Jump to content


To The Bush Haters


  • Please log in to reply
347 replies to this topic

#1 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 January 2009 - 05:44 AM

I was needling my mother about Obama's recent Treasury appointment not paying his taxes and she said something that made me laugh.She said: "Yea, you Republican's have so much to be proud of"I can honestly say that most republicans I know, when asked about Bush's presidency will tell you he screwed up the ideals of conservatism on all front financial and small government. In fact it would be the reason's why he can be considered a less than good president, if that's all there was.But he took the fight to the terrorist, and that is something most of America wanted. Just because the democrats started running for the 04 and 08 elections by trashing the war, doesn't mean that at the core, we all wanted to take the fight to the middle east and not have it in the streets of the western world. Who wouldn't rather have Osama with an AK47 facing an armed Marine in Iraq than Osama with a car bomb in Chicago?Of course most people wish we hadn't gone into Iraq, after the fact. But everyone who had the intel all agreed that Iraq needed to be changed, and in that region a sniper bullet wouldn't change anything. It became a quagmire for many reasons, which in my opinion were largely due to idealogy of force sizes and military roles than in any malacious reasons for having fewer troops. Pretend all you want, but if we doubles the number of soldiers in Iraq from day one, it would only have cost more and still taken 8 years. The conducting of the war was not perfect, but hindsight is a luxury no one has, and a nonstop battle at home about what we were doing there didn't help the matter. Luckily the troops maintained a record breaking moral level that prevented a vietnam like losing of the war at home from permeating the misson that they conducted with great results.It really boils down to opinion of military maters which most people must admit they are lacking. Obama will get the credit for getting us out, which is how things are...that's normal.So I guess what I am saying is that bashing Bush for the war on terror will always be met with arguments, but understand that myself and most republicans will admit freely that Bush failed in his over spending and his enlarging of the government size. These things are points you really should be trying to make. Cause you fail when you try to say Bush was the worst president ever because of the war on terror. Because it's his greatest strength.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#2 theresa113

theresa113

    Hi There!

  • Members
  • 5,540 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Orlando, Florida
  • Interests:Poker!

Posted 24 January 2009 - 06:03 AM

I am a moderate... a registered Republican who believes in pro-choice (actually, I have coined my own term... The Solutionist. I would like to see an end to abortion based on outstanding and effective options for birth control and expert education to everyone.) However, due to BOTH of the Bush's I have voted for a Democrat president (well, after the old guy it was a Libertarian I voted for... I knew it was a wasted vote but I was pissed off.)To this day I am mystified on what the Bush's political stances are. I will never forget seniors "No New Taxes" campaign and then he passed the sneakiest taxes of them all. Social Security use to to be one tax, it included SS as well as medicare/medicaid. Just one line item on your payroll. What he did was increase that tax while separating out the 2 items. I guess he thought no one would notice the huge tax increase. At a time when small businesses were struggling, this was a huge pill to swallow. Keep in mind, employers mirror the amount you contribute to SS and Medicare. I know we look to our president to solve all of the ills of society, keep us on course financially and keep up safe. The thing is, no one person can be responsible for all of those things. However, one person is responsible for how we feel as a nation about our society, our economy and our international relationships. Neither Sr. or W had a way of communicating that brought the whole nation together. I was never a huge Ronald Reagan supporter with his trickle down theories, etc. but he made all Americans feel proud. He instilled a sense of nationalism. He was charismatic and charming. He spoke passionately (granted, sometimes it was lines from previous movies) but he moved us and brought us together. This is something the Bush's have missed the boat... it seemed like W had it in the beginning after 911, but just like his dad when it came the economy, he fell short.People take economic risk when they feel fearless, feel empowered and feel patriotic. I am hoping that Obama will bring us that feeling of unity to help spur us as individuals to find creative solutions to our tough economic times.
Be my friend on Facebook

Blue and White Ignite! Go Magic!

#3 qyayqi

qyayqi

    ketchup is murder.

  • Members
  • 5,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:regina

Posted 24 January 2009 - 06:19 AM

Posted ImagePosted ImageEDIT: only read the topic line. never mind.
qyayqi
railing 101 video

crush their dreams like aluminum cans.
then take them in for recycling.
5 cents a dream, man.

