Wash. Times' soft bigotry of low expectations -- cites Bush's "high" 45% approval on dealing with terrorism
In an August 22 article on the results of a just-released Gallup poll, The Washington Times reported that "[v]oters gave Mr. Bush high marks on dealing with terrorism." The August 13-16 poll, which had a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points, found that President Bush has a 45-percent approval rating on the issue of terrorism, while 52 percent disapproved of how he is handling terrorism. Moreover, Bush's approval rating on terrorism, which the Times called "high marks," "is just one point above his low terrorism approval rating of 44% from January," according to Gallup.
From the Washington Times article:
Voters have not held Congress in such low esteem since Gallup recorded another 18 percent job-approval rating during the congressional check-bouncing scandal in March 1992 or a 19 percent rating during crippling gasoline shortages in the summer of 1979.
President Bush's job-approval rating held steady at 32 percent in the poll of 1,019 adults conducted Monday through Thursday last week. Voters gave Mr. Bush high marks on dealing with terrorism and low scores on foreign affairs and the Iraq war, pollsters said.
This is sort of like when Scooter got convicted and Foxnews proclaimed something along the lines of, "Scooter Libby not guilty on 2 out 6 counts.".
At least the Washington Times reported the actual numbers.
Those poll respondents who "gave Mr. Bush high marks on dealing with terrorism", answered that way because that's how the question was phrased: "What do you think of Bush's handling, etc..."
The fact of the matter is, that anybody who thinks our Federal Government is at present doing a good job in gathering intelligence about, and keeping track of, terrorists...
...they think that good job is being done by those Federal Agents and Officers in the field, not George W. Bush.
The poll question gave them no option in the matter, except to appear to credit Bush.
George W. Bush deserves no credit whatsoever, for the good job being done by the many Agents and Officers and other Federal authorities we have, in the field, as as our frontline defense in these matters.
Not only do most of the American People think George W. Bush is a worthless incompetent, but so too do most of those Federal authorities, who are actually doing the job, think that way about the hunched-over leering grinning cackling clown.
We're talking about a ship here, that would not only sail just as true, but would sail an even better course, if it's worthless and incompetent skipper would just fall overboard.
bigotry? Not that I agree with what they did, but how is that bigotry?
big·ot (bĭg'ət) n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
It's a play on an earlier phrase coined by some public figure, "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
Though I believe the original speaker was indeed talking about race.
It's a lind Bush stole to justify his real bigotry. Its included in his No Child Left program "Some say it is unfair to holddisadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it isdiscrimination to require anything less –the soft bigotry of lowexpectations."
Wow, even as pathetic as Bush's numbers still are....they can't seem to sink to the historic lows that Congress' can.
I know... It's funny how hardcore Bush bots will stand by their man, not matter how pathetic his performance.
By the way, don't you think it's a little strange to make a comparison on approval ratings when there are 435 members of the house and 100 Senators and only One President?
Why don't we compare individual members approval ratings to the president? It might be kind of fun!
Perhaps. But they are two branches of government representing the people......and their approval ratings are always compared.
One is pathetic, the other is abyssmal. Nice job politicians.
The only thing dumber then Repulicraps and Democraps, is when they work totether!~
-Lewis Black......
Something like that..
No Tommy you dont usually see much straight comparison between the president's approval rating and that of the entire Congress. This has been a recent ploy of FOX and all their friends since the Congress has gone to a Democratic majority. The trick being that many of the people who disaprove of Congress do so because they haven't OPPOSED Bush strongly enough. Ironic isn't it? Do you understand that?
So FOX is in charge of all the negative polling where Congress is concerned? Why no, I didn't understand that.
So, you are one of the many who disapprove of the weak spineless Democrats in Congress who aren't standing up to Bush enough? And how is that a ploy by Fox, or anyone? Since you just said what a low opinion of Congress you have.
I didn't say anything about MY opinion of Congress. Are you on nitrous or something? It's like trying to have a rational argument with a mosquito. Maybe you're just so used to arguing straw men that you do it instinctively? I'll try one more time. The ploy by Fox is to play up the low approval ratings in the first place. They use it to give cover to Bush by pretending that it's a relevant comparison to his low approval rating. The truth is, much of the low approval of Congress is actually low approval of Bush. You see, many people voted Democrat in 06 hoping they could do more to stop Bush's agenda. So Fox and friends are combining this anti-Bush crowd with the pro-Bush crowd who disaprove of Congress for different reasons and pretend it outweighs Bush's low approval. Please tell me you can understand this.
Geez, Tommy, I used to think you were smarter than this... I'm beginning to wonder now.
