CBS Poll: Speech Has Up Side For Bush

80% Of Speech-Watchers Generally Approve Of Bush Proposals

(CBS)  Americans who watched President Bush's State of the Union Address generally approve of the proposals he outlined, but few think he will be able to accomplish the goals he set out, according to a CBS News Poll conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the speech. In addition, the president improved his image among speech-watchers and made gains on Iraq and immigration.

Eight in ten speech-watchers approve of the proposals Mr. Bush made in his speech – typical of the high support a president receives among those who choose to watch this message. Just about as many viewers in 2005 and 2006 said they approved of the proposals he made then.

The same individuals were interviewed both before and immediately after the speech – and those who watched the speech were more supportive of the president beforehand than Americans overall.

Viewers are doubtful President Bush will be able to accomplish all the goals he set out in his speech. Just 32% say he will.

As expected, Republicans who watched the speech are more likely than Democrats to approve of the proposals laid out in the Bush speech. In addition, 52% of Republican viewers think the president will be able to accomplish his goals, while 84% of Democratic viewers do not think he will.

This was the first State of the Union address that President Bush delivered before a Congress controlled by Democrats. The president talked a lot about cooperation with Congress, saying: "We can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people." 41% of speech-watchers think the president and Congress will be able to work together to deal with the country's problems. This is up 8 points from what the same individuals said before the speech.

On Congress' reaction to the speech, speech-watchers think most members of Congress approved of the proposals he talked about. The speech was interrupted by applause 61 times, including 24 times when nearly all members gave him a standing ovation.

81% of Americans who watched thought Mr. Bush struck the right balance between Iraq and domestic issues in his speech.

In discussing Iraq, the president said "it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory." A slim majority of speech-watchers – 52% - favor sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. This is an improvement from before the speech when just 43% of the same people supported sending more troops.

Nearly six in 10 speech-watchers do think the U.S. will ultimately succeed in Iraq. 58% say it is at least somewhat likely the U.S. will succeed there, but 41% think success is not likely.

President Bush discussed an energy plan which included a call for a 20% reduction in gasoline consumption by 2017. Watchers of the speech seem to like what the president had to say: 67% think he will make the right decisions when it comes to energy conservation and consumption. Immediately after last year's State of the Union address, reactions were similar.

The president made his biggest gain on the issue of immigration. After the speech, 56% of viewers said they approve of the President's handling of immigration, while 44% disapprove. Before the speech, just 31% approved. In his speech, Mr. Bush continued to call for a temporary guest worker program for illegal immigrants. He made gains among both Democrats and Republicans on the issue of immigration.

Last week, State of the Union speech-watchers were somewhat divided in their opinions on whether the president is a strong leader and fewer than half – 47% - found him trustworthy. In addition, a clear majority said President Bush did not share their priorities for the country.

The president's image improved among these viewers following the speech. Fifty-seven percent of speech-watchers say President Bush has strong qualities of leadership, and 54% think he is trustworthy. On sharing their priorities, 53% of viewers say he does; up from 38% last week.

Americans who watched the speech were more likely to approve of the overall job President Bush is doing as president than Americans overall. 43% of speech viewers said they approved of the job President Bush is doing heading into the speech, compared to 28% of all Americans in the latest CBS News Poll.


This CBS News Poll was conducted online by Knowledge Networks among a nationwide random sample of 525 State of the Union viewers. Knowledge Networks, a Silicon Valley company, conducted the poll among a sample of adult members of its household panel who said in recent days that they intended to watch the speech.

The Knowledge Networks panel is a nationally representative sample given access to the Internet via Web TV. This is a scientifically representative poll of viewers' reaction to the speech. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 4 percentage points for the entire sample of speech-watchers.

[t_barr]

Ah, I got it now. You must be a Lawyer. I studied Law also, but, I ducked out when I realized I'd be expected to be a master storyteller, spinmaster, and liar. It went against my morals. Back to the facts. "nobody in our Government, at least, and I don't think the prior Government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings." Simple fact, many people in his Government, including his VP, envisioned flying airplanes into buildings. What part of this escapes you?

Spin it anyway you care, the only thing you've revealed about me is that I don't care which 'Party' you 'belong' to, I demand honesty and truth from our elected officials. And I believe I belong to that rather large number of Americans that have realized the disgusting lack of truth and honesty in many of our elected officials. We are tired of being lied to. We want REAL investigations into serious crimes against Americans. Now if that is a bizarre point of view to you, then maybe you should re-evaluate your morals.

[erichsh]

"Welcome to my parlor, said the spider to the fly".

