CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Glad to see USA Today is capable of seeing the obvious
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Glad to see USA Today is capable of seeing the obvious

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/05/02/bush-poll.htm" target="_blank">http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/05/02/bush-poll.htm</a>

Bush's rating not just wartime bounce




By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY

There is more to President Bush's relatively high approval ratings than just the patriotic, rally-round-the-flag effect of his leadership in the war on terrorism, a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll suggests.

Built on the faith Americans showed in him following his response to terror attacks on Sept. 11, the poll shows that almost eight months later Bush has developed an image among most Americans as a strong, competent, leader who shares their values and has elevated respect for presidency.

Once seen by many as not quite up to the job, analysts say he has effectively used the groundswell of support that buoyed him after the attacks to earn high marks for his overall conduct in office and forge strong personal bonds with a broad majority of Americans.

"You've got to think this is more than just the normal bounce from the rally effect," says independent pollster Larry Hugick of Princeton Research Associates. "We have seen some slippage in Bush's approval after peaking in October, but his personal ratings are still quite high."

The poll suggests that Americans have taken a closer look at Bush since Sept. 11 and find that while they strongly approve of how he has led the country in response to the terrorist attacks, they also generally like him as a person and admire his character, regardless of whether they agree with him on the issues.

"Bush comes across as the average American — very warm, very sincere, very friendly. ... It's hard to dislike him," says Jaime Regalado, director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University at Los Angeles.

Or as Amy Muzzocchi, 35, a computer worker in Rosedale, Md. put it, "He turned out to be a lot better than I thought."

But whether Bush can translate that goodwill into political clout to advance his legislative agenda and elect Republicans to Congress in November remains a question mark.

Perceptions in Washington that his support is slipping — 90% in September to 77% now — have emboldened Democrats to criticize him and some conservative Republicans to balk at toeing the Bush line on issues such as the Middle East.

At the same time, the poll shows that Bush's political coattails may be short.

Seventy percent say Bush deserves re-election, but if the congressional elections were held today, voters favor Democrats over Republicans, 48%-44%.

"President Bush has done an excellent job in the war on terrorism, but on kitchen table issues such as health care and education, the public trusts Democrats," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Issues aside, more than three of four Americans continue to approve of the job Bush is doing, a high level of support rarely sustained over such a long period of time by previous presidents.

Only Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, the first year of World War II, and Kennedy in 1961, his first year in office, have maintained job approvals above 70% for longer than Bush has.

Analysts say that reservoir of personal confidence and trust could be a source of political strength if another terrorist attack occurs or he moves militarily against Iraq.

"In tough times, most American always give presidents they like and respect the benefit of the doubt," Emory University political scientist Merle Black says.
post #2 of 30
Well, at least the American public respects him. I don't think there are too many other countries in the world that do.
post #3 of 30
USA Today being the most respectable paper in America, right?

And Gallup Polls being the pulse of the nation and all.
post #4 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
jacktorrance1:
Well, at least the American public respects him. I don't think there are too many other countries in the world that do.
And that just breaks my heart.
post #5 of 30
I saw Bush's speech the other day, the one about "compassionate conservatism." I know this because he used the terms "compassionate" and "conservative" about a hundred and fifty-seven times throughout the course of the speech. I know he didn't write the thing, but it sure made him look like he was talking down to his audience, which is a position I really don't think he's used to.

As for the body of the speech, it was filled with all kinds of feel-good homilies like "our schools are our future," "welfare should be about dignity," and "we should help our charities." Yes, and disease should be cured and babies should be fed. How could the guy not be popular?
post #6 of 30
From <a href="http://andrewsullivan.com/" target="_blank">Andrew Sullivan:</a>

