Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bush approval slips to 45%, lowest of his presidency
Fri Mar 25, 6:16 AM ET Top Stories - USATODAY.com
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
President Bush (news - web sites)'s approval rating has fallen to 45%, the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
The finding, in a poll of 1,001 adults Monday through Wednesday, is a dip from 52% in a poll taken last week. Bush's previous lowest rating, 46%, was recorded last May.
The White House declined to comment. Republican National Committee (news - web sites) spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said that Bush is taking on "tough issues, whether it's to reform Social Security (news - web sites), promoting the spread of democracy or making a renewed pitch to Congress to pass comprehensive energy reform."
Independent political analysts said the drop may reflect opposition to the White House and Congress intervening in the Terri Schiavo matter.
"You have to wonder if people didn't feel that the president and the Congress couldn't be spending their time working on Social Security and other problems," said Charlie Cook, editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report...
check the approval rating of Congress and Democrats----it's even LOWERKathianne said:
"You have to wonder if people didn't feel that the president and the Congress couldn't be spending their time working on Social Security and other problems," said Charlie Cook, editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report...
Gem said:Well...this is what you get when you have the media telling the uninformed, apathetic public day after day that this woman was completely brain dead and using life support to survive. The polls have been misleading and most people do NOT have the facts of this case.
I really have gone back and forth on this issue, so this isn't about whether or not I feel that killing Terri Shiavo was the right decision (which I do...just to get that out of the way)...and I most certainly have been disgusted at how people have used this story for political manipulation on BOTH sides....
but the bottom line is, the media deliberately took a side on this case and the polls reflect that, people who are shocked at how the government has wheedled its way into this case should be almost as appaulled at how the main-stream media has chosen a side and set about making America believe it.
this isn't about whether or not I feel that killing Terri Shiavo was the right decision (which I do...just to get that out of the way)...
freeandfun1 said:Gem, even you admit they are KILLING her instead of letting her die. Do you honestly believe that we should be allowed to kill for the sake of convenience?
That is the slippery slope so many are worried about. Next they will be saying, well, "yes, the person has brain funtion, but they are so handicapped that they cannot contribute to society, so let's kill them."
krisy said:I'm wondering if the drop in the approval rating could have to do with other issues such as skyrocketing gas prices. Many people blame that on the Preisdent. If you look at it from aother point of view on the Schiavo case,it could be also that some people felt Bush didn't intervene enough.
Kathianne said:I don't think so on either front Krisy. The gas prices have been rising since 2002, 2003 at the latest. We get that. We, the US have applied severe pressure to OPEC nations and that is the price.
Schiavo is such a sad case. She appeared to have picked a nasty husband, many can relate to that. She seems to perhaps have had other problems too. Florida seems to have legislative difficulties, which Jeb has tried to run around, more power and kudos to him. But it fell short. I hope they'll be dealt with from this point on.
Turning to the US Congress though was wrong. So was GW in going along with that. Pandering, no other version will do.
March 25, 2005
Leverage
Here is how an effective political minority leverages power.
My concerns are that the Republicans have become complacent and sure of their dominance, and so have begun to take the libertarians and moderates who voted for them for granted.
If this group of libs and mods were like, oh, certain Democratic party interest groups, it would simply shut up and take whatever the Republicans cared to dole out to them. That's what a stupid interest group who didn't care if it had any influence would do.
I suggest that we not follow that lead. GWB won the national election by about 3.5 million votes. He actually won the election by smaller margins in the states, which garnered him enough electoral votes to win. Everybody knows, for instance, that if Ohio had gone the other way, John Kerry would be President today.
What do you want to bet that if the libs and mods allied into a conscious swing vote faction, we could exert influence all out of proprotion to our size? As I've said before, from my perspective, the Democrats are much better on individual liberty than the Republicans. The Republicans have morphed into even bigger spenders than the Democrats. On a whole host of other issues, Republicans have betrayed their own principles and their own supporters. In other words, there just isn't much difference between the two big parties any more. So, at least from a libertarian point of view, the party that gets our votes should be the party that best responds to our interests. I don't know if that party is the Republicans today.
Do you think the Democrats would exchange some concessions on, oh, immigration, campaign finance, a robust national defense, and smaller, less intrusive government, in exchange for the White House?
I think they would. I think they'd kill, roast, and eat their grandmothers for the White House. But they wouldn't keep their promises, you say. Really? You mean like...the Republicans?
Anyway, it can't hurt for us to get together and find out.
Kathianne said:
freeandfun1 said:The matter of life and death is something that should be decided by the President and Congress as we (the people) elect them, while Judges are appointed.
Merlin1047 said:No sir. The matter of life and death as we have discussed it in these forums recently is most definitely NOT the purview of political hacks.
It is the right and responsibility of the individual and that right should not be usurped by the courts, the legislature or the executive branch of government. I cannot think of a right more fundamental than the right to determine one's own fate.
freeandfun1 said:Well, my point is that if the courts are going to try and rule from the bench, then the congress and president should step in. The congress is the only entity allowed to pass laws yet the courst are making law every day from the bench. So my point stands, the matter of life and death, if not protected by the courts, is something the congress has to step in on. The constitution clearly says that each individual has the right to pursue life[/], liberty and happiness. If one does not have a living will and their is no CLEAR evidence of what the person wanted, then life should be given presedence. Those that keep saying, "well he said she didn't want to live this way" forget that yeah, he said that after he was involved with another woman for three years and after whe had been the way she is for seven. If it really were that important to him, he would have remember that right up front and made that argument. Therefore, to err on the side of life is best and if the courts are going to legislate from the bench, then the congress has to step in.
Merlin1047 said:Again I have to disagree. The fact is that it IS the job of the courts to "rule from the bench". That, after all, is why we have courts. The fact is that you simply don't like or agree with the ruling in this case. Now you may be correct in your assessment that Terri Schiavo did not get a complete hearing in the courts. But that is no justification for the congress to come blundering along and interfere where they have no right to.
If there is a problem with the law, then let congress change the law - and change if for everyone, not JUST for Terri Schiavo. That is the way government was intended to work. The recent circus of stupidity and ignorance courtesy of the Congress and the White House has been a huge disservice to the nation in general and to Terri Schiavo in particular. In their ham-handed attempt to "help" Terri Schiavo, the Congress and the President have managed to accomplish exactly the opposite.
Exactly--if she's dead we won't have to deal with all these little complicated incoveniences----why folks are afraid to continue the debate is beyond mefreeandfun1 said:I still say (as does the constitution) that LIFE is a inalienable right. If the courts are not going to protect that right, then congress must. That is my take and I'm sticking with it. That does not mean I totally disagree with you. In many ways, I do agree. However, in this case, I believe that Terri's rights were not protected by the courts and when the courts don't protect somebody's rights, who will? The Congress should.
Again, if a living will or even somebody other than her "husband" or his family had said that is what she wanted, then I would have no problems. I just truly believe this has become not a "mercy" killing but a "convenience" killing.
