WASHINGTON, Nov. 11, 2006

Poll: Bush's Approval Hits All-Time Low

New Poll Puts President At 31%; 63% Dissatisfied With Country's Direction

  • Play CBS Video Video Bipartisan War Summit

    Following their victory in Tuesday's midterm elections, the Democrats are making suggestions about the war in Iraq. The White House disagrees. Jim Axelrod reports.

  • Video Bush Meets Top Senate Dems

    The top Senate Democrats visited President Bush at the White House, making the same pledges top House Democrats made in their meeting with the president. Aleen Sirgany reports.

  • Video Bipartisan Is Now The Word

    Only On The Web: Bill Plante reports that President Bush will be meeting today with the Senate's top Democrats, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. They'll be discussing a bipartisan summit on Iraq.

  • President Bush leaves the East Room of the White House in Washington after discussing his party's heavy losses in the mid-term election, Nov. 8, 2006. Photo

    President Bush leaves the East Room of the White House in Washington after discussing his party's heavy losses in the mid-term election, Nov. 8, 2006.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

  • Photo Essay Winners And Losers

    Images of some of the victors and vanquished from Election Day 2006.

  • Photos Election Day '06

    Images from around the country as Americans exercise their right to vote.

  • Interactive Election Briefing Book

    Info on the races, voting statistics, and more from the CBS News Election & Survey Unit.

(CBS/AP)  For a relentlessly optimistic President Bush, this is a season of disappointment, surprise and setbacks.

At home and around the world, things aren't going his way. With Mr. Bush's legacy-building time running out, Americans sent a pretty clear message in Tuesday's election that they were angry at him and wanted change. Though Mr. Bush's name wasn't on the ballot, voters took revenge on the Republican Congress and put the Democrats in charge of both the Senate and House.

And if the vote counts weren't clear enough for the White House to hear, Newsweek announced a new poll to be published Monday which places President Bush's approval rating at the lowest it has ever been — 31 percent — while 63 percent of Americans said they were dissatisfied with how things are going in the country. According to the news magazine, Bill Clinton's lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Mr. Bush's father's was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan's was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter's and Richard Nixon's lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively.

Perhaps most grim for the White House, Newsweek also reports that most Americans are writing off the rest of the Bush presidency. The poll shows two-thirds (66 percent) believe Mr. Bush will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll. Only 32 percent believe he can be effective.

In an awkward bit of timing, Mr. Bush will be globe-trotting when Congress returns to town next week to open its lame-duck session, taking up business the White House deems vital.

Departing Tuesday, Mr. Bush will be away for eight days at a summit of Asia-Pacific rim leaders in Vietnam and stops in Singapore and Indonesia. Back just before Thanksgiving, he will jet off again a few days later for a NATO summit in Latvia and a stop in Estonia.

World leaders will be watching to see if Mr. Bush, politically weakened at home, acts differently on the world stage.

Across the globe, the president is on the defensive about problems ranging from the mess in the Middle East to the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea. Even in his own backyard, there is a growing camp of leftists in Latin America, from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to Nicaragua's newly elected Daniel Ortega.

And then there is Iraq.

Four years into an unpopular war that has defined his presidency, Mr. Bush thought that by this point he would be bringing some U.S. troops home. Instead, he had to sack his gruff secretary of defense, open himself to a new Iraq strategy and worry about pressure to pull out before he thinks the war is won.

Leaving the polls, a majority of voters said they disapproved of the war and the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq. Mr. Bush meets Monday with members of a blue-ribbon commission looking for a new way forward in Iraq.

Victorious at the polls, Democrats put the White House on notice to expect tougher scrutiny of the war. "Let's find out what's going on with the war in Iraq, the different large federal agencies that we have," said Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader. "There simply has been no oversight in recent years."

The election was a sobering splash of cold water on the president and political strategist Karl Rove, both of whom had insisted Republicans would win.