THE FALKLANDS EFFECT: I'm not at all surprised that polls are finding that president Bush's mind-boggling levels of public support cannot be fully explained by the war effect alone. That model was always too crude. Some leaders will experience an uplift during times of national crisis, but if the public never really respected them, and if the war highlights their weaknesses as much as their stengths, then, as soon as tensions ease, the bubble bursts. Not so with Bush. I think the model here is a different one: what the war did is show Americans what kind of man they elected. His calm, determination, ordinariness, sense of humor and sense of grief, resonated. We bonded. That bond will last and be converted into other things. It does not mean that everyone will agree with his specific policies; but it does mean that his popularity can be used to put extra oomph behind those policies, whatever their popular support. The best analogy is with Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands War. For her entire period in office, she never won an absolute majority of votes, and always had a strong, if divided, opposition. In polls, most Brits disagreed with her on most issues. But they respected her character, her grit, her steel under fire - and it was the war that revealed this more than anything. Bush is not like Thatcher. He's far more likeable. He is clearly, in my view, what he would call "a good man." I came to this realization during the campaign - especially compared to his callow rival. The media did their best to cloud this view. The New York Times continues to run an incessant campaign against him - from op-eds to news stories. But this time, the public woke up from their usual (and defensible) preoccupations, took a good, long look for themselves, and liked what they saw. Even Californians. The public looks through ideological litmus tests to, yes, character. And they're right. That's why I'm not going to join the chorus of conservative criticism of Bush's recent Middle East diplomacy. Sorry, I know he's not a sell-out. I trust him. For me, this underlying trust helps balance out my occasional worries about policy wobbles or tacks. The same goes for many others, I think, far away from the Washington hot-house. And it will last.
post #7 of 30
I've lost most of my respect I had for GW.

post #8 of 30
[Digression]

Political Discourse Recent Visitors: 5
Kronos, Poxy Von Sinister, Burke, devilf, and Call


A motley bunch, that's for sure.[/Digression]
post #9 of 30
Can I be Vince Neil?
post #10 of 30
Your nose isn't big enough.
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Poxy Von Sinister:
Can I be Vince Neil?
Sorry. You are Nikki Sixx. Good luck.
post #12 of 30
I could jump in...
post #13 of 30
If these poll questions are as penetrating as the last bunch, I remain unimpressed.

I like how the pollster tells what people have got to think: " 'You've got to think this is more than just the normal bounce from the rally effect,' says independent pollster Larry Hugick of Princeton Research Associates."

No I don't.
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Refrozen Seabass:
If these poll questions are as penetrating as the last bunch, I remain unimpressed.

I like how the pollster tells what people have got to think: " 'You've got to think this is more than just the normal bounce from the rally effect,' says independent pollster Larry Hugick of Princeton Research Associates."

No I don't.
Seabass, if not these polls, then what? Do we take the political leanings of those on these boards as being representative of the entire country? I think not, as this crowd is far from "average Americans" and I include myself in here with the other weirdoes.

Unless you've visited the middle America and the South, that I have seen, you don't know the depth of respect people have for GW.

HE might or might not be a great President. I think the jury is still out on Clinton and he had 8 years. What;s important is how people feel about the President and how he makes Americans feel about being Americans.

American is in an interesting position in the world. It is the sole superpower left standing. I think there are few countries that could be trusted to hold that much power in the world alone. History would indicate I am right on that point.

Was Kennedy are great man or great President? Probably not, but he made Americans feel great about being Americans and that was a great thing. It was the same with Reagan.

The jury is still out on Bush, but the first indications, based on his popularity figures would indicate that he is doing his job.

No President will ever satisfy every person in the country, not even close, but approval ratings of from 70 to 90 percent leave little doubt as to Bush's effectiveness is representing and doing the job that most Americans want him to do. Around here its majority rule, no matter what the nasty, pissed off minority says. It really is the best way too. There are some, as you know, who will never be happy or satisfied, no matter who is President and unless he or she does exactly what that person wants and ignore the vest majority of those he is supposed to represent. That is dictatorship. That was every evil ruler down through history. That is not America.

Despite what a few oddballs think and the bad wishes of others from other countries, we Americans realize we have a very special country here and are justifiably proud of it.

I suspect you feel the same about your country, deep down. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

post #15 of 30
Quote:
Nasty Ol' Will
[QB What;s important is how people feel about the President and how he makes Americans feel about being Americans.

