Home > Uncategorized > How low can Bush go? How about 32%

How low can Bush go? How about 32%

Dawn Legg from Code Pink appears Wednesday at 6:05 to discuss this and other issues relating to the Bush administration.

“President Bush’s approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.

In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush’s performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.

That’s a significant drop from the way Americans perceived the president a year ago. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll carried out April 29-May 1, 2005, Americans were split on their assessments of Bush’s performance, with 48 percent saying they approved and 49 percent saying they disapproved. (Read the complete results document — PDF)

CNN’s poll has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points for most questions.

It was one of four conducted within the past 10 days that have yielded similar results: a Pew Center poll carried out April 7-16 gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating; a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll carried out last Tuesday and Wednesday gave him a 33 percent approval rating; and an American Research Group poll carried out Tuesday through Friday gave him a 34 percent approval rating.

Asked whether the term “strong and decisive leader” describes Bush, 46 percent said yes, down from 62 percent who said they felt that way in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey carried out July 22-24, 2005.

Asked whether “honest and trustworthy” describes the president, 40 percent said yes, down from 56 percent in a survey carried out April 1-2 last year.

Americans were evenly split on whether Bush is “competent,” with 47 percent saying yes, 47 percent saying no and 6 percent expressing no opinion.

Dissatisfaction with their leader appears to parallel Americans’ unhappiness over gas prices. More than two-thirds of Americans (69 percent) said recent increases in the cost of gasoline have caused them hardship, with 28 percent saying they have not, and 1 percent saying they have no opinion.

Asked to rate the level of hardship, 23 percent described it as “severe,” and 46 percent described it as “moderate.”

That’s up from last April, when a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 15 percent of respondents said the price of gasoline was causing them “severe hardship” and 43 percent said it was causing them “moderate” hardship.

Last week, a Lundberg Survey of gasoline prices found the average cost of a gallon of self-serve regular was $2.91. Last April, the average gallon cost $2.29.

Bush’s flagging popularity might produce dividends for the Democrats. Asked about the congressional elections slated for November, half of registered voters said they would vote for Democrats if the election were held now, 40 percent said they would vote for Republicans and 6 percent said they did not know.”

  1. Anonymous
    April 27, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    It’s time to impeach! Where do I sign a petition?

    p.s. Thanks, Dave, for having that Code Pink woman on. Good segment.

  2. Anonymous
    April 27, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    People sure love that word “impeach.”

    For what it’s worth, the Prez is doing much better than Congress. They’re floating at around a 25% approval rating.


  3. JerryDinAZ
    May 1, 2006 at 3:14 pm


  4. Bob from San Luis
    May 6, 2006 at 4:36 am

    Jerrydinaz: All caps? Are you a little insecure in your beliefs, maybe? Today, May 5th, 2006, we have Porter Goss suddenly retiring as the head of the CIA; humm, was there any connection to the ongoing investigation to the bribery by defense contractors? How many more Republicans are going to go down with investigations like this? Yes yes, I know that corruption is not limited to only Republicans, historically Democrats have had their problems as well, but the current group in charge in Washington right now may establish a new record number of indictiments, arrests and convictions for corruption while in office.

  5. Rich from Paso
    May 9, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    Bob, you are wrong again. Clinton’s administaration has the most indictments for an 8 year period. We are still waiting on the Barrett report on the Henry Cisneros investigation, which, when we see the uneditied version, will show how the Clintons direct the IRS to dig up dirt on their enemies. That’s fact not fiction. You have Mike Espy, Lani Guanier, Sandy Burglar (I know that is from Rush, but it is true) Web Hubble, the FBI records scam, Les Aspin was a philander (that one I have on personal knowledge of someone who’s wife was hit on by the man). Even Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath. Janet Reno ordered the deaths of more innocent people in America than George Bush has. The Karl Rove/ Valerie Plame is much ado about nothing (she wasn’t covert- her neighbors knew she worked as a CIA analyst; she contributed to Democratic candidates using her real name from a CIA front company, etc, etc) Scooter Libby is being tried for “lying” to investigators about conversations that he was supposed to remember with perfect clarity. Incidentally, Fitzpatrick found that no one was guilty of outing a covert agent. porter Goss left the CIA for reasons he hasn’t disclosed and only a conspiracy nut would venture a guess in this total vacuum of information. Are you a conspiracy nut, Bob?

