George W. Bush remains popular among conservative Republicans (72% approve of him) despite his low overall approval rating. Meanwhile, moderate and liberal Republicans are as likely to disapprove as to approve of the job he is doing, and Democrats of all political orientations hold Bush in low regard ....Those from just about every other partisan and ideological perspective give Bush low marks on public support. Bush is currently standing at 29 percent in job approval:
With such a low approval rating, it is hard to find many population subgroups that are favorable to Bush. A look at the groups giving Bush the 10 highest average approval ratings clearly shows how much one's opinion of the president is driven by political attitudes as opposed to demographic characteristics. Only four groups give Bush ratings in excess of 40% approval, and all are defined by political points of view. But because membership in these four groups overlaps (e.g., Republicans and conservative Republicans), when they are subdivided into mutually exclusive groups (as in the first graph), it really is only Americans who are both Republicans and conservatives who hold Bush in high esteem.People in this category are likely to see President Bush in terms of moral clarity, as a president who's willing to stand up to our enemies, and one who's not likely to cave to pacifist public opinion.
History will record that this administration stood firm in America's fight against a fanatical ideology hellbent on the destruction of the West. The costs have been high, but Bush's commitment to victory in Iraq and the broader war on terror will place him in the category of great foreign policy presidents as the immediacy and partisanship of the moment fade over time.
14 comments:
DD wrote: "History will record that this administration stood firm in America's fight against a fanatical ideology hellbent on the destruction of the West. The costs have been high, but Bush's commitment to victory in Iraq and the broader war on terror will place him in the category of great foreign policy presidents..."
That's totally detached from reality. The government's Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism says: "In our judgment, America's margin of safety is shrinking, not growing." And even Bush has admitted Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Sounds like failure to me.
Bush will go down in history for standing firm against terrorism, but he will also go down in history for creating a backlash against the American military greater than even the disaster of Vietnam.
Wow Don, it's fairly rare that I read a post that sets me to laughing so; if we assume that historians are any judge of a president's performance (and why should we not, it's their job), they've already spoken as to Bush's epic failure: http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/worst-president-ever.html
Mark my words, JBW ... Bush will see a similar trajectory as did Harry Truman. And if you're citing Sean Wilentz at your piece, the guy's a hack ... not to be trusted whatsoever.
Don, I'm linking to Scott Horton at Harper's in my piece but I know as little about him as I do this Sean Wilentz you abhor so much, which is pretty much nothing; but having said that: stating that someone is a hack without citing specific examples does not exactly make him so. And before you start citing specific examples, I'm not saying that he isn't a hack because I don't know; I'm just saying that you seem to state your opinion as if it were fact a lot of the time. But hey, it's your site.
And I'm not saying that I know that Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever (although I suspect as much) because I don't know; I'm just saying that "A Pew Research Center poll of 109 leading historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents" and that historians seem to know a lot about history. Feel free to draw your own conclusions; I certainly have.
If the trend we see today continues President Bush will one day soon praised as a man of vision (except by the usual commies, maoist, anarchists , and other people who hate democracy and liberty).
If anyone of you actually follow what is slowly but surely happening in Iraq you would see something very interesting. Iraq is already holding conferences with its neighbors in an effort to not just stablize the area but to develop long term plans for a regional economic growth in transportation and business. Iraqis see that if they can truly succeed in a peaceful democracy that contains all the various Islamic sects and ethnic groups then they have something to teach other Middle East countries. This is reality,
and I would advise all to follow the situation more closely.
I certainly would not say at this stage that Iraqi democracy is a
big success; but I surely know that it is not a failure. Anyone who thinks that Iraq is presently a failure just can't look past the end of their nose.
If the trend we see today continues President Bush will one day soon praised as a man of vision (except by the usual commies, maoist, anarchists , and other people who hate democracy and liberty).
If anyone of you actually follow what is slowly but surely happening in Iraq you would see something very interesting. Iraq is already holding conferences with its neighbors in an effort to not just stablize the area but to develop long term plans for a regional economic growth in transportation and business. Iraqis see that if they can truly succeed in a peaceful democracy that contains all the various Islamic sects and ethnic groups then they have something to teach other Middle East countries. This is reality,
and I would advise all to follow the situation more closely.
I certainly would not say at this stage that Iraqi democracy is a
big success; but I surely know that it is not a failure. Anyone who thinks that Iraq is presently a failure just can't look past the end of their nose.
Norm,
Yeah, Iraqis' futures are so bright they gotta wear shades:
Kirkuk bombing kills 55
Analyst: Iraq political future grim
I have great respect for education and educators Professor Douglas. I also love good satire. Forgive me for not catching on to your sense of humor earlier. But after reading this post of yours I can only ask why you don't change the name of your site from American Power, to The Nutty Professor?
Norm, calling Bush a man of vision in the face of the poll I cited (which you've conveniently ignored) is a testament to your complete lack thereof, and posting this comment twice only makes you look twice as delusional. But that's a good strategy, calling anyone who disagrees with you derogatory names like commies, maoists and anarchists; how can you lose an argument using solid logic like that? Well played.
JBW: Sean Wilentz is a hack, plain and simple. No need to go all around with jumbled prose. I've read him and consider him to be blinded my postmodern hatred.
I know of Scott Horton, but will have to read the piece you cite. He's not an historian, to the best of my knowledge, so his points cannot discredit my thesis. Harry Truman was lower in the polls when he left office than G.W. Bush is now. Yet today Truman is one of the great post-WWII presidents, and among the top ten in American history. That's my analogy. It may take some time, but I firmly believe the Bush administration's foreign policy in Iraq and in the war on terror will be praised by history - not just visionary, but right and firm. Indeed, the Dems are already trying to take credit for winning in Iraq, but they'll never be able to, as they were sabotaging the deployment within weeks of toppling Saddam.
Don, as I said I have no idea who Sean Wilentz is nor do I have any knowledge as to his hackiness; I was just stating that based on past experience you seem to be blinded by your own partisanship at times.
I never said that Horton is a historian, just that he wrote the piece that cited the Pew poll of over a hundred leading historians; the assessment of Bush's incompetence was their's.
I understand the analogy you're going for but I don't necessarily see a correlation: You can point to Truman as an example of what you think history holds for W but I also assume that many presidents have left office with low approval ratings and are still considered by history to be failures.
And my dislike for the Democratic party aside, the truth is that they will be the ones who get us out of that quagmire (and to state that we've "won" is I think quite Pollyannaish, whether you're speaking of the tenuous situation we have now or standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner five years ago).
And I'm trying to remember which Dems it was who sabotaged the deployment within weeks of toppling Saddam: the ones who were running the White House? No, those were Repubs; maybe the ones who controlled both houses of congress? No, Repubs again; perhaps the ones who were running the military? Say, the Commander-in-Chief at the time was Bush, wasn't it? Wow, my memory sure is spotty.
Wait, actually I do remember some things that screwed us after we took down Saddam: ignoring Gen. Shinseki saying that we needed over a hundred thousand more troops, not even trying to understand the hundreds of years of socio-political animosities amongst the three main ethnic groups inhabiting the country, disbanding the army (while letting them keep their weapons) and creating thousands of out of work potential insurgents who looted Baghdad during the chaos, all while not having any plan for the occupation of the country other than empty, naive predictions like "the war will take days, weeks, I doubt months" and "the Iraqi oil reserves will pay for the entire thing".
Yeah, those Democrats really pulled the chair out from under us on that one.
Grace, this was boring; come on, there must be something that's bothering you today that can be blamed on the gays and their conspiracies against America. Crazy it up, girl.
Post a Comment