[/QB]
The president is not the national cheerleader - what is important is the JOB he is doing, not how he makes you FEEL.
post #16 of 30
Besides, anybody who was president after 9/11 would probably be riding this high right now. You have to admit, it's a pretty hard scenario to screw up.
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Poxy Von Sinister:
Besides, anybody who was president after 9/11 would probably be riding this high right now. You have to admit, it's a pretty hard scenario to screw up.
No, the immediate aftermath could have been handled quite badly. What we witnessed seems to have been a best case scenario.

I can think of several ways a lesser President -one of which we'll never know- might have mis-handled that situation. And listing any of said cases is purely speculative therefore not necessary to share here.
post #18 of 30
What, he could have shrugged and said "Wow, too bad?"

Any president with any kind of competent staff would have been able to spout the appropriate sadness, remorse, and anger Bush has. If they couldn't, they wouldn't have ever been able to get their party's nomination, let alone get elected.
post #19 of 30
Quote:
devilf:
Quote:
Nasty Ol' Will
[QB What;s important is how people feel about the President and how he makes Americans feel about being Americans.
The president is not the national cheerleader - what is important is the JOB he is doing, not how he makes you FEEL.[/QB]
Yawn, well that's very inters........ snore, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Poxy Von Sinister:
Besides, anybody who was president after 9/11 would probably be riding this high right now. You have to admit, it's a pretty hard scenario to screw up.
Poxy, I think many feel like you do, but that is not really correct.

Actually, The US suffered eight (8) attacks in the preceeding eight years, before George W was elected and we did nothing.(Marine Barracks, the USS Cole, Somalia, ad nausium) There was always a promise to do something about the attacks, but nothing was ever carried out.

After 9-11. for the first time, the US retaliated and it is a beautiful thing. Despite being told the Afghanistan army would kick our asses, like they did to the Russians and that we couldn't win, we did quite nicely. Now the fuckheads responsible for murdering. freely and without fear of retaliation for so many years, are being hunted like the animals they are and the American people are pleased as hell to finally have someone doing something to protect them.

I think you have missed the fact that Americans don't enjoy being murdered without any action being taken against the murders. (I can't blame you for feeling the way you do, as it seems almost logical that anybody could have handled it, but the previous eight years of no action show that isn't true.)

Had the previous administration still been in office, "minstrating" or whatever they did, they would have blown it, big time, as evidenced by their past failures to take any effective action.

Bush, on the other hand, did not fail to take effective action and he is riding the popularity wave because of what he did.
post #21 of 30
The examples you site are nothing like 9/11. Those were all instances of military personnel dying in the line of duty, no matter how tragic the circumstances. What happened to them is forever part and parcel of enlisting in the armed forces. They knew that what happened was a possibility, and were trained to deal with it. The September 11th attacks were right in our guts, on our own soil, against mostly civilians. There had to be a response. Do you honestly think Clinton would have done nothing? Or that George W. would have done more in the wake of your examples? I find either assumption hard to make.
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Seabass, if not these polls, then what? Do we take the political leanings of those on these boards as being representative of the entire country? I think not, as this crowd is far from "average Americans" and I include myself in here with the other weirdoes.
I'd suggest a poll like the monster Kronos posted a while back, distributed to 10 million people. 70 percent of the population may well love George Bush, but asking less than 1000 people one question about his work isn't the way to find out.
post #23 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Poxy Von Sinister:
The examples you site are nothing like 9/11. Those were all instances of military personnel dying in the line of duty, no matter how tragic the circumstances. What happened to them is forever part and parcel of enlisting in the armed forces. They knew that what happened was a possibility, and were trained to deal with it. The September 11th attacks were right in our guts, on our own soil, against mostly civilians. There had to be a response. Do you honestly think Clinton would have done nothing? Or that George W. would have done more in the wake of your examples? I find either assumption hard to make.
I know that you're probably not saying this, but it sure sounds like because the previous targets were primarily military (not all of them were) that a response wasn't really that important or even required.
ANY attack on Americans deserves a devestating response and Bill Clinton simply did not follow through.
post #24 of 30
Here's an idea, for all the busybody pollsters out there:

Take yer polls, and ...

Fill in the rest yourselves.