On election night, Bush had a dinner of beef loin and squash with Rove, Republican National Committee chief Ken Mehlman, chief of staff Josh Bolten, and friends Brad Freeman, a California venture capitalist, and Don Evans, former commerce secretary. Other officials joined later. The mood was businesslike as people read their Blackberrys and took cell phone calls, one participant said.

Mr. Bush is not a man given to second-guessing, self-analyzing or doubts. By the next morning, associates said, he was bouncing back.

"He's not one to get mired in kind of the shoulda, woulda, couldas," said Bush counselor Dan Bartlett. "I saw him coming to grips with it that night and by the time he came walking into the Oval Office Wednesday morning he was looking forward. We had to hold him back from calling Nancy Pelosi (the incoming House speaker) because it was still 6:55 in the morning."

"Why all the glum faces?" Mr. Bush said, opening a post-election news conference where he said he shared blamed for the Republican losses.

Later that day, Bolten pulled together several hundred White House staffers in the Old Executive Office Building for an unannounced visit by the president. Mr. Bush revved up the troops, told them they were there not to mark time but to get things done, Bartlett said.

"Obviously he's disappointed," Bartlett said, "but his mind's already racing forward, saying, 'All right, we've got to come at the same problems but from a different angle.'"

The big question is whether Mr. Bush, after six years of largely ignoring Democrats, really will be willing to work with the political opposition. Or whether his last two years will be clouded by partisan gridlock. Mr. Bush invited the new Democratic leaders to the White House and both sides pledged to cooperate.

"I think he's doing the right things now, right tone," said Republican strategist Ron Kaufman, who worked in the White House under Bush's father. "We'll see how long it lasts on both sides."

Kaufman and others recall how Mr. Bush, as governor of Texas, took a bipartisan approach to work with a legislature controlled by Democrats. Of course, many of them were conservatives and saw eye to eye with Mr. Bush.

"I think he liked the way he governed in Texas," Kaufman said. "I think he really enjoyed it. And somehow he's gotten away from that. ... I think he'd be relieved to go back to that."

Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman who was chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said Bush would have to change the way he does business if he wants to succeed.

"He's going to have to understand he can't do this by the old playbook," Panetta said. "The Rove playbook is not going to work. If he's going to govern, it means he probably has got to go back and remember what it was like to govern in Texas with a Democratic legislature and the deals that he had to make."

There are doubts Mr. Bush will bend on issues dear to conservatives. "The fact is, to work with the Democrats requires him ... to basically say to a quarter or a third or more of his party, 'Sorry, you're out,'" said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video and Galleries from Politics

Add a Comment See all 306 Comments
by rharrin1 November 11, 2006 4:12 PM PST

He asked for it, he got it. It was he that was supposed to run this country, not rove or anyone else.
Reply to this comment
by heetseeker November 11, 2006 4:14 PM PST
"How did it come to this"?

On a human level, I must confess to feeling sorry for GWB... here is a man that turned optimism into an art form... who allowed his presidency to be hijacked by extremist ideologs, who has been repudiated by the voters and whose foreign policy legacy has become an academic case study in what not to do...

There was a time this President stated that you are "with us or against us"... coalition building (essential to effective foreign policy) was seen as an obstacle to the vision... bullish & emboldened from success in Afghanistan, he launched "shock & awe" in Iraq, overthrew Saddam in record time & announced mission accomplished!

Yet today, GWB announces that he is "open to ideas" as his shambling policy of "stay the course" in Iraq.... lurches from one strategy for victory to the next.... whilst at the same time sinking deeper & deeper into the quagmire that he has created...

All but for a little transparency & humility, Mr President... you have only yourself to blame... & it will get worse... the day of reckoning is fast approaching... the long-awaited investigations into the war will be the final fatal blow.... for they will reveal what we have long-suspected... that the blood of thousands has been shed for lies....

Reply to this comment
by rarrjr00 November 11, 2006 4:31 PM PST
I remember when it seemed everybody hated Reagan too. I was only 13 years old, yet it is what I remember from watching the news. Which is why i've been so surprised that everyone now seems to be using Reagan as a gauge. Like most thoughtful people, I will leave the judging to the Tweens of today.
Reply to this comment
by book54552134 November 11, 2006 4:32 PM PST
The last paragraph of the article says it all. Dubya will change his tactics in regard to how he deals with Congress but his goals will not change one iota. He will cheat, steal, & finagle to get the Congressional votes he needs in order to accomplish the major goals of his Administration. Sadly, the history of Democrats in Congress is that they can be manipulated by a politically ruthless Administration like Dubya's. Nothing has changed in that respect & already Democratic leaders have sent the Administration signals that they are willing to compromise.
Reply to this comment
by heetseeker November 11, 2006 4:47 PM PST
book54552134

Who was it that said politics is the art of compromise... I think much of his domestic agenda will be managed through artful compromises on both sides... the elephant in the room is Iraq... I am not sure where the compromises are to be found here? Apparently the only thing that GWB will not agree to do is withdraw...

For political expediency I think the Dems will baulk at calling for a withdrawl or cutting off appropriations for the war... what we are then left with is "stay the course lite"... (timetables & milestones with limited sanctions thrown in the event of slippage)... effectively a kind of two year meander into the wilderness...
Reply to this comment
by arthurcl1 November 11, 2006 4:52 PM PST
The end of the Bush Dynasty. We the people have spoken. Now he gets rid of Rumsfield. The people had to tell him to follow through with that!
Reply to this comment
by November 11, 2006 5:07 PM PST
Revenge is hardly a reasonable solution to vote for voting Democratic. Democrats are known pro choice advocates and show now better reasoning than Bush. As soon as Democrats show repect for the life of the unborn than the country will shape up. To much deadly misplaced compassion on the part of the Democrats can only make things worse. Another the Democrats are postively insane. They have alread broken up families and caused havoc on the natural laws.
Reply to this comment
by CBSTV November 11, 2006 5:22 PM PST
It's true, I think, that George Bush's methods and ideology will not change despite the rise of the Democratic Party. He will continue his attacks on civil liberties and the sanctity of human life. Do not presume that even a Democratic Congress will keep him and Mr. Cheney at bay.
Reply to this comment
by nativewoman November 11, 2006 5:23 PM PST
"Obviously he's disappointed," Bartlett said, "but his mind's already racing forward, saying, 'All right, we've got to come at the same problems but from a different angle.'"

That is the whole point right there. The people wanted the administration to consider new angles, new ideas.

However, the administration has clearly demonstrated their disdain for the people in many ways.

This administration has clearly been stuck in the mud, "staying a course" that obviously wasn't working. And making no secret of the fact that they were not working for the people and didn't care what the people thought or wanted.

That is one definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
Reply to this comment
by mstiger71 November 11, 2006 5:30 PM PST
Bush has known before elections that he was not doing very well in the American peoples eyes. But, he kept saying that he is doing his job and that he knows not everyone is happy with him. But never made any changes. I do not think he should stay in Office until 2008. We should get him out!
Reply to this comment
by olebd November 11, 2006 5:32 PM PST
In my opinion, Bush never did have the intelligence or leadership talent to run this country effectively. He attempted to surround himself with a team of his cronies but as we know, most of them failed him miserably.

It's almost pitiful to watch the implosion.
Reply to this comment
by marcodele November 11, 2006 5:34 PM PST
Bush deserves to feel what low is. His arrogance and abuse of power inside his little circle of buttkissers has damaged our country. I love watching the neocon spinmasters like Mary Matalin talking about how Bush has been a great fiscal conservative. He took a surplus and turned it into a trillion dollar deficit in his first two years. Once again, the Democrats will have to come along and clean up the mess. Personally I think it is time for a moderate party - a third party of normal middle of the road people who aren't screaming liberals or sadistic neocons.
Reply to this comment
by missingamerica November 11, 2006 5:35 PM PST
I concur with rharrin1 - the major mistakes that Bush made were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove (oh, and L. Paul Bremer III). Frankly, the President would be in fine shape if he'd heavily modified or even taken the opposite direction on all policy objectives any of the commentators on the fair and balanced faux news source endorsed. If you get my drift.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 5:38 PM PST
The joke is really on us. Bush was never even legitimately elected into office, and only gained power by way of election fraud. The mainstream US media failed miserably to report this crucial story to the US public.

