Prosecute the torture.

January 22, 2007

More Bad News For Dubya

According to a poll released by AP/AOL, lotsa folks don't think the country's heading in the right direction. From the AP:
Two-thirds of Americans, 66 percent, think the country is on the wrong track. That's about the same as a year ago, when 65 percent thought so, the poll found.
A few paragraphs later:
Iraq remains the public's top concern, with 65 percent disapproving of Bush's handling of the situation.
Then there's this from Newsweek:

When President George W. Bush declared earlier this month that the only way to quell sectarian violence in Iraq was to send more than 20,000 additional American troops, he probably knew the move would be unpopular. Indeed, the latest NEWSWEEK poll finds that Bush’s call for a “surge” in troops is opposed by two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans and supported by only a quarter (26 percent). Almost half of all respondents (46 percent) want to see American troops pulled out “as soon as possible.”

Bush’s Iraq plan isn’t doing anything for his personal approval rating either; it’s again stuck at its lowest point in the history of the poll (31 percent). Meanwhile, the new Democratic-controlled Congress is getting relatively high marks. And 55 percent actually trust Congressional Dems on U.S. policy in Iraq, far more than the 32 percent who trust their commander in chief.

What must be even scarier for dubya can be found in the poll itself. To the question:
Now thinking ahead to the next presidential election. In general, would you rather see a Democrat or a Republican elected as our next president in 2008?
49% said they'd want to see a Democrat elected president as opposed to only 28% who'd want to see a Republican elected.

The bad news continued. When asked whether dubya has "strong leadership qualities", is "honest and ethical", and "cares about people like you", a majority answered "no" each time.
  • 57% said he did not show "leadership qualities."
  • 54% said he was not "honest and ethical."
  • And a whopping 60% said he did not "care about people like you."
That's bad.

More evidence that this is a failed presidency from a failed political party.

24 comments:

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Davoe, why do you persist in your hate-filled campaign against America? Everyone knows that all real Americans love our glorious President. I know this because Sean Hannity told me so. And the Bible.

It is irresponsible for you to propagate the lies of a known Communist organization such as the Associated Press when you could get the truth directly from God through his Prophet, Bill O'Reilly.

When our magnificent fighting machine rips out the throat of the very last Muslim baby -- that's when we should end our Holy War. Not one nanosecond sooner, unless Rush Limbaugh changes his mind.

Someday, you will be held to account for your lies and heresy by the Holy Trinity, the Father (Dick Cheney), the Son (and he's still sooooo cute, GWB), and the Gap-Toothed Spirit.

Democrats-Lie said...

Schmuck, as you know, I am on your side now, but I must object to the intense sarcasm, not to mention sacrilege, you experessed in your last comment.

Remember, even good guys like I were once part of that Great Right-Wing Thinking Machine, and, well, I still find it offensive.

xranger said...

Don't you worry there, Dayvoe me boy, the Republicans are not the failed party you wish for. Far from it.

I know it is also great sport to lead in every day with Bush polls, negativity, blah, blah. We get it. I also get that it is journalistic laziness on your part. (And radio shows want your opinion? No wonder nobody listens to them locally.)

Now, an interesting topic to start off the new week is to put forth the supposition that this war on terror is not really a war against nation-states but, rather, against radical Islam itself. I have always felt that the biggest error liberals do is feel that they can contain Islamic terrorists to Afghanistan and defeat them there. Ipso facto, war is over, and we can all go to the beach this summer. Nice dream.

What about Iran, the new capitol of Shiite agression? Will the embattled Sunnis spread their fight to Saudi Arabia? And what the heck is Hammas up to? How about the fact that western Europe is becoming overrun by Muslims? What will that do to their elected governments?

Nah, its better (and easier) to quote polls deriding Bush.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

You forgot "more fun."

Sherry P said...

I have always felt that the biggest error liberals do is feel that they can contain Islamic terrorists to Afghanistan and defeat them there. Ipso facto, war is over, and we can all go to the beach this summer. Nice dream.
x, i thought that it was this administration that kept saying that we were fighting them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over there?

oh and we aren't supposed to go to the beach according to our prez, we are supposed to "go shopping." : )

Sherry P said...

soory i meant "over here"

Anonymous said...

xranger;

Your use of "deriding" is inaccurate. As a verb, "deriding" implies an act, a choice of putting down in a sense.

