Reelection Honeymoon With Voters Eludes Bush, Polls Say

[Moloch]

WASHINGTON — Despite a clear-cut reelection and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) prepares to start his second term with the lowest approval ratings of any just-elected sitting president in half a century, according to new surveys.

That distinction, which pollsters and analysts blame on public discontent over the war in Iraq (news - web sites), comes as Bush begins drafting two major speeches that could quickly recast his image: an inaugural address Jan. 20 and the State of the Union soon after. Bracketed between them is the Jan. 30 election in Iraq, another milestone that could affect public impressions of Bush.

His performance in those speeches and the outcome of the Iraqi vote could determine whether Bush regains the momentum from his Nov. 2 election victory in time to push through controversial initiatives such as revamping Social Security (news - web sites), rewriting the tax code, limiting lawsuits and trimming the budget deficit, analysts said.

A Gallup survey conducted for CNN and USA Today puts Bush's approval rating at 49% — close to his preelection numbers. That's 10 to 20 points lower than every elected sitting president at this stage since just after World War II, according to Gallup, which has been tabulating such data since Harry S. Truman won a full term in 1948.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=4&u=/latimests/20041228/ts_latimes/reelectionhoneymoonwithvoterseludesbushpollssay

[rooboy]

1. Well MAYBE his re-election numbers were based on FRAUD. n/t

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BadGimp]

66. prove he won

Why is it there is always someone trolling this board with next to no posts who jumps on these hot button issues?

The election was stolen and in time the evidence will be made available to the poople.

[The Zanti Regent]

80. The evidence has been destroyed

and your WHORE PRESS is back in it's elephant ass kissing mode!

[tngledwebb]

84. Why do so many pop up asap to oppose any hint of election fraud?

And so often feel the need to label it just another 'internet conspiracy theory' and are usually rudely dismissive of its importance? Three theories:

1. Stolen election '04 is now the second most provable treasonous action of BushCo, and has had a little MSM coverage, and may have a very good chance of cutting across all party lines.

2. The same tactics have worked very well the past three years on an even more scandalous and provable internet 'CT'. Read the archives and hear the echoes.

3. Money. Big bucks too, and a steady paycheck for what the rest of us do here for free in our spare time.

[PurityOfEssence]

88. You can tell your enemies' vulnerabilities by their severity of response

The fact that they freak out at anything smacking of "class warfare" should show us that this is the prime vulnerability.

The fraud is real, as you probably agree: Max Cleland was defrauded in '02, and it was so serious to keep it under wraps that they even went so far as to kill the VNS to do it. The exit polls where there's a paper trail tend to be within a point, and where there isn't, they ALL break sharply in favor of Bush. Since all the manufacturers are Republican partisans, it doesn't take an Oppenheimer to figure this one out. I guess sense just isn't that common...

They need to keep this quiet for many reasons: they'll need to use it again to hold power after their ruinous policies, they can't be shown as the swine they are and "private property" (in the form of source code) must be protected at all costs. Profit is more important than anything.

That's why this needs to be brought up over and over: there's no legitimate reason to not have verifiable voting. If it costs more, it's not prohibitive, and anyone who questions being questioned either has ridiculous ego issues, or IS DISHONEST. Secrecy is one of the surest signs of dishonesty. Need to control is the same basic problem.

[Harry S Truman]

116. Well said

That was one of the best posts I've read on DU. Thank you, Purity.

[Sterling]

117. Same reason that people do it on 9-11 related threads.

The forbidden truth is always met with irrational attacks.

[Florida_Geek]

2. If the Exit Polls are right,,,, he did not win in the first place

and I do believe they were right.

[Born Free]

4. now,now,now, nothing to see here just move on

There's no "there" there, it means nothing that todays's polls reflect similar numbers as prior to the election which are nearly the same as exit polls - really none if it means anything, you know you can trust your current government officals to keep democracy on the move and make sure every vote is counted- just go about your business, better yet wave a flag and tell everyone you are patriotic.

[0rganism]

7. Shut up! Bush had a "clear-cut reelection", dammit! Just SHUT UP!

And don't forget "the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress!" So BEND OVER and SHUT UP!

Don't you dumb whiney liberals get it yet? We Americans LOVE Bush, but we're too stupid to show it in these extra-curricular "poll" thingies. The media geniuses have studied the results very carefully, and arrived at the conclusion that Americans are too stupid to hold our own opinions for more than five minutes at a time. That's okay, because Bush would never base His policy on the opinions of "focus groups". And He told us that Himself, and He never lies.

So it's very important that we all do nothing that would cause "irreparable harm" to the "perception of victory" on the part of our Annointed Leader. Instead, let's all rejoice at the prospect of His Glorious Thousand-Year Reich!

[intheflow]

91. Focus Groups

In Feb. 2003, * called the Americans who took to the streets to to protest the impending Iraq invasion "focus groups". Yet 3-5 times as many US citizens were protesting that day (depending on which report of totals you believe) than at any time during the Ukraine protests. The same with the Repro Rights march in April 2004.

Funny how we saw photos of huge crowds in the Ukraine but mostly only close-cropped photos of protests in the US. x(

[ProfessorGAC]

112. Yes. A Mandate. Remember?

He wins by 3 million votes, out of 120 million, and he has a mandate. He now has an approval rating under 50%, and he has a mandate.

