New record low for Dubya. Nixon was at 27% approval rating when he resigned (no I’m not suggesting Bush is going to resign).
President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a [new Harris Interactive poll](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114735765551950179.html). Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.
Roughly one-quarter of U.S. adults say “things in the country are going in the right direction,” while 69% say “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.” This trend has declined every month since January, when 33% said the nation was heading in the right direction. Iraq remains a key concern for the general public, as 28% of Americans said they consider Iraq to be one of the top two most important issues the government should address, up from 23% in April. The immigration debate also prompted 16% of Americans to consider it a top issue, down from 19% last month, but still sharply higher from 4% in March.
The Harris poll comes two days after a downbeat assessement of Bush in a [New York Times/CBS News poll](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10poll.html?ex=1147492800&en=fbef35f5edf2a90a&ei=5087%0A). The Times, in analyzing the results, said “Americans have a bleaker view of the country’s direction than at any time in more than two decades.”
[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings)
What is scary are the ones who think he's doing a fine job. Go on a Republican forum these days and it’s the hardcore Christians fundies who think Dubya is just tops. These folks are just as dangerous (if not more so) as the Islamic fundies. The Republicans use nonissues (ones that actually wont effect you) like gay marriage/gay adoption to drive these religious folks out to the polls during elections, honestly do you think politicians really care about the personal relationships between adults, is this what the government is for? Actually they probably do care about such relationships, the right to privacy with these clowns is no longer a right but a privilege that can be taken away. I’m ranting and going off on tangents, done.
Well if I had to choose between Bush and Kerry, I would choose Bush..
because,
If kerry were to be president, he is more pro-india than bush...
democracts are economits.. india's growing economy is seen as advantageous to democracts where as republicans push national interest ahead and so are more pro-pakistan...
Look on the bright side UTD, if Kerry had won in 2004, he would have had to clean up the mess that Bush and his cronies have created in Iraq. Plus, Kerry had no definite plan for Iraq war either. So let Bush and Co. clean up the mess. The democrats have an oppurtunity to take control of the Congress this year Nov. 2006.
Is GOP (Greedy Old Party) nervous about losing control of the houses, you bet it is.
You do prove PakistaniAbroad’s suspicions about some insane people still supporting Bush.
Yours was only an example of the kind of people supporting Dick and Bush.
Be happy, you did not literally give your vote in favor of Bush when all other criminally insane did. yoohoo.
Mercenary supports Bush over Kerry because Zionists were skeptical of Kerry’s Israel policy. Read the following, for example. Looks like it was published during the election time in the US:
Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has made his objections to Bush administration’s foreign policy a defining issue of his candidacy. During this week’s Democratic national convention in Boston, speaker after speaker took to the podium and declared that under a Kerry presidency, the US would not act “unilaterally.” A Washington Post analysis of Kerry’s basic message to American voters noted that Kerry’s major theme is a “restoration” of US positions during the 1990’s under the Clinton administration.
It is hard to know precisely what a Kerry presidency would hold in store for Israel specifically.
Yes, it is true that Kerry seems determined on forcing Israel back to the negotiating table with Arafat and using Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk as his emissaries in spite of the colossal failure of every policy the two men advocated during the Clinton presidency. But Bush has adopted the Road Map, which formally, if not practically, gives the EU, Russia and the UN the status of arbiters in the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
One thing though, is clear enough. In the unrelenting emphasis Kerry places on a certain brand of “multilateralism,” he is providing undue, unreasonable and unacceptable legitimacy to a country (France) that does not wish Israel well. Kerry can choose to be a friend of France, or he can choose to be a friend of Israel. But this is one area where he can’t have it both ways.
Guys, remember that Zionists only support Israel and Zionism. That’s what their mecca is. All other excuses they give are nothing but bullsh** or cowdung.