#4 SuperJon

SuperJon

    <3

  • Members
  • 6,659 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 24 January 2009 - 06:47 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 8:44 AM, said:

I was needling my mother about Obama's recent Treasury appointment not paying his taxes and she said something that made me laugh.She said: "Yea, you Republican's have so much to be proud of"I can honestly say that most republicans I know, when asked about Bush's presidency will tell you he screwed up the ideals of conservatism on all front financial and small government. In fact it would be the reason's why he can be considered a less than good president, if that's all there was.But he took the fight to the terrorist, and that is something most of America wanted. Just because the democrats started running for the 04 and 08 elections by trashing the war, doesn't mean that at the core, we all wanted to take the fight to the middle east and not have it in the streets of the western world. Who wouldn't rather have Osama with an AK47 facing an armed Marine in Iraq than Osama with a car bomb in Chicago?Of course most people wish we hadn't gone into Iraq, after the fact. But everyone who had the intel all agreed that Iraq needed to be changed, and in that region a sniper bullet wouldn't change anything. It became a quagmire for many reasons, which in my opinion were largely due to idealogy of force sizes and military roles than in any malacious reasons for having fewer troops. Pretend all you want, but if we doubles the number of soldiers in Iraq from day one, it would only have cost more and still taken 8 years. The conducting of the war was not perfect, but hindsight is a luxury no one has, and a nonstop battle at home about what we were doing there didn't help the matter. Luckily the troops maintained a record breaking moral level that prevented a vietnam like losing of the war at home from permeating the misson that they conducted with great results.It really boils down to opinion of military maters which most people must admit they are lacking. Obama will get the credit for getting us out, which is how things are...that's normal.So I guess what I am saying is that bashing Bush for the war on terror will always be met with arguments, but understand that myself and most republicans will admit freely that Bush failed in his over spending and his enlarging of the government size. These things are points you really should be trying to make. Cause you fail when you try to say Bush was the worst president ever because of the war on terror. Because it's his greatest strength.
Weren't there many people who advised against the war before it even started?

#5 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 24 January 2009 - 06:49 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 6:44 AM, said:

So I guess what I am saying is that bashing Bush for the war on terror will always be met with arguments, but understand that myself and most republicans will admit freely that Bush failed in his over spending and his enlarging of the government size. These things are points you really should be trying to make. Cause you fail when you try to say Bush was the worst president ever because of the war on terror. Because it's his greatest strength.
And what we are saying is if Bush's War on Terror was his strength then that shows just how bad he was. Because it was not much of a strength.There were worse Presidents though. So there's that.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#6 85suited

85suited

    Politics Forum Pundit

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Location:In The Obamanation
  • Favorite Poker Game:Vast Right Wing Conspirator

Posted 24 January 2009 - 08:22 AM

View Posttheresa113, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 8:03 AM, said:

