

c. the state of the national economy............................55..........44. .......1

d. your own family's financial situation...........................73..........26 ........1

e. country's ability to defend against terrorist attacks......65..........34........1

f. the policies Bush will pursue......................................53.... ......43.......4

g. country’s ability to respond to natural disasters...........59..........40....... 1