    On the other hand, the Mary McCarthy disclosure of the CIA “black” prison story (which may have been a ruse to flush her out) will expose more Democrats and their operatives to the charge of treason then anything that has happened under the Bush Administration. It is absolutely a crime for 1) to knowingly pass classified information to someone who is not supposed to have it, and 2) to illegal possess classified information once receiving it. Even the guy who claims that McCarthy didn’t do it is dirty. That story and the NSA wiretap story will, in the end, will send more Clinton appointees to prison than any Bush appointees. I think the libby trial will also expose the NYT and Washington Post to the charge of treason themselves.

    I refer you back to my previous post with all of the Democrats that are being investigated for their corruption. The list is longer than the Republican one.

    Bottom line: The Democratic party of FDR and Truman is DEAD!! The 21st century Democratic party is void of any ideas except a pathological hatred of George W. Bush. The modern Democratic party is anti-business, anti-military, and anti-capitalism and 100% pro-Democratic power. The “little guy” that Democrats claim to fight for is cannon-fodder for Democrats like Kennedy, Pelosi, Byrd, et al. It has been 40 years since the War on Poverty and we have more poverty and more government spending going nowhere. We have spent $7 trillion dollars on the Great Society and the War on Poverty and we still have the same number of impoverished, we have more unwed mothers in the African-American community, more whites on welfare and the problem continues with no end in sight while Medicare, medicaid and welfare “entitlements’ suck up more and more of the budget. In 2007, Defense will count for 16% while medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will account for 44% Another example: Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy railroaded through an immigration bill in 1965 was 1) not supposed to be an amnesty program and 2) supposed to end illegal immigration. What was the end result? More illegal immigration and more illgal aliens of all nationalities on our welfare rolls. Carter gave us the problem in Iran and al Qaeda, as well as the term “stagflation” (yep, it’s true on all three). Reagan and both Bush’s never blamed the American people when resession hit, they just adjusted policy and solved the problem. Carter did with his “malaise” speech.

    That is what you get when Democrats are in power: more of exactly what they claim they want to solve. That is why, regardless of the one-ies and two-ies of corruption, Republicans are better than Democrats when it comes to running this nation.

  6. JerryDinAZ
    May 10, 2006 at 1:10 am


  7. Bob from San Luis
    May 10, 2006 at 8:45 am

    Rich: Mike Espy, aquitted. Lani Guanier, a Clinton nominee who was dropped after her agenda was more fully understood. Sandy Burger, convicted in 2005 (that’s 4 years after Clinton was out of office) of smuggling classified documents, paid a fine, recieved a suspended sentence and probation, community service. Web Hubble, had a conviction for tax evasion, agreed to cooperate with Ken Starr during his witchunt to “get” President Clinton; Starr tried to use evidence given by Hubble against Hubble, the case was thrown out of court. Les Aspin, a philander (your word); was actually arrested for shoplifting at a military store in Fort Meyers- he resigned shortly afterwards, he also had a major part of the blame for Blackhawk incident in Somalia. President Clinton was never convicted of lying under oath; perhaps you are trying to refer to a judgement in the civil court case concerning Paula Jones. Janet Reno, was in charge of the botched Waco confrontation, yes 80 Americans died, inexcusable, she tried to resign. And of course George W. Bush has not ordered the deaths of Americans (except for the convicts on death row in Texas- were any of them innocent?). As for Valerie Plame, Karl Rove; let’s wait for Fitzgerald to finish his investigation before rushing to judge innocence or guilt.
    I’ll be back later Rich, it’s getting late.

  8. Bob from San Luis
    May 11, 2006 at 6:33 am

    Rich: Catching up with the assertions made earlier; concerning the Barrett report, if there is actual proof that the Clintons misused the IRS, I would certainly condem any abuse done in that manner. Look, I was uncomfortable voting for Clinton in ’92; I held my nose and voted for him. He did some good things as President, he did some things I disagreed with (policies, programs) and I was very upset with him when he lied about his personal sex life. You mentioned his administration and how many have been indicted; here is a link that lists all of the “alledged” crimes.
    You mentioned Porter Goss and what may have been the reason for his leaving so suddenly; here is a link with one “possibility”- yeah that is a “lefty” link; give it a try, it won’t hurt you.
    Mary McCarthy: link here reporting on the impacts of her act, and possible motivation for what she is alledged to have done. Once again, innocent until proven guilty here in the US, right?
    The Democratic Party; anti-business? link here that seems to dispute that claim.
    Anti-military? Link here that seems to dispute that allegation. As for Democrats being anti-capitalism, there are as many corporatists who are big money Democrats as there are Republicans. I really don’t see a link to Democrats being anti-capitalists as you assert. Of course many of these links may not line up with the talking points you are used to, but take a look. More response coming later.

  9. Rich from Paso
    May 11, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Good job, Bob, nice work. Now my five minute rebutal:

    Randi Rhoades? Come on, Bob, not credible, but if Air America is fair game then here is a link from Rush Limbaugh on how the media said that we were “losing the victory” in Germany in 1947. Off topic, but I just wanted to get a Rush link int there. Anyway, back to Ms. Rhoades… She says that Goss was link to Duke Cunningham. She’s wrong. What drove Goss out was an internal power struggle between Negreponte and Goss and Goss lost. That is why Gen. hayden, a guy with no human intelligence experience, was nominated; he is a Negreponte guy, a good soldier that follows orders and he will let the DoD take primacy on human intelligence efforts. That’s why.

    Your link about the liberal McCarthy (democratic fundraiser, Clinton Appointee, and admitted leaker)
    had this to say:
    A majority of CIA officers would probably “find the action taken [against McCarthy] correct,” said a former senior intelligence official who said he had discussed the matter with former colleagues in the past day. “A small number might support her, but the ethic of the business is not to” leak, and instead to express one’s dissenting views through internal grievance channels.’
    So even her co-workers are against her admitted linking. I’m sorry, her admitted alledged leaking. I don’t give a squirt of piss about her motivations. A crime is a crime. Why does anyone care? She is admitted to violating the law, case closed.

    Democrats pro-business? Hardly check out these links:
    Gas Prices

    Democrats accuse Big Oil of gouging consumers and prefer to grand stand rather than be part of the solution
    They hate Wal-Mart as you know. Your man, Kerry speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to business. I know there are some right-wing sites here, try them, you might like them.

    Not anti-military? Try this out for size:

    From Dean
    And Kerry says that he wanted more troops int Iraq before he wanted them out. Now he accuses them of war crimes
    San Francisco won’t let the USS Iowa dock there, but Feinstein, to her credit, calle dthe move petty.

    My list could go on, but you have enough reading to do. Chat with you later.

  10. Rich from Paso
    May 11, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    Oh, and by the way, we are really winning the war in Iraq now. If you won’t take my word for it, why take al Qaeda’s.