Sundog did NOT say "FOX is in charge of all the negative polling where Congress is concerned"
Sundog said that Fox Noise has adopted the trick of comparing those polls to the President's numbers (not really comparable figures) since the Democrats have taken over.
I would have thought you could figure that out. Makes me wonder if you're not that bright after all, or if you just enjoy stuffing straw men...
Tommy, let me attempt to put this media canard to rest once and for all. Bush is an "apple," congress is an "orange." When doing comparative analysis one must compare apples to apples and orange to oranges.
Now with that in mind, let's try a syllogism. Bush is to the executive branch as Pelosi is to the ________?
Comparing an individual (Bush the "orange") to a collective body (Congress the "apple") is intellectually disingenuous.
Man we've gotten really intellectually lazy since Republicans have had control. And thank you for shepherding this era in Ronald Reagan!
Brush up on your elementary logic (see Aristotle)
Perhaps you and Aristotle better begin by contacting the good folks here at MMFA, who deliberately and very distinctly highlight the discontent that the voters feel towards Congress (the apple) in this very piece, followed by the analyis of Bush's (the orange) poll numbers.
So it looks as though the orange met the apple long before I introduced them. But thanks for the philosophical fruit reference anyway, it's a real peach.
Give us a break, Tommy. MMFA's post dealt with thw WaTimes article and its claim that 44% approval was a "high" number.
The WaTimes, as a good right-wing organ, is the one who brought up Congressional approval, in an attempt to paint the president's numbers as "high" in contrast.
MMFA quoted the passage from article that you claim opened the door for this false comparison as a demonstration of wider context than the simple bold quote might convey.
Again, I would have thought you could have figured this out for yourself. Apparently, not so much, huh?
It the approval or disapproval numbers for Congress and the President are so unrelated and so irrelevant to each other, then why does MMFA highlight them both in this piece at all? That makes no sense.
The fact is they are, and always have been, linked comparatively ever since these types of polls have been taken. For anyone to say they are not is disingenuous.
But it's understandable that you want to dismiss Congress' plummeting poll numbers now that the Democrats control both Houses........it's just the transparency in your defensiveness that is a little disappointing.
Okay, I get it now Tommy. It's all MMFA's fault that you can't admit you're wrong. Much like Bush can't admit mistakes. It must be congenital among Republicans.
Wow, when I veer away from the written words in the topic threads, I get accused of taking the topic in my own direction.......now when I reference MMFA's exact words, I get accused of hiding behind them and using them for my defense.
Liberal circular logic and senseless selectivity is a puzzling thing.......but I guess you understand it.
Okay, Tommy again you deflect and obfuscate to mask your perilously inane attempts at a cogent and sustainable argument. MMFA cited congress ONLY in reference to how WaTimes prefaced their reporting on Bush's "high" polling numbers on terrorism. They provided context (something the right says they don't do). They did not editorialize.
Next obfuscation please. Geez! you guys . . . .
What the HELL? My posts get deleted because I question Tommy's affiliation?
This site is worthless.
What did you expect out of Bush's base? I mean, look what type of people they are:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/hail-caesar-by-digby-ive-been-getting.html
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2007/08/neocon-think-tank-calls-for-enslaving.html
Be fair, Snoop, those people probably don't make up more than 30 or 40% of the base.
so 30% to 40% of the 33% who unwaiveringly support Bush through thick and thin?
bush the new Caesar? & nuke the Iraqis & Iranians to re-populate with U.S. people? Wow. I hope this is less than .008% of his base as it would be a nasty surprise to think that any percentage of the country would think like that...
It's bad enough to think that 30-40% of U.S. citizens are dumb enough to think that bushco is doing a good job with "terrorism" Guess it's a vague enough concept to have a margin or error of plus or minus 30%. The die-hards plus swing with the wind voters.
I can't say this for a fact, but my guess is the majority of the swing voters are small business owners.
You might be right. I can't understand how a small business owner would think that Bushco policies are helping small biz. Cost of health care alone is killing them; not to mention monopoly mega-corporations with all their tax advantages and corporate welfare.
Everybody seems to dislike all politicians except the ones THEY voted for. Since a President was elected by all the people its not the same as Congress which is mostly made up of people they didnt vote for and they feel more comofortable trashing it for this reason Congress traditionally polls worse than the President and your attempt at a comparison is not valid
Valid comparison or not, the current crop of Congessmen and women is near historic lows......so there isn't much bragging room there.
The polls show that the majority of people don't think much of congress.
The election results show that the voters seem happy enough with the person who represents them to send them back to Washington over and over again.
So the polls are really saying that the voters dislike everyone except their own representatives.
The polls showing the peoples apparent disgust with congress is meaningless.
The election results show that the voters seem happy enough with the person who represents them to send them back to Washington over and over again.
Not Me!!! I've never cast a vote for my Senators Kennedy & Kerry, & neither of them represent poor little ole me :-(
Neither does my Congressman, Representative John Tierney.
Maybe I should move? ;-)
Actually, I mean, come on now, even though you didn't vote for them, they still represent you and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all. You can still contact them, voice your concerns, and your opinions, and see if something happens and all. Same thing with myself. Liddy Dole is one of my senators, and I never voted for her. But probably much as yourself, she gets an occassinal earful from me, and I never hear anything back from her.
You can still contact them, voice your concerns, and your opinions, and see if something happens and all.
Mag, Been there, done that.
I've contacted Kennedy's office a few times. What a waste of time!
My wife once contacted Kerry's office several times. Another waste of time.
Tierney is probably not a bad guy, but that might be because he's basically invisible.
Same for me, because both of my Senators are strongly hard core Bush backing republicans. I don't even get a form letter back when I write to them, or call their offices. Nadda. Nothing. Zilch. Zippo.
At least my Congressman is a good old fashioned democrat, and he actually responds.
Worrier, I don't agree that the poll numbers for Congress are meaningless. I think they say quite a lot.
There are certainly constants -- the fact that most people like their reps but dislike Congress as a whole, for one, and the fact that Congress generally has pretty low ratings even in the best of times. But historically low numbers have meaning within that context, and it's illuminating to recognize that, unlike the Republican base, Democrats are very willing to criticize its own legislators if they don't do the job.
This Congress will always get low marks from Repubs. But they will continue to get bad marks from Dems too if they fail to enforce their subpoenas, if they fail to reign in the power grab of the executive branch (or, in the case of Cheny, whatever branch he feels like belonging to at the moment), and it they fail to do anything about the war.
It's called "accountability".
I'd like to see this broken down as to why the people feel the way they do. How many of the 45% are giving Bush credit for the lack of terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11? How many are simply pinheaded Bush sycophants? How many couldn't find their butts with both hands and six pages of instructions?
I can't understand why poll questioners don't ask it they way you do, unbiased and rational.
;)
Of course Pres.Bush gets all the credit...by those that assigned him all the blame for 9/11.
You would think so. But somehow the train comes off the tracks right after blame leaves, and credit arrives.
Not so true I don't think. The thing is, is that Bush supporters tend to say that we are safer now than we were before 9/11, and the "proof" that they point to, or evidence in this case, is that we haven't had an attack on our soil since then by foreign terrorists. Of course, there are other people who disagree with that whole assertion by saying that terrorists have carried out attacks on the US since 9/11 (anthrax anyone??), so that just spoils the whole Bush is great and protecting us gambit of reasoning.
The real facts behind that though, and these have been supported by reports from the CIA and other places, is that there are more terrorists in the world today than there were on 9/11, and there are more people trying to get the US, and most of this is a result of what Bush has done globally in our "war on terror". Essentially, Bush old boy has created the greatest recruiting tool ever dreamt of by terrorists around the world. For years on end, these radicals have been calling America the great Satan, and that America was coming to kill them, and convert them, and almost as if right on cue, we get George W. Bush who invades a couple of Muslim countries (one justifiably as most in the world would argue - Afghanistan and one not so justifiably, Iraq) and change-o, prest-o, we now have the war on Islam (in lots of Muslims eyes in those regions most affected by this). It didn't help matters when we had cowboy Bush up there talking about "dead or alive" or "Bring 'em on." or "Smoke 'em out of their holes" or "We're on a crusade to stop terrorism".
The point being, we're not safer now than we were before 9/11, and just because we haven't had an attack on our home soil as horrible as 9/11 doesn't make it so. That's the justification that Bush-bots use to say we are "winning" the war on terror. They miss the facts in front of their faces.
Cogent thoughts on the "safer now than before" argument...but it's a deflection from the actual statement as to who gets credit for no attacks since 9/11.
It's really pretty simple...For those that have blamed Pres.Bush for the attacks on 9/11...then the only logical conclusion is that he gets credit for the fact that we have had no, zip, zero, nada attacks since.
I could and can agree with that.
But again, they never frame the argument in that way. They always add, "We're safer now than before 9/11 because Bush is in charge" and that just ain't the truth.
Have we had a MAJOR attack? No. Can I say Bush gets credit for this? Of course, he's in charge right now, and has taken some steps in preventing further attacks on our nation.
"Have we had a MAJOR attack? No. Can I say Bush gets credit for this? Of course, he's in charge right now, and has taken some steps in preventing further attacks on our nation." - Magnolialover
Magnolialover, oh you were so close. The actual reason is right before you, why you even said it yourself: "Bush old boy has created the greatest recruiting tool ever dreamt of by terrorists around the world." and "change-o, prest-o, we now have the war on Islam (in lots of Muslims eyes in those regions most affected by this)".
