Approval of Bush's Handling of Iraq Drops By WILL LESTER The Associated Press Updated: 6:05 a.m. ET Aug. 5, 2005 WASHINGTON - Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half now think he's honest. A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number. Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months. American troops have suffered heavy casualties in Iraq in recent days. On Wednesday, 14 Marines were killed in the Euphrates River valley in the worst roadside bombing targeting Americans since the war began in March 2003. William Anderson, a retired Republican from Fort Worth, Texas, said Bush "has the right intentions, but he's going about them the wrong way." "Iraq is one of the issues that everybody has a problem with," Anderson said. "There are some big discussions about it around town. Everybody's got their agreements and disagreements. It seems like there's no end. Is it going to end up another Vietnam?" Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race. Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year. The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue _ with 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not. The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was strongest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election. A further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Bush to win support for his policies in Congress and internationally. "The reason that trust is so important has to do with the long-standing belief that you could trust him, even if you don't always agree with him and don't understand what he's doing," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq." The president said Thursday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, that threats from al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, "make it clear that Iraq is a part of this war on terror, and we're at war." Bush pledged to "complete this job in Iraq." Almost two-thirds in the poll described Bush as strong and likable. "He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Ga., and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me." But the portion of people who view his confidence as arrogance has increased from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now. "This country is a monarchy," said Charles Nuutinen, a 62-year-old independent from Greenville, Wis. "He's turning this country into Saudi Arabia. He does what he wants. He doesn't care what the people want." Six in 10 said they think the country is headed down the wrong track, despite some encouraging economic news in recent weeks. "Iraq is just a great weight holding down perceptions of an economy that is quite robust," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "Whenever you have troops in harm's way, people are anxious about things in general." The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 1-3 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. ___ On the Net: Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. © 2005 MSNBC.com URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8165981/
Well maybe he can stand firm in the saddle on steroid abuse --or maybe not! *********** Under Bush, the Texas Rangers were a Crackhouse for Juiced Players Rafael Palmeiro and the Politics of Distraction By DAVE ZIRIN A close compatriot of President Bush squats in a scandal so malodorous it led news shows from coast to coast. It's a scandal that some say is too hot for Bush to comment on. But there was the President, speaking without a stammer or stutter on this issue of pressing national concern. There was only one curious twist. The scandalized bosom buddy was not the bosomy Karl Rove, but Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro. Yes, in an era of war and economic crisis, Bush took time to rush to the defense of a four-time All-Star who has become the highest profile casualty of Major League Baseball's steroid testing program. Bush called Palmeiro a "friend" and said, "He's testified in public [to being clean], and I believe him.... Still do." Presidential lickspittle Scott McClellan also made clear at a White House press briefing that Palmeiro has the full support of the Oval Office. It no doubt will puzzle future generations (or present ones, for that matter) why the President felt compelled to comment on what a 40 year old ballplayer may or may not have ingested. But the reasons are clear enough. This is a case of how the Bush administration's Politics of Distraction have turned around to nip the President in the tush. It all began at the January 2003 State of the Union address when Bush inexplicably took time to talk tough on steroids. As New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady grinned next to the First Lady, Bush put the plague of steroids on the front burner of the national consciousness. This was Politics of Distraction 101, a classic ploy to give the public something to chew over instead of those two pesky countries the US armed forces happened to be occupying. But a fly flew into the flaxseed oil when bankrupt former all-star, Jose Canseco attempted to capitalize on steroid mania by releasing an inject-and-tell book called, appropriately enough, Juiced. In Juiced, Canseco names every buttock that cozied up to his all-star syringe. Two of those cheeks, Canseco revealed, belonged to Palmeiro. The repercussions were immediate. Palmeiro had always presented himself as a Holy Joe, a rock ribbed Republican, a podium thumper for the American Dream. Thanks to Canseco, Palmeiro found himself subpoenaed and forced to testify in front of congress last March. Grimacing with indignation, Palmeiro wagged his finger and said under oath," Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never." The performance was convincing. So convincing Palmeiro was even named to a Congressional committee that would work to "clean up the sport." Canseco was the liar. Palmeiro the hero dragged through the mud. Never mind that after Canseco joined the Texas Rangers Palmeiro's home run averages jumped from 19 per year to 37. Never mind because the steely-eyed Palmeiro made you believe that his anger was righteous. Now, in the wake of this latest test, he looks like the one thing worse that a liar: a sanctimonious liar. As Tom Boswell of the Washington Post wrote, "In this culture, heaven help you if, after playing that once-per-lifetime, I-swear-on-a-stack-of-Bibles card, you get caught." But Palmeiro thinks he can whip out those Bibles for an encore. In a teleconference Monday, Palmeiro said, "When I testified in front of Congress, I know that I was testifying under oath and I told the truth. Today I am telling the truth again ...I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period." [the guy has to lay off the periods.] Palmeiro's state of disgrace also means that we are now treated to the sight of Canseco, last seen living with Omarosa and Bronson "Balki" Pinchot on VH1's "The Surreal Life", posturing like Abe Lincoln, parading around talk shows saying things like (and I love this quote) "Palmeiro test proves that almost everything in my book is true." If we are now to accept Canseco's book as holy writ, we should also remember that his Texas Rangers team had an owner named George W. Bush who Canseco describes as "most certainly knowing" that the players were on the juice. This went wildly underreported when the book was released, largely because Canseco's credibility was in constant question. Now that Canseco has morphed into Honest Abe, we should start asking whether Bush should receive the next congressional subpoena about steroids in sports. We should ask what Bush actually knows and when did he know it. We should press Palmeiro on what his friend in the owner's box, the former cheerleader from Yale, did and did not allow. We should take these Politics of Distraction, which Bush hoisted into our lives and drop the whole stinking, steaming, anabolic load on his front door. http://counterpunch.org/zirin08032005.html
I've been predicting a crushing defeat for Congressional Republicans in the midterm elections recently. This is just further proof that they are going down! Many of those who voted for Bush's reelection may be regretting it today, and even those who don't regret it, those stubborn fence-sitters, can figure out an easy way to reign him in... get rid of his majority in one, or both ,of the branches of Congress. It isn't rocket science. If I were a Republican in Congress, I'd be carrying a beach towel to wipe the sweat off. They've gotta be feeling the heat from their constituents. Keep D&D Civil!!