  11. Bob from San Luis
    May 12, 2006 at 6:21 am

    Rich: You mentioned earlier how maybe the “black prison” sites that Mary McCarthy supposedly was the leaker of were a ruse to “weed out” a potential leaker; okay, maybe. But, what if the story is true? You mentioned how you didn’t give a “piss” about someone’s motives for breaking the law; breaking the law is breaking the law. If we have established these black prisons, aren’t we (our government) breaking the law? Don’t tell me it’s okay because of whatever reason they will cite; breaking the law is breaking the law. Then again, as a military person, would you disobey a direct order if you knew that order was to perform an illegal act? Is it possible that the same conundrum faced Mary McCarthy when she might have come across information about those sites? If the US is running those alledged prison sites, wouldn’t she be duty bound to report their exsistence? Like I said before, let’s let her guilt or innocence be decided by a court of law, if it goes that far.
    Gas Prices: If the oil prices are dictating the price at the pump, why are oil company profits at an all time high? If a product costs you more to obtain, process, distribute and deliver, shouldn’t your profits suffer as well? As far as government intervention or regulation, why can’t we be developing an energy independence like Brazil? A major part of Brazil’s innovation is the participation of GM by offering automobiles that run on “flex fuels”, the main reason is that the “flex fuel” provision for the cars is required by a law passed in Brazil. We could be doing similar legislation here, if we had any of the lawmakers who are in the majority party pushing for innovation. Unfortunitely, both parties are too deeply in the back pockets of major oil and the “big 3” automakers, so we need some actual leadership from the executive branch, something President Bush unfortunately will never provide in this area.
    You mentioned how Democrats “hate” Wal-Mart; both Republicans and Democrats have “helped” Wal-Mart in the past and even in the present. There are some who happen to be Democrats who don’t think that Wal-Mart is that good of a company. Do you really think that if Wal-Mart could do anything it wanted, anywhere it wanted with absolutely no regulation that it would do the right thing for its’ employees or those communities? Look, I’ve stated this before, but think about how this relates to Wal-Mart: Corporations are not inherently evil or good; but the very design of the entity known as a corporation has one purpose, to make a profit. There are many corporations who really make a point of taking care of their employees, even to the point of making a little less profit. Wal-Mart chooses to operate as they do; if there are consequences that they face, maybe they should consider changing their approach.
    Your link for Kerry to Rush’s site was on his pay for area so I didn’t see what you were trying to show.
    What exactly was the point of the link concerning Howard Dean? So he called for drawing down the troop level in Iraq, putting the main force level over the horizon, nearby and ready, but not making themselves targets where the population in general don’t really want them there. so did John Murtha.
    John Kerry changed his mind; intellegent people do that when they recieve information that alters their knowledge of a given situation. As Stephan Cobert pointed out: “George Bush doesn’t change his mind from Monday to Wednesday, no matter what happens on Tuesday”; is that resolve, or plain stubborness?
    You linked to a report of Kerry accusing our troops “terrorizing” innocent Iraqi citizens as the troops barge into private homes conducting searches; he said terrorizing, that is not the same as accusing someone of practising terrorism. If the Paso Robles Police department broke down your front door in a mistaken search for a criminal, wouldn’t you or your wife or child be momentarally terrorized, even though the police are not terrorists?
    If you insist on linking Kerry to claims of accusing troops of war crimes, are you trying to link back to his appearance before the Senate Committee in 1971? He did not then accuse our troops of those crimes he mentioned, he reported of what military personal confessed to him and others at the “Winter Soldiers” hearings; I don’t understand how those on the right can’t understand that. Kerry did not accuse the Vietnam soldiers, he reported what they told them they did, period.
    As for the USS Iowa not being permitted to dock in San Francisco Bay as a museum, that is a shame.
    Oh yeah, al Qaeda: You do remember al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded, right? Saddam was a bastard, no doubt, but he was a secular dictator, he wanted no part of bin Laden’s Islamic jihad. I’ll even put forth the theory that Saddam was afraid of bin Laden’s Islamic fundalmentalism, percieving that as a threat to his ironclad rule. We allowed al Qaeda to infiltrate Iraq, because the cilvilian leadership tried to do this invasion on the cheap, not because our military couldn’t do the job. Rumsfeld, again. Do you think that the Iraqi people want al Qaeda there? I seriously doubt it, they don’t even want us there.

  12. Rich from Paso
    May 12, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    To summarize your response:

    Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, wrong and wrong.

    The futures market is what is driving up the price of oil and the gas price is following the oil futures market. THe producer knows from the futures market that his product will cost more to acquire, refine, and transport, so they raise prices now to offset that increase. That is why profits are up now because in the future they will take a hit. Of course, the oil companies will stay ahead of that loss because they are companies and are protecting shareholder’s value.

    We need leadership in Congress (yes, I know it is Reopublican controlled) to eliminate the tarriff on sugar produced ethanol from Brazil so we can import it from there without paying the 54 cents a gallon to import it. The tariff is protecting our ineffiecient sugar industry. Look, I agree with you that politicians of both parties are in the pockets of every major lobby out there. All problems started 30 years ago and both parties have wanted the issue instead of solutions.

    Dean said we can’t win in Iraq, Bob. No one can tell me that the US military is going to lose to a couple thousand thugs. Dean is a shithead that will say anything to placate his base, after all he is desparate for the MoveOn.org money.

    Kerry is an idiot (like the honorable Murtha). The US military is not the prime target in Iraq, the Iraqi civilians are. One or two US soldiers may die in a bomb blast, but 50 to 75 civilians will die in the same blast. The US military isn’t stationed in markets or bus stops where the bombs go off, civilians are. To leave Iraq and wait by the border is a recipe for chaos and disaster. The country would be lost before the troops made it back into the country. Finally, Iraqis want us in the country because we are the only people each side trusts not to screw them over. (the insurgents don’t count here) Sunni prefer US soldiers to police their neighborhoods instead of the Shia dominated police in Baghdad areas. Kerry testifying before Congress was an act of betrayal and a grandstanding moment for him. I believe that Kerry has wanted to be President before he went to Vietnam and he used the Senate appearance to propel himself into the spotlight. Yeah, Kerry changes his mind; more often than you or I change our socks. He is not a man of conviction, there are no core principles and he tries to take both sides of an issue so he can always say he is right. Bush knows what he is, knows what right looks like and knows what he needs to do. Kerry would have invaded Iraq, pulled out when the situation got tough, reinvaded when the situation was on the brink of collapse and then pulled out again when his polling dropped.

