Can you imagine if a Democratic president had such poor approval numbers for the handling of a war? We’d have nightly updates talking about President X’s “flailing administration”, and speculation about when President X would step down. But this is a Republican presidency, so the rules are different, and the media is silent.
It’s even worse than that. What were Clinton’s approval ratings during the whole Lewinsky thing? In January 1999 NBC and CBS polls had Clinton’s approval ratings in the mid-70s and that was after the impeachment!
Here’s the lead to a Guardian article by Martin Kettle from March 18 1998:
“BILL Clinton’s poll ratings are defying all the accumulated wisdom of the political class. Yesterday were published the first opinion polls to be taken since Kathleen Willey’s highly effective televised accusations that the president harassed her in 1993. Many of Clinton’s staunchest political allies were braced for bad news. His Republican opponents, who had sensed blood in the water after the Willey interview, were primed for their opportunity.
And what happened? Clinton’s ratings went up – again. In a CNN/USA Today poll taken on Monday, 67 per cent of Americans said that they approved of the president’s job performance, up four points from last week.”
Clinton’s approval ratings were consistently in the 60s and 70s during the entire Lewinsky/impeachment scandal but the media and the republicans were determined to drive him from office.
Bush’s approval ratings sink into the toilet while Americans are dying everyday over seas and the media just looks the other way.
It’s amazing what kind of poll results you can get if you stack the deck. If you check the internals, the poll is weighted 50-40 Democrat. That’s nowhere NEAR representative of reality.
Low approval ratings means that the President should step down? Give me a break.
Low approval ratings means that the President should step down?
When the vast majority of the American people no longer support a President–especially on an issue as grave as war–yes, AWOL George should step down.
And let’s face it, LBJ found himself in a similar situation and declined to run again. And if you declare yourself a capitalist–this happens all the time. If a CEO loses the confidence of his or her company–especially concerning a difference in the strategic direction of the company—that CEO usually steps down.
Farris, post a link or go back to playing with your tinker toys.
“GWB has already stated for the record that he won t run again (something to do with that pesky 22nd Amendment)”
Oh, you mean the one some republicans want to repeal?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
Then what are we arguing about. GWB has already stated for the record that he won’t run again (something to do with that pesky 22nd Amendment)
All we know from this poll is that a vast majority of Democrats no longer support the President … which we already knew.
“It s amazing what kind of poll results you can get if you stack the deck. If you check the internals, the poll is weighted 50-40 Democrat. That s nowhere NEAR representative of reality. ”
Proof?
Poor Farris. Apparently, one must explain everything to him.
When a President declines to run again, as LBJ did, he is effectively stepping down. He immediately becomes a lame duck and a non-player in the political process. LBJ saw he had lost the confidence of the electorate over his handling of the war.
AWOL George simply hasn’t the sense to do what’s right.
Well, SaveFarris is correct. That poll does favor the Dems by the ratio he states.
Now I suggest he and others go to this website:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Feel free to look at all those various polls. And then make up any excuses you see fit.
If you’re asking for proof that the poll was weighted 50-40 Democrat, follow the link in Oliver’s story to the ‘Topline Results’ of the poll.
If you’re asking for proof that the country is not 50-40 Democrat, I refer you to last November.
Farris –
Gimme a break. Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet in poll after poll after poll. The fact of the matter is that without a major tragedy like 9-11 to exploit or the 24/7 smoke and mirrors a national campaign, Bush stands naked before the American people as an incompetent shit who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the concerns and needs of average people.
CBS News Poll. July 29-Aug. 2, 2005
Approve: 45 Dissaprove: 46
Rasmussen:
Friday August 05, 2005–Forty-eight percent (48%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. This is the fifth time in the last six days that the President’s Approval Rating has been at 48%. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans disapprove.
Fox:
July 26-27, 2005
Approve: 47 Disapprove: 44
(That approval score is only 3 points above Fox’s lowest recorded approval score, 44, in August 2004. So in a year, despite re-election Bush has only improved his approval rating three points? Fantastic job he’s doing there.)
CNN/USA Today
7/25 – 7/28
Approve: 44 Disapprove: 51
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html
I actually agree with mac diva on this one. If Bush stepped down, Cheney would become President and then Helen Thomas would kill herself. Everybody wins!
