Spent Capital

Newsweek's poll this week shows Bush at his second lowest approval rating during his Presidency, and that just 1 in 3 trust Bush on Social Security:
                            Approve       Disapprove   Don't Know

Bush as President           45            48           7
Bush on Social Security     33            59           8
Bush's attempt to manufacture crisis over Social Security has been a monumental failure, second only to Abu Gharib in swaying the opinion of Bush toward disapproval.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)



We Should Have Run A Wet Noodle For President
A wet noodle could beat these figures. Obviously, we should have run a wet noodle for President.

Oh, wait! We did....

Correction: We should have run a wet noodle for President & had Bob Shrum locked up in a Saudi jail for the duration of the campaign.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-19 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: We Should Have Run A Wet Noodle For President
the dynamic of running aqainst a war president doesn't mean voters will vote their approval ratings. Dump on Kerry all you wish. Doesn't change reality.
by DemFromCT 2005-03-20 03:48AM | 0 recs
Truman and Korea, LBJ and Vietnam...
both show that being a war-time President is no guarantee of anything. This is the lamest defense of Kerry imagineable. Sure it's different in time of war. But that doesn't make the President invulnerable. Often it does the exact opposite.

This was surely one of those times, but Kerry listened to folks who told him precisely what you are saying--"war-time President=virtual invulnerability"--so he treated Bush with kid gloves. No Bush-bashing at the convention. No nuclear counter-attack after the Swift Boat Liars surfaced immediately afterwards. And on and on and on.  This analysis was a self-fulfilling prophecy.   It's time to stop drinking the kool-aid.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-20 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Truman and Korea, LBJ and Vietnam...
Foolish analysis with a tin ear to the American public (an attack on American soil coupled with a huge propaganda effort has had an effect much different than Vietnam or Korea). Foolish analogy to kool-aid drinking (what I wrote was not a slavish defense of Kerry, who had plenty of flaws).

You seem not to understand the real difficulties any opposition candidate would have had.

by DemFromCT 2005-03-27 03:10AM | 0 recs
If An Approval Rating Falls In the Forest and No-
One Sees It, Is That Why People In Berkeley Get So Cranky?

And why isn't there a university town named after Hume, anyway?

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-19 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: If An Approval Rating Falls In the Forest and
Then Hume invents his own numbers.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-03-19 05:29PM | 0 recs
Which reminds me. I've been wondering off and on for some time if Hume's descendents can't sue Brit for blackening the family name.

I mean, I keep hearing about all these outrageous lawsuits, right?  Well, this one seems relatively tame.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-19 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: If An Approval Rating Falls In the Forest and
Well, the University of Edinburgh has a rather large, ugly building called David Hume Tower.
by elrod 2005-03-19 08:32PM | 0 recs
Dear Mr and Mrs Oneinthree
Please make your checks out to:

Mr. Andrew C. White
555 Fifth Blvd
Fifth City, Fifth State, 55555

by Andrew C White 2005-03-19 05:30PM | 0 recs
What, they didn't notice the last four years?
An acquaintance who trains social workers recently told me that many of her students voted for dubya because of their belief in his "moral values". Almost bitterly, she added that many now regret that vote - they are slowly recognizing the current and future devastation of social services under this administration.  

When I recounted this conversation to my spouse she replied, "What, they didn't notice the last four years?"

by Michael Bersin 2005-03-19 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What, they didn't notice the last four years?
Four years? What four years?

Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Britanny Spears! Paris Hilton! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror!

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-19 06:04PM | 0 recs
Bush is irrelevant.  Vermont and West Virginia are still alive in the NCAA...
by global yokel 2005-03-19 06:34PM | 0 recs
Was the lowest just before 9-11?
I get real nervous when his numbers go down. While I am not sure I buy into the 9-11 conspiracy theory, during the election there was a correlation between bad Bush numbers (and news), terror alerts and such.

I think the GOP is gonna overreach, BIG TIME, eventually. They can't help themselves, especially the WH. They are so arrogant and have gotten away with a lot. They push the envelop, and will continue.

by mandyky 2005-03-19 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Was the lowest just before 9-11?
The Bush supporters verbiage is just so the opposite of what I see.  Bush ran as "humble."  Bever was, always arrogant and entitled with an edge.  Remember GORE as the serial liar.  Yeah, right.  This administration took us to war on lies, cut taxes on lies, guts social programs on lies, tortures people on lies.  

If Bush is going to do something, it will be within the next year to manufacture a ctisis for the mid-terms.  After that, he's vasically lost his incentive.

by David Kowalski 2005-03-20 04:35AM | 0 recs
Do you hear that?
It's the sound of a pseudo mandate being blown out of the water. Doesn't it sound good.
by bruh21 2005-03-19 08:13PM | 0 recs
Satellite photos depict Social Security crisis
The non-Social Security crisis reminds me of the non-threat that Saddam posed...until the WH starting pushing those satellite photos of purported Iraq weapons sites.  

I have a hunch that the WH is concocting some illusory evidence right now to substantiate the Social Security crisis. Then, after they also suggest that FDR is linked Al Qaeda, 56% of Americans will believe there is a Social Security crisis.

Heck, this would be satirical except the propaganda worked with Iraq and WMD.  (I heard NPR report on Wednesday  that a recent poll showed 56% of Americans still believe that WMD were found in Iraq but I can't find a link for that poll. When I mentioned this to a pro-Bush supporter, even he astounded and said that those people are "idiots.")

by sawgrass727 2005-03-19 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Satellite photos depict Social Security crisis
It's worse than you think.

The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters
Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
October 21, 2004

....A large majority of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them. A substantial majority of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD, and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer. A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Large majorities of Kerry supporters believe the opposite on all these points....

by Michael Bersin 2005-03-20 01:43AM | 0 recs
Social Security looks dead in the water.
Republicans in Congress aren't going to vote for Social Security, knowing it could mean they're out of office in two years.
by JenAtlanta 2005-03-20 04:15AM | 0 recs
Right you are
Hence the increasingly desperate pleas for the Democrats to put forth a plan, any plan which they can then hijack.

"Reforming" Social Security would be tricky even if it were truly in crisis and Republicans were using honest economic numbers. There is a reason nothing got done back in the mid-nineties when an honest assessment of Social Security solvency would have yielded at a minimum "big problem". Everybody was afraid to touch it.

Now that eight years of strong growth over all have effectively fixed the problem Social Security is radioactive. At this point it is hard to say which would be worse for the Republicans: passing a plan only to have the economic numbers show that it was totally unneccessary, or to back off and have the numbers show that they have been lying about Social Security solvency all along in an illicit attempt to kill off the most popular social program in history.

Because the economic numbers are so stark at this point that their only choices going forward are to either admit they were just flat out ignorant or admit that they were lying to promote a policy based on ideology alone.

I have been all over this since the beginning, and I can tell you in all honesty that not a single person has ever tried to defend the economic numbers that underly Intermediate Cost. When challenged they just refuse to respond or change the subject.

Some privatizers are working from Republican talking points because they don't know any better, others are working from those talking points because they know they have nothing else to work with. But either way they never put an economic number on the table. Ever.

by Bruce Webb 2005-03-20 07:02AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads