Bush’s Approval Rating…with Me
I never get called by the pollsters; do you? I mean, I’m an opinionated guy, I suppose, though I try to be fair and reasonably open-minded. But they never call. Sometimes, I’d like to give them a piece of my mind…but until they call, it’ll be you, my readers, who have the privilege of getting that piece of my mind I’d otherwise give them. Blogging…ain’t it great?
At any rate…I’ve wondered what I’d say if one of them called me and asked me to opine on George W. Bush. You know, the favorable/unfavorable thing that they keep talking about. OK, so I voted for GWB both times; Al Gore and John Kerry? Are you SERIOUS???? Please…though voting third-party (as I did in ‘96) held/holds a certain level of appeal. On the other hand, I dropped my Republican registration because of GWB, several years ago.
I understand the support he enjoys from a lot of folks in my neck o’ the woods; I really do. I think he’s a decent man; I think that he loves this country; I think he’s a man of faith. I appreciate his determination to protect our citizens (although I cannot explain his reluctance to get serious about the borders…it’s baffling). Honestly, and I might offend someone with this, but here’s my take: I think that a lot of people rally strongly around him, not so much because they think he’s doing a great job, but because they fear speaking honestly out of concern that they’ll somehow contribute to the election of Hillary in ‘08 or something.
But this is the No Kool-Aid Zone, and thus, after reading this article:
my decision is made. I would give GWB an “unfavorable” rating as to his job approval. This man is not…he is not…a conservative; I think that the description Andrew Sullivan gives him is apt: he is a “Christianist Socialist”. He spends money like a drunken Kennedy, folks; it’s just the truth. The rise of the welfare state under GWB is just pathetic, and we will, as Sullivan says, pay the piper in the end. Look at the numbers.
Yes, I believe that he’s pro-life, and I’m deeply appreciative of his choices (well, his first and third choices) for the Supreme Court. Yes, if he were running again against John Kerry, and my life depended upon voting for only one of those two choices, I’d vote for him again. But he’s not a friend of conservatives on many, many issues; his “compassionate conservatism” is anything but, on either count: true conservatism is far more compassionate than liberalism ever thought about being, but he’s a liberal when it comes to our pocketbooks. Those who see Ronald Reagan when they look at our president need to take a much, much harder look…
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
4 Responses to “Bush’s Approval Rating…with Me”
I used to get called by the pollsters about 10-15 years ago. Seriously, I relished the opportunity to answer each and every question they asked – and when it was over I would always say something like “Is that it? No more questions? Awwww.” They probably sensed that I was extremely pleased and actually enjoying the otherwise tedious and time-consuming task. Therefore I don’t get called anymore. Or maybe it’s actually because I moved 4 times between then and now!
I’m an independent that voted for Alan Keyes in ‘00 and GWB in ‘04. I regret neither vote. Really. One thing that really does bother me is that there is not a viable third party (candidate). I smell a conspiracy. Who said Dems and Reps can’t agree on something?! They both know that a viable third party would threaten the stronghold that they have on our political system. More like a stranglehold.
Bush looks like a Socialist because in order to accomplish ANYTHING in that corrupt city (DC), one has to sell their soul to the highest bidder. Period. I hate what THEY’VE (Dems and Reps) done to our country. Maybe I should have voted for Keyes in ‘04 after all. Sad fact is GW is (one of) the best of a sorry bunch. Do I seem irritated? Good.
Hillary isn’t electable, except for the presidential candidacy of her own party. That’s what worries the liberal dems.
Bush really does spend like a drunken sailor. That does make him a fiscal screaming liberal. Just like everyone else except (brace yerself) Bill Clinton. hmmm, maybe Hilary is electable….. Nawwww!
Looks like another vote for Keyes in ‘08, even if he doesn’t run.
Mark Merritt ~ Mar 16, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Byron,in your opinion was voting for GWB a vote for the lesser of two evils? I think most Christians that ad anything to say about Kerry had the idea that he is evil incarnate and would have done just about anything to keep him out of office. Nevertheless, I’ve heard Christians in our neck-of- the-woods describe politics as the lesser of two evils. One man in my church said that the good men that get elected to office are quickly corrupted by Washington when they get there. Was/is that the case with GW?
Pastor Sam ~ Mar 17, 2006 at 8:05 am
Sorry it took me a bit to respond, PS. I didn’t consider it to be a “lesser of two evils” at the time, but I’m thinking now that that might be an apt description. The one key thing—one of the few things that still DOES set the two apart—involves the Supreme Court. With Kerry, there was no chance we’d get a constructionist or an originalist nominated to the Court—and make no mistake about it, in this day, given the arrogant power-grabbing by our judiciary, this was imperative. With Bush, there was a reasonable chance—and the Harriet Miers fiasco aside, it looks like we’re 2-for-2. If Bush is able to appoint one or two more good justices to the Court, then his eventual legacy will be improved, because we’ll see the restoration of some judicial sanity to this country.
I don’t know if GWB was corrupted by Washington, or if he just never has been a real conservative, or if, as George Will hypothesized several years ago, Bush has always seen the Supreme Court as the prize, and for the sake of political success in a 51/49 divided country, he was willing to give a good bit on “lesser” issues (I guess that runaway spending like a drunken sailor is one of these “lesser issues”) in order to maintain the political capital to win on justices.
For my money, if that was his strategy, I don’t think it did him any good; the Democrat Party is so politicized, and lacking principle, that 23 of the rascals voted against Roberts, and even more against Alito, despite their over-the-top-impeccable qualifications.
That’s my two-and-a-half cents worth…
Byron ~ Mar 19, 2006 at 1:55 pm
And Mark, I’m going to take issue with the whole “selling the soul” idea, that it absolutely has to be done to get anything accomplished in Washington, and my reason is two words: Ronald Reagan.
Byron ~ Mar 19, 2006 at 2:19 pm