« Stem cell initiatives: good politics, bad policy | Main | Hillary and the pledge, contd. »

August 05, 2005


Bush is only popular to his base, which is a large number of Americans; Ronald Reagan was popular to his base. The problem is the media the left wing media, which has smeared such great men lately such as Robert Novak. Bush has many loyal people in his administration; this is good for the country. The country would be broken apart if we had another
Watergate. The media has smeared Bush and his policies because they have nothing on him, and his administration will not let the liberal Kennedy elite media bring him down like they brought down Richard M. Nixon.

Yeah, the "left-wing" media has smeared him. That plus a lot of dead Marines this week as he heads off for the longest presidential vacation in 36 years.

Don't even compare Bush to Reagan. Reagan won 49 states. Whether you liked him or not, he won big. He was also willing, on occaision, to compromise.

Bush is one of the most narrowly elected presidents in history. He didn't even win the popular vote in 2000, and won by 3 points in 2004. Yet he has been the most uncompromising, in-your-face, right-wing president I can remember and I've been around a while.

Combine that with his deception about the war in Iraq and he is becoming unpopular. It isn't complicated and it isn't the media. Try a new excuse.

One huge difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations is the way their poll numbers are covered in the press. When Clinton dipped in the polls, the media would inevitably write a slew of process stories about an administration in disarray, the need to change tactics, etc.

Brendan, the problem with your conclusion is that after 1994, Clinton's approval ratings remained relatively high. After 1996, his approval ratings averaged 61%. Prior to the summer of 1996 it averaged 51%. His lowest points were in the two years following the election.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the evidence of this supposed media feeding frenzy whenever Clinton's numbers 'dipped.'

If you go back to the beginning of 2004, Bush's numbers

Looks like the rest of my comment got eaten. It contained a link going here:


If you go back to the beginning of 2004, Bush's numbers have been pretty consistent with slight movement up and down (see url above). The bottom line is, there's nothing much to report.

Yet he has been the most uncompromising, in-your-face, right-wing president I can remember and I've been around a while.

Please. Bush's tenure has hardly been 'right-wing.' In fact, on a variety of issues, he's been far more moderate that Reagan, or the GOP in the years following the 1994 mid-term elections.

Jay has a point. Bush's presidency has been right-wing only in its religious tone. His deranged, out-of-control spending is anything but right-wing.

I can't tell if Kyle's comment is ultra-ironic. Well played, sir.

Robert Novak is a great man?

Somehow, publishing the name of a CIA agent after the CIA asks you not to, apparently because they just didn't ask the 'right' way, is hardly the hallmark of a 'great man.'

Don’t only blame Bush on the ultra-spending, blame CONGRESS for letting it happen. To say that Bush is not a real conservative is absolutely incorrect. Look at his position on Stem Cells, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Taxes( death tax, and his great tax cuts), and Gun Rights

Why? Well, the first difference is that Bush's people don't leak....

Not true. They "leak" to the press all the time--witness how many stories mention "sources within the Administration," never mentioning names. The difference is, Bush's White House leaks strategically, mostly for misdirection's sake.

Bush takes credit for the good things that happen in his administration, he must take credit for the bad things. Especially on spending - Bush is the one who submits those absurd budgets. If Bush didn't like a spending program, it wouldn't get through - he lets all that pork through because that's raw meat for his "base" (as he calls them).

And while Bush may not be right-wing or conservative in the classic sense, he is definitely uncompromising. From the moment he came into office he has been "my way or the highway", even in cases where it might have suited his interest to compromise (eg Social Security).

If you think the country is in greater threat from the discovery of scandal than from scandal itself you're betraying your nation in order to stay loyal to your party. That's the bottom line. No amount of window dressing can divert from the fact that you do not love your country.

What a joke! Of course the press smears Bush. This is all they do. Bush has compromised all over the place. He signed tariffs for steel. He passed an education bill with TED KENNEDY. He went to the UN when the Dems demanded it. A highway bill was passed with all sorts of pork in it for polliticians of both parties. There are polls manufactered all the time to slam Bush. Get with it people.

Maybe it's because "the press" looked at the internals and saw the party affiliation for this poll was tilted 50-40 Democrat. If you normalized the party affiliation to the last election, you'd see no drop whatsoever.

SaveFarris, if you look at the last five major polls, no one has approval of the job Bush is doing as president over 45 percent. I agree that people shouldn't take any one poll as gospel, but everyone is finding that his approval numbers are low.

The comments to this entry are closed.