www.ericblumrich/gta.html

(speakers on)
Reply to this comment
by nunesbras November 11, 2006 5:41 PM PST
I4m not surprised with the elections. The dems used the media in a massive campaign of propaganda showing what was bad and hidding what was good in Bush4s administration with a help of CNN, AL JAZEERA and NYT as well as the terrorists in Iraq who increased attacks in october to change the results of elections in favor of democrats.
Since 09/11 the US has been a safe place to live thanks to Bush. Now it seems to me this safety is over. With the dems there will be terrorists building training camps all over the world.
I hardly can wait to see how the democrats will deal with people like the hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the Iranian president Ahmadinejad , The Syrian president Bashir al Assad ,the members of al qaeda and a lot of bad guys who want to kill americans.
If the dems don4t know, Hassan Nasrallah is that guy who install rockets launchers among civilians houses just to atract the Israeli fire and when the city is all flatenned still claims victory. Ahmadinejad is that guy who wants to fabricate nuclear bombs to provide the terrorists with it in order to wipe Israel from the map and stop advance of freedom and democracy in the region.Assad is that guy who helps terrorists in Iraq to fabricate IED and roadside bombs.
I can4t wait to see what the dems will do to fight the guys who use the name of god and slam to kill everyone who disagree of them and i can4t wait to see what the4re gonna do that Rumsfeld and Bush haven4t done.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 5:53 PM PST
nunesbras,

The Bush regime fascists and their Democrat Party collaborators have given away willingly, far more than any "terrorist" could ever take from us, and the Bush apologists have cheered them on all the way.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 5:55 PM PST
nunesbras,

The Bush regime fascists and their Democrat Party collaborators have given away willingly, far more than any "terrorist" could ever take from us, and the Bush apologists have cheered them on all the way.
Reply to this comment
by November 11, 2006 6:30 PM PST
Hardline Republican supporters are like a broken record - repeating the same thing over and over again.

They don't offer solutions, they only offer criticism of the Democrats who haven't even taken up their new positions yet.

They continue to defend the policies of Bush, even though Bush's policies, particularly in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq and the "War on Terror" simply have not worked.

Talk about being indoctrinated - they actually believe that Bush has done nothing wrong with his policies and actions - and yet, the majority of the people have spoken - and they believe that Bush has failed the American people.

They even criticise the Democrats for their election campaign, even though the Republican campaign was run in a similar fashion - (although I feel that the Republicans especially relied on dirty advertising campaigns).

Apparently reality is just something that Republican hardliners can't fathom.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 6:33 PM PST
freddyfrugag,

I hope that you are right, but it sounds like the Democrats have already made it quite clear that "impeachment is off the table". What?

The Democrats voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq, for NAFTA, for the "Help America Vote" fraud program, and for the fascistic PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see the fascist extremists that have taken over the Republican Party get a nice kick in the teeth, but I have zero confidence that they will roll back any 'police state' legislation, or that they have any idea about what to do in Iraq.

What's more, the Bush regime has created an inevitable financial disaster for this country, and I promise you that when things turn really sour, the Republicans will say "see what happens when the Democrats are in power?"

Hopefully, with the Republicans becoming less relevant by the day, we can hope to build a true opposition Party to take on the Democrats.
Reply to this comment
by fritzalvarez November 11, 2006 6:58 PM PST
The President needs to tune into America. It's like he still doesn't get it. This is not an evangelical, war mongering, paranoid, big business crook facilitating populace. The adminstration has not been "tax and spend," they have just been "spend." The debt keeps going up and up and someone will have to pay the piper.
Fritz

http://heathenmiddle.com
Reply to this comment
by paul_pitcl November 11, 2006 7:07 PM PST
I do not think that Bush or the Republican Party has a conscience nor a soul. This is why they can lie, cheat, steal and be hated by every honest person and not think anything about it.
Reply to this comment
by marcodele November 11, 2006 7:10 PM PST
Bushes legacy is already written, it was done so last week. Even his own party rejected the right wing extremist nutjobs that he's been coddling for six years. Cheney is history, as well he should be. If anything good happens in the next two years, the Dems will claim credit. If not, it is still on Bushes clock. I hope the history books name the folks who were in charge of national security on Sept. 11, 2001.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 7:12 PM PST
janem4,

A Flash presentation summary of the main 2000, Florida vote fraud effot can be viewed at:

www.ericblumrich/gta.html (speakers on)

I posted a mre comprehensive list of references on the "Florida Recount" thread.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/11/cbsnews_investigates/main2174376.shtml
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 7:16 PM PST
janem4,

I'm not sure what a "libs" is, but I want everyone to feel free. There is way too much hatred and fear going around, and it is causing many people to surrender our hard-fought freedoms. It is a shame and it is getting us nowhere that we should want to go.
Reply to this comment
by doctordonut-2009 November 11, 2006 7:20 PM PST
maybe he can buy back the Texas Rangers after he's outta office......
http://www.theweeklydonut.org/index.php/2005/11/09/doctor-donut/
Reply to this comment
by frankly6 November 11, 2006 7:26 PM PST
All but the most extreme elements of the right wing finally see through this President. It seems that as a nation we are returning from the brink of insanity.
Reply to this comment
by jimkun November 11, 2006 7:26 PM PST
It's frightening that there are those who so easily believe the Republican lines about the our safety and what would happen if Democrats would take power. For those of who you want to blame the media and the terrorists that there were 100 US troops death in October was the reason for the Republicans losing the election are ignoring the fact 2,700 troops who died before October was still causing most Americans to be dissatisfied about the handling in Iraq. October only showed that Iraq is out of control and the White House, as with many other matters, was trying to mislead (ie, lie) the American public about the situation in Iraq. It seems the Rumfled situation shows explicitly that the White House feels it is ok to lie to the American people as long as they feel it is for a good reason, such as political reasons which may affect the outcome of elections.

Reply to this comment
by jimkun November 11, 2006 7:27 PM PST
For those of you who believe, based solely on the fact that there have not been any subsequent attacks on US soil, are ignoring the following points:

* The 9/11 commission gave a failing report card about steps since 9/11 that the government has taken to protect Americans. That infuriates me.
* The CIA's own NIE report has stated that the war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach. That is, because of the perceived notion worldwide that US attacked Iraq without any valid reason, then this has caused much hatred toward Americans and has inspired many to take their hatred to the extreme.
* I have no doubt that terrorists are planning something big. I would have preferred that we would have spent $300 billion over the last 3 years on snuffing out terrorists rather than spending that money on invading Iraq which has now left Iraq to be like Afghanistan under the Taliban... a breeding ground for potential terrorists.
* And finally, for those of you who want to defer accountability of 9/11 as Clinton's fault, you are obviously not aware of the steps (or more specifically), the lack of steps taking by the Bush administration leading up to 9/11. I would recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtfGtWKqh4&NR
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 November 11, 2006 7:32 PM PST
jimkun,

No attacks? Have you forgotten about the anthrax nonsense? It appears that most everyone else has.
Reply to this comment
by November 11, 2006 7:47 PM PST
I really got a kick out of GWB when he said he is "open to ideas" I guess he has no idea what to do!!This must be a cry for help
Reply to this comment
by ozonmojo November 11, 2006 7:54 PM PST
It is foolish to read more in all this stuff than the
infantile glee of the President's enemies.People do want a change.No doubt about it.And we will shortly see what that change is.Better reserve your judgement till then.
Reply to this comment
by jimkun November 11, 2006 8:00 PM PST
I am sure those of you who say the blame for the bad decisions lies with people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, others are not letting Bush off the hook for being accountable. It is his decision to surround himself with only people with similar thinking as his and not to listen to opposing viewpoints.

