Posted on 10/23/2005 6:23:26 PM PDT by bnelson44
President’s job approval hits 45%; Voters optimistic about Iraq after Constitution passage—New Zogby America Poll
President Bush, his job approval rating beleaguered by poor marks in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, rebounded from historic lows this summer to 45% in Zogby International’s latest poll, with job approval numbers bumping back up into the range where they have hovered for most of his second term.
The survey also found that, while voters do not give the President passing marks on his handling of the Iraq War, half (50%) believe the recently-passed Iraqi constitution is a major step in the right direction for the strife-torn nation that will lead to peace and democracy. Meanwhile, 37% believe Iraq is on the brink of a civil war. The Zogby America telephone poll of 1005 likely voters, conducted from October 19 through 21, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points.
While the President’s overall job approval is up, and a 52% majority of voters hold a favorable opinion of him, his handling of any number of issues continues to score negative marks—including his handling of the War on Terror, which is now disapproved by 53% in the survey; this is typically President Bush’s strongest area in the survey.
Bush’s bounce appears to be tied to overall perception of the nation’s direction; three weeks ago, just 40% said the nation was on the right track. This number now stands at 45%.
President Bush’s Job Approval Failing to Gain Traction
President Bush’s 45% rating represents the second straight up-tick in his job approval since bottoming out in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina amid questions about government’s handling of the crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at zogby.com ...
It's up from here. Too bad so many on the right didn't support him at his lowest point.
FWI
Too bad he's given us so many reasons not to.
Too bad so many on the right didn't support him
Ditto that!
Fair weather and Donner Party conservatives. They probably bailed on President Reagan during Iran-Contra.
I and most other conservatives are supporting the Bush Presidency by refusing to kiss his posterior in the manner of sycophant, and by attempting to reverse his worst domestic decision, the Mier appointment. Miers can only damage this country and this presidency.
It's the blind followers who, if listened to, will damage President Bush, by yelling "Good job, boss!" when President Bush appoints Miers to the Supreme Court, or his favorite bank teller from Texas to head the Federal Reserve Bank.
Zogby. 'nuff said.
y-a-w-n...
Rush is a radio talk show host. He has never run for elective office, nor has he had to deal with a Senate full of loose screws, cowards, RINOS, leftists, and common thugs. I see no reason to consider Rush's opinion more valuable than the President's.
The right is always ready to desert even though it hurts their own cause because the Democrats take advantage. The conservatives need to learn to behave.
That's funny, I don't feel like a syncophant. Must just be just bumping my way through life on this one.
I guess we do disagree though.
Thanks for your all-knowing wisdom about what's good for this country and "this Presidency".
Now, how about letting the lady speak at her hearing so we can hear and see her without the MSM filters?
"It's up from here. Too bad so many on the right didn't support him at his lowest point."
I'd hardly say that because people don't like the Miers nomination that we aren't "supporting" him, which is silly. What, we are not allowed to disagree on a decision that will affect our nation for at least the next 2 decades? We aren't the Democrats, afterall.
. . . such cynicism is unbecoming of a rational thinker.
BTW: Who are you using as a benchmark for evaluating the conservatism of President Bush?
If it's President Reagan, stay tuned -- as we 'speak', I'm working with some research associates to determine which of the two presidents is/was more conservative. You may be surprised by what we discover!
Enough to make Howard Dean's head bounce.
Well, well, well . . .
This result seems to correlate with the following:
MIERED IN PUNDITLAND
Word on the Hill is that the latest internal polls show that that inside the Beltway conservative pundits seem to speak only for and to themselves. After a barrage of opposition against Miers from them, the polls show only 7 percent of the members of the GOP who identify themselves as conservative oppose her nomination. Among all GOP members only 9 percent oppose her.
Most of those polled are willing to give the President’s choice the benefit of the doubt until they see how she handles questions at her hearing and express annoyance that the judges have make constitutional law an arcane art. They believe that the Consitution is not an incomprehensible document but rather a simple one, noting that those who felt otherwise were reading into it things they couldn’t—like a prohibition against prayer in the school and a requirement that the state sanction same sex marriage. Clarice Feldman 10 23 05
http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3462
I thought Iran Contra was excellent. Oliver North's book on the subject is one that people should read before passing judgement on that issue.
I'm less than thrilled with the Miers nomination, but the democrats seem to have lost sight of the fact that President Bush won't be running anymore. And his low number isn't that low historically.
Iraq has next to nothing to do with Bush's job approval ratings.