I think these people need a dictionary.
The Professor

[Ms_Mary]

25. Funny how in the Ukraine, that led to a brand new election with different

results, huh? HERE, our media insists that exit polls aren't reliable. In the Ukraine, over 200 have been charged so far with things dealing with election fraud. HERE in the US, it's summarily dismissed. Funny how that works.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genieroze]

67. In some states the polls were off by as much as 15% huh??????

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00072.htm

edited to add link

[Barkley]

106. Great link

Thanks so much for this information.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. In the Ukraine, over 200 have been charged so far with things

dealing with election fraud.

But here, we all know that so many cannot possibly be involved in fraud. It is just unthinkable, so don't you dare think it.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genieroze]

68. Oh but they mean something in the Ukraine, but not here?

[Raster]

103. Let's examine the exit pools. Exit pools until (s)election 2000 were

considered darn close to 100% accurate. After 2000 and 2002, the consortium that provided the exit pool results (VTI) was disbanded because all of the sudden exit pools were no longer accurate. Why were they deemed to be no longer accurate? Because the exit pool results differed significantly from the *reported* vote totals. For the 2004 election all of the major networks, including Faux and AP formed a new consortium to provide exit polling data. The new consortium did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to insure accurate data, not wanting a repeat of 2000 or 2002. But guess what happened? Seemingly irregardless of all efforts, the end result does NOT match the exit poll data.

Dick (the worm) Morris, a truly despicable human being but an exit polling guru, has stated that "exit polls are not wrong in 2004. It is impossible." And he's right. In other countries, such as the Ukraine, exit polling data serves as a tool to audit the election and it's result. In other words, if you want to prove an election was rigged, you use the exit polling data. Guess what the 2004 exit polling data showed? Yep, the election, especially in the most crucial swing states was rigged.

[sonicx]

3. Bush doesn't care if people approve. He "won" so he's going to push...

everything in no matter what.

[Florida_Geek]

6. That's right he has a ManDAte. nt

[area51]

10. Man Date

I thought the Chimp's lover, er, Man Date, is Victor Ashe. </sarcasm>


"Prosperity is just around the corner." -- Herbert Hoover
"The economy has turned a corner." -- GW Bush

Herbert Hoover = GW Bush

[MADem]

42. Maybe Jim McGreevey will take him to lunch

...there's a man date for ya!

With any luck, ole Jimmy could teach him some good old fashioned Democratic values, like honesty, compassion, taking real responsibility, and ADMITTING your mistakes....!

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. Herbert Hoover = GW Bush

I have to disagree. For all his faults, Hoover wasn't a criminal.

[Supersedeas]

105. so what about the much touted MSM MANDATE,,,,,huh?

[sam sarrha]

28. Bu$h was elected 'DickTatter for Life" and has the 2% Mandate to prove it

Fuck'n Moron

[bpilgrim]

5. 'clear-cut reelection' - yeah, bush got the most 'ELECTRICAL' VOTES.

'recast his image' - lol

now who believes that? only the media elite maybe but no-one else certainly.

they wont DARE mention any of the election controversy surrounding BBV :puke:

peace

[despairing optimist]

101. Abolish the Electrical College

Just look at what it has spawned. Next thing you know, we'll be electing zombies.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I wonder if the numbers will go down

if Bush also works on a draft.....

[MSgt213]

11. I think his number will go down no matter what he does. Everything he

touches turns to shit. The American people want to be safe. Jobless, penniless and unable to go to the doctor, but hey we are safe.

[snippy]

19. That is his Fecal Midas Touch. n/t

[tanyev]

23. *Fecal Midas*

I've been calling it Anti-Midas, but Fecal Midas is much funnier. :D

[xchrom]

9. everybody gets the back of the bush hand.

the war?!?!
what about the economy?
the dollar?
the debt?
the deficit?
the trade deficit?
and the beat goes on....

[Mike Nelson]

12. Dumbfounded Media

I agree it's because, actually, he did NOT win.

[Dr Fate]

31. Cuz even people who voted for him dont really give a shit.

And a lot of the peope who did NOT vote for him cant do anything about it.

[Inland]

13. Winning Negative means no mandate, no honeymoon

People voted for Bush despite not liking him or his policies because Bush managed to smear his opponent(s) as even worse alternatives. Of course his numbers haven't improved.

[lancdem]

34. Exactly

You hit the nail on the head. You don't get a honeymoon when your "reelection" amounts to nothing more than a back-handed compliment.

[CTyankee]

100. Plus "buyers remorse"

Maybe some folks woke up and said "Omigod, what did I vote for?" At least, I'd like to think that!

[MADem]

43. The whole strategy was "Supress the Vote"

Keep those ignorant fools in line for eight hours in the rain, wind and snow. Turn them away after waiting in the freezing weather. Stall them, especially those who NEED to work to get paid--the hourly types, the ones with no health insurance.

And yea, keep everyone VERY, VERY AFRAID.

[Kolesar]

14. "clear-cut reelection", starting with forest service regs allowing logging

with scant attention to endangered species and other aesthetic values.

[JoFerret]

15. Of course. Apart from the fanatics

no-one actually likes Bush. Fear mongering got him votes but not true support.

[genieroze]

70. Nut jobs and sickos all support *. eom

[NJCher]

16. when they use words like "clear cut"

They lose all credibility for any awareness whatsoever about what is going on.


Cher

[Jawja]

17. Oh, they know what's going on.

But they've got their "marching orders." They've got to continue to prop him up as our glorious leader, no matter what.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

18. The backlash of spending $40 million on his "coronation" will be HUGE.

Given what's going on in the world...the number of people suffering in Iraq, the soldiers dying, the lifetime physical and / or emotional traumas the survivors are inheriting, the tsunami / earthquake deaths in Asia, the SHIT job market and economy in the U.S.A....

