Bush's popularity unchanged by foiled bombing plot (AFP wishful thinking alert)

AFP ^ | 08/18/06

[presidio9]

President George W. Bush's popularity was not given a boost by the foiling of an alleged plot to bomb planes flying from Britain to the United States, according to a poll.

The Pew Research Center poll found that 37 percent of Americans approved of Bush's overall performance, virtually unchanged from a July survey.

Fifty percent approved of Bush's handling of terrorist threats, compared to 47 percent in June. The poll was largely conducted after the alleged airline bombing plot was revealed on August 10.

"The severity of the president's image problem is reflected in the fact that while many Americans (49 percent) feel the level of US involvement in resolving the Lebanon crisis has been appropriate, far fewer (36 percent) say they approve of Bush's handling of the issue," Pew said.

Meanwhile, the alleged airline bombing plot did not have a high impact on Americans' concerns about another terrorist attack.

A quarter of people surveyed by Pew expressed "high concern" about an attack against the United States, up from 17 percent in 2004.

The small rise in US public concern is similar to the one seen after the public transportation bombings in London in 2005 and Madrid in 2004, Pew said.

The poll was conducted between August 9-13 among 1,506 people. It has a plus or minus four percentage point margin of error.

[Izzy Dunne]

Everybody already knows that he's working to prevent terrorism.

Everybody already knows that the terrorists are working to defeat America.

Nobody's mind is changed by proof of that.

[coconutt2000]

Probably because most Americans don't know the part that American surveillance played in disrupting the plot.

Most Americans probably think the Brits did this all by themselves because the American part in the operation was completely swept under the rug, or underplayed, or inserted briefly and quickly into news reports with no elaboration or expansion on the subject.

But that's just me griping at how I have to use alternative media resources to get the news I'm looking for because the MSM chooses to excise all the relevant facts from every story they report.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I'd be curious as to the questions beig asked in the poll.

The one I usually like seeing is, "do you think that despite Bush's past successes in stopping terrorism, boosting the economy, lowering taxes and bringing moral clarity to the country, do you continue to see the President as a failure?"

[BoBToMatoE]

Its Pew, what else would you expect.

[cousair]

I hope the DNC will pay bigtime for the slam they have given the only guy in the world who has the guts to stand up to a threat of any kind. Bush is not the conservative everyone wanted, but he isn't the liberal some accuse him of either and he understands what his job is in time of war. He has my total backing because he loves his and my country and is doing all he can to protect it. He also just happens to be the Islamic Terrorists MUSLIM,s worse nightmare because they don't scare him.

[elfman2]

42% according to Russmussen, up 3 points in 7 days and holding.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

[ClaireSolt]

Are you watching the oil prices coming down?

[elfman2]

"Are you watching the oil prices coming down?"

Not really, but I’ve heard about it. Still they haven’t showed up at the pump yet.

[FlipWilson]

Still waiting for the dems plan on fighting terrorism. They oppose the Patriot Act, profiling, no fly lists and cheer the demise of NSA surveillance and NSA data mining (things all recommender by the sacred 9/11 commission) yet at the same time decry that the President is not implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

They oppose military action and want it taken off the table no matter what, even when dealing with a nation like Iran. Instead, they want to work with the United Nations, despite once again it being shown the the UN is an ineffective, antisemitic, anti-U.S., anti-Western Civilization, and corrupt institution. See, for example, the latest UN resolution on disarming the Hezbos collapse before the ink was dry.

They say they want to take us in a "new direction." Well, its clear what that direction is, millions of Americans dead. Dead because to the democrats terrorism is a joke that can be ignored. The REAL IMPORTANT THING IS SOCIALISM!!! Socialism must be implemented at all costs!!! Our cities being nuked!?!? Never going to happen, not in the dems minds. Just like it was never possible that terrorists would fly planes into buildings.

To 99% of Americans, 9/11 was a horrible event (the 1% being the Ward Churchills and Ramsey Clarks). Even still, to the democrats it was a horrible event because those damn nuisance terrorists interrupted the implementation of socialism. I mean, things were going great up until that point, the dems were getting ready to obstruct and oppose the "llegally" selected President, win the mid-terms and impeach him. Instead, they had to line up behind him, which they only did in appearance as Daschle and Clinton were busy setting up the 9/11 commission to try and blame Bush for 9/11). The interruption of their plans was the real tragedy for them. Not the loss of life (the dead only vote dem don't ya know), and not the damage to the economy (hey, worse economy since Hoover another thing to use against Bush), no, it was that it woke the country up to the danger of islamic facism.