The polls quoted are not themselves acting to "deride" anything.

They describe just how unpopular this president really is. How untrustworthy the citizens of this country think of him and how wrong he would be to think otherwise.

Your use of the verb "deriding" is spin, plain and simple.

xranger said...

Anon (whatever number suffix you want):

The polls were used in a context to deride the president. They were in the act of putting down the person, as in your definition.

Don't engage in intellectual discourse while unarmed.

It makes you sound like a simpleton.

Leave the heavy thinking to us grown-ups.

Oh! for the want of a liberal with half a brain to debate. You out there, John?

Anonymous said...

xranger;

You wrote:The polls were used in a context to deride the president.

But that's not what you originally said. If your claiming to be an intellectual (or at least more intellectual than you think I am) then you should use your words carefully and clearly.

Not doing so makes you look like a simpleton.

And in any case, what's wrong with deriding the president? He certainly deserves it. He's debased the office (lies to get us to war, deaths from that war, lies about those deaths and so on) more than any president since Nixon.

And maybe not even Nixon.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Anon, it doesn't really mean anything when x calls you names, so don't take it personal.

What you have to watch for, though, is when he starts telling you how bad he's beating you up, or that you're not keeping up your end, or you need to "pick up the pace," or the like. That means he's ready to fold.

xranger said...

Now, now, you know that when I verbally prod you with a stick it is intended to sharpen the debate.

I must admit that this string is disappointing, however. It has strayed off path to a discussion of grammar and Nixon (WTF?)

I'll leave this one to too much thinking required on your part for today.

Next time I'll tone down to a third grade reading level, and intersperse grunts and poor punctuation to wake up liberal-land.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Anon: See what I mean?

Anonymous said...

Yea, I see.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'll let him think he's made some points and let him go on his way.

Wishing him well, of course.

xranger said...

Yeah, good debate.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Don't engage in intellectual discourse while unarmed. It makes you sound like a simpleton. Leave the heavy thinking to us grown-ups. Oh! for the want of a liberal with half a brain to debate.

Just to clarify your idea of good debate.

xranger said...

Well, I guess you can say anything you want to Democrats-Lie, asking him if he still gives pack animals blowjobs. That's OK on a liberal blog.

When I try to get something worthwhile going, I get some chippy giving me a vocabulary lesson.

When I do the verbal smack-down, that's not OK, in your book, I guess.

Maria said...

x,

" (And radio shows want your opinion? No wonder nobody listens to them locally.)"

Hey! It was *ME* who was on your buddy, Fred's radio show Friday.

Yeah, yeah, I know David gets far more airtime than me. Bt, gimme a little props. LOL

Sherry P said...

"chippy?"

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Nice try, x. As you know but are unwilling to admit, my charming reply to Anonymous Braden was to make the point that not all questions are answerable with a simple "yes or no" answer. I even explained that afterwards.

So suddenly you are claiming to be stupid? I'm not buying.

Democrats-Lie said...

So much for this being "Bush's War:"

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Enough said.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

I'm afraid enough is not said, Master Lie. Please point to the passages in your link that make Iraq anything but Bush's war.

Whigsboy said...

X - I appreciate your trying to bring up a topic of debate ('cause I'll be honest, I'm TIRED of all the "Guess how low Bush has sunk in the latest poll" posts that seem to litter every progressive blog these days). But your question is off base.

I don't think any liberal/progressive of any consequence has ever said: win in Afghanistan and you end the threat of Islamic terrorism. Afghanistan was an important central front in this WOT that we abandoned to launch a war against a dictator who had nothing to with with Islamic terrorism and, all indications suggest, wasn't going to in the future.

Clearly there are other counties of concern where whole new generations of muslims who want to kill Americans are being created, a movement fueled in large part by this stupid fucking war in Iraq. While many people who call themselves liberal or progressive often criticize the diversion of so many troops and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, I've never heard anybody of any consequence, yet alone a reputable blogger, suggest that Afghanistan was the whole ball of wax.

xranger said...

Well, then, I'm not sure what in the hell you are reading.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

I think that's what he was saying to you. Care to offer a link?