Bush approval at new low

[matt]

Read that last line. Let it sink in a minute.

Bush Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low in New CBS Poll

By E&P Staff

Published: February 27, 2006 9:20 PM ET

NEW YORK A new CBS News poll released late Monday places President George W. Bush's approval rating at an all-time low of 34% percent. Many in the media had noted a Bush "bounce" earlier in the year, but now his approval rating has plunged 8% in just one month.

The poll also showed that pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high, and 7 in 10 Americans, including 58% of Republicans, opposed the Dubai ports agreement.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims.

And, for the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care.

Just 30% approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low. "By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq," CBS observed.

Only 41% say that invading Iraq was "the right thing to do."
Some 54% say we "should have stayed out."

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43% approve.

Vice President Cheney's approval rating, already dismal, still managed to plunge--from 23% in January to 18% now.

[twentyshots]

Vice President Cheney's approval rating, already dismal, still managed to plunge--from 23% in January to 18% now.

i'm guessing that 18% work for Haliburton or KBR.

[the happy prole]

Yeah, but how much negative coattail does Bush have?

I mean really, he's delivered somewhat admirably on all of his campaign promises. He suffering from a bit of personal incompetence, and a bit from people blaming him for their mistakes. They wanted war, they got it. They demanded government spending and a reduction in taxes, they got it. Now they don't like it. I don't see them changing in the future.

As much as conservatives don't like Bush, most of them are still of the opinion that Kerry would have been even worse. The Democrats haven't offered up an attractive alternative, and I don't see that changing. They're in a position of hoping that the hard right and moderate right will fracture the party and some third party candidate will leach enough votes to give them a shot.

[Homsar]

I don't want to hear until his approval rating goes up.

[REMgirl]

Bush has always claimed that he doesn't pay attention to the public polls. I'm pretty sure his handlers do, though. I imagine that if the polls were giving him a 85% popularity rating, he'd be reading them and citing them every day. :p

[akip]

Yeah, but how much negative coattail does Bush have?

I mean really, he's delivered somewhat admirably on all of his campaign promises. He suffering from a bit of personal incompetence, and a bit from people blaming him for their mistakes. They wanted war, they got it. They demanded government spending and a reduction in taxes, they got it. Now they don't like it. I don't see them changing in the future.

As much as conservatives don't like Bush, most of them are still of the opinion that Kerry would have been even worse. The Democrats haven't offered up an attractive alternative, and I don't see that changing. They're in a position of hoping that the hard right and moderate right will fracture the party and some third party candidate will leach enough votes to give them a shot.

bush won originally by a hair, second time 'cause of terrorism and kerry's dud personality. he's delivered for the narrow constituency who actually benefits from the tax cuts. he hasn't delivered for for the average citizen, who will have to deal with the consequences of his very shaky economic policy and the massive cost of this war.

kerry would've inherited a bad situation and we'll never know what he would've done. so to say he wouldve been worse is just idle speculation. he tends to be more of a pragmatist, however, than bush, and wouldn've had a very different team leading---quite possibly an improvement over cheney, rice, and feith, et al.

i've personally never lived through darker days than the 2000s. the 70s weren't as bad because so many essentials, such as housing, health care, and college tuition, were much cheaper (even adjusted for inflation). while a good part of this goes beyond bush---back to reagan, and now to globalization and the rise of other competing economies---bush has made it all a great deal worse, esp. through tax policy which puts more and more of the backdoor burden on the middle class.

that the democrats have been in disarray, as far as getting elected, is indisputable. but they've still got a chance if they can get their message straight. it's hard to sell pragmatism over ideology and that's more their problem than governance. after all, clinton did a much better job---his issues were monica and lifting regulations on the financial markets, without which he'd be looking even better than he already does.

in my opinion, the public is finally catching on to the consequences of bush's presidency----and they've been incredibly slow at it.