I am a moderate... a registered Republican who believes in pro-choice (actually, I have coined my own term... The Solutionist. I would like to see an end to abortion based on outstanding and effective options for birth control and expert education to everyone.) However, due to BOTH of the Bush's I have voted for a Democrat president (well, after the old guy it was a Libertarian I voted for... I knew it was a wasted vote but I was pissed off.)To this day I am mystified on what the Bush's political stances are. I will never forget seniors "No New Taxes" campaign and then he passed the sneakiest taxes of them all. Social Security use to to be one tax, it included SS as well as medicare/medicaid. Just one line item on your payroll. What he did was increase that tax while separating out the 2 items. I guess he thought no one would notice the huge tax increase. At a time when small businesses were struggling, this was a huge pill to swallow. Keep in mind, employers mirror the amount you contribute to SS and Medicare.
I will always respect a president that deals with the realities of the job over speech rhetoric. Yes, he went back on his word.. because it was for the good of the country and that helped spur the growth of the 1990'sA History Lesson from WikipediaWhen in office, Bush found it challenging to keep his promise. The Bush campaign's figures had been based on the assumption that the high growth of the late 1980s would continue throughout his time in office. Instead, a recession began. By 1990 rising deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, began to greatly increase the federal deficit. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act mandated that the deficit be reduced, or else mandatory cuts unpalatable to both Republicans and Democrats would be made. Reducing this deficit was a difficult task. The obvious government waste and easy spending cuts had already been made during the eight years of the Reagan administration. New cuts of any substance would have to come either from entitlement programs, such as Medicare or Social Security, or from defense. The Democrats, who controlled Congress, refused to agree to any massive spending cuts without at least some tax increases.Despite these problems the budget for the 1989 fiscal year was passed with relative ease, largely as the White House team and Dan Rostenkowski, chair of the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee, agreed to postpone talk of both deep cuts and tax increases until the next year. May 12, 1990, budget meeting between the President and congressional leadersThe budget for the next fiscal year proved far more difficult. Bush initially presented Congress a proposed budget containing steep spending cuts and no new taxes, but congressional Democrats dismissed this out of hand. Negotiations began, but it was clear little progress could be made without a compromise on taxes. Richard Darman, who had been appointed head of the Office of Management and Budget, and White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu both felt such a compromise was necessary. Other prominent Republicans had also come out in favor of a tax increase, including Gerald Ford, Paul O'Neill, and Lamar Alexander. The alternative would have been to veto any budget bill that came out of Congress, risking a potential government shutdown and possibly triggering the automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.At the end of June, Bush released a statement stating that "it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform." The key element was the reference to "tax revenue increases" now being up for negotiation. An immediate furor followed the release. The headline of the New York Post the next day read "Read my Lips: I Lied." Initially some Republicans argued that "tax revenue increases" did not necessarily mean tax increases. For example, he could mean that the government could work to increase taxable income. However, Bush soon confirmed that tax increases were on the table.Some of the most enraged over the change in policy were other Republicans, including House Whip Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republicans' most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. This perceived betrayal quickly led to a bitter feud within the Republican Party. When Sununu called Gingrich with the news, Gingrich hung up on him in anger. When Senator Trent Lott questioned the reversal, Sununu told the press that "Trent Lott has become an insignificant figure in this process." Republican National Committee co-chair Ed Rollins, who issued a memo instructing Republican congress members to distance themselves from the president if they wished to be re-elected, was fired from his position. Many also felt that, while perhaps necessary, the reneging was badly handled. Bush's statement on the issue was simply posted on the notice board in the pressroom. There was no attempt to sell or defend the reversal. It was also very sudden; there was no attempt to slowly convince the American people of the perceived necessity of raising taxes. No figures with influence on the conservative base were recruited to endorse and try and sell the about-face.Eventually taxes were raised in the new budget. In September, Bush released a new budget proposal, backed by the congressional leadership, which notably included an immediate five-cent per gallon increase on the federal gasoline tax, and a phased increase of even higher fuel taxes in subsequent years. To the surprise of the Bush administration, this plan was rejected in the House of Representatives. Over a hundred conservative Republicans, led by Gingrich, voted against it because of its tax increases, while liberal Democrats opposed it because the focus on excise taxes fell too heavily on the poor. Bush vetoed the continuing resolution, and thus on October 5 the federal government shut down for the Columbus Day long weekend. Three days later, Bush agreed to a new resolution, and soon after the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was finally passed. This new proposal replaced some of the fuel taxes with a 10% surtax on the top income tax bracket (thus raising the top marginal tax rate to 31%) and also included new excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, automobiles and luxury yachts. It also included the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 which established the "pay-as-you-go" or PAYGO process for discretionary spending and taxes, which resulted in a budget surplus by the end of the decade.These events delivered a severe blow to Bush's popularity. From the historic high of 79% early in his term, Bush's approval rating had fallen to 56% by mid-October 1990. This was a blow to Republicans generally, who lost ground in both the House and Senate in the 1990 midterm elections. Soon after, however, the events of the Gulf War pushed such issues out of the news, and Bush's approval rating rose to even higher levels

#7 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 24 January 2009 - 08:47 AM

You gotta remember that half the country didn't like Bush to begin with, even before the so-called war on terror. (really now, the whole concept of a war "on" something is absurd ). Before we thought he was a bad president we thought he was kinda dumb. His approval rating when he first took office was near 50%. People coalesced around him when the country was attacked, but then over time he kinda reminded us that yeah, he was just that goofy guy from texas who probably shouldn't be in charge of much of anything except maybe the family barbeque.And, very nice, Q.