A perfect example of how Bush manages was with postwar Iraq, where the person originally assigned for handling the planning was Jay Garner. Jay Garner originally estimated 200,000 - 300,000 troops required for postwar Iraq and so he recommended not to disband the Iraqi army. He also suggested to put Iraqi faces in front of the reconstruction to make it seem more of an Iraqi effort. Instead, Bremer came in, disbanded the army, and made sure that everyone knew that it was the US who was the focal point of the reconstruction.

One of the most frightening parts about Bush being the "decider" is the exchange that occurred in the preliminary meetings with Jay Garner. Instead of intelligent discourse about postwar Iraq, Bush was trying to figure out Garner's accent. At the end of the meeting, there was no evidence that Bush was paying any attention to what Garner was saying. It sort of reminds me of a kid in a class who can't focus on what the teacher is saying.

More information is available here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 8:02 PM PST
What America Needs Now-- 5
We need to support any advocates for constructive change in the way our politicians do business. The national agenda need to move away from desperate, fearful politics fueled by narrow, monied interests toward a government which takes its own people and their interests fully into account.

Don't wait for somebody else to deliver a solution. Tell those you voted for to take the money out of American politics by reforming campaign financing. The time is now-- the tide of public opinion strongly favors reform. Become part of this critical American revolution .
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 8:03 PM PST
What America Needs Now-- 4
3. Congressmen and Senators Can Make a Difference
New limits on campaign spending through total public funding not only renews focus on the real issues, such reforms also free congressmen to devote their attention to the very people they are supposed to represent, instead of having to run for office and raise funds for next term. Most congressmen polled say they spend far more time fundraising than they wish, and want to spend more time producing good legislation and meeting the day-to-day needs of their constitutents.

GOP position-- GOP members of House and Senate complain equally with others about the distraction and burden of fundraising. They also insist that good legislation takes time to develop-- they cannot proceed wisely when a yearly federal spending bill a few feet thick arrives on their desktop only hours before a vote. (This actually happened during the Tom Delay regime in congress.)
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 8:03 PM PST
What America Needs Now-- 3
GOP Position-- Limiting campaign spending abridges free speech. GOP Position in Practice-- "Unlike others, we raise money easily, and barrage voters with saturation advertising. Like selling soap, saturation, noise and repetition usually works, even when our ideas do not."

2. Less Campaign Noise, More Ideas
Campaign reform bills seek to limit the flood of advertising that most Americans ignore and say they do not want. The restructuring of campaign advertising rules to favor ideas and content over noise and repetition will be welcome to most voters.

GOP position-- Adopt a message, develop the ad, and pay for it. GOP Position in Practice-- Disavow responsibility for the irresponsible actions of "third parties" to whom the GOP money is given. According to Karl Rove and his disciples, attack ads are not only effective but essential to winning a contest. GOP spending in 2006 heavily indulged in attack ads insinuating sexual immorality and minority-bashing themes. The GOP will cry foul when reformers seek to end the blizzard of attack ads which demean public discourse and drive away voters.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 8:04 PM PST
What America Needs Now-- 2
After the 2006 election, there is new hope to repair damage to the American multi-party system of government. But the GOP (and the Democrats) must foster, not obstruct, the wave of reform, particularly where reform lets voices without money or powerful backers have an important role. This novel approach may succeed in making the American experiment more truly representative and democratic (following the will of the people). It will be a change Americans have not seen in at least a century of faltering reform efforts.

