• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Presidency seen as Unsuccessful

Status
Not open for further replies.

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Summary of Findings

President George W. Bush's poll numbers are going from bad to worse. His job approval rating has fallen to another new low, as has public satisfaction with national conditions, which now stands at just 29%. And for the first time since taking office in 2001, a plurality of Americans believe that George W. Bush will be viewed as an unsuccessful president.

About four-in-ten (41%) say that, in the long run, Bush will be an unsuccessful president, up from 27% in January and the highest percentage expressing that view since he took office. About a quarter (26%) believe Bush will be successful * down 10 points since January * while 30% say it is too early to tell.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 6-10 among 1,500 adults, finds the president beset by problems on multiple fronts. The president's overall job approval rating has slipped to 38%. And on a number of issues, ranging from the federal budget deficit to relations with U.S. allies, majorities or pluralities say that Bush's policies have made things worse, not better.

In advance of Iraq's Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, public opinion on the war has taken a negative turn. For the first time since the war began, a majority of Americans (53%) say the U.S. military effort there is not going well. Half of Americans now say the decision to use military force in Iraq was wrong, up from 44% last month. Support for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq, which had remained stable over the past year, also has declined. As many Americans now say the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible as favor keeping the troops there until Iraq is stable (48% vs. 47%).

While the presidential election is still more than three years off, Bush's problems are fueling a widespread desire for change. By a sizable margin (69%-25%), more Americans say that as they look ahead to the next election, they would prefer to see a president who offers different policies from the Bush administration rather than one offering programs similar to the Bush administration's. By comparison, as the Clinton administration was nearing the end of its tenure in June 2000, far fewer people expressed a desire for a change of course (52%).

Similarly, more people now believe that Bush will be viewed as an unsuccessful president than said that about President Clinton at any point in his administration. In October 1994, a low point of Clinton's presidency and just a month before the Republicans gained control of Congress, roughly a third (35%) believed Clinton would go down as an unsuccessful president, compared with 41% who say that about Bush currently. However, more people also think Bush will ultimately be successful than expressed that opinion about Clinton in October 1994 (26% vs. 14%).
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=259

WASHINGTON - The building blocks of
President Bush's career — his credibility and image as a strong and competent leader — have been severely undercut by self-inflicted wounds, leading close allies to fret about his presidency. They say he's lost his way.

These senior Republicans, including past and current White House advisers, say they believe the president can find his way back into people's hearts but extreme measures need to be taken. Shake up his staff, unveil fresh policies, travel the country and be more accountable for his mistakes — these and other solutions are being discussed at the highest levels of the GOP.

But first this question: How did this happen?

Bush built an image as a straight-talking politician as governor of Texas and a candidate for president. Running to replace the Clinton administration in 2000, he raised his right hand at nearly every campaign event and swore to uphold the dignity and honor of the presidency.

The vow was not just a reference to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. It was a nod at every ethical question that ever hovered over
President Clinton, any blurring of what Bush viewed as a clear bright line between right and wrong.

"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves," Bush said Oct. 26, 2000.

Five years later, senior White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was accused of covering up his involvement in the
CIA leak case, an investigation that raises questions about the role played by Bush confidant Karl Rove and Vice President
Dick Cheney to discredit an
Iraq war critic.

The case cuts at the president's hard-earned credibility.

In June 2004, Bush said he stood by his pledge to "fire anybody" in his administration shown to have leaked Valerie Plame's name. His press secretary, after checking with Libby and Karl, assured the public that neither man had anything to do with the leak.

It turns out they both were involved, though Rove has not been charged and neither man has been charged with breaking the law against revealing the identity of an undercover agent.

The president's own supporters call that a Clintonesque distinction that violates the spirit of Bush's pledge from 2000. Some say Bush should publicly chastise Libby and Rove while insisting on a public accounting of Cheney's role.

A White House official privately put it this way: Bush has to step up somehow and be accountable.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_leadership_woes;_ylt=AmCRa.4ug5q4QmZ6xOzxE9is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

How can Bush change this? Many are suggesting a shake up in the white house, new blood and new ideas can turn him around. I completely agree, he needs to seperate himself from those involved in the Plame scandal and bring in fresh blood. Trying to make new issues to overshadow the old ones isn't going to work.

How many think a pull out in Iraq will happen around the '08 election and a small pull out may happen around the '06 election?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
As Trent Lott would say, "Happy days are here again."

;)
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unsuccessful?

That is an understatement.

Here is a little experiment you can do. Go to http://www.google.com and type miserable failure in the search box. See what the number one hit is. :rofl
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
danarhea said:
Unsuccessful?

That is an understatement.

Here is a little experiment you can do. Go to http://www.google.com and type miserable failure in the search box. See what the number one hit is. :rofl
That is a joke by google. Number two hit is Michael Moore. If you want the joke to work better tell the person to enter in 'failure' and push the "I'm feeling lucky' button instead of 'Google search'.