This is the WRONG time for Bush to throw a $40 million, self-indulgent, self-congratulatory party in his honor. The WRONG TIME.

And the worst part is that he DOESN'T GET IT.

Between his Social Security proposals and his keen interest in screwing the middle class with his "National Sales Tax," one can only hope that the rocky road ahead for God's Little Chosen Prince gets even rockier as we head into the second term.

From the Time Magazine "Person of the Year" issue:

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html

George W. Bush is about to set a political record. The first TIME poll since the election has his approval rating at 49%. Gallup has it at 53%, which doesn't sound bad unless you consider that it's the lowest December rating for a re-elected President in Gallup's history. That is not a great concern, however, since he has run his last race, and it is not a surprise to a President who tends to measure his progress by the enemies he makes. "Sometimes you're defined by your critics," he says. "My presidency is one that has drawn some fire, whether it be at home or around the world. Unfortunately, if you're doing big things, most of the time you're never going to be around to see them , whether it be cultural change or spreading democracy in parts of the world where people just don't believe it can happen. I understand that. I don't expect many short-term historians to write nice things about me."

An ordinary politician tells swing voters what they want to hear; Bush invited them to vote for him because he refused to. Ordinary politicians need to be liked; Bush finds the hostility of his critics reassuring. Challengers run as outsiders, promising change; it's an extraordinary politician who tries this while holding the title Leader of the Free World. Ordinary Presidents have made mistakes and then sought to redeem themselves by admitting them; when Bush was told by some fellow Republicans that his fate depended on confessing his errors, he blew them off.

[koopie57]

21. I wonder what

type of happy pills pickles is on anyway. Whatever they are, they should be freely given out at every convenience store, supermarket, church, school ... until we can go back to reality.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

22. I'm so sick of Pickles I could scream

I just don't get it when people say "She seems to be a very nice person." Are they basing that on having spent 1-on-1 time with the woman or the fact that she NEVER STOPS SHOWING those brown, nicotine-stained teeth?

That hideous, frozen death grin never leaves her face. She seems to go from one trance to the other, the ever-smiling arm decoration of the Commander-In-Thief.

:grr:

[koopie57]

48. she reminds me of the joker

in the batman shows.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. Ditto

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[snippy]

81. Seperated at birth?

[Barkley]

109. OUCH!

that's wicket!
:kick:

[stepnw1f]

120. I Have Marveled at the Similarity of the Two

Inbreeding within the American Aristocracy.

[genieroze]

71. Don't ya know * is trying to medicate all of us with his mental health

bill. The only one who needs it is him.

[Dr Fate]

32. I doubt it. Watch top DEMS & the media give him a free pass.

n/t

[lancdem]

36. This is barf-inducing

An ordinary politician tells swing voters what they want to hear; Bush invited them to vote for him because he refused to. Ordinary politicians need to be liked; Bush finds the hostility of his critics reassuring. Challengers run as outsiders, promising change; it's an extraordinary politician who tries this while holding the title Leader of the Free World.

:puke:

[intheflow]

92. off subject, but

what a hideous picture in your post! Next year, look for the Commander in Thief to being wearing a soldier boy uniform as well. Then it'll be a Laura soldier boy sandwich. *Gack!*

[snippy]

20. As Bush spends his second term continuing

to be the worst president in history it is important that democrats always blame the republican party for everything Bush does wrong. This should be done on every issue. In 2006 and 2008 we need voters to hold the republican party, not Bush, accountable. It would be ideal if democrats could force lots of republican officials to constantly attempt to distance themselves from Bush.

[carlagirl]

24. Bingo! n/t

[yorkiemommie1]

29. yes!

Dems have to speak up, loudly, clearly, and SIMply. and hit back every. single. time.

[reprobate]

35. Dems speak up? Surely you jest.

Have you not realized yet that THERE IS NO LONGER A DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

And there will never again be a democratic party until and unless we can get the corporations out of politics. There is now only two wings of the same party-the corporate party. How can we possible expect pols to work for the best interests of the people when they are owned by the corps? The pols beg the corps for campaign contributions, the corps give them the money, and we expect the pols to NOT belong to the corps?

Come on, people. Face reality. THERE IS NO ONE IN D.C. WHO CARES ABOUT US. Ben Franklin knew two hundred years ago when he said the gov't would last until the people became so currupted that the gov't no longer worked for the people, but for the special interests.

GOD REST AMERICA.

[yorkiemommie1]

40. yeah, i know

i keep hoping for that one strong person but all i see is pelosi's deer in the headlights expression.

[strobetoad]

93. Get corporations out of politics?

That would mean allowing a truly free market to operate! The horror!

[driver8]

108. Two parties -- "the Have" and the "Have nots" n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NVMojo]

26. he's not my president ....

I didn't vote for him, he doesn't impress me ...I gave him no mandate other than to "get lost".

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CBHagman]

27. Given that he reigns by hatred, division, partisanship, and...

...selfishness, there's no reason for an outpouring of affection towards him by the populace. The drivel about compassion and being a "uniter, not a divider" was just that.

He's reaping what he's sown. Let's hope that he doesn't manage to ruin the lives of even more people in the process.

[Agnomen]

30. Cheer up!

Presidential second terms tend to be a lot more entertaining than first. Remember Watergate? Iran-Contragate? Clinton's impeachment (yea, it was a farce, but still entertaining one). Conservative pundits been disassociating themselves from Bush (Buchanan, McLaughlin) even little Tucker Carlson admitted before election that he was voting for Kerry because he opposed the Iraq war. The tide will turn against *'s folly, and I mean the conservative tide.

