[besson3c]

I'm finding it incredibly difficult at this point to see how anybody could be in full support, or even a healthy level of support of this administration at this point. I have an easier time understanding some emotional investment in the administration in years past, but it seems that things have just gotten progressively worse, and worse, and worse, and even worse.

So, tell me, do you support the administration less now than you did 2 years ago? 4 years ago? Has it remained consistent? Has it been challenged?

Lets not get into whether the Democrats would do a better job, which party would be the lesser of two evils, etc. Let's not get into Clinton, he is history. Let's not get into rants about the Liberal party and/or Liberal supporters, we've been there already. What I'm looking for is an honest and open report card.

Part of the reason I ask is because it seems that Bush's approval rating has remained at a consistent 30% for a long time now, even though a lot of new issues have made the rounds in the news that are not exactly positive or flattering for the administration.

This is not a game to me, I don't take pleasure in Bush "losing", or justifying to myself that I was "right". I'm not interested in gloating or rubbing things in people's faces, I find that entirely counter-productive and pretty idiotic. I have no misconceptions that the Democrats or any group of politicians aren't ultimately drinking and eating from the same trough. I'm no Democrat fanboy.

However, I am interested in understanding where are political compasses lie right now, and what may have changed over the last while.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm finding it incredibly difficult at this point to see how anybody could be in full support, or even a healthy level of support of this administration at this point. I have an easier time understanding some emotional investment in the administration in years past, but it seems that things have just gotten progressively worse, and worse, and worse, and even worse.

So, tell me, do you support the administration less now than you did 2 years ago? 4 years ago? Has it remained consistent? Has it been challenged?

Lets not get into whether the Democrats would do a better job, which party would be the lesser of two evils, etc. Let's not get into Clinton, he is history. Let's not get into rants about the Liberal party and/or Liberal supporters, we've been there already. What I'm looking for is an honest and open report card.

Part of the reason I ask is because it seems that Bush's approval rating has remained at a consistent 30% for a long time now, even though a lot of new issues have made the rounds in the news that are not exactly positive or flattering for the administration.

This is not a game to me, I don't take pleasure in Bush "losing", or justifying to myself that I was "right". I'm not interested in gloating or rubbing things in people's faces, I find that entirely counter-productive and pretty idiotic. I have no misconceptions that the Democrats or any group of politicians aren't ultimately drinking and eating from the same trough. I'm no Democrat fanboy.

However, I am interested in understanding where are political compasses lie right now, and what may have changed over the last while.

Try this on for size. This wlll put in perspective how out of touch the Democrat party is. They are currently to the left of Russia on the war and it's consequences.

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt, May 4 (UPI) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday the Kremlin wanted Western troops to stay in Iraq for the moment as a stabilizing presence. Lavrov's statement provided unexpected support for U.S. President George W. Bush, who this week vetoed a measure drafted by congressional Democrats that would have imposed a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.
http://www.upi.com/Security_Terroris...ops_from_iraq/
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Europe all know we can't abandon Iraq. The hijacked Democrat party seems to have lost it's moral compass.

[smacintush]

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Those that are unhappy with Bush feel the other side doesn't see the truth, those that are fine with Bush feel the other side doesn't see the truth.

Why go through it again?

I'm not happy with a lot of things that Bush has done or does, but I'm not going to take my dissatisfaction to extremes or project his failings onto his successes like so many here do. I only defend Bush because he's being attacked on a level that is unfair and unreasonable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Try this on for size. This wlll put in perspective how out of touch the Democrat party is. They are currently to the left of Russia on the war and it's consequences.

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt, May 4 (UPI) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday the Kremlin wanted Western troops to stay in Iraq for the moment as a stabilizing presence. Lavrov's statement provided unexpected support for U.S. President George W. Bush, who this week vetoed a measure drafted by congressional Democrats that would have imposed a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.
United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Europe all know we can't abandon Iraq. The hijacked Democrat party seems to have lost it's moral compass.

Sorry, we're not talking about Democrats here. Read my post again, please.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Those that are unhappy with Bush feel the other side doesn't see the truth, those that are fine with Bush feel the other side doesn't see the truth.

Why go through it again?

I'm not happy with a lot of things that Bush has done or does, but I'm not going to take my dissatisfaction to extremes or project his failings onto his successes like so many here do. I only defend Bush because he's being attacked on a level that is unfair and unreasonable.

Understood and agreed, but my question is about whether your level of support, optimism, and enthusiasm has changed over the years of this administration at all?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sorry, we're not talking about Democrats here. Read my post again, please.

But democrats, although they as a group have a very diverse set of beliefs, all are TEH SUCK!!!11ELEVEN!!

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Try this on for size. This wlll put in perspective how out of touch the Democrat party is. They are currently to the left of Russia on the war and it's consequences.

I think this is actually a great answer. The fact is that there are some people, perhaps 30%, who are completely out of touch with reality. Bush must be doing a great job because he is a Republican. Democrats must be terrorists because they are Democrats. And they are even to the left of Russia on the war!!! (???)