“Rather than face up to his responsibilities …”
Ya, he should have just taken a five week vacation. Jay, do honestly believe that Bush is taking personal responsibility for Iraq? Have you ever heard him utter any such sentiment? We only invaded because the intelligence community told him there was a threat. In planning the war and reconstruction he only did what the generals told him was best. He likes to bray on about his most solemn duties as Commander in Chief but when things go wrong it’s the media’s fault, it’s the liberals fault, it’s Syria and Iran’s fault for letting all the terrorists into the country. Please. The American people are slowly waking up to this phony.
When a President declines to run again, as LBJ did, he is effectively stepping down. He immediately becomes a lame duck and a non-player in the political process.
Oh please. LBJ made his announcement, when? A whole 7 months before the election? Wow. What a man of honor he is.
He didn’t do what he did out of a sense of what was right. He did it because the old Texan didn’t want to suffer what would have been a humiliating defeat in November. Not only that, he hamstrung his own party by pulling out after some of the primaries and forcing them to rush around to find a candidate.
Doing so, wasn’t the ‘right’ thing to do. It was the cowardly thing to do. Rather than face up to his responsibilities, he tucked his tail between his legs and let somebody else take the heat.
AWOL George simply hasn t the sense to do what s right.
You truly are a stupid human being.
Oh and how could I forget: “It’s Clinton’s fault.” Always and forever, no matter the issue, it’s Clinton’s fault.
frameone,
by your own admission it was the intelligence community that was at fault.
He did it because the old Texan didn t want to suffer what would have been a humiliating defeat in November.
Jay Caruso needs yet another lesson in history.
LBJ would have won handily against Nixon in 1968, if he had elected to run. And the reality is that RFK would have trounced Nixon, as well. As it was, Nixon barely squeaked by Humphrey–aided in no small part by Wallace’s candidacy.
So, pretending Nixon would have “trounced” LBJ when, in reality, Nixon barely eked out victory against the Dems’ third choice, while seeing Wallace take 5 Dem southern states is, well, Caruso-like.
LBJ would have won handily against Nixon in 1968, if he had elected to run.
That’s some argument. Claim something you cannot possibly know and call it ‘history.’
And the reality is that RFK would have trounced Nixon, as well.
Who gives a shit? That has zero to do with LBJ.
As it was, Nixon barely squeaked by Humphrey aided in no small part by Wallace s candidacy.
Had Wallace not run, Nixon would have surely won the states Wallace carried which represented 46 electoral votes. That would have given Nixon 346 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 190.
The one who needs a history lesson is the one who thinks LBJ decided not to run because of a moral decision based upon his incompetence as it related to Vietnam.
That would be you, Guy.
Correcting Jay C–once more.
Had Wallace not run, Nixon would have surely won the states Wallace carried which represented 46 electoral votes
And, golleegeewillickers, the South might have won the Civil War if they had a squadron of F-18s.
Wallace did run. That’s reality.
And the fact is Humphrey was the third choice of the Dems that year–and he very nearly beat Nixon despite the reality Wallace bled off Dem electoral votes.
Had it been an LBJ-Nixon matchup–Wallace wouldn’t have been a factor as he’d not been able to compete against perhaps the greatest Southern politician of the century. And there’s no question RFK would have wiped up Nixon.
saveFerris says that the polls are “stacked” with 40-50% dems and further states that this is unfair. Last time I checked, 48% of the population voted for DEOMOCRATIC Candidate John Kerry. You you use the same kind of math R’s use to balance the budget,or what?
Jade, I don’t know that Wallace hurt Humphrey, if anything he hurt Nixon- despite his standing as a “Democrat”, he appealed to racists, which is tradionally the Republican base.
And, golleegeewillickers, the South might have won the Civil War if they had a squadron of F-18s.
Sarcasm like this from somebody who just made an ass of himself opining that LBJ would have won if he had run.
Wallace did run. That s reality.
No shit Sherlock. And Nixon had 301 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 190. All Wallace did was reduce Nixon’s margin of victory.
Had it been an LBJ-Nixon matchup Wallace wouldn t have been a factor as he d not been able to compete against perhaps the greatest Southern politician of the century.
Please. You’re trying to defend LBJ’s cowardice by attempting to create your own history. You can’t. The bottom line is: LBJ decided not to run because he was afraid he was going to lose. That’s reality. At the time he made his decision, his approval ratings were at an all time low and as a politician who had never lost an election, defeat is what he feared most.
Stop trying to make him appear honorable as though his conscience regarding his almost criminal handling of Vietnam was made him decide not to run. I cannot comprehend how somebody can be so intellectually dishonest.
And again, who the fuck cares about RFK? The Yankees would have made it to the World Series last year if Dave Roberts didn’t steal second base in Game 5 of the ALCS. What does it matter? The fact is, Roberts did steal second. And RFK was murdered, so it doesn’t matter. Stop trying to change the subject.
No Farris,
That’s Bush’s excuse for not finding the WMD. There were plenty of voices in the intelligence community saying, whoa, wait a minute. We can;t be sure about some of this intelligence. We can take the Niger/Yellowcake story for one example. But BushCo. only listened to what they wanted to hear. The minute reality came crashing in it was Tenet’s fault.
But I’ll take your silence on Bush’s inability to take responsibility for his frequent incompetence as an admission that you agree with me.
Please Jay, don’t demonstrate you know even less about baseball than everything else.
Spare yourself. At some point, I have to believe this is some sort of masochistic-sexual thing you’ve got going.
Revisionist history.
Ala, Guy Cabot.
Jade, Guy or whatever the hell your name is…first of all, I’ve forgotten more about baseball than most people know.
Second of all, your childish response is enough for me to know that you’ve finally succumbed to weight of your bullsheot.
On to the next…
Poor Jay. First, he accuses me of revionist history by pretending Wallace didn’t run in 1968, then pretending RFK didn’t exist. In the end, Jay tells me I’m wrong about Presidential campaign history by telling us about last year’s ALCS.
And he can’t even get that right.
It’s like arguing with a wino.
First, he accuses me of revionist history by pretending Wallace didn t run in 1968
Lie.
then pretending RFK didn t exist.
Jeebus H. Christ. RFK was irrelevant to your entire point!! Did your mother drop you on your head when you were younger? I’m starting to feel sorry for you. Nobody can be that dumb.
In the end, Jay tells me I m wrong about Presidential campaign history by telling us about last year s ALCS.
No idiot. What I did was show that your “if this” scenario means absolutely nothing.
And he can t even get that right.
God, you are such a freaking dipshit.
Making the run possible was replacement part Dave Roberts who the Sox had picked up at the trading deadline from Los Angeles. Roberts was a pinch runner for Kevin Millar, who walked to lead off the inning, stole second and then came around on Mueller s single.
That was the tying run.
Oh and here’s an image of Roberts after stealing second. And here’s another of him after scoring the tying run. IF only Roberts didn’t steal second and IF only Bill Mueller had grounded into a double play the game would have been over and the Yankees WOULD have won the ALCS.
IF. IF. WOULD.
Keep going dolt. I’ll tear you new a-hole’s all day.
Lie.
Then someone using your name, Jay C., posted this on this very thread:
Had Wallace not run, Nixon would have surely won the states Wallace carried which represented 46 electoral votes.
Then you claim: RFK was irrelevant to your entire point!
Nope. The point I made–several times–is that Humphrey was the Dem’s third choice as candidate, behind LBJ and RFK. Even so, Humphrey barely lost, by less than 1%,to Nixon despite having Dem votes bled off by Wallace’s candidacy.
As to baseball, it’s abundantly clear you know nothing about it. You make the novice mistake common to small children everywhere that one play would have certainly led to a number of other plays which would have won or lost a game. This is the equivalent of saying ‘if I eat Wheaties this AM, I’ll win the lottery later tonight.’ IOW, it’s nonsensical.
I ll tear you new a-hole s all day.
As I said, I strongly suspect this is some kind of sexual obsession you have.
[...] hey had double standards for Democratic and Republican presidents. Imagine that. BEFORE: Who, Who Will Tell The Media?
This entry was pos [...]
Had Wallace not run, Nixon would have surely won the states Wallace carried which represented 46 electoral votes.
And where in that statement was I, according to you, “pretending Wallace didn t run in 1968.”
Like I said. A lie.
Nope. The point I made several times is that Humphrey was the Dem s third choice as candidate, behind LBJ and RFK. Even so, Humphrey barely lost, by less than 1%,to Nixon despite having Dem votes bled off by Wallace s candidacy.