T_Barr, I got you to reveal yourself for the far-out, beyond-left-wing conspiracy theorist nut you are. *** Cheney is a member of the Project for the New American Century. *** Cheney assumed authority for shooting down hijacked airliners before 911. We were attacked on 911 by hijacked airliners. The only logical conclusion? *** Cheney and the neocons were behind the 911 attacks. OK, now I understand. With a point of view like this, how can you be taken seriously over something so relatively innocuous as a "Bush lied" argument?

With that, T_Barr, I bid you a fond farewell, but I urge you to not venture out into forums like this where your bizarre point of view might be challenged and exposed for what it is.

Egresor, on the other hand, thanks for a civil and challenging debate where a few concessions were grudgingly made on both sides without name calling. That's the way it's done. I'll check up on your centrist link when I get a chance.

[t_barr]

Should I feel honored? I've been attacked by the infamous imbecile lieberman18. The imbecile that assumes that anyone against Bush must be a Democrat or Fascist? Fascist? Bush is the Fascist. But lieberimbecile can't fathom that reality. In his mind no one that bashes Bush could be a Constitutional Conservative. Before you continue to assume that I endorse a Clinton, you should scan the Hillary articles and see what I have to say about the pair that Barbara is so friendly with that she calls Bill a son.

I've got your number imbecile, your nothing but a, possibly paid, Bush mouthpiece. Must be demoralizing to know that the vast majority of the country has your 'hero's' number as well. His reign is rapidly coming to closure, thank God. And History will no doubt label him as the most Dangerous and Destructive President of all time. You certainly chose the wrong hero to worship, a guess that's somewhat indicative of your mentality. Good riddance to both of you.

Ron Paul '08

[lieberman18]

T_Barr,

Thanks for the refreshing usual poisoned kool-aid commentary of the pissant neo-fascist.

Yep, those pesky Neo-Cons were behind 9/11. Yep, Bush doesn't have the brains, blah, blah, blah.

You kind of sound like that Neo-Nazi actor David Clennon, who said the same thing. Ironically he has played roles exactly what he is - a Bully and a Fascist.

Like you?

But before you stumble in the horse manure, I do suggest you read Richard Clarke. After all, he's a hero to the Bush bashers - but wait a minute there - he has also pointed out that Clinton was presented a plan after the Cole bombing to get Osama - we knew exactly where he was - and nixed it.

I've stated the reasons why, and they are pathetic. But pick up the book and find out for yourself. That is, if you can read - and before you choose to blame the Neo-Cons aka Dem Jooz.

[t_barr]

erichsh
It appears you're trying the old 'baffle them with BS' routine. This is what Bush said,
"nobody in our Government, at least, and I don't think the prior Government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings." Note that this was well after 9-11, and I believe he probably had time to ask people about it. I've been in the Military, and let me explain to you that there is absolutely NO WAY that the Generals would have relinquished their shootdown authority before making *** sure that the person gaining it knew that "flying airplanes into buildings" was a threat. The person gaining the authority was VP Cheney, and the last time I checked, Cheney was part of our Government. Pure and SIMPLE. Bush Lied.

"that Bush deliberately caused 9/11?"
No, I think that Bush lacks the intelligence to plan such a thing. If it was 'deliberately' caused, it was probably planned by people somewhere among the Project for a New American Century group. I think that the confused look that Bush displayed in the school room, after being informed of the second hit, was the look of someone putting the pieces together and realizing that he had just been owned. It didn't take him long to regain his composure and continue his role playing though. Oh, to be a fly on the bulkhead of Airforce 1 that day, must have been interesting.....

[egresor]

btw

I'd recommend the hamilton project to those interested in learning about the centrist approach and see the differences.

http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

[egresor]

we wont belabor the point.
of course clinton doesn't get singlehanded credit for the recovery. he had much help and usually grudgingly from congress, but one major factor is that he was a centrist. believing in a balanced approach to economics. not a 'pie in the sky' trickle down one. his choice of Rubin reflected that philosophy.

in contrast to that we have bush and his supply-side conservative approach. give away accumulated revenues to the least needy in the hopes that they will invest it in the economy and therefore all will benefit from it, but that has many drawbacks.

first you deplete the monies the government has and greatly (always?) increase deficits. the hopes (I guess) is that they will be short term deficits, but every forecast I've seen predicted a failure in bush's approach from the beginning. saying that little or no return would result from the giveaway, but that didn't matter to an ideologue like bush. as clinton described in his speech at georgetown. a 'give me a bigger shovel' ideologue's approach.

the problem with that approach is that the economy is too important a thing to take that experimental approach. the damage too great if they are wrong. so common sense dictates a (shall I say?) conservative approach to managing the budget. something bush is seemingly incapable of seeing. saying deficits no longer matter...against his party's former economic philosophy.

peace@U

[erichsh]

I don't know, egresor, I think as the night wears on your arguments start to fizzle out a bit.

First, try not to set up a straw man just to knock him out. I never claimed that congress alone deserved credit for any economic recovery. My points were simply that (a) clinton cannot singlehandly claim credit for the economy because congress has to act, and (b) perhaps it was political inaction that helped the economy.

Secondly, how can the act of simply creating a budget (not backed by any legislative action or other changes) magically improve an economy? That's assuming I accept your premise that Clinton's budget was such a brilliant masterpiece.

I think you give far too much credit (and blame) to a single individual for somehow having the power to create nationwide economic booms and busts.

[erichsh]

T Barr,

Let me break it down for you. You obviously give credit to NORAD for conducting these exercises regarding hijacked airlines, right? And Bush lied by saying publicly nobody anticipated the 911 events even though he had to know about these exercises. Fair enough?

Well, here is where your argument falls apart. (A): you are ASSUMING that since the President has shootdown authority he must have known about this kind of threat. (B) Even if he DID know, I think that General Eberhart, as per my supplied quote, would have told the President what he told USA Today, i.e. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised." So here we have the NORAD commander admitting that NORAD neither expected nor prepared for the 911 scenario. How is this inconsistent with Bush's remarks? Or is he lying too?

In your mind, it is YOU who are (1) extending and stretching NORAD's acknowledged exercises into a scenario that NORAD itself never anticipated, (2) assuming that NORAD communicated this non-anticipated scenario to the President, (3) the President deliberately ignored it, and (4) the President then publicly lied that he didn't know. Bingo! Conclusive, concrete proof (to you) that the President lied! End of story? I don't think so. To the contrary, it takes quite a vivid imagination and chutzpah to concoct this chain of events and then go on to proclaim loudly as fact the Bush Lied. Go ahead, tell me why I am wrong. And what about my question?

[egresor]

it's true that congress has to pass legislation, but they also have to work with what the president submits.

congress balked at much of what clinton tried and at first they succeeded on denying some things (like minimum wage) for a while, but they couldn't deny it to him when the economy responded positively to what he had budgeted. tho they decried it to the end.

and did they admit error and give clinton credit? no - they tried to make it out as the results of what bush sr. had done in the attempt to correct the damages he and reagan had done with their supply-side strategic deficits tactics.

so making it out like congress was the cause of recovery just aint so!

:)

[inventagod]

Unfortunately, the speech was only viewed by Bu$h supporters, which makes the poll so biased it is not so much a poll, it's just advertising for the Republicon party.
My inquiries at work about anyone watching were met with laughter, it seems Tivo was far more popular than the presidunce.

[t_barr]

erichsh
You must be a politician, you failed to answer the question and posed your own question. Again, the intention of using a hijacked aircraft as a weapon was so well known that NORAD had been conducting drills on that scenario for years. Tell me how the only two people that had the shootdown authority, at that time, wouldn't be aware of such possible intentions. It doesn't matter where the flights originated, the possible intentions are the same, and they knew of those possible intentions. Bush lied. End of story.

[erichsh]

Egresor, you know as well as I do that Congress has to pass legislation regarding taxes and spending - Clinton cannot accomplish that unilaterally. Give credit where credit is due. As far as the minimum wage is concerned, I support the increase. But perhaps that very thing you bemoan - gridlock and divided government - was the single biggest reason for economic growth. The government, by its inaction, left the economy alone. Maybe we will get lucky for the next two years also.

[erichsh]

OK, T_Barr, this one is easy:

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

In any case, are you implying something even more sinister than your contention that Bush was lying? "Bush knew". "Knew" what? That 9/11 was imminent and that he failed to stop it? Or (as some of your like-minded buddies have flat-out stated elsewhere) that Bush deliberately caused 9/11? Let's call a spade a spade. What do you REALLY believe?

I'll go first. I believe (note the use of the word "believe" here, folks - not "know") that Bush genuinely felt post 9/11 that Iraq, with its known prior use of WMD on its own citizens and neighoring country, represented an unacceptable risk to US interests both at home and abroad. His beliefs were supported by the available intelligence at the time and bolstered by Iraq's absolute refusal to comply with UN sanctions re: said WMD.

[egresor]

no erichsh that congress basically fought clinton on every turn. they howled when he wanted to raise the minimum wage. saying it would destroy jobs.

you are correct that clinton did benefit from the dot com boom, but that wasn't the reason the recovery was achieved. it was accomplished with a common sense approach to a balanced budget. raise income and cut spending. (and clinton did do both)

even those who got their taxes raised from about 31% to 39% ended up benefiting at an even greater rate than the lower income levels. why? because of investor confidence in an economy that was well managed.

[ibogans]

bush caused this war, let him send his family. we all agreeded on the war for finding sadom bin ladin, but instead, bush wanted sadom hussein, all because what happened while his farther was president. there has not been any news of saddom bin laudin. bush needed an excuse to concentrate on saddom hussein instead of saddom bin laddon. and now that he has got what he wanted, our soldiers have to continue fighting and dieing for a war that should not have happenned. bush is a person thats just wants to be famous, whether it be right or wrong.
those countries over there will always fight amounst themselves. it has went on for decades. i consider him the same as saddom husseine who loves killing innocent people. his tuesday night speech about health, social security, and so on was a way to get the americans to side with him.

[t_barr]

erichsh
You still haven't responded to my claim.
Please explain how you think it's possible that the only two people in the US, with the authority to order an airliner shoot down, could not be aware of the possible intentions of said aircraft. Intentions so well known that drills were designed around them.

Here, I'll repost my claim;

Let's consider one of the Bush lies from 911. On June 1, 2001 VP Cheney took NORAD's airliner shootdown authority away from the Generals and assumed that authority. Now I find it unconceivable that Cheney, at least at that point, didn't become aware of the ongoing NORAD drills involving airliners being hijacked and used as weapons. But, Bush maintains that no one in his administration had considered that possibility. Not possible. There are also other indications that his administration 'knew', but let's just consider this one for now. Links;

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w
ashington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXNjLt3vVwg

[erichsh]

karlimhof:

Are you still hyperventilating out there or have you calmed down since your prior posts? I went through every one of your points and they all have the same recurring theme: what he said THEN vs. what we know NOW. I asked simply for one thing: prove a LIE, and you failed to do so. Finding out a year or two later that you may have been wrong on an initial assumption is far different than stating up front an assumption that you knew to be false at the time you made it. Prove a LIE, don't engage in Monday Morning quarterbacking.

The same goes for all you others who, well, just KNOW Bush is lying. If it's so obvious, please, just PROVE IT. Show me a memo signed by Bush dated on or before a public event that directly contradicts Bush's words at that event. Or anything else that conclusively demonstrates a lie. That's far more useful than engaging in name-calling those who don't share your OPINION, or citing left-wing conspiracy theories as fact.

Bush has repeatedly acknowledged difficulties in Iraq, has conceded that no WMD have been found, and last night stated that "the war we're fighting now is not the war we went into". How can changing events and circumstances, and yes, errors in judgement, be convoluted and twisted into lies?

One more thing: how about a clearly-stated position on what we SHOULD do in Iraq, rather than the usual Bush-bashing tirades about what we should NOT do? Anyone got any better ideas besides cut-and-run?

[erichsh]

Egresor:

"You can emphasize a part of the economy, but ignore the rest all you want, but that doesn't change anything.".

Any chance that one of your sources (americanprogess.org, which I read) is guilty of the same thing? Or is this your primary source for the "real facts" you want? I think we can both agree that this website has a political point of view and agenda reflecting yours. I don't dispute the cherry-picked facts they do present, but I'm not sure they fairly explain WHY certain conditions exist, and I don%u2019t have much confidence they will present facts that contradict their agenda.

"how is it that clinton was able to turn around the economy in such a short time and bush had destroyed what progress that was made in so little time?"

Well, if you want to credit Clinton, you'll also have to credit the Republican-led Congress and Senate that Clinton had to work with - unless, of course, you believe Clinton had a magic wand and did it all by himself. Clinton benefited by the dot-com boom and Bush was saddled with 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and his own new prescription drug entitlement program. As a fiscal conservative, I%u2019m not happy with the budget situation either.

In general, the WHY's of any given economic statistic (and many other things) I think are subject to differences of opinion. I object to those who (A) pass off their opinion as fact, (B) condescendingly denigrate others with different opinions, and (C) refuse to consider alternative points of view.

[remielee]

"If American forces step back" begins a perceived "domino effect" scenerio, much like the one, though predicted by Washington at the time, never happened after our retreat from Vietnam. No reasonable person can say today that we could have had a better outcome had we stayed in Vietnam and there is no evidence that we will do better in Iraq for the same reason.