[besson3c]

I ask for a Bush report card, I get something about Russia... Go figure.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Try this on for size. This wlll put in perspective how out of touch the Democrat party is. They are currently to the left of Russia on the war and it's consequences.

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt, May 4 (UPI) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday the Kremlin wanted Western troops to stay in Iraq for the moment as a stabilizing presence. Lavrov's statement provided unexpected support for U.S. President George W. Bush, who this week vetoed a measure drafted by congressional Democrats that would have imposed a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.
United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Europe all know we can't abandon Iraq. The hijacked Democrat party seems to have lost it's moral compass.

Yeah, I am sure that Russia is very happy to see the US in this quagmire, and hope this will last a long time. Takes the attention away from their own problems.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I ask for a Bush report card, I get something about Russia... Go figure.

And don't say anything negative or 'personal' about Bush either.

[tie]

Generally, I think the trend toward crackpot-ism starts with trying futilely to find any outside sources to support your blind beliefs. You stretch more and more, eventually reaching Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Next come the Indian and Chinese newspapers. Then conspiracy theory websites -- it's the Jews. Finally, when you have moved beyond even your fellow crackpots, you simply have to make up your own stories from thin air. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

It's happened over and over the last few years in this forum. It was kind of sad when spacefreak went over the edge and started fabricating his own WMD sources because the government hadn't been able to come up with anything.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tie 

Generally, I think the trend toward crackpot-ism starts with trying futilely to find any outside sources to support your blind beliefs. You stretch more and more, eventually reaching Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Next come the Indian and Chinese newspapers. Then conspiracy theory websites -- it's the Jews. Finally, when you have moved beyond even your fellow crackpots, you simply have to make up your own stories from thin air. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

It's happened over and over the last few years in this forum. It was kind of sad when spacefreak went over the edge and started fabricating his own WMD sources because the government hadn't been able to come up with anything.

Why do people get this invested in their horse? It sickens my stomach that some people seem to treat politics as team sports.

[subego]

Google Ads:

Why Mommy is a Democrat
The book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!

[houstonmacbro]

I think there are still a lot of people that are so invested because they honestly believe there is nothing else. I think they feel that by abandoning their one last hope, they lose it all ... and that would be worse than (fill in the blanks here)...

I know certain 'conservatives' that ONLY watch one source of news and refuse to even view or watch or read anything else. I think that contributes to their beliefs.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sorry, we're not talking about Democrats here. Read my post again, please.

So we're supposed to rate somebody's performance without any context? How meaningless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So we're supposed to rate somebody's performance without any context? How meaningless.

Sure! When the Republicans controlled both houses, it was sort of analogous to running a race with nobody in the other lanes to distract them. It was their Whitehouse, they called the shots. What context could the Democrats have provided?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure! When the Republicans controlled both houses, it was sort of analogous to running a race with nobody in the other lanes to distract them. It was their Whitehouse, they called the shots. What context could the Democrats have provided?

If Bush did well, it's meaningless if somebody else likely could have done better. If Bush did poorly, it's meaningless if nobody else could have done well. So the real question is, how was Bush's performance relative to what we could expect from anybody else? But you don't want us to draw comparisons, which would actually be revealing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If Bush did well, it's meaningless if somebody else likely could have done better. If Bush did poorly, it's meaningless if nobody else could have done well. So the real question is, how was Bush's performance relative to what we could expect from anybody else? But you don't want us to draw comparisons, which would actually be revealing.

I see your point, but it is much harder to debate potential rather than actual results. If we can't agree on the actual results, we probably won't make headway with hypotheticals...

Whether or not John Kerry would be doing a better job than Bush is pretty much a gut feeling, or quasi educated guess thing...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I see your point, but it is much harder to debate potential rather than actual results. If we can't agree on the actual results, we probably won't make headway with hypotheticals...

Whether or not John Kerry would be doing a better job than Bush is pretty much a gut feeling, or quasi educated guess thing...

Correct. And that is the fundamental problem. To be honest, I've never liked Bush, and I think he's made a lot of mistakes, but I find myself defending him a lot because he has been placed in a very difficult position and I don't believe any other candidate we've had would have acquitted himself better.

[Atomic Rooster]

F

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Correct. And that is the fundamental problem. To be honest, I've never liked Bush, and I think he's made a lot of mistakes, but I find myself defending him a lot because he has been placed in a very difficult position and I don't believe any other candidate we've had would have acquitted himself better.

What about that Dennis Kucinich guy?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If Bush did well, it's meaningless if somebody else likely could have done better. If Bush did poorly, it's meaningless if nobody else could have done well. So the real question is, how was Bush's performance relative to what we could expect from anybody else? But you don't want us to draw comparisons, which would actually be revealing.

Actually, I think the real question, as posed by the OP, is "does anyone who voted for Bush support him more or less now than they did when he was elected?"

The opposing question would be "does anyone who voted against Bush support him more or less now than they did when he was elected?"