Uhh. No. Your point going way back to the beginning is that LBJ decided not to run because of some moral code he wanted to uphold. That’s total crap and you’ve failed to prove otherwise. Bringing up the issue of what the results of the 1968 election would have been had RFK not been killed is completely irrelevant to LBJ, but you keep acting like it’s important.
As to baseball, it s abundantly clear you know nothing about it. You make the novice mistake common to small children everywhere that one play would have certainly led to a number of other plays which would have won or lost a game. This is the equivalent of saying if I eat Wheaties this AM, I ll win the lottery later tonight.
The irony in this statement is freaking hilarious. Let’s go back to your original statement:
LBJ would have won handily against Nixon in 1968, if he had elected to run.
Get it dummy? I brought up the whole baseball analogy to show how ridiculous you came off with your above statement. Good grief. You’ve just rebutted your own statement!
As I said, I strongly suspect this is some kind of sexual obsession you have.
You’re the one who keeps bringing up sex, not me.
I will also put an end to this ridiculous conversation so that nobody here gets trapped by Jadegold’s extremely poor knowledge of history. The real reason LBJ decided not to run in 1968 had nothing to do with the fact that “LBJ saw he had lost the confidence of the electorate over his handling of the war.”
He was afraid of losing. Eugene McCarthy came close to beating LBJ in the New Hampshire primary. At the time, receiving less than 50% of the vote in the NH for a sitting President was an insult. Combining that with the entrance of RFK into the race, and running a campaign that might barely eke out a nomination to begin with, he decided not to run.
It had nothing to do with any moral or honorable decision he made concerning his handling of Vietnam. That is a total lie, and of course that lie was brought to you by Jadegold.
Jay C is, well, Caruso-like.
He cites the fact Gene McCarthy came close in the NH primaries as why LBJ decided not to run. The fact is LBJ won in NH. And as we’ve seen, time after time, NH isn’t the bellwether of who wins or loses; Pat Buchanan, anyone?
As Jack Valenti (aide to both JFK and LBJ) notes–LBJ could have beaten Nixon in 1968 if he had run. (Valenti also notes RFK would have thrashed Nixon). Valenti goes on to say LBJ didn’t run because he felt he wouldn’t have had a significant mandate to bring Vietnam to a close without a great deal of divisiveness.
But, hey, at least we moved Jay C from demonstrating his complete ignorance of baseball–and that’s always good.
He cites the fact Gene McCarthy came close in the NH primaries as why LBJ decided not to run. The fact is LBJ won in NH. And as we ve seen, time after time, NH isn t the bellwether of who wins or loses; Pat Buchanan, anyone?
Jadegold’s piss poor knowledge of history once again rears it’s ugly head. The fact that a sitting President came so close to losing the NH primary was something that made LBJ very nervous. Pat Buchanan’s win in 1996 was in an open primary. However, Buchanan’s showing against Bush in 1992 made that campaign very nervous and was a pre-cursor of things to come.
As Jack Valenti (aide to both JFK and LBJ) notes LBJ could have beaten Nixon in 1968 if he had run.
And this means what? It’s still nothing but WOULD and IF.
(Valenti also notes RFK would have thrashed Nixon)
Again, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of LJB not running, but you keep repeating it. You’re like a broken record.
Valenti goes on to say LBJ didn t run because he felt he wouldn t have had a significant mandate to bring Vietnam to a close without a great deal of divisiveness.
Righhhhht. And former aides to President’s never say things that put their former bosses in a better light. That’s pretty funny. What next? Valuable insight from Ramsey Clark? The ghost of Marilyn Monroe?
As for the baseball comment, I’m secure enough in my knowledge of the game to not even bother trying to argue about it. As for you, if your knowledge of America’s pastime is as bad as your knowledge of Presidential politics and history, I’d suggest you ask your mommy to buy one of these and start reading. If you can.
Again, the facts are clear, Jay C. Nixon beat the Dem’s third choice by 0.7% and he needed the fact Wallace took votes away from Humphrey in what were traditional Dem stronghold states.
As I sagely noted, had LBJ run–he would have taken Wallace out of contention in the South. And LBJ had the advantage of being an incumbent and someone who won a landslide victory 4 years earlier.
