The reason why Bush's Approval Rating is higher than it should be

[ck4829]

There are up to two and really only two reasons why Bush's Ratings are so high.

1. People are so delusional, ignorant, or evil that they support Bush.
This is probably a small threat to Kerry's chances of winning the election. We can convert the ones who are ignorant of Bush's record and probably some who are delusional too. We have to remind these people that the greatest terror attack in history happened under Bush's watch. We have to remind these people that Bush's Advisors and Secretaries are Multi-Millionaires and Extremists. We have to make these people remember that we first went into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, and then we went into Iraq to get WMD. And Bush's words were "Who's Osama?" when we went into Iraq, he totally forgot innocent Afghanis and Troops, just so he could turn his focus to another country he was waging war against. As for the evil people, they are in good company with Bush and show no chance for turning, so I wouldn't try it.

2. The 'Liberal' Media.
This doesn't mean anything except it may have a bandwagon appeal. When the 'Liberal' Pollsters go out, I am willing to bet they are looking for certain groups of people like Klansmen, CEOs, Fundamentalists, etc., etc.

We should all relax, I don't think the majority of America truly supports Bush and I also believe America is starving for positive change.

[sangh0]

1. What are you talking about?

Bush*'s numbers aren't even "high", nevermind "so high"

Bush*'s numbers are lower than every other incumbent President running for re-Selection.

[rkc3]

2. They are high, considering they should be in the low teens.

[clydefrand]

3. Has anyone here ever been called by one of these polling organizations?

[sangh0]

4. Yes, twice

Both times by Quinnipiac

[louis-t]

6. No but I awoke the other morning

to a recording of GWB on my telephone. I didn't wait to hear what the recording said. Ruined my day.

[ncbiker]

7. Not me

Don't believe these so called "polls". Remember, they are funded primarily by big corporations that are in the pockets of Bush and Cheney.

Kerry will win in a landslide. Bet on it

[democratreformed]

8. In late 2001 or early 2002, I was called

by someone who asked about my happiness with the job the *resident was doing at the time. They gave me choices: "very happy, happy, don't care (or something like that), unhappy, or very unhappy". When I angrily replied "VERY UNHAPPY", the person quickly hung up. LOL!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

10. Only once - by some anti-abortion group

n/t

[EnfantTerrible]

5. Klansmen, CEO's, Fundamentalists?

Do they have some kind of social-club where they all hang out?

In my opinion all it is is the "bounce" that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy with the conventions. However, what goes up MUST come down.

The chimp doesn't stand a chance in the debates.

[istruthfull]

9. Doctored

I think that Bush's approval ratings are doctored. Oh man, give the "real" Fundamentalists a break. They do not support Bush, just the Pharisee like do.

[Czolgosz]

11. Bush's ratings just confirm that polling and focus groups work

In the Bush administration, decisions are not made by Bush or even Bush’s policy annalists but are given over to the domain of his political adviser, Karl Rove who makes the key policy decision based on polling and not on "values" or "principles" or even Bush's big compassionate, conservative, Christian heart. It is not so hard to artificially inflate your approval rating when you give your pollster power over your policy decisions. It's not hard; just unscrupulous and craven.

John J. DiIulio, former head of the Bush administration's faith-based organizations initiative, has described Bush as fundamentally lacking interest in domestic policy: "The Clinton administration drowned in policy intellectuals and teemed with knowledgeable people interested in making government work.... The Bush West Wing is very nearly at the other end of this policy-making continuum." According to Bush insider Dilulio, Rove is "the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political adviser post" and he "often supplies such policy substance as the administration puts out."

"In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, non-stop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff."

According to Bush-appointee DiIulio, Bush replaced policy decisions with his obsession for political tactics: "This gave rise to what you might call Mayberry Machiavellis -- staff, senior and junior, who consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistications consisted in reducing every issue to it simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible."

"Translating good impulses into good policy proposals requires more than whatever somebody thinks up in the eleventh hour before a speech is to be delivered."

Here is what I think serves as the best example of how Bush uses politics in place of policy: "The remarkably slap-dash character of the Office of Homeland Security, with the nine months of arguing that no department was needed, with the sudden, politically-timed reversal in June, and with the fact that not even that issue, the most significant reorganization of the federal government since the creation of the Department of Defense, has received more than talking-points caliber deliberation."



Does anyone have a copy of the memo that DiIulio released after he left the White House?