#8 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 January 2009 - 09:22 AM

View Postvbnautilus, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 8:47 AM, said:

You gotta remember that half the country didn't like Bush to begin with, even before the so-called war on terror. (really now, the whole concept of a war "on" something is absurd ). Before we thought he was a bad president we thought he was kinda dumb. His approval rating when he first took office was near 50%. People coalesced around him when the country was attacked, but then over time he kinda reminded us that yeah, he was just that goofy guy from texas who probably shouldn't be in charge of much of anything except maybe the family barbeque.And, very nice, Q.
Obama won with 54% of the vote? or was it 52%?After a horrible economy, an unpopular war, and a general disliking of republicans.Bush beat Algore after a great sustained economic surge, serving under a popular president, with ginormous name recognition.I would hardly point to Bush's superior strategery of getting elected according to the constitutionally mandated electoral college compared to Algore seeking the popular vote at the expense of winning as an example of how Bush wasn't wanted.Plus there's that pesky little fact called 2004 where Bush was re-elected, which throws a monkey wrench into that theory a bit don't you think?
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#9 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 January 2009 - 09:26 AM

View PostSuperJon, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 6:47 AM, said:

Weren't there many people who advised against the war before it even started?
Yes there was....the French, and the Germans, and the Russians and a junior state senator who had never been given any intelligence brieing of any kind ever. But as far as the entire democrat party in leadership posisiton, I think there were 2, maybe 3. Out of 200+Oh and the Germans and the Fench were selling weapons and scientific equipment to the Iraqis in violation of UN charters, but I'm sure their decision had nothing to do with that.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#10 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 January 2009 - 09:31 AM

View Posttheresa113, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 6:03 AM, said:

I am a moderate... a registered Republican who believes in pro-choice (actually, I have coined my own term... The Solutionist. I would like to see an end to abortion based on outstanding and effective options for birth control and expert education to everyone.) However, due to BOTH of the Bush's I have voted for a Democrat president (well, after the old guy it was a Libertarian I voted for... I knew it was a wasted vote but I was pissed off.)
I think Obama would be the only person who could achieve this.No republican president can get the NAGs and pro-abortion people to support this, and the pro-life people wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you don't get pregnant, since there is no abortion.I hope it happens, but even if Obama was able to reduce the number of abortions down to only 2,000 a day, it would be a huge thing since now we have 3,700 people a day who can't understand the complex directions on a box of trojans and end up with an unwanted pregnancy.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#11 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 24 January 2009 - 09:54 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 9:22 AM, said:

Obama won with 54% of the vote? or was it 52%?After a horrible economy, an unpopular war, and a general disliking of republicans.Bush beat Algore after a great sustained economic surge, serving under a popular president, with ginormous name recognition.I would hardly point to Bush's superior strategery of getting elected according to the constitutionally mandated electoral college compared to Algore seeking the popular vote at the expense of winning as an example of how Bush wasn't wanted.Plus there's that pesky little fact called 2004 where Bush was re-elected, which throws a monkey wrench into that theory a bit don't you think?
I was referring to his approval rating upon taking office, not the popular vote at election time. Bush 52%, Obama 85%. Bush only temporarily reached that level of popularity around the time of 9/11. I'm just saying the level of hatred he is receiving now is actually not all that far from where he started. He just failed to keep about half of his original support.And he's kinda dumb.

#12 Nimue1995

Nimue1995

    Mrs Obvious

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Stevensville MT
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold 'em

Posted 24 January 2009 - 08:20 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

Yes there was....the French, and the Germans, and the Russians and a junior state senator who had never been given any intelligence brieing of any kind ever. But as far as the entire democrat party in leadership posisiton, I think there were 2, maybe 3. Out of 200+Oh and the Germans and the Fench were selling weapons and scientific equipment to the Iraqis in violation of UN charters, but I'm sure their decision had nothing to do with that.
This would also include Dick Cheney at the end of the first Gulf War. And all he said would happen then if we invaded Iraq came to pass when he did a u-turn and supported the invasion. I know there's a U-tube interview of Cheney where he spelled out what would happen. So it's not like he could say, "Gee I didn't know". That interview showed that indeed he DID know. But decided to go ahead in spite of knowing.
What do you like to do for fun?

QUOTE
Play poker
think up political posts to make in Daniel's Blog to drive LMD crazy,lol.