It does show that the decision makers over at google are most likely democrats. I guess that kills some conservatives theory that all democrats are on welfare.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Gibberish said:
It does show that the decision makers over at google are most likely democrats.
The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
scottyz said:
How can Bush change this? Many are suggesting a shake up in the white house, new blood and new ideas can turn him around. I completely agree, he needs to seperate himself from those involved in the Plame scandal and bring in fresh blood. Trying to make new issues to overshadow the old ones isn't going to work.

How many think a pull out in Iraq will happen around the '08 election and a small pull out may happen around the '06 election?
Well, pandering to the electorate worked in the past. Why do you think we are hearing about more tax cuts? Nevermind the fact that it will throw us a few score more billion in debt. What is that on top of the $2.4 trillion he has borrowed from our future so far? Tax cuts are popular, he'll do that.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,445
Reaction score
72,349
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
scottyz said:
The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.

it has several names-spam jacking etc. It has nothing to do with reality, just the number of dem minions who blog and create other internet traceable articles that call Bush a failure.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
TurtleDude said:
it has several names-spam jacking etc. It has nothing to do with reality, just the number of dem minions who blog and create other internet traceable articles that call Bush a failure.
It's called Google Bombing. Google management doesn't interfere with it and any group of people can do it themselves.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
I do not see how Bush's presidency can be seen as unsuccessful. First he still has three years remaining before you can judge the entire term.

Second, the number one job of the President is to protect the citizens. Bush inherited a country that was weak on national security, thus 9/11 happened on his watch. Since then he has taken bolder steps to fight terrorism than any other President (Democrats and Republicans). As a result several plots have been revealed and derailed. So he is protecting the American people admirably. He (through the mighty American military) ousted the terror supporting regime in Afghanistan, captured or killed several terror leader, and put the others on the defensive. Name one administration that can even come close to accomplishing that.

Third, the huge tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of all taxpayers. Libs can say "it's tax breaks for the rich" but it's also tax breaks all classes. I'm not rich by on means, but thanks to GW I keep more of the money I earn and less goes to the government.

Time will tell whether or not the presidency has been successful or not. Clinton did (or failed to do) a number of things I did not agree with, but I would not label his time in office as a whole unsuccessful.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
scottyz said:
The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.
Google Refuses Conservative Ad, Similar to Liberal Ad
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 04, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The world's best known Internet search engine, Google.com, stands accused of liberal political bias after allegedly refusing a conservative group's ad, which had text nearly identical to an advertisement the company previously accepted from a liberal group. Google denied the charge Tuesday and said it treats all of its users and customers fairly...


..."We were using Google, typed in 'Tom DeLay,' and saw all the Google AdWords on the right-hand side that came up there and they were all anti-DeLay ads," Greene said.

Greene decided to buy an advertisement supporting DeLay and to try to spend enough money to get his ad to come up on the top of the list.

"So we did that, and then we decided that - as part of this campaign to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are attacking DeLay - we decided to do a specific ad against Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader," Greene explained...


..."That's all we did," Greene told Cybercast News Service. "We took the liberal ad and changed the words to make it a conservative ad."

But Google refused the ad.


"At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization," Google wrote Greene on the administration page of his ad account. "As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site."

"Well, that's great! They're a private organization, they can certainly make that decision" Greene said. "But then we looked, and all the anti-DeLay ads were still up, including the one we had copied word-for-word except that we changed the name."


Other anti-DeLay advertisements that were accepted by Google including, "Help Us Defeat DeLay," "Don't delay, Oust DeLay," "Tom DeLay's Rear End" and "tom delay [sic] a republican [sic] showing his true colors," among several others. Only two ads that could be construed as not negative toward DeLay were displayed: One for a "Great Conservative Book - Eyes Wide Open: What Liberals Don't Want You to Know About America!" and another exhorting viewers to, "Pray for Tom DeLay."

Tuesday morning, if visitors searched Google under Pelosi's name, anti-DeLay ads were also returned under the "sponsored links."


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200505%5CSPE20050504a.html
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
scottyz said:
The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.
How about another?...

Google blocks ad for anti-Clinton book
Content 'unacceptable' despite search giant's 'Hate Bush' themes

Posted: June 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A conservative book publisher says the search engine giant Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes.

Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine" were rejected, without futher explanation, due to "unacceptable content."

Jackson says Google's online ad guidelines make no mention of political content being disallowed.

He points out that while ads for the anti-Clinton book -- which featured images of the book's cover and pictures of the former first couple -- were deemed offensive, the company continues to run ads for overtly liberal advertisers with headlines such as "Hate Bush? So Do We," and "George W. Bush fart doll."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44717

Also found on a more bipartisan site...

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/6/emw250302.htm
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
scottyz said:
The decision makers at Google have nothing to with that.
Since you're widely known for throwing out articles, let's say we do another?