[JaneEyrez]

33. Since we are unable to overturn the election...

let's make sure we make Bush's agenda as difficult as we possibly can to achieve. Domestically that means loudly opposing any changes in Social Security unless those changes shore up the existing program, especially attempts at privatization that will merely funnel money into the stock market. Are these people crazy? What makes them have such faith in the stock market? Or is it merely that they don't care if people invest and then lose their shirts, because the initial investments will make a lost of brokerage people very rich.

Otherwise, I think we need a huge resurgence of antiwar activity. We need to say, without ceasing, that we have been deceived into going to war in Iraq and that our children do not deserve to die for the greed of Haliburton and the oil companies... not to mention the innocent Iraqis, which I feel, sadly, the reason this doesn't resonate with the American people is the inherent racism of them being the wrong color and the wrong religion. Can you imagine our killing this many blue-eyed, blond-haired people who were Christians without some serious revolt in this country? But killing Abdul and his family does not create a riot of anger.

I keep thinking, "Why is war considered necessary in this country?" It certainly is not in Sweden, for example. What barbaric heritage has made us continue to buy into war as the solution to problems.

I also wonder if there's any accountability for the money that's being spent. When they ask for another 80-100 billion, do we get to know if that money goes for legitimate expenses or merely to line the pockets of lobbyists and military contractors.

I want a revolution in this country. I want to wake people up that we do not deserve the government that we have now, but we will always have this government until we demand better.

[reprobate]

37. "Why is war considered necessary in this country?" THE question.

Jane, some of us have been asking a parallel question for a long time: Why is *violence* considered necessary in this country?

Consider the Canada-USA parallel in the late 18th century. Both were faced with the same problems from Mad George I. But the US HAD to turn to violence, while the canadians laid back and got pretty much what they wanted without killing anyone. Which is the more citizen enhancing nation now?

I don't have the answer, but am left with the feeling that there is something basicly sick at the core of this nation. I think the cure involves getting the corporations out of politics, but that's just my opinion.

[yorkiemommie1]

44. war is the force that gives their lives meaning

gets them riled up. like a football game. war is macho. gets the juices flowing. i have seen a friend of mine, (divorced, and social security age ) scraping along financially, pumping her fists at the peterson outcome, giving details of every football and basketball play, refusing to listen when we talk of the war at work, but piously pointing out the yellow ribbons to me at walmart. watched the Bachelor and was impressed by the sincerity of one of them ( i never watched so can't tell you who ), goes to church all the time, but has no use for discussing the war, but voted for Bush.

maybe it's the Wild West myth. The ideals of the 'heartland'.

i do know i hear machismo in the pro-bush people i know. and a gentle thoughtfulness in the anti-bush people i know.

[diamond14]

46. "I want greatness, that doesn't require violence to back itself up"

"THIS is the scandal, this is OUR Nation's festering shame. This acquiescence to state terrror will breed - and attract - a thousand evils for every one it supposedly prevents."


"War in the end is always about betrayal. Betrayal of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians, and idealists by cynics."

[NYC]

53. Corporatism = Fascism.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."

---Benito Mussolini.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC]

65. The person to whom I responded wants corporations out of government.

I don't care if you take me seriously. I truly don't.

I also don't think it was irrelevant to post Mussolini's quote re fascism and corporatism. Corporations make huge donations to politicians. Lobbyists have more influence over politicians than voters do.

The U.S. congress doesn't own corporations. Corporations own the U.S. congress.

[genieroze]

73. Wrong Fascism is the far right of socialism

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

fascism

n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

[Warren Stupidity]

82. gee, did you read the wikipedia article?

As if you did I'm just wondering how you managed to derive 'fascism is the far right of socialism' out of it.

For example:


Characteristic features of the fascist state are that it

* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
* espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism.


You might be able to argue that 'severe economic and social regimentation' includes some sort of socialism. However you would have to then ignore this:


The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture.


And then this:

In its Corporativist model of totalitarian but private management, the various functions of the state were trades, conceived as individualized entities making up that state. Further, it is in the state's interest to oversee them for that reason, but not direct them or make them public because such functioning in government hands undermines the development of what the state is. Private activity is in a sense contracted to the state so that the state may suspend the infrastructure of any entity in accordance with their usefulness and direction, or with health to the state.


Fascism places the state squarely at the top, controlling all, but retains the class system and private enterprise. It is not socialism.

The bogus theory that fascism is rightwing socialism is a canard of the (crypto-fascist!) right, espoused in order to deflect the obvious conclusion that both left and rightwing ideologies are vulnerable to the totalitarian problem.

[genieroze]

87. Fascism is right wing. Communism and Socialism is left wing.

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/fascism

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definitions/english/li%5Cliberalism.html

[Warren Stupidity]

89. ok - we can agree on that

but my feathers get ruffled when I see fascism described as some form of socialism. Like I said, this is rightard nonsense that has somehow (well not somehow, it is precisely through endless repetition) managed to become part of the current wisdom, and after literally decades of debating this crap on usenet I am allergic to rightard nonsense in all of its manifestations. Especially when the rightard catechism (or is that chat-a-chism?) is emitted by my ideological friends.

[genieroze]

90. fascism described as some form of socialism?

Oh hell no! The righties can call me a commie all they want, it's not true but it doesn't bother me. Believe it or not fascism did start out as a leftist movement, sort of. I can find the darn link but it says Mussolini stated out as a leftist and moved to the right that started what we now know as fascism. Freaked me out when I read it.

Take this article, he blames Clinton in a round about way, yes Clinton for modern Fascism. I wonder what this jack off would day about *?

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/Farah_On_Fascism.htm

Oh never mind he's a * hypocritical apologist.

http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=134

[Warren Stupidity]

102. yes Mussolini moved from left to right

however that says nothing about fascism itself, which remains what it always has been: a rightwing totalitarian ideology.

I believe the link you are referring to is Mussolini's own essay on Fascism: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

The preface says its from the Italian Encyclopedia, but I seem to recall it went into Britanica as well.

What is most amusing about all this is that fascism gained support in the 20's/30's from 'the establishment' precisely because it was seen as the best means of defeating socialism, especially the democratic socialist parties of Germany and Italy that were making serious efforts to gain power through the democratic process.

This fellow seems to have collected a lot of literature about fascism:
http://www.seafishingrigs.co.uk/odp.php?browse=/Society/Politics/Fascism/

And here is an interesting book review on this very subject:
http://www.newstatesman.com/Bookshop/300000082709

I found the closing paragraph chilling:

It remains to be seen whether the world will revert to fascism. But there are certainly signs that a planet well stocked with authoritarian capitalist regimes is on the cards. Liberal capitalist nations are becoming more authoritarian under the threat of terrorist attacks, while societies which were already authoritarian, such as China, are turning capitalist. The two systems are meeting each other, so to speak, coming the other way. Meanwhile, the globe is well furnished with capitalist set-ups that were never liberal in the first place, as well as with regimes whose former colonial proprietors exported market forces to their shores while forgetting to include democratic institutions in the cargo. The assumption that the free market and political democracy go naturally together was always pretty dubious, and fascism is one dramatic refutation of it. But we might now be moving deeper into a world where the two go together like a horse and cabbage.

[oneold1-4u]

113. So close!

To the exact reasons that brought about a revolution in Russia!
When the rich is living on the lives of the poor, and goes into greater debt than any nation could ever possibly exist in, then total change is imperitive. This nation will not likely ever again believe that "change" can be made with the ballot! That is truly comic opera!
If this country ever needed a real leader with respect for democracy and the people, it is NOW!

[strobetoad]

96. Kind of like how socialized medicine would be. n/t

[Sterling]

118. Hah, no not if you excluded the corporations. Without doing that you

really don't have socialized anything. So far what we have been offered here in the US even from the Dems is NOT socialized RX. It is in fact a corporate controlled system.

When it comes to meds getting the profit motive secondary to actually treating the population is the first step to wards a socialized system.

Enjoy your short stay.

[Barkley]

110. 'Why violence'? I think Micheal Moore's "Bowling for Columbine is right

Our violence is rooted in fear.

[bunny planet]

38. It's more appropriate to blame it on the fact that the public didn't

really elect him. He just stole it. Perhaps his real percentage of votes was closer to 30% without the shenanigi that flipped the election to him. That could explain the lack of a 'honeymoon'.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genieroze]

74. I don't think it was that low, they are many idiots in this country. eom

[The Judged]

39. "That distinction, which pollsters and analysts blame on ..." not using ..

Diebold voting machines and E.S.& S. tabulators is actually wrong, and the president enjoys a 99.99999999% popularity rate* from the American public and the international community as well.

*taken from "Mitofsky's Honest and Glitch Free Polling 2004." <the Scientifically valid and award winning poll firm>

[SoCalDem]

41. Can there be a true honeymoon, without a "wedding"??

The US got a "shotgun wedding", and the bride and groom are not a bit "in love"..

The "mandate" is phony..the election was phony, the MAN is phony..

We did NOT lect this person, he TOOK the votes of Ohio, because Florida was in the bag, and it's all he "needed"..

Our side, once again, sat back and waited for the system to work, and yet again, we found out that the system is hopelessly broken, and we were caught flatfooted for the third time in a row !!!

In 2K we were given an 8 year "sentence".. We came up for "parole" at year 4, and unfortunately, we had no friends on the "parole board", so we must serve out the remaining half of our sentence:(

[GOPBasher]

45. Because Diebold doesn't register in these national polls.

Bush's approval rating was low on November 3rd, but it didn't matter, since the black box voting machines stole the election for him.

[phusion]

47. Everything eludes Bush...

Weapons of mass destruction, "success" in Iraq, the booming economy, no child left behind...etc, etc, etc.

[cliss]

50. some comments:

1) Honeymoon? A honeymoon assumes a marriage. With that guy? Excuse me for a moment. My lunch is moving up my asophagus. There's no honeymoon.

2) There are so many contradictions in this article, it's just amazing. "Bush prepares to start his term with the lowest approval ratings of any...." Does this seem confusing to anyone besides me? What the hell? And they tell me Bush won with a huge majority?

3) "Bush begins drafing 2 major speeches..." Since when does Bush draft anything, except young men between 18 and 26? The dude doesn't read, doesn't write. That's what his speechwriters are for.

4) "His performance in those speeches could determine whether he regains his momentum from his election victory". His PERFORMANCE? What about results? What about substance? Where the hell does that fit in?

This article is so bogus, it's ridiculous.

[intheflow]

94. Why say * has the lowest rating since WWII when in fact

he has the lowest approval rating since they started keeping records? Both are true, but the emphasis is much, much different.