What effects ratings are things that directly effect voters personal lives. Today the approval ratings are tied to Gasoline prices and soon to be inflation.
Gas prices have dropped more than half a dollar a gallon in the last couple of weeks. They are down to 2.38 a gallon here in Chillicothe Ohio. Down from $3.09 a gallon.
If they fall below 1.99 the Presidents approval number will climb to just over 50 percent. If gas prices fall to $1.50 a gallon his approval will reach 55 percent.
At $1.25 a gallon his approval numbers will reach 60 percent.
Special sauce.
You deal with them by being a leader, not by JOINING the loose screws and cowards, or by trying to appease the RINOs and leftists.
Unfortunately, GWB is succumbing to the pressure by morphing into his father.
You are right. But Bush's should lead. I believe that people will follow a strong leader. I was just quoting rush because I believe its true. Reagan passed massive tax cuts and won the cold war with Demonrats running congress. Because he went above the press and congress, he used the bully pulpit and spoke to the american people.
However, there are many who are bashing Bush for much more than that. I am amazed and disgusted by so many who are resorting to using names for Bush which were used only by the liberals up to this point.
I'm grateful to Pres. Bush for his great leadership on so many issues. It's fine to disagree with him on Miers, but the vitriol is way over the top.
So he doesn't suck. Humph.
"Fair weather and Donner Party conservatives. They probably bailed on President Reagan during Iran-Contra."
"Following revelations of arms sales to Iran . . . Reagan's Gallup Poll ratings took a 23-point nose dive. It was said to be the most precipitous decline in a president's approval rating since Gallup began asking questions" . . .
CQ WEEKLY, Oct 17, 1987
Yep, MANY conservatives deserted President Reagan during Iran-Contra; however, even more deserted him in 1981 and 1982 when his Gallup JA approval rating dropped to 35%!
I'm having a hard time understanding when Zogby became credible.
:-) Wait until next week whne Libby and Rove walk, plus Delay's case is thrown out, once again the Rats look like the fools they are. They have no plan, just personal attacks
Now, some of us watch his polls' numbers religiously and use the numbers to find vindication that they're right and Bush is wrong...
However, he went through the same bashing Pres. Bush is going through.
Amazing how so many will jump ship when the going gets choppy. The great leaders like Reagan endure and I think we've got another one in the White House right now.
Ouch...
We all have to make judgments as to what is good for country. I do. You do. We disagree as to whether Miers is good for the country, but one difference between us is that I have arguments behind my views.
My chief argument lies in an examination of her writings, and you should look at them too. She can't write. If she can't write, then she cannot do the kind of thinking required to be an effective conservative Supreme Court Justice. Democrats, knowing this, are delighted that President Bush nominated an intellectual mediocrity to the Supreme Court. Reid and Schumer and grinning from ear to ear.
And now we must "let the lady speak" and go on with the hearings. That will probably happen, but it will only extend the pain for all of us, including you.
It's amazing how many will put party ahead of nation.
"It's the blind followers who, if listened to, will damage President Bush, by yelling "Good job, boss!" when President Bush appoints Miers to the Supreme Court, or his favorite bank teller from Texas to head the Federal Reserve Bank."
From one elitist to another, I ask you . . .
DO WE NEED ELITE SUPREMES?
By Frederick Poorbaugh
1. The Justices who served this year on the Supreme Court have highly elite educations.
The ten earned FIFTEEN degrees from Stanford, Harvard or Yale.
The highway to the SCOTUS goes through Stanford and Harvard. Rehnquist and O'Connor earned their undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford. Souter and Roberts earned both from Harvard. Kennedy and Breyer took a path that for elites constitutes diversity: Stanford, then Harvard. A secondary route goes through Catholic colleges to the elite law schools. Scalia (Georgetown/Harvard) and Thomas (Holy Cross/Yale) came up this way. The third way was geographically limited. Ginsburg stayed in New York State in the lower tier of the Ivy League (Cornell/Columbia). Stevens attended the best private schools in Illinois (Chicago/Northwestern).
Eight of the ten earned a total of fifteen degrees from Stanford, Harvard or Yale. The other two held degrees from very good private universities.
The ten Justices with their undergraduate and law degree universities:
Justice
Undergraduate Degreee
Law Degree
William Rehnquist
Stanford
Stanford
Sandra Day O'Connor
Stanford
Stanford
David Souter
Harvard
Harvard
William Roberts
Harvard
Harvard
Anthony Kennedy
Stanford
Harvard
Stephen Breyer
Stanford
Harvard
Antonin Scalia
Georgetown
Harvard
Clarence Thomas
Holy Cross
Yale
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Cornell
Columbia
John Paul Stevens
Chicago
Northwestern
(The 15th degree: Rehnquist also earned a Master's from Harvard.)