Seriously, anybody who takes the results of these absurd public polls seriously is no less ridiculous than people who take the National Enquirer seriously (or even devote a substantial amount of time to reading that ass-rag).

post #25 of 30
Quote:
Poxy Von Sinister:
The examples you site are nothing like 9/11. Those were all instances of military personnel dying in the line of duty, no matter how tragic the circumstances. What happened to them is forever part and parcel of enlisting in the armed forces. They knew that what happened was a possibility, and were trained to deal with it. The September 11th attacks were right in our guts, on our own soil, against mostly civilians. There had to be a response. Do you honestly think Clinton would have done nothing? Or that George W. would have done more in the wake of your examples? I find either assumption hard to make.
Look at what you are saying. Yes, they were military personnel, but they were human beings and more imoportantly, they were our military and they did deserve to be allowed to live and not written off by some guy who was too busy worrying about have his root sucked. Clinton promised action, but failed to take it over and over and the terorrist learned not to expect any retaliation for us.

Sorry, One American murdered by terorrists is more than enough reason to go kick some terorrist ass. You are dead wrong on this one.

You SPECULATE and you ASSUME that Clinton would have done something. I am NOT speculating that during the preceding eight years he failed at every turn to do something. He might have done something, but based on his consistant failures to act I think it is more than possible that he wouldn't have or he would have blown it. (No pun intended)

Past actions are very indicative of what a person would have done. Clinton demonstrated over and over that he was not prepared to retaliate or take effective action against those who attacked Americans or American interests. Why would you assume he would have done better after 09-11? It simply makes no sense, but then those who don't like Bush and his politics would have a very hard time admitting he is deserving of the high popularity he enjoys today. Nevertheless, Bush is receiving that popularity because we don't have to wonder how he would have reacted to an Attack on Americans, we already know, by observation.
post #26 of 30
Quote:
John:
Here's an idea, for all the busybody pollsters out there:

Take yer polls, and ...

Fill in the rest yourselves.

Seriously, anybody who takes the results of these absurd public polls seriously is no less ridiculous than people who take the National Enquirer seriously (or even devote a substantial amount of time to reading that ass-rag).
There is nothing wrong with taking pools. Polling is a scientific method of establishing how people feel. It is a VERY effective marketuing tool, if it is understood.

Good, reliable polls are very accurate at determining how the "Public" feels about something.

I am not saying both sides don't try to use polls that show their position is in the majority, when that is the case. Decrying these polls because they don't say what you want them to say is silly.

They work to a certain degree of accuracy and no naysaying is going to change that.
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Nasty Ol' Will:

You SPECULATE and you ASSUME that Clinton would have done something. I am NOT speculating that during the preceding eight years he failed at every turn to do something.
I think the more interesting question is whether Bush would have acted differently in Clinton's shoes.

Even if you take Clinton to be in the political game for his own sake, it would absolutely have served him to retaliate for 9/11. Whether the reasons behind the retaliation were moral, political, or simply selfish, there would have been attacks on Al Quaeda and the Taliban. If you get off the "Clinton WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG" podium for a second, you'll see any president would have had little choice in striking back.

I think the attacks on the military targets are a far grayer area, and you seem to be assuming Bush WOULD have handled that differently than Clinton. Without the simplistic "guy on the left is dumb, and guy on the right is smart" rhetoric, could you explain why this would be?
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Nasty Ol' Will:
Sorry, One American murdered by terorrists is more than enough reason to go kick some terorrist ass. You are dead wrong on this one.
So the death of one person is enough to risk triggering a global war? The last time that happened I believe it was called World War I, and look what that accomplished.

And if you're going to call the death of military personnel on military operations "murder," then we've been knowingly party to some of the biggest mass murders in the history of the planet.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
The Crazy World of DaveB:

I think the attacks on the military targets are a far grayer area.....
Indeed. We didn't exactly dismantle Hezbollah after they claimed responsibility for carrying out the devastating Marines barracks suicide bombing in Lebanon back in 1983. The correct military response is not always obvious.
post #30 of 30
Who was president then? And damn him for his inaction.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Glad to see USA Today is capable of seeing the obvious