[Raster]

51. this is amazing. If bush* was reelected, it was the greatest comeback

in political history, requiring even the most of DIEHARD democrats to switch parties to vote for bush*. It also required millions of new voters that NO ONE can actually show turned up and no one can actually say where they actually came from. None of the known indicators said bush* would win, not a one. So now, supposedly even with the greatest comeback in political history, bush's* approval rating is LOWER than any sitting president relected EVER. Jessums titties, people, what is wrong with this picture?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kimber Scott]

52. And they think a couple of speeches might fix it? ROFLMAO! That's

precious. If Bush's life depended on his speaking ability, we'd have been rid of him long ago.

I wonder if anyone will ever notice... he wasn't re-elected. Oh. Wait. They only notice that kind of stuff in Ukraine. Sorry.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genieroze]

57. Uh duh, could it be he really wasn't elected?

:think:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ObamaFan2500]

69. It might be Fraud or it might be arrogance

Or it might be that the people see that the war in Iran isn't making the diesle prices any cheaper.. FLying from Memphis to Baton Rouge and back cost me over 700 bucks, and that is not even inbluding the money i give the stewardess for the extra drinks.

[EmpireWeAre]

72. Could it be that

the crafty primitive and his handlers successful tactic of playing to fear is starting to wear off as the adrenalin of the stupid declines?
My o my what a surprise.

[genieroze]

75. Oh dear, the poor little freeper got the boot. I didn't report it. I was

having fun putting it in it's place.

[fooj]

76. My God...this is sooo frustrating sometimes!

I get so irritated when obvious stats pop up with a DIRECT CORRELATION to 11-4...and some idiot just explains it all away! UGHHHHH!!!!!!!! How many coincidences can there be?

[daleo]

77. Just more proof of vote fraud

Sometimes you just have to accept the obvious explanation.

[DemBones DemBones]

78. You have to really win an election before you get a honeymoon. eom

[Dem2theMax]

79. Honeymoon?

I want an annulment, NOW! :mad:

[socarco]

129. Annulment? Are you kidding....?

What, are you going to vote from Canada?

So, you want an annulment? You are willing to give up your citizenship? Are you truly willing to give up your US citizenship?

-Brian

[Darth_Kitten]

83. ROFLOL Clear-cut re-election?

:D I'll say that again, "clear-cut re-election". I'm not laughing, honestly. :D

[soup]

85. gotta give them credit for one thing, though.

The article says clear-cut not CLEAN-cut. :sigh:

[PATRICK]

121. More proof that the election was a fraud

keeps oddly discordant with the continually fading "Bush won because" memes of the media. It is an albatross around their neck, one of many that stink.

Maybe there never was an election "mandate" in the first place? Unthinkable or unsayable? Those are the only two options for the professional journalist.

[susu369]

86. One Nation Under Fraud

I can't take credit for that one - was posted by a DUer several years ago. Perfect.

Have another slogan (the three D's) that I picked up this morning:

The Bush Legacy: Death, Destruction and Debt
By Bob Kendall

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000991.php

[VolcanoJen]

95. Americans Embrace Mediocrity!

We love it, we crave it, and we want more.

It just makes us feel better, in comparison.

Isn't it obvious?

[atommom]

98. This usage of the word "honeymoon" gives me the heebie-jeebies ...

as if we were all about to get screwed over in more than a metaphorical sense. Eesh. :P I'm going to go scrub myself all over with Lysol for even thinking of such a thing!

[Vogon_Glory]

104. Low Approval Ratings? THAT Didn't Stop Fools From Voting For Him!

So many people seem to disapprove of the Boosh regime's policies than people who voted for either John F. Kerry, Ralph Nader, or the Green or Libertarian candidates. What in HELL did those voterswere doing? If they vote for a pretty face, they're going to get screwed.

[socarco]

114. Well, maybe if...

...we had put up a good candidate, there wouldn't be a discussion about President Bush's "honeymoon". Let's face it - Kerry was an awful choice for our party nominee. Therefore, there were so many independants as well as "old-time" and conservative Democrats who went to the polls, then simply held their nose, and voted for Bush, that he won.

[Vogon_Glory]

115. Kerry Was Not a Great Candidate, BUT

John F. Kerry was an "awful" choice? So awful that the "old-time" Democrats would vote for the Shrub? What "old-time" Democrat would fall for the bill of goods George Deucey-U Bush put out about his own military career while sliming John F. Kerry's? What "old time" Democrats would have swallowed the propaganda emanating from clearly right-wing sites like Townhall.com, NewsMax, or WorldNetDaily as Gospel truth?

What "old-time" Democrat would allow the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to go through his entire term--failure to plan for and guard against terrorist attacks, failure to safeguard the environment, failure to mind the social safety net, launching an unprovoked war on a foreign country using doctored evidence and hype, then failing to plan for the occupation and reconstruction of that country after defeating its military--without at least considering throwing his keister out of the Oval Office?

One of the strongest reasons I voted against Buckaroo Bush was because I took those Texas commercials from a few years ago seriously that said that politicians who weren't performing well in their job should be FIRED by the voters. I still believe that--and passionately. George UU Bush came through splendidly for the wealthiest and best-connected ten percent of the American populace, but gave the (short) end of the stick to the remaining ninety percent.

George W. Bush should have been FIRED by the voters, even if that had meant voting for four years of an untried John F. Kerry (Who, incidentally, would have had a Republican-controlled House and/or Senate to keep any "daring" policies in check). I believe that at least twenty to twenty five percent more of my fellow voters should have put aside their feelings about personal popularity contests and should have voted to send Buckaroo Bush back to Crawford.

Those voters made a very poor decision. Where progressive arguments can't reach them, four more years of the Crawford Cowboy's maladministration ought to help them get in touch with reality. The moderate and moderate-conservative patsies and dupes who voted for another four years of Buckaroo Bush are going to get to live with the consequences. I am certain that many will get to feel their pain along with the rest of us.

[socarco]

122. OK...

...maybe "awful" was a bad choice of words. But Kerry certainly did leave enough doubts as to his military record. I'll admit I'm new to this medium (internet, blogs, etc.), but from what I can tell, he never did fully release his military records ("Form 180", or something like that?). And I believe that was a problem. What is known is that he did serve, and that was honorable. But from what I can tell, what is not known is neither the date nor the grade of his discharge. And the fact that he had three Purple Hearts without a day of duty missed or spent in the hospital left some explaining to do, at least in a lot of peoples estimation. Lots of middle-of-the-road folks couldn't buy that. Am I wrong here?

Also, to paint President Bush as a "weekend warrior" is a little disingenuous, if you ask me. OK, he was only Reserves, but a person can't learn to fly a high-altitude interceptor fighter jet by being AWOL, so he must have put in a good amount of time. I think that resonated enough with the public that the attempt to belittle that service fell short. Also, to paint him as "stupid" also falls short - you don't get in the seat of one of those aircraft without some pretty sharp tools. Just because he doesn't speak well doesn't mean he's not smart, and I think that lots of folks know that.

And yes, there are some "old-time" Democrats who don't consider themselves to be Republicans. I am one, and I did not vote for President Bush. But I could not vote for Kerry, so I left that field blank. (couldn't vote for Nader either)

BTW - I have heard of Newsmax, but I haven't heard of Townhall or WorldNetDaily. Like I said, I'm still fairly new to this medium (but I learn fast ;^). Thanks for the pointers. I'll have to check them out. It's always good to know what the other side is saying....

Back to the "old-time" Democrats - even my wife, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, couldn't buy Kerry. (She wouldn't tell me, but I think that she did actually vote for Bush. Kind of a "Security-Grandma" kind of thing, I think.)

I just think it is a shame. That's all. If we had had a better candidate, we would have won in a landslide.

And to your second paragraph - (I know, this is getting long-winded... sorry ) -

As it turned out, Bush was only President for what, nine months when 9-11 happened? OK, he may have been a little cavilier about al'Quida, but it seems to me that the previous 10 or 12 years of preparation by the terrorists were not something that could be overcome in that short period of time. Sorry, but I can't put 9-11 on President Bush alone. And the sorry state of Intelligence that let it happen also can not be laid at his feet. These sort of failures take time - 4, 8, 12 years...?

As for the environment, I can't comment on that, as I don't have enough education on the subject.

Social safety net - again, I'm not smart enough to address that. I just keep on doing the best I can to take care of my own. Must be an "old-time" thing....

The unprovoked war - I can't really argue, as I believe you are correct (that it was an unprovoked war). But I do not believe that the evidence was doctored. As you must recall, everybody in the free world believed that there were problems there in Iraq. Even our candidate Kerry voted to allow the action, stating that Iraq was an eminent threat. Even France and Germany agreed.

But - I believe that there are deeper reasons for the war. I think that as an unspoken, unpublicized national policy: we realize that the sooner we can drain the oil from the mideast, the sooner they become irrevelent. The sooner they have no leverage in the form of oil, or terrorism, and the sooner we can shrug them off as a political issue, and move on towards the hegemony we continue to pursue. (Would that be a bad thing? I don't know...)

Anyways, sorry for the long-winded reply. Thanks for the honest discourse. I'm glad I found a place to put in my two cents....

Best regards, and looking forward to a reply,

Brian.

[Bridget Burke]

123. Any "old time" Democrat who voted for Bush was never a real Democrat.

Period.

For somebody who's new to all this, you appear to have swallowed about a dozen right-wing talking points. This is not the place to regurgitate them.

[socarco]

126. I'm not regurgitating -

...just observing.

How can you tell me that Kerry was the man for the job? Why not a guy like Lieberman? Oh, that's right - he's a Jew.... what was I thinking.

[Sterling]

119. "old-time" and conservative Democrats

No such thing they are called Republicans and have been since LBJ sold out to MLK. Tough shit for the racists fucks. They have not been a factor for decades.

You have a point that we fielded a bad candidate. We fielded Bushes frat buddy. That was a huge mistake.

Hell even the racist homophobes I know in the re3d states are having a hard time with Bush. Most of them I know actually liked Kerry. He has a lot more claim to the macho thrown than Bush. Bush is just a fuck up. Even racists red necks hate a fuck up.

[socarco]

125. Sorry, my friend, but...

...this level of discourse is exactly what the middle of America percieves as the nature of Liberalism. Do you really have only obscenities as your only tool?

I think we owe the public better, and I think that we can show that.

And as for the racist slant, I don't know if you have noticed, but Colin Powell and Condileza Rice are not caucasian, so I think that argument falls short. Just because they are conservative does not make them white....nor "Uncle Toms"....just successful in a different mechanism.

Sorry, but the facts elude you.

Looking forward to further honest discourse....

-Brian

[Old and In the Way]

124. Well, maybe if

you believe there was no election fraud, your story would make sense.

Actually, Kerry was an outstanding choice. A man who fought for his country while Bush was AWOL. A man who dedicated his life to public service, instead of inside trading and trading on his Dad's name like Bush. A man who investigated corruption in Congress, instead of taking loans from BCCI like Bush.

Kerry was the Bush antitdote. He was the un-Bush. He kicked Bush's ass in the debates because he has forgotten more stuff than Bush has ever learned.

What Kerry didn't have is a corporate media that runs as a functional propaganda arm of the RNC. What he didn't have were bigtime donors who also supplied the voting machines. What he didn't have were Secretaries of States who oversaw the elections and were also the state chairman for Bush/Cheney. That's why Kerry and America "lost".

But keep apologizing for Dimson.....it's gonna suck, though, when they outsource your internet posting job to India.

[socarco]

127. Sorry, friend, but...

I still don't belive that President Bush was AWOL. Like I said in another thread: they don't put idiots behind the contols of interceptor fighter jets. Just because I don't like his politics doesn't mean that I will demean his service. I think that the Reserves are an honorable service, and I think that this is a moot point.

I'm not a Bush-apologist, but I think that only through honest discourse can we get to the crux of the matter. And that point is that Kerry was not a better choice (as much as I hate to see it so).

Thanks.

-Brian

[Vogon_Glory]

134. Shouldn't The Fly-Boy Have More Extensive Records?

Shouldn't Fly-Boy George W. Bush ahve more extensive records? I believe that there is a strong, if not necessarily solid case that George Deucey-U Bush actually DIDN't fulfill the terms of his enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. This isn't necessarily due to my Democratic partisanship, but because of the evidence--as well as the lack of same.

The fact is that young George DID transfer to the Alabama ANG and very few, if any, people actually remember seeing him in active service there. George W. Bush DID have a way of making his presence known and felt, even in his partyin' days. Why aren't there more documents? Why is it that only one or two people actually remember him serving at the Alabama Air Guard, and that one person's testimony is at best suspect? Why aren't there more documents showing George HW Bush's eldest actually attending drills and performing military duties on the weekends in 'Bam while he was working political campaigns?

Why were Governor George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service records "vacuumed" after he became Governor? If he was the bright and shining example so many conservatives and so many pliable moderates and moderate conservatives claim, should he really have had any major indiscretions to hide? I wouldn't think that he'd have thick files showing commendations, well done, fellow, and other huzzahs to use in his later political career.

And when George W. Bush went to B-school at Hahhhvahhd, shouldn't he have made arrangements to serve in the Massachusetts Air National Guard? Where are his military records from Massachusetts and why aren't there ex-Massachusetts ANG personnel willing to step forward to defy Massachusetts liberals and say that His Nibs was there and serving? It's not that such witnesses wouldn't have a wealth of right-wing support for such a grand defi.

The radical right spent nearly nine years vilifying former President Clinton as a "deserter" because he supposedly didn't follow through on a promise, finish his Arkansas ROTC training, and take a commission in the US armed forces. The same radical right has turned around and given Fearless Leader (the fellow currently in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from 2001) a free pass about his spotty military service record(s)after young George W. Bush took a solemn oath to uphold the United States Constitution. If you wish to believe that the so-called "Conservative" movement would NEVER condone a deserter being elected to the highest office in the land--or support the efforts of such a person to obtain high office--you are perfectly free to do so.

You will excuse me if I take right-wing claims that they possess more patriotism and civic-mindedness than those to the left of reactionaries like Jesse Helms and Rush Limbaugh with considerable scepticism and contempt.


If you want to have some fun contemplating Fearless Leader's own military career, a Glenn W Smith has written Unfit Commander: Texans for Truth Take On George W. Bush.

Oh, on the naughty words...I agree that we progressives should try to minimize using blasphemy and obscenity. However, if you do want to see potty mouths and sexual innuendo in action, you may enjoy an excursion to right-wing political sites where self-proclaimed "conservatives" seem to be oblivious as to how such language somehow upholds their claim to possess "family values."

[socarco]

128. ...and, oh, by the way...

c'mon - there wasn't enough election fraud to generate twenty votes. I've heard some of the stories of voter "supression"... get real. Nobody in this country that wanted to vote was denied the franchise to vote.

We have to move on, and get a serious platform that middle-America can appreciate and vote for.

Sorry for the reality check. It's like an intervention.....it's not fun for me either.

-Brian

[Old and In the Way]

130. So do they pay you on a per post basis?

I'll bet it's not fun....most jobs aren't.

[w4rma]

107. Big media is always telling people that Bush is "recasting" his image (nt)

[Deja Q]

111. Well, if the corporate repuke media didn't WAIT to release the stories,

* would have LOST.

I think there WAS some fraud. But with our electoral college (that no repuke in power will ever want to get rid of, especially when they're redistricting that lo and behold makes it easier for them to win, the filthy cheating swine they seem to be), I don't think there was enough.

I think that enough Americans were so outright naive or dumb that they legitimately voted * back in.

and may the Lord be mercy on our souls.

[davis_islander]

131. Those approval ratings can't be right!

It must be fuzzy math!

http://www.flashring.com/content/politics/politics/fuzzymath.shtml

[procinderella]

132. New flyer I go....

Not One **** Dime Day

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One **** Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One **** Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "Not One **** Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one **** dime for gasoline. Not one **** dime for necessities or for impulse purchases.

Not one **** dime for anything for 24 hours.

On "Not One **** Dime Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

Not One **** Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

Not One **** Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One **** Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.

For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Please share this email with as many people as possible.

[The Judged]

133. Raw data indicates women were oversampled in this poll: new result 99%

Taken from my LSD/Darvon Mitofsky poll guide on how to correct detrimental polling.