I saw it stated quite some time ago (though I have not confirmed) that those who have read bin Laden's writings know that what he most desires is a war between the West and Islam...which he feels Islam will win. (Winning or losing is properly open to some conjecture, but it can be said with certainty that ultimate results will hardly be pretty.)
When is such a war more likely? With increased polarization. ...And less likely with decreased polarization. 9/11 can be seen as not just an act of war, it was an act to help induce war. Think about that. Haven't the results been greatly increased polarization? Haven't Bush and company helped that polarization along by the shovelful?
Bin Laden knows no little amount about U.S. politics...and about the U.S. media.
Sure, Bush has reduced the likelyhood of further 9/11 type attacks. But not for the simplistic reasons often touted. They have been reduced because Bush is giving bin Laden everything al-Qaeda desires--a potent recruiting tool and increased polarization. Why mess with a good thing?
So, I guess we should have laid down our arms and refused to fight back. A turn the other cheek foreign policy. That'll show bin Laden!
Please try not so hard to be an idiot.
of course, we never should have had an attack on 9-11. but bush downplayed the threat and did not have a single meeting that focused on counterterrorism before 9-11. he was "not on point" about bin laden before 9-11, as he told bob woodward. the idea that bush is some genius keeping us safe from attack is absurd. he has resisted implementing many of the recommendations of the 9-11 commission. just as he rejected the hart-rudman commission proposing a department of homeland security.
I think, and this is only my opinion, that no matter what the Bush administration had done before 9/11, there is a very likely chance that the attacks still would have happened. I do believe that any time that you have a group of determined people, who are willing to give their lives in order to obtain a goal (in this case crashing planes into buildings), then there is a good chance that they can achieve it, because they aren't coming back alive, and they don't care how they do something, as long as they accomplish what they want to do.
Now, do I think that BushCo should have been paying closer attention? Of course they should have, but they weren't. They could have minimized, or possibly stopped what happened, but I still think that it could have just as easily come to fruition even at our most vigilant.
i respect your opinion, but i think it was very likely that it could have been stopped. there's no doubt they were determined, but they dropped some heavy clues that they were up to something. saying they wanted commercial licenses to fly, but not to learn to take off and land, was a sign. that led the flight schools to call the fbi and report them as up to something. that information was out there in the form of the phoenix memo. the fact is that the bush administration had not just an indifference to the threat of terrorism, but an active indifference. they deliberately downgraded the threat. two days before 9-11 rumsfeld told congress that he would urge a veto if they shifted $600 million froim missile defense to counterterrorism.
His poll numbers might not reflect it but the people who show up to see him just love their president.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Disturbing
This kind of censorship seems to be systematic with the Bush Junta. I remember one incident back in the 90s when a couple approached the Clintons and shouted something derogatory, and the Secret Service detained them. Of course, the GOP Propaganda Parrots went into full outrage mode for weeks. These same liars are strangely silent about Bush's staged "town hall" meetings, where only Koolaid drinkers are admitted.
There is only one poll that counts. It is taken every four years in November. Everything else simply is manufactured news. It is sometimes interesting but doesn't mean anything.
Barring an impeachment, the President could enjoy a 100% approval rating and Congress 0% and it still would not change who is elected. The same goes if the percentages were the exact opposite.
Not true. I believe there are mechanisms in place for some elected officials to be recalled, ala the California governor when Arnold was elected to replace him because the people of that State were allegedly disatisfied with his performance.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the President and Congress, not governors.
AA,
I think there are several GOP campaign managers who would disagree with your assessment as to the implications of those "meaningless" GWB poll numbers.
Personally I couldn't care less about campaign managers. Yes, they are interested in seeing how their candidate stacks up.. but only with regard the next election. As you already know, that is the poll that counts.
But, Bush is dragging down other GOP candidates with his polling numbers, and a lot of folks in the US are getting Bush-lagged (I should trademark that or something).
Bush, being the perceived leader of the republican party is wearing on the rest of the guys in his party. That's the difference.
I LOVE HOW NOW THAT THE CONGRESS IS IN THE DEMS HAND REPUBLICANS AND THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA WILL TALK ABOUT THE LOW POLLS NUMBERS 24/7. WOLF IS ALL SMILES TODAY ON HIS SHOW AND FOX NEWS IS ALL OVER THE POLL. HEY DEMS YOU BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELVES FOR NOT STANDING UP TOO BUSH ON THE WAR.
While I do not agree with the all caps
"HEY DEMS YOU BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELVES FOR NOT STANDING UP TOO BUSH ON THE WAR.:
I can't disagree with sentiment.