Of course, the dems can't have that and have worked everyday to convince Americans that Wal-Mart, Haliburton and George Bush are the REAL enemies, not Islamo Facists. With the Lamont victory it is clear that they live in 9/10 land. And why not, thanks to their allies like the ACLU our government is probably more restricted in what it can do now than it was on 9/10. We are afforded less ability than to protect ourselves than we were on the day the terrorists used our ACLU created system against us. Why, Harry Reid can't wait to get to a microphone or release a statement celebrating any setback or judicial decision that puts us back in 9/10 land.

Yep, meet the "new direction." same as the old direction.

[sasafras]

My take on why Bush continues to lag in the poles is that he is not seen as a leader. He is a feminized presence in the white house - he wants to be perceived as friend to all and a foe to none. Its too late for Bush - he decided to play the moderate game when we needed a strong leader like a Lincoln or Washington to move this country forward. Whats most disappointing is that he had so much potential - and pretty much squandered it. The congress will lose the GOP majority because of Bush's lack of courage to speak boldly and lead without worrying what the libs and NY slimes think. I rank him above Carter but thats not saying much.

[frogjerk]

I rank him above Carter but thats not saying much.

So you are saying that Bill Clinton was a better President than George W. Bush?

[presidio9]

Still they haven’t showed up at the pump yet.

That's only because there is a lag time between the oil is sold, and it is delivered and refined. The same thing happens in reverse. When NYMEX takes a big jump upwards the prices at the pump generally remain constant for a couple of weeks too.

[presidio9]

To 99% of Americans, 9/11 was a horrible event (the 1% being the Ward Churchills and Ramsey Clarks). Even still, to the democrats it was a horrible event because those damn nuisance terrorists interrupted the implementation of socialism. I mean, things were going great up until that point, the dems were getting ready to obstruct and oppose the "llegally" selected President, win the mid-terms and impeach him. Instead, they had to line up behind him, which they only did in appearance as Daschle and Clinton were busy setting up the 9/11 commission to try and blame Bush for 9/11). The interruption of their plans was the real tragedy for them. Not the loss of life (the dead only vote dem don't ya know), and not the damage to the economy (hey, worse economy since Hoover another thing to use against Bush), no, it was that it woke the country up to the danger of islamic facism.

I posted a thread a few weeks ago that said that 1/3 of Americans believe that the current Adminstration had prior knowledge to the September 11th attack. You are overestimating the intelligence of the American people.

[presidio9]

I rank him above Carter but thats not saying much.

This is idiotic. This person is obviously comparing Bush to Reagan, which is unfair. But this president is clearly more effective than his father and Clinton among recent presidents.

[italianquaker]

opinions we all have them
go Dubya

[sasafras]

If you are implying whether I think Clinton is a better president than Carter - thats like comparing bad to worse. Ultimately it is one mans opinion - take it or leave it - but Bush had a chance to lead on many issues and he had a congress that would of went along after 911 but instead he played his hand as a moderate and ended up alienating everyone. Bush trails in the polls because he is not a leader. After Clinton the GOP wanted to win so bad and take Gore out that we didnt care if the person elected was a moderate. Conservative principles are winning principles we just need the right candidate without too many skeletons and who has good public speaking skills (which Bush get an D+) to orate them to the public. Bush, ulike Reagan, doesnt use the bully pulpit to sway public opinion - his staff is the worst when it comes to using the media at hand (yes I know that most of them are leftests)to orchastrate why the public should be behind certain policies.

Look Im not saying that Bush is the worst president ever - but he will not a have a favorable note in history from either the right or the left. He has done little to make his mark and history books are never written about moderates. The left hates him and the right is not too happy with him either - it is a bed that he has made.

[frogjerk]

Bush trails in the polls because he is not a leader.

Trails who in the polls? He isn't running for President again.

[sasafras]

"But this president is clearly more effective than his father and Clinton among recent presidents."

Oh is that so - well tell us wise grasshopper - what objective evidence do you have for such a statement?

[sasafras]

"Trails who in the polls? He isn't running for President again."

Bush's popularity polling numbers - try re-reading the headline for this blog. His numbers will hurt local candidates and shows that he has little influence on voter opinion - very big if we want to keep congress in the hands of the GOP.