Let me spare TJ the post. "Those 62% who have lack of support for President Bush's war on Iraq are traitors to our great country and are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and Bin Laden and not supporting our brave troops, that I support whole heartedly and respect so much that I would volunteer for myself, if I weren't so smart that it would be a waste of brain power. " "Patriotic Americans should tell the pollsters they support the President's policy even if they don't so these polls won't encourage our enemies. Patrotic journalists should refuse to report these polls and patriotic pollsters should refuse to do these polls unless they can be manipulated to reflect support for the President on Iraq"
Deckard, not trying to be a smartass, but how long have the Dems been saying this? And how many times has it been wrong?
I also think that the GOP will have a defeat in the polls in 2006. It may not be crushing given their extraordinary money advantage, the advantage of incumbency and the faith based (i.e fact resistant) voting of many of their loyalists. Iraq is the key. The Texas hard core Baptist supporters of Bush in my wife's family are much to my surprise recently starting to have questions on Bush and Iraq. I expect that they will still vote GOP based on their preacher, abortion and gays.
Disagree, GOP won't suffer much in the midterm elections. You are really underestimating the zealousness of the right-wingers.
Yep as long as they can bring up:- Gays - They're coming to get you! Guns - They're gonna take them away from you! God - They're immoral. Besides God chose Bush to lead you. they can pretty much do whatever they want and at least half the country will remain fixated on those three things.
No, I don't. They aren't a majority by a long shot. It's those in the middle, the moderates and independent voters, who've given Bush his margins of victory... well, the one time he had a margin of victory that was decided at the ballot box, at any rate. I think those voters are going to desert Bush's party in droves, and I think many of them who didn't bother to vote, because they were disgusted by the choices in '04 (with good reason), are going to vote now. We'll find out. I'm very optimistic. Look at the recent margin of victory by the Republican Congressman in Ohio. A safe seat, and there was almost an upset. That's getting some attention. Here's an editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer: 2nd District race was a preview Editorials Tuesday's closely contested special election in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District offered a preview of the issues that will be debated nationwide in next year's midterm elections. War and economy were what occupied the candidates and the voters' minds in Tuesday's battle between Republican Jean Schmidt and Democrat Paul Hackett. Schmidt, a former two-term state representative, appeared to have held onto the predominantly Republican district by a very thin margin. Schmidt won 52 percent to 48 percent, just over 4,000 votes. Hackett's showing was considerably closer than any Democrat has come to taking the district in decades. That was stunning, considering that Republican Rob Portman, whose resignation to become U.S. Trade Ambassador set up Tuesday's race, won the seat with 70 percent of the vote last November. Hackett's support was largely attributable to his status as a veteran of the war in Iraq, and his criticism of how the Bush administration is handling that war. A major in the Marine Corps Reserves, Hackett served a seven-month tour in Iraq in 2004-05. He has said he would be willing to serve a second tour if he lost the election. The fact that reserve and National Guard units are being called upon for second tours is a sign of the conflict's continuing place in the nation's consciousness, a place that it is likely to still occupy during the 2006 campaign season, when every seat in the House and one-third of the Senate will be up for election. If the war's conduct resonates so strongly in the 2nd District, which President Bush carried with 67 percent of the vote in 2004, its echo is likely to be even louder in the rest of the country next year if our involvement in Iraq is unabated. Schmidt won because she capitalized on the district's strong Republican leanings, financially and emotionally. She enjoyed more than $500,000 in support from the National Republican Congressional Committee, which paid for a near-constant stream of television commercials during the campaign's final week. She strongly backed Bush's policies in Iraq and supported the plan to make his tax cuts permanent. The president, in turn, recorded an automated telephone message of support that rang in Republican homes throughout the district, which runs from eastern Cincinnati east to Portsmouth. Schmidt hammered home her lifelong connection to the district and her understanding of the pocketbook issues that concern many of its residents. She talked of increasing economic opportunities by lobbying for corn-based ethanol technology. As a member of the majority party from a key district in a key state, we expect that Schmidt will land committee assignments that will help her benefit the district. As we said when we endorsed her candidacy, we believe Schmidt understands the needs of her constituents and that she will be in a position to see that they are met. Yet this victory offers little respite for the new congresswoman. Tuesday's win only allows her to finish Portman's term. She will have to defend the seat in 2006. And given the Democrats' strong showing Tuesday, she should expect a formidable challenge to begin immediately. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/EDIT01/508030315/1077/newselection Keep D&D Civil!!
Deckard, I would love to see it happen, but I don't think it will. My motivation for wanting a GOP defeat is because I want my party back. I'm tired of this fundamentalist, bigoted, chickenhawk GOP. If the GOP suffers during the midterm elections, then the moderate GOP will gain momentum, which will then pave the way for the GOP to return to what it was. When that happens, I'll root for the Democrats to get crushed in subsequent elections
Oh yes. This should always be top at the list of criteria when judging the president of a democracy. Whether they believe in God.