These facts aren’t in dispute. And, of course, you’re free to opine that Valenti was just a hack–but, in reality, Valenti knew much more about the history (having been a part of it) and given the fact Valenti’s DC career has spanned some 50+ years–I think I’ll take his word for it over yours.
Nor is there much dispute RFK would have won in 68; in fact, there is no shortage of essays and articles and book excerpts that speculate how an RFK Presidency might or might not have influenced the outcome of the Vietnam war.
LBJ in his memoir:
As for being secure in your knowledge of the game–Hey, knock yourself out. Your so-called knowledge is less than superficial, much like your politics. You go in assuming a certain premise (NYY/AWOL George are the greatest) and you spend your time trying to justify your errant beliefs. That’s not knowledge, Jay C–it’s zealotry.
And, of course, you re free to opine that Valenti was just a hack but, in reality, Valenti knew much more about the history (having been a part of it) and given the fact Valenti s DC career has spanned some 50+ years I think I ll take his word for it over yours.
For those that don’t know, this is what is called in debate an “appeal to authority.” It’s a logical fallacy and therefore, meaningless.
Nor is there much dispute RFK would have won in 68;
Who’s disputing it? It’s irrelevant. This is Jadegold engaging in the logical fallacy of a red herring. Topic A is being discussed. Cabot is introducing Topic B under the guise of being relevant to topic A, which it isn’t. This allows him to discard Topic A where he can’t make a case.
Your so-called knowledge is less than superficial, much like your politics.
Actually, my knowledge of baseball is based on the love of the game, nothing more. I can see you poring over an encyclopedia of baseball to learn all about the game, but like your politics, it’s probably limited to what you’ve read in a book somewhere. And unlike you, I don’t pretend to be an expert on things that I’m not. As for superficial, it’s laughable coming from somebody whose ideological boundaries are split down the middle like the equator. To you, everything is black and white with regard to politics. That’s superficial.
It’s the reason why a person like you has to spend so much time on blogs trying to ‘prove’ your own worth. Look at the timing of your responses. It’s obvious you sat at the computer, waiting to see what I had written. I suppose in your world, it makes you feel much more important to pretend you’re an expert on all issues, and attempt to belittle others in a weak effort to make yourself feel superior. But you’re transparent. And you’re predictable. The arrogance and condescension you throw around is the hallmark trait of a person who is insecure, not of a person who is confident of their intelligence.
Actually, Jay C, you also don’t understand logical fallacy. Example, you dismissed Valenti’s comments simply because Valenti was an aide to JFK and LBJ.
That’s a classic ad hominem attack; a logical fallacy.
More info on such logical fallacies here.
Nevermind that at the time Valenti made his remarks WRT LBJ and the ‘68 election, Valenti had been head of the MPAA for about 25 years or so and had no stake in any administration-Dem or GOP.
Actually, my knowledge of baseball is based on the love of the game, nothing more.
Knowledge isn’t based on love, like, dislike or hate. Another Caruso-like logical fallacy.
Actually, Jay C, you also don t understand logical fallacy. Example, you dismissed Valenti s comments simply because Valenti was an aide to JFK and LBJ.
That s a classic ad hominem attack; a logical fallacy.
More of your nonsense. I didn’t. I merely alluded to a common theme prevalent amongst former President aides. They’re loyal. You’re the one who used a classic logical fallacy in this debate.
A. You cited person A (Jack Valenti) as an authority on subject S (The reason why LBJ did not run for President in 1968)
B. Person A (Valenti) makes claim C (LBJ didn’t run because of some moral reason) about subject S (the 1968 election)
C. Therefore, claim C is true.
That’s a logical fallacy. You introduced it. Don’t whine about it now because you were called on it.
Nevermind that at the time Valenti made his remarks WRT LBJ and the 68 election, Valenti had been head of the MPAA for about 25 years or so and had no stake in any administration-Dem or GOP.
So what? What does that prove? You’re still engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to authority to claim something is true. It proves nothing.
Knowledge isn t based on love, like, dislike or hate. Another Caruso-like logical fallacy.
A love of something, is what often drives a person to learn as much about a subject as possible. Music, sports, literature, etc. But your comment is a perfect example of what I alluded to earlier. You’re like a one of the people who came out of the pods in ‘Invasion of The Body Snatchers’ or Spock from Star Trek.