2. President Bush's short list shows no such elitism.
These twelve hold TWO degrees from Stanford, Harvard or Yale.
Alito is elite (Princeton/Yale) and Wilkinson semi-elite (Yale/Virginia). The others hold degrees from good public (Virginia, Michigan) or private (Notre Dame, Baylor) universities, but also from some pretty obscure (Cal State Sacramento, Culver-Stockton College) institutions.
The twelve possible nominees with their undergraduate and law degree universities.
Possible Nominee
Undergraduate Degreee
Law Degree
Samuel Alito
Princeton
Yale
J. Harvey Wilkinson
Yale
Virginia
Janice Rogers Brown
Cal State Sacramento
UCLA
Edith Clement
Alabama
Tulane
Emilio Garza
Notre Dame
Texas
Michael Luttig
Washington and Lee
Virginia
Michael McConnell
Michigan State
Chicago
Harriet Miers
SMU
SMU
Maura Corrigan
Michigan
Univ. of Detroit
Priscilla Owen
Baylor
Baylor
Larry Thompson
Culver-Stockton College
Michigan
Edith Jones
Cornell
Texas
3. The President values quality jurisprudence over elite education.
President Bush earned degrees from Yale and Harvard. He knows the culture of the elite universities, and has decided that a Supreme Court Justice does not need it.
I believe he is acting wisely, not only from trusting his judgement, but because I happen to have earned degrees from Stanford (philosophy of law) and Yale. Both places, like Harvard, are full of very smart people.
Unfortunately, they have become so politically correct that they no longer offer liberal education in the classic sense. Worse, they foster an unspoken contempt for the great unwashed masses for whom they presume to speak. The President's phrase re the soft bigotry of low expectations fits this culture of contempt. Their graduates may be able to rationalize anything, but lack common sense.
4. Compare Anthony Kennedy and Harriet Miers in intelligence, principle and courage.
Anthony Kennedy has degrees from Stanford and Harvard. He has intelligence, but he does not think clearly. He lacks principle. One day he is ready to reverse Roe v. Wade, the next day he is voting to establish abortion on firmer ground. He lacks courage. Once he looked to the Constitution, now he follows opinions from Europe. His hazy worldview combines the guilty angst of a liberal Catholic with the lusting after legacy of an unprincipled politician.
Compare Harriet Miers. Earning two degrees from SMU does not necessarily imply marginal intelligence. The top few percent of students at many universities may be equally smart; it's the bottom 80% who differ vastly. Miers' work record demonstrates the intelligence to function comparably to most of the Justices. (I would love to see a nominee like Scalia and Roberts - head and shoulders above the other Justices intellectually - who is also both an originalist and a conservative. I do not know of any since Robert Bork.) Miers should prove principled, because her evangelical worldview is firmly grounded in America's Christian heritage. Will she have courage? My apprehension comes from having worked in the pro-life cause for decades without knowing anyone profoundly pro-life who has never said so publicly, but this apprehension applies equally to Roberts.
5. President Bush in nominating Miers raises the question: do we need elite Supremes?
He thinks not. He has a good case.
Like many others, I was looking forward to an in-your-face nomination followed by a hard fight and probable win in the Senate. When the President looked at his own troops and saw Specter waiting in ambush, the Gang of Seven fragging Frist from behind, and the RINOs with their skirts over their heads, he may have seen too great a risk for a loss. President Bush appears to have chosen a strategy to win the War for the Court without the Battle of the Senate. I hope his strategy succeeds. If it fails, it won't be because we need elite Supremes.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/09-week/index.php
I think Ronald Reagan was a great president, but he had things he compromised on, including taxes. His overriding goal was to defeat communism, which he did.
President Bush's goal is to win the war on terror. On other issues he will compromise, just like Reagan did. Conservative issues win when the issue is presented to the public correctly and the timing is right. When those two things don't go along with the presentation, we lose (budget shut-down under Clinton is a prime example).
The President is leading. The problem is that we have too many senators who think THEY should be the ones leading. I fault President Bush for not being more ruthless with the Senate, but he is who he is, and he's not going to act in that way. We need a Tom DeLay in the Senate leadership.
Please refer to my post at #18!
Of course it will. Hearings are always a part of the process as well they should be. I don't know why it should be painful for me. I'm looking forward to them.
The Seantors are not responsible to the President, but to their constituents. They aren't concerned about anything except keeping their jobs, which they have figured out how to do without the President.
What are you going to do about the Gang of 14? The President can't just wave a wand and say "Senators, grow a spine!"
So, give me a good example of how you would handle this situation.
I approve of the job that President Bush is doing, with one big exception, the Miers nomination.
And you cannot provide a reason to support Miers. Loyalty to the President is not a reason, as his presidency will not fall with Miers. Bush is a war president, and his legacy will primarily be a birth of liberty in the Mid-East. "Give her a chance to speak" is not a reason. The evidence of a 60-year life is plenty proof of her lack of qualifications, and we would do better to stop the bleeding now.
BTW, this thread turned into a Miers post because of an early post - maybe the 1st - implying that disagreement with President Bush on any issue is somehow disloyalty.
I agree.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
BTW: Who are you using as a benchmark for evaluating the conservatism of President Bush?
I base my judgements on my own opinion, my opinion of what is good for America and the Republican Party. Granting amnesty to hordes of lawbreakers and spending more than any liberal democRAT in history is, in my opinion, not what's best for America or the Republican Party.
If it's President Reagan, stay tuned -- as we 'speak', I'm working with some research associates to determine which of the two presidents is/was more conservative. You may be surprised by what we discover!
It's no one. And Reagan, while a great American president, made an enormous error in judgement by granting amnnesty to the hordes of ILLEGALS in 1986. In fact, congress has granted 7 amnesties including that of 1986 and the problem with ILLEGAL immigration is worse now than ever. Yet Bush pushes his amnesty proposal despite the millions of conservative Republicans who he knows are against it.
If he wanted or deserved our support he's back off.
.
If you cannot first beat your enemy head on then...
...use it's own strengths to defeat it.
Last Wednesday a very aggressive Senator BOXER, who was on the Communists' side against us during the Vietnam War, assailed a testifying CONDI RICE for the BUSH Administration's not telling the American People ahead of time of its plan to democratize the Middle East.
This appropriate War on Terror plan was decided upon early on so we wouldn't have to keep going back to the Middle East to straighten that area of the world out, stated RICE ...rightly.
Much like we democratized Europe after World War II so Germany and France would no longer be at each other's throats.
Senator BOXER finally shut up.
But the Enemy is now Within...
and always has been...
and is planning to impeach BUSH...
just as soon as she can.
.
Interesting??
Some people on FR have convinced themselves that Reagan was the perfect, omniscient conservative who could do no wrong as President.
I absolutely loved Reagan, and his style.
However, Reagan had bigger budget deficits than GWB throughout his 8 years.
Reagan also GAVE AMNESTY to millions of illegal immigrants, thereby assuring that millions more would cross the US borders in hopes of getting similar treatment.
Reagan also cut and ran when 246 US Marines were attacks and slaughtered in Lebanon in 1983.
To me, Reagan was a hero because he changed the face of politics by making it honorable and desirable to be conservative, not to mention that he decimated the Communists, etc.
The frustrating thing about GWB is that he has a GOP House and GOP Senate, and a good network of media in Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, etc. --- but he continues to bend over backwards like a scared rabbit when dealing with the loony left Democrats.
This Miers nomination is just the latest example.
Right. Tell these guys about that. Do you even know who they are?
1. William James Haynes II
2. Brett M. Kavanaugh
3. Susan Bieke Neilson
4. Henry W. Saad
5. Joseph Frank Bianco
6. Timothy Mark Burges
7. Sean F. Cox
8. Thomas L. Ludington
9. Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr.
10. Daniel P. Ryan
11. Brian Edward Sandoval
12. Peter G. Sheridan
13. John Richard Smoak
14. Terrence W. Boyle
15. William Gerry Myers, III
16. Thomas Craig Wheeler
Go tell these guy about how you are going to "fight the fight"
I am sure they could use a good laugh.
It's amazing what one little positive Poll can do to some around :-)
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
One can only wonder what makes your pants move!
Do you think that your opines are so fabulous that they will actually get the job done?
What positive, forward moves are you engaged in to actually make your heartfelt desires happen?
1. She will bring a non-judicial perspective to the court.
2. She is an originalist.
3. The Rats have been lured into thinking she is semi-liberal.
4. I am 100% certain she will vote the way we wish on national sovereignty, life issues, 2nd Amendment issues, and national security issues.
5. I support anyone Bill Kristol opposes, on general principle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.