#13 Avaron

Avaron

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hettstadt-&gt;Bavaria-&gt;Germany
  • Interests:Music, books, pc games, poker
  • Favorite Poker Game:Mixed Games

Posted 25 January 2009 - 04:47 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

Oh and the Germans and the Fench were selling weapons and scientific equipment to the Iraqis in violation of UN charters, but I'm sure their decision had nothing to do with that.
sources? all i know is that we had normal trade contacts, but stopped them after the un resolution.
PokerStars: Avaron

#14 Sheiky

Sheiky

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Poker, sports, music
  • Favorite Poker Game:None, everyone hates poker

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:35 AM

This is almost as good as Rove's WSJ piece

#15 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:52 AM

View PostAvaron, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 4:47 AM, said:

sources? all i know is that we had normal trade contacts, but stopped them after the un resolution.
It's been kind of long so I had to google the stuff.And I am always a little fuzzy about which european companies have incestous relationships with the government like Japan does/did.So this is the first thing I found:CIA reports

Quote

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by German Companies 2001—Attempts To Acquire Biotechnology and Biological Weapons-Related Technology and Expertise The Amman, Jordan office of the Iraqi front company Winter International forwarded offers for dual-use laboratory equipment from a German firm to the Winter International office in Baghdad, in March 2001. The end-user of this equipment was purported to be the Iraqi MoI. The equipment offered included:An electrophoresis system including a special atomizer with rubber bellows for producing reagent mists. This system can be used for recombinant DNA process-cloning and many other molecular biology applications. A refrigerated ultracentrifuge, a microcentrifuge, a low temperature freezer (between -30 and -80 degrees Celsius), and an automatic DNA-analysis system with mono-laser. This equipment is on the UN dual-use monitoring lists and would have required verification. A moisture purging vacuum pump and electroporator. This equipment is used for plasmid cloning. 2002—Attempts To Procure a DNA Synthesizer From August 2002 through February 2003 representatives from a Jordanian trading company with links to Iraq attempted to purchase a DNA synthesizer from a German based company. This equipment was restricted under the UN GRL.An official claiming to be the managing director of the Jordanian firm Al Theker forwarded the information to Iraq. The report stated that it appeared that the Jordanian firm’s official was forwarding information back to the Baghdad-based Wateera Company.

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#16 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:52 AM

View PostSheiky, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 8:35 AM, said:

This is almost as good as Rove's WSJ piece
Thanks
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#17 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:53 AM

View PostNimue1995, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 8:20 PM, said:

This would also include Dick Cheney at the end of the first Gulf War. And all he said would happen then if we invaded Iraq came to pass when he did a u-turn and supported the invasion. I know there's a U-tube interview of Cheney where he spelled out what would happen. So it's not like he could say, "Gee I didn't know". That interview showed that indeed he DID know. But decided to go ahead in spite of knowing.
At the end of gulf war one we would have been wrong to invade. 9-11 changed a lot of things globally. To pretend it didn't would be disingenuous
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#18 85suited

85suited

    Politics Forum Pundit

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Location:In The Obamanation
  • Favorite Poker Game:Vast Right Wing Conspirator

Posted 25 January 2009 - 09:02 AM

The Gallup Poll on Saturday released the first job-approval rating for President Obama, based on interviews during his first three full days in office: 68 percent.Now that he’s in office, Obama’s approval ratings are starting to normalize, as partisan back-and-forth picks up. Just a week ago, Gallup found an astonishing 83 percent approval of how he has handled his transition, showing he had even won over most Republicans.The new job-approval figure puts him at the upper end of opening poll numbers for presidents, but doesn’t set a record.Gallup’s initial job approval ratings were President John F. Kennedy, 72 percent; Dwight Eisenhower, 68 percent; Jimmy Carter, 66 percent; Richard Nixon, 59 percent; Bill Clinton, 58 percent; George W. Bush, 57 percent; and Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 51 percent.See AlsoObama goes to bat for stimulus Bush's legal foes now Obama's legal team Obama: End abortion 'politicization' Gallup’s Obama poll included 1,591 adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.For Obama, 12 percent disapproved and 21 percent had no opinion.Bush hit a low of 25 percent approval late last year, but he rebounded somewhat before leaving office.

#19 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 25 January 2009 - 09:07 AM

If this had been McCain the headline would have been: In first 3 days in office McCain's approval rating plummets 20%
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#20 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,843 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 25 January 2009 - 09:35 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

At the end of gulf war one we would have been wrong to invade. 9-11 changed a lot of things globally. To pretend it didn't would be disingenuous
Yup, Al Queda got everything they wanted when the US invaded Iraq. To pretend that isn't true would be disingenuous.If you want to do a scorecard on the US invasion of Iraq.WinnersThe KurdsIranAl Queda and Muslim extremists everywhereLosersSaddamMost of the people of IraqThe US
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users