Things to watch for--
1. More Voices in Government
Today, it is more expensive than ever to run for and hold office. As a direct result, many voices with worthy ideas simply cannot be heard. And those who are heard must "compromise" with sources of money. This makes a small number of monied individuals the actual brokers of political agenda and power. Only by limiting the amount of money spent on a campaign can all voices have a more equal chance to be heard. This proposal for leveling the playing field is called public funding of elections.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 8:04 PM PST
What America Needs Now--

Traditionally, the lame duck term is a window for departing American presidents to strike a pose-- and perhaps actually do statesman-like things for the good of the country, not merely rationalize their own failings and scramble to hold onto power.

Despite all Bush talk of "bipartisanship", however, we should remember he has said these things before. Bush is the same individual who, at 911, understood America had given him a huge and truly bipartisan grant of political power to go after the 911 terrorists. Yet, Bush is also a reborn opportunist who promptly misinterpreted, misconstrued and misused that authority as carte blanche for his own political agenda, foreign and domestic, and never looked back.

Criticized, Bush called his critics "unpatriotic" for daring to challenge him. That posture wore thin and transparent early, as Bush tried to rule by virtual fiat with GOP control of all branches of government. The American experiment in self-government devolved into a banana-Republican kingdom of one-party rule, imploding in massive scandals of political and personal corruption.
Reply to this comment
by angryliberal-2009 November 11, 2006 8:10 PM PST
These democrats were supposed to get the war in Iraq under control by now what is their problem? They said they were gonna solve the worlds problems....why do we still have problems?
Reply to this comment
by glidescube November 11, 2006 8:11 PM PST
It would be intresting to see if the constituion still allowed the Presidents to run for more than two terms and Bill Clinton and challenged W Bush for the Office. How would such a race unfold?
Reply to this comment
by mwitten2 November 11, 2006 8:14 PM PST
George Bush is the worse President in the history of the United States! However, the American people NOW understand what happens when you elect the "village idiot" and his cronies. The first thing the Democrats must do is extract our great military from the civil war in Iraq. Three thousand killed and 20,000 maimed for life, for what? Meanwhile, the true enemy Al-Qaeda is moving its forces throughout the world for something that I am sure will not be good. Thanks to Bush's mistakes, Al-Qaeda is stronger than on September 11, 2001! I would support the impeachment of Bush for "high crimes" such as spying on the American people, but would we get Cheney as President? Can we impeach them both?
Reply to this comment
by cantshutup November 11, 2006 8:16 PM PST
bmsbms29 ...

looks like you have selective memory...clinton did leave detailed information on al queda when he left office...as for his affairs, who cares? republicans that's who, that's how they destroy people and hide behind their own hypocracy...and as for bush...he cares about America? i don't think he does, he cares that his friends make a lot of money and as for partying, you know he's an alcoholic and former? cocaine user don't you??? and he met every monday with the meth addicted gay-bashing **** evangelist we all just got an eye full of...please get your head out of your poop shoot!!!
Reply to this comment
by cantshutup November 11, 2006 8:25 PM PST
mwitten2...i would think his whole cabinet could be impeached because you are right about not wanting cheney as prez...i've seen a site called impeachbush.org check it out...and we have to keep on the dems so they don't cower to the "decider"...
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 8:26 PM PST

ozonmojo said, "It is foolish to read more in all this stuff than the infantile glee of the President's enemies.People do want a change.No doubt about it..."
-------

On the contrary, what you witness everywhere comes from people who want not only want change, they also want no more of Bush. Theirs is a mature, thoughtful glee, refined over the past six years despite infantile gloating from Bush and his herd of neocon children.

Now, the era of acid-laced personal attack ads is over, and yes, the American people always deserved better. If the nation has figuratively "fallen into a hole", it is not up to only the Democrats to save us, but to each of us to work constructively for something better. Bush dug the hole, but all of us-- GOP, Democrat or independent-- must join in the same cause.