Google for Kerry?

According to USA Today, 98% of search engine's employees gave money to Democrats in '04.
February 14, 2005: 8:36 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. employees took out their wallets and showed overwhelming support for the Democratic Party last year, according to a report Monday in USA Today.

A USA Today campaign finance analysis found that, of the company's overall political contributions, 98 percent went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.

The online search company's employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates during last year's election campaign, which includes the White House race between Democrat John Kerry and the winning incumbent Republican, President Bush. The contributions were up from just $250 in 2000 when Google was a start-up, according to the paper.


http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/technology/google_democrats/
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ANAV said:
I do not see how Bush's presidency can be seen as unsuccessful. First he still has three years remaining before you can judge the entire term.
You're right, we can only judge it as it has gone so far. And so far it has been a disaster.

Second, the number one job of the President is to protect the citizens. Bush inherited a country that was weak on national security, thus 9/11 happened on his watch.
I disagree that 9/11 was a failure of our "weakened" armed forces. Our armed forces were and are the best in the world. It was a failure of intellegence and acting upon known intellegence.

Since then he has taken bolder steps to fight terrorism than any other President (Democrats and Republicans). As a result several plots have been revealed and derailed. So he is protecting the American people admirably.
Questionable conclusion. So far in his administration more than 5000 Americans have died in terrorist attacks. Approximately 100 times more than the previous administration.

He (through the mighty American military) ousted the terror supporting regime in Afghanistan, captured or killed several terror leader, and put the others on the defensive. Name one administration that can even come close to accomplishing that.
Bin Laden the man who was responsible for 3000 deaths: "We'll get him dead or alive." I don't call that a success.

Third, the huge tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of all taxpayers. Libs can say "it's tax breaks for the rich" but it's also tax breaks all classes. I'm not rich by on means, but thanks to GW I keep more of the money I earn and less goes to the government.
This statement is not true. Tens of millions of Americans do not pay income tax; or pay very little -- pay an effect 14% payroll tax. Despite there being a huge surplus in the SS tax, Bush did not cut payroll taxes. These folks received no or little benefit from the Bush tax cuts, that mostly benefitted the wealthy.

Time will tell whether or not the presidency has been successful or not. Clinton did (or failed to do) a number of things I did not agree with, but I would not label his time in office as a whole unsuccessful.[

This president inherited an America that had a large debt ($5.6 trillion) thanks to previous Republican administrations defeicit budgets, but in 2000 was in surplus and poised to pay that debt down so that future generations of Americans would inherit an America that was strong and not burdened with debt. This President's policies -- tax cuts and spending increases -- instead created 1/2 trillion annual increases in debt. The national debt now stands at $8 trillion. This is a massive and tragice failure of government that will haunt our country for decades to come.

Whether you believe it is merited or not, the Iraq war was without dispute based on massive failures in the use of intellegence. As a result we got into a war based on reasons that turned out to be false. A massive, and tragic failure of foreign policy that will haunt our country for decades to come.

Based on the track record so far, the verdict is pretty clear to me.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Your numbers on deaths is very skewed. You are counting the deaths and attacks during a war in two countries. A better example of counting terror attacks would be to count the number of attacks against America (at home and abroad) during peacetime.

Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center - 6 killed, 1000 injured
March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate - Two American diplomats killed
November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters - Seven killed
June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers - 19 U.S. airmen killed
November 1997: Karachi, Pakistan - Five killed
August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies - 263 killed, 5000 injured
October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden - 17 killed

We should of been at war with terrorism long before 9/11. If Clinton would have taken 10% of the actions that Bush has taken to fight terrorism, then 9/11 would have never happened. I've changed my mind, Clinton failed to protect the American people therefore his presidency was a total disaster. I count 318 American deaths contributed to Islamic terrorist during the Clinton administration with little to no response. Why did it take so long to take terrorism seriously and take aggressive measures to fight it?
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ANAV said:
Your numbers on deaths is very skewed. You are counting the deaths and attacks during a war in two countries. A better example of counting terror attacks would be to count the number of attacks against America (at home and abroad) during peacetime.

Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center - 6 killed, 1000 injured
March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate - Two American diplomats killed
November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters - Seven killed
June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers - 19 U.S. airmen killed
November 1997: Karachi, Pakistan - Five killed
August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies - 263 killed, 5000 injured
October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden - 17 killed

We should of been at war with terrorism long before 9/11. If Clinton would have taken 10% of the actions that Bush has taken to fight terrorism, then 9/11 would have never happened. I've changed my mind, Clinton failed to protect the American people therefore his presidency was a total disaster. I count 318 American deaths contributed to Islamic terrorist during the Clinton administration with little to no response. Why did it take so long to take terrorism seriously and take aggressive measures to fight it?
Yes, the numbers are very skewed.

Can you give us a link that the 263 killed in Nairobi were Americans?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom