I'm starting to get irritated at President Bush for throwing this election to John Kerry. A year and a half ago this President had the highest approval ratings in history, and now we're looking at 48%/ 48% polls showing a neck and neck race. This shouldn't even be a contest between President Bush and Kerry, and it's starting to piss me off.

The public has on tape Senator Kerry switching positions day by day over the past year, shifting with the political winds. The guy obviously will say whatever he wants to gain political power, and yet the Bush campaign has given him a free pass on this and so much more. Kerry wants to live in the past, for America to remember a 35 year old war we are desperatly trying to put behind us. Kerry has a trial lawyer as his VP canidate for heavens sake! You know why they say "When the revolution comes, lawyers will be the first to go"? Because it's true! People don't trust lawyers, yet Edwards is coming on like the second coming. What gives?

For the past two weeks, Kerry finally gets a position on Iraq. It is "We should have given sanctions the time they needed to work". Now we see that he has even come down on the wrong side of this - sanctions were NOT working, but instead they were allowing Saddam to purchase nations on the UN security council! You know, those same nations that were pushing for sanctions on Iraq to be lifted? These guys were getting rich from Saddam, and we now have documentation that Saddam was buying these officials in France, Russia, China and elsewhere, and had promised them more riches once sanctions were lifted!

You would have waited Senator Kerry? For what? To Saddam to offer to buy you out? We were at a critical point with Iraq after TWELVE YEARS of sanctions. It was either time to withdraw or remove Saddam from power. The administration gave no less than 8 seperate reasons to invade Iraq, all valid. President Bush did the only thing he could have done after 09/11 - remove Saddam. To walk away from Iraq would have been an impeachable offense knowing what we know now.

And just what about WMD's? Kerry saw the same info President Bush did and voted to give the President authority to wage war on Iraq. Thank God there are no WMD's - it was never said that Saddam ABSOLUTELY had WMD's, but that the risk was high. Just because the media has chosen a single point of the 8 given, suddenly everyone thinks its the ONLY reason Iraq was invaded. What are you people, sheep? You listen to everything Dan Rather tells you to believe?

And here's the crux of the matter - Bush is smarter than this. He's giving Kerry a free walk on these issues at every oppurtunity. Is President Bush sick? Does he no longer want the burden in these trying times? I would understand if thats the case, but if Kerry wins this election Im going to lay blame on Bush. Its irresponsible to allow the fate of this country into the hands of an aristocrat that so blatently craves power. Kerry is a creampuff with no backbone what so ever, he is as transparent as Karl Marx's ghost and he loathes the middle class. Look at his Senate voting record! His tax increases are on a 3 to 1 ratio compared to his tax cuts!

I could go on and on and on, but really this is making me sick. Bush has been given the tools to show how ignorant Kerry's foriegn policy is tomorrow night in the debates. Im a simple guy with a simple business in the heart of Texas, and even I have figured out a clear cut arguement that shred Kerry's policies.

It's so easy... why won't our President hit the ball?

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 08, 2004
Sandy: Here's a list of Washington Post Presidential Approval Polls. Oddly, they don't look anything much like you are describing at the time you are describing. Care to post where you got your information from?...


9/13/01 86
9/9/01 55
8/12/01 61
7/30/01 59
6/3/01 55
4/22/01 63
3/25/01 58
2/25/01 55


on Oct 08, 2004
Here's a list of Washington Post Presidential Approval Polls. Oddly, they don't look anything much like you are describing at the time you are describing. Care to post where you got your information from?...


I apologize; I made a mistake while reading the chart. The chart I had gave disapproval ratings, not approval ratings, and the lower the disapproval number the higher the "ranking", which was of the top 10 least popular presidents from Dorling Kindersley's Top 10 of everything 2005, data provided by Gallup Organization. As old fashioned as it may sound, I used a print source. Again, I apologize for misreading the data. I should have read it as follows:

George Bush was the 10th least popular president, with a disapproval rating of 39%.
on Oct 08, 2004
on Oct 08, 2004
Sandy: You miss the point. Where's the 39%. You can't pretend that the Washington Post is a Bush Newspaper. Lets have a link to that 39%. I'm thinking perhaps whoever did you little chart got Bush Sr. and Bush Jr confused.

-Gallup graph
on Oct 08, 2004
Baker, did you read my reply?
on Oct 08, 2004
Sandy: Yes, and frankly it makes LESS sense. TONS of Presidents have had worse disapproval ratings than 39%, and Bushes is higher than 39% now... 39% is certainly not the bottom of the barrell...
on Oct 08, 2004
I took back my former statment, because I misread the data, and conceeded that he is really the 10th least popular president.
on Oct 08, 2004
I don't remember my U.S. history well, but didn't Bush Sr. have one of the highest ratings of any president for a bit? And yet he wasn't reelected.
on Oct 08, 2004
Almost every President has had a 39% DISapproval rating at some time or another. That doesn't make him the 10th least popular president. What does?
on Oct 08, 2004
Messy Buu: At points in his Presidency, Bush has had approval ratings up to 90. I dunno what Sandy's source is, but barring some sort of answer I see nothing that proves Bush is the 10th least popular President...

Sandy: All you have to do is give a bilbiographical reference if it is a hard copy. Author, article, publication, page number, right?
on Oct 08, 2004
Almost every President has had a 39% DISapproval rating at some time or another. That doesn't make him the 10th least popular president. What does?


According to my source, this is so. I will not vouch for the source, I am just telling you how it is.

Please relize that #10 is not bad out of 42, also considering how effective polling was back in those technologial years of George Washington. I don't know what you want Bakerstreet, so I give up.

Messy, Bush Sr. had the highest approval rating (89%) of any president except his son. He had this in 1991, the year he was not reelected. His son had 90% following 9/11. Nixon did not make the top 10 list, and is the only president to not make the list since 1938.
on Oct 08, 2004
Fine, if you want bibliographical data here it is:

Top 10 of everything, 2005, first edition. Russel Ash, Author. Beckley Alexander, Senior editor. Kolring Kindersley and Penguin Books co-publishers. (C) 2004. Page 62. Top 10 least popular presidents. Source Gallup Organization.
on Oct 08, 2004
Top Ten of Everything.

Then there is no explaination of how they came to that conclusion, I guess. I don't buy it, frankly. Thanks for the citation though.
on Oct 08, 2004

Reply #13 By: sandy2 - 10/8/2004 3:54:01 PM
Jeez Sandy, you just make this stuff up as you go along? Bush has had huge approval ratings during the last four years, and his rating now is almost identical to Reagan's and Clinton's at the end of their first term. I suggest you out of your MOUTH for a while...


Yep.. I make up everything. No.. actually I'm well read. According to the gallup organization, Bush had a 39% apporval rating in the days before september 11th.


And that is pertinent for 10/08/2004 how?
Sept 11 happened over 3 years ago. I don't see how his approval rating then aplies to today.
on Oct 08, 2004
drmiller: the reall point is that what sandy quoted wasn't his approval rating, it was his DISapproval rating... i.e. only 39% of people polled strongly or somewhat disapproved of Bush's service on that particular day. The APPROVAL rating was something more like 40 something percent if the linked information is accurate, and coming from the Washington Post I think you can be sure it wouldn't be lower...
3 Pages1 2 3