A good example is the legion of Republicans who in the past year or two took open exception to the foolish and shortsighted policies of Bush. They did not defend them simply because Bush stamped them "GOP".
Reply to this comment
by jhindson1 November 11, 2006 8:58 PM PST
ELECTION REFORM

Limit of $2,000 per Corporation per year per candidate or Party
Limit of $5,000 per individual per year(over 18) per Candidate or Party
Funds cannot per transferred via another party

On-going Public matching funds if Candidate receives over 10% of the public support (as measured by independent polls during the campaigns)

PLACE THE POWER BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.

Those who oppose Public Financing of Elections - REMEMBER THE PUBLIC ALREADY PAYS DEARLY - Public already pays many more times than public support would ever cost.
Everytime a Corporation dols out the money, the public pays dearly in unecessary *paybacks*, earmarks, health care costs, thwarted health and safety legislation - list goes on




Reply to this comment
by gramto7 November 11, 2006 9:02 PM PST
These democrats were supposed to get the war in Iraq under control by now what is their problem? They said they were gonna solve the worlds problems....why do we still have problems?
Posted by ANGRYliberal at 08:10 PM

You know, it would be nice if the people doing the Democrat-bashing would at least wait until January and let the newly-elected crew get into office before they started raising hell. Even then, the changes cannot be made as soon as they take office. They have to go through the same protocol as any other bills. Can't you guys give them that much time, or are you so dense as to think things can be changed by wiggling their ears or noses?
Reply to this comment
by nynative1340 November 11, 2006 9:03 PM PST
I can't think of a president who deserves the setback any more than Bush. He never had charge of the presidency; Rove and Cheney and their conspirators did. Without them and the neocons, Bush would be a nobody. He never ran a successful business, and he conducted the presidency the same way he conducted the first 20 years of his life: recklessly and with no real goals, except to further his own image.

Bush was no more qualified to be president than Barnaby.

These guys WERE experts at lying and covering it up, but, after six long years, Americans FINALLY caught on. I don't know what took so long; the lies were obvious.

Anyone who doesn't understand how this happened should read "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Frank Rich.

Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 November 11, 2006 9:10 PM PST
"ANGRYliberal" said, "These democrats were supposed to get the war in Iraq under control by now what is their problem? They said they were gonna solve the worlds problems....why do we still have problems?"
-------

"These democrats"? Why do we immediately sense you are a Bush booster? Only a graduate of the Limbaugh School of Logic would demand Democrats immediately repair six years of abuse and folly from Bush and the GOP.

It will take much longer than that, because Bush and people like you took partisan liberties with the interests of the country. Our grandchildren, for example, will refuse our calls because of all the deficit your "conservative" Lawbreaker-in-Chief put us through.

Besides, I count on you to stymie most efforts to put the ship of state back on course.
Reply to this comment
by nynative1340 November 11, 2006 9:14 PM PST
Stuff it, angryliberal. You can blame Bush & Co. for the worlds problems. It took him six years to create the mess in Iraq and the middle east, and it was never going to get better during his tenure. If we're lucky it will ONLY take six more years to clean it up. But the Arabs and most of the rest of the world will hate us for a very long time.

Reply to this comment
by wayfedup November 11, 2006 9:17 PM PST
mwitten...
I don't think impeaching Bush will do any good... Clinton was impeached and nothing happened; Gore was not President afterward was he?
I personally think our best course of action right now is to fix Iraq, if that is even possible since the other side screwed it up so bad.
America needs first and foremost to set the country back on-track. Let history take care of Bush/Rove and company, and TRUST ME, HISTORY WILL NEVER SMILE ON HIS PRESIDENCY!
Reply to this comment
by oldsailor3 November 11, 2006 9:17 PM PST
Not sure who the gentleman is, the one standing with his head so low. Could it be Tony the "fox" journalist. If it is Mr. press secretary perhaps he should visit with his mentor, rush limbaugh together they could share the very best drug that money can buy
Reply to this comment
See all 306 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs