I decided that this needed to be shared after recalling the glee with which similar polls were always shared regarding Clinton; it just goes to show that the party in power is irrelevant, and the same fingers pointed at one can be turned around and pointed at another.

An Ap-Ipsos poll conducted August 1-3 (can't get a link to work to the site), found that the percentage of people who trust Bush has dropped from 53 in January to 48 percent now.

And, more revealing to me is that the number who view Bush's confidence as arrogance has gone up from 49 in January to 56 percent now.

The country is at war, and the majority of the people believe the president is arrogant. Not a good recipe for the next mid-term elections.

On a side note, the flat-out refusal to provide the Senate with the documents asked for regarding prior Robert's judicial opinions and his IRS documents that preceding nominees have had to divulge does not speak well in Bush's defense that he is not arrogant.

I'm certain the numbers will improve after his 5 weeks of vacation are over.

I'm certain the numbers will improve after his 5 weeks of vacation are over.

Does it matter anyways?

He is in power for the next 3 years and there nothing you can do about it.

Does it matter anyways?

He is in power for the next 3 years and there nothing you can do about it.
That definitely means he can do whatever he wants without any fear of reprisal

As if polls really mean anything solid, as shown by the last election.

Where was this poll taken? How many people were involved? Et cetera, et cetera...

It really doesn't help anything in the end. He's not going to be impeached due to supposed mistrust and arrogance.

He's not going to be impeached due to supposed mistrust and arrogance.


If that is all the farther you can see, I guess people's opinions would have no importance for you. But for me, I look at the majority opinion of people having an impact on his legislative agenda, on his domestic efforts, on his foreign policy initiatives, and on his legacy as a whole.

People cast votes, and when they are not happy with a leader, they many times take out that displeasure on his followers and supporters.

You can sit in your house in front of the keyboard and be as arrogant as you want and it means little; but, when you stand before your citizens, and the rest of the nations of the world, and display that same arrogance it can have many repercussions in many different manifestations.

And it really would be nice to be able to have confidence and trust in the President of the US. Maybe he cannot be impeached for that, but maybe he cannot get anything done because of that as well.

He's not going to be impeached due to supposed mistrust and arrogance.

He's not going to be impeached due to Republican majorities in House and Senate that don't want to risk party supremacy. Were Bush a Democrat, impeachment would be very likely.

He's not going to be impeached due to Republican majorities in House and Senate that don't want to risk party supremacy. Were Bush a Democrat, impeachment would be very likely.

What are you talking about?

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached (when he clearly lied and deserved it) with a republican house and senate. So your arguement is doo-doo.:p

What are you talking about?

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached (when he clearly lied and deserved it) with a republican house and senate. So your arguement is doo-doo.:p

Actually, he was. The republicans did not have enough votes to remove him from office, but he most certainly was impeached. Oh, and it was a 50/50 Senate at that point, iirc. So its not like it is today where the republicans ostensiblyh have a 10 seat advantage.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/impeach.html

http://www.mrdata.net/Impeach/

Obviously, he means the impeachment didn't pass Senate.

Obviously, he means the impeachment didn't pass Senate.

I don't think so. I think he thinks that Impeachment = removal from office. Obviously, he will not say that now...but I think we know better :)

Right, he said the wrong thing, but I think what he meant is clear enough.

Right, he said the wrong thing, but I think what he meant is clear enough.

Yeah, he meant that he thinks Impeachment is the removal from office, and that he thinks the republicans had a clear majority in the senate...which just shows that he has no idea what he is talking about.

How about this:

I knew what I was saying, but Elren didn't know that I knew, nor did he know what I knew, so he responded to a point I didn't make in a way that -- if we're being forgiving -- is supported by the facts if you ignore the actual definition and go with what he thought he meant he was saying.

Yes, I think that clears it up nicely.

For ELREN7:

Impeachment = The legal process. Clinton did indeed go through impeachment.
Removal from office is a result of that. The Republicans failed in this.

Bush has not done anything vastly positive or earthshattering lately to overshadow his ineffectiveness in other areas, thus allowing people to have more time to mull over his record and reflect on his lack of delivery of iniatives his supporters came to expect when they voted for his re-election. Polls reflect this balance beam scale of approval. There is always positive and negative but its an additive process, not deductive.

Pretty much he has to shit or get off the pot.

How about this:

I knew what I was saying, but Elren didn't know that I knew, nor did he know what I knew, so he responded to a point I didn't make in a way that -- if we're being forgiving -- is supported by the facts if you ignore the actual definition and go with what he thought he meant he was saying.

Yes, I think that clears it up nicely.


LOL, this is exactly the kind of thesis Elren will posit after another 30 years of junior college.

Be honest tho folks. Any war that drags on this long , we're over 14 years total now, will cause disent in the public opinion polls.

It's not just this war, it's any war. War is an anthesis (sp) for morale....

Fandros

I disagree, Fanny; or, at least, I disagree that your statement applies to Iraq. I don't think most people tie the current war with the first Gulf War (though I could be wrong--we need another poll!). No-fly zone enforcement had periodic moments of interest but was hardly compelling. In any case, the problem is twofold: 1) the primary and ancillary reasons for going to war were shown to be untrue; 2) Bush ostentatiously declared "Mission Accomplished" two years ago (not to mention "Bring it on"), and more US troops have died since than before.


They keep dying (and being grievously injured) by an insurgency that just won't quit, and the administration's shiftiness with their reasons and goals for the war and their sloganeering (e.g., GWoT --> G-SAVE) are wearing thin. Add onto this Rove/Plame, massive porcine spending, and so on...the polls reflect the policies of the current administration, not those that came before.

But I think the 5 weeks of vacation will take the edge off. Americans respect 5 weeks of vacation. I mean, that's how they do it in France, right? The masses will love it!

I guess my perception is skewed there. I was in the USAF and now work as a civilian for the USAF. Most of my friends and a good portion of my family all served in the Gulf. So to me it's been ongoing, with friends and family rotating over there for 14 years.

Just my point of view tho. Most polls, historically speaking, show a very sharp decline in morale for a war lasting past the initial shock and awe.

Fandros

After I posted it occurred to me that, having served in the first Gulf War, your perception would differ from my own. Perhaps a significant number of people do think of Iraq as one continuous state of war -- I couldn't say either way. Even so, I strongly doubt that public perceptions of our actions in Iraq would be so poor had we not invaded. Perhaps the most salient evidence (aside from polling) is the months long inability of the army and marines to meet recruitment goals. Our military/national guard readiness is just one more casualty of this mess.

Ah, here we go. Polls in the toilet, so it's time to throw a parade (http://www.pentagon.mil/news/Aug2005/20050809_2376.html). WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2005 – The Defense Department today announced the first "America Supports You Freedom Walk" (sic) to honor the victims of 9/11 and America's military personnel, as well as to celebrate freedom.