    There was al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. Zarqaui was in Iraq prior to the war. Saddam was training al Qaeda terrorist prior to the war. You can choose not to believe that if you wish, but you are totally wrong.

    And you said you held your nose when you voted for Clinton? Then why do you insist on defending him and excusing him for any culpability for the global war on terrorism? Come on, man! “He did some good things” and that gets him a pass on all the bad and nothing that he did?

  13. Bob from San Luis
    May 14, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    Rich: I am familiar with how the commodities market works, and yes speculators are driving up the price for oil futures. The future price for a consumable product that has a finite source will always go up unless some sort of alternative replacement can be developed. You are giving approval for what the oil companies are doing by assuming that the industry will take a “hit” in the future; that is an assumption, not a fact. The reality is the oil industry is price gouging now, and if they did not raise their prices to reflect what the price of their commodity will be, they would not loose profit, they would make less profit than they are doing now.
    Leadership in Congress to eliminate the tarriff on Brazilian ethanol; kind of a non-sequator given how I was trying to make a point of how Brazil achieved their energy independence by mandating that their cars run on “flex-fuel”. If the car manufactorers were mandated to produce flex fuel autos, the growers here in the US would be falling over themselves to produce as much ehtanol as possible, as cheaply as possible to get a product on the market that would have a tremendous demand. As I asserted before, we need leadership from the White House to make that happen.
    You didn’t address my point dismissing the claim that Kerry was equating our troops to terrorists; can I assume that my point was valid, and there is no “there” there?
    Denigrate Govenor Dean and Senator Kerry all you like, I am convinced nothing I or anyone else could give you any reason to consider that you may be somewhat wrong in how you view them. I don’t understand how you can dismiss Rep. Murtha so easily though; 37 years as a Marine, the only Congress person that Dick Cheney went to when he wanted help in dealing with the Military before he was VP. Murtha knows what he is talking about when he brings up anything concerning the military, period. I fear that your distaste for his political viewpoint shades any possible validity he espouses simply because he is not in the same political camp that you are in, and that is a shame.
    al Qaeda in Iraq: Yes, there were some; Iraq is a big country and Saddam didn’t control the whole thing. If you have a credible link providing proof that Saddam was actively working with al Qaeda, please provide. Nothing I have read so far makes that case with any authority.
    Holding Clinton accountable for al Qaeda: Rich, I have tried to bring up how Clinton did take action against al Qaeda, you refuse to acknowledge that Clinton did anything at all. Is Bill Clinton in any way cupalble for 9/11? He has some responsibility, I don’t see how any one can say other wise. Whatever degree the Clinton Administration’s responsibility is, does not excuse the total lack of any action by the Bush White House however, and you simply refuse to acknowledge that Bush could have done something or even anything. If it helps you to visualize better, imagine Bush is a Democrat; now can you see how is has a major part of the responsibility for not preventing the attacks?

  14. Rich from Paso
    May 15, 2006 at 3:27 am

    Bob, I did say that the oil companies are transfering their future costs to the consumers of today. But my question for you is this: Will you be as pissed off at oil companies when the price of gas stays high after the price of oil has come down? Probably not. Let’s talk again when the price of oil is under $60 a barrel (and it will) and the gas price is still over $3 a gallon.
    Ethanol tarrif was not a non-sequiter since its ethanol Congress mandated get put into fuel instead of MTBE. There are flex-fuel cars in America, Bob. Ethanol is just too expensive right now to use as a substitute for gasoline, again, because of the sugar lobby and the ethanol tariff. Get it? Murtha hasn’t served since Vietnam, he doesn’t know how we do what we do in Iraq even though he does know “what” we are doing. Every time Tim Russert has Murtha on his show to kiss Murtha’s ass, Murtha spouts all this B.S. polls about Iraqis want this and soldiers are mad about that. What polls? Who conducted them? What was the polling sample size? Nothing, just Murtha’s hot air on how bad it is in Iraq, how we need to pull out and how disaffected the military is, all untrue. So, yes, there is nothing Murtha could say to me to convince me that my firends in Iraq are lying to me when they tell me that things are going good over there. And yes, there is nothign Murtha could say to me to convince me that my Iraqi firend is lying to me when he tells me that things are tough but gettign better every day in Iraq. Bob, again, you just don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to Iraq. The same goes for the people you trust (Kerry, Dean, Murtha) to tell you what is going on in Iraq.

    Here is your al Qaeda/Hussein connection link.

    yeah, Clinton did something; something worthless like brign a blingd cleric to trial for the 93 WTC bombing, blow up an aspirin factory in the Sudan (which may or may not have been based on good intel) and destroying a long vacant al Qaeda camp. But his efforts were just so worthless to prevent 9/11. Bush does have culpability for 8 months as I have said in the past, CLinton had 95 months. If Bush had done something totally lame like claim that 9/11 was avenged by trying Moussaui and blowing up al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, I would agree with you. But he didn’t, did he?

  15. Bob from San Luis
    May 16, 2006 at 6:20 am

    Rich: Yes, the oil companies are profiteering now, and I’m sure that if given the opportunity to in the future, they will do so. Okay, so there is a tarriff on the ethanol from Brazil; as you mentioned earlier, there needs to be leadership in Washington, be it Congress or the White House. There may be flex-fuel cars available, but without legislated mandates, automakers will only make a few, charge more for them and the public will not make the effort to obtain them until they are more affordable and available. Do I get that the sugar lobby has blocked efforts to remove a sugar based tarriff? Sure, that makes sense; any idea of which party has enabled this tarriff to stay in place, not that it really matters, as you said before, we need leadership in Congress. Maybe as Bush’s polling numbers continue to drop, a few Republicans will remember where their spine is and stop being politicans, and start being lawmakers.
    You don’t want to give any respect to Murtha, Kerry, or any other Democrat who happens to be a veteran; that is sad. Like I said before, I fear your political views cloud your judgement about military matters if politicans who are veterans or regular veterans do not share your political views. I will respond further soon.

  16. Rich from Paso
    May 16, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    Those flex-fuel cars will become cheaper as the technology that behind them improves. Legislated mandates only drive prices up, whether it is on a car they are forced to produce or on everything around the car, like parts and other models of cars, in order to offset the legislated price for the car or the prohibative cost to produce the flex-fuel car. Like you said, companies would be falling all over themselves to produce it if the people wanted it, or words to that effect. That is why hybrid cars aren’t a dime a dozen is because the cost to buy one is not offset by the savings in fuel. Plus maintenance costs and the replacement cost of batteries makes a hybrid car less attractive than a gas-only car in the long-run. The increase in fuel price is NOT offset by the meager savings in fuel or the tax credit.

    No, Bob, what is sad is that me and my brothers and sisters-in-arms have told you all again and again what the truth is on the ground in Iraq and still you turn to Murtha and Kerry for insights into what is going on there. That’s what is sad; your political alligence has blinded you to the first hand accounts of people who have fought and served over there.

  17. Bob from San Luis
    May 17, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    Rich: Your brothers and sisters in arms are telling two different stories, if you look. Are you aware that there are some 80 retired military personal currently running for office across the US, and a huge majority of them are running as Democrats? Later.

  18. Rich from Paso
    May 17, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    80 out of 300,000 is statistically insignificant.

  19. Bob from San Luis
    May 18, 2006 at 9:32 am

    Rich: Huh? My point isn’t the percentage of active duty returning who are running, my point is the number of candidates who are running, who are retired military, who are running as Democrats vs. Republicans. If you want to look at percentages, wouldn’t it be a better comparison to find out what the political affiliation is now of those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to see which party they have registered as? Not all of the retired military that are running are Iraq and Afghanistan tour veterans, some served in the Gulf war, some were in Bosnia and a few had tours elsewhere. Here is a link to an article about some of those running. Since a majority of these veterans are running as Democrats, will you not find them credible?

  20. Rich from Paso
    May 18, 2006 at 11:57 am

    No, Bob, it isn’t significant since the ones running are mostly disaffected Guard and Reservists. The Democratic Partic has a very active program to recruit those people to run. The Republican Party, who already has established bona fides on the national defense and military issues, doesn’t have to go get veterans to con people into believing they can be trusted with national defense. That is the Democrats problem; no one trusts them on defense and the War on Terrorism and they shouldn’t. The true test is how many win in November. So, no, it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: