A "Feb. 9-11 poll puts Bush's job approval at 37%, but among people who identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, his approval rating is 76%.
"Thus, despite bad news from Baghdad and carefully crafted hand-wringing by high-profile GOP war critics in Congress such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, three of four Republicans in the country are hanging in there with the president.
"The poll also shows that rank-and-file Republicans have higher regard for the president than they do Republicans in Congress. They gave GOP lawmakers a 63% job-approval rating, 13 points below Bush's. And 72% of Republicans do not think Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq."
A March 2 New York Times story said:
"Over all, Mr. Bush's job approval remains at one of its lowest points, with 29 percent of all Americans saying they approve of the way he is doing his job, compared with 34 percent at the end of October. Sixty-one percent disapproved, compared with 58 percent in October, within the margin of sampling error."
In April, President Bush's approval rating in a new Harris survey had sunk to 28 percent. Newsweek magazine confirmed that 28% approval rating in its poll released in May and in June, Newsweek showed Bush's approval at 26%.
Columnist Helen Thomas reported in a mid-May column that, "The latest CBS-New York Times poll said the president has dropped to 24 percent in his approval ratings on his handling of the war." In June, Newsweek showed him with a 23% rating on the war. Those figures apply to handling of the war and not to his over-all job-approval rating.
Bush's approval within the Republican party remains relative high at well above 50% and accounts for nearly all his support, which still boggles the mind why anyone would continue to support the "worst" president in history.
After 9/11 Bush had some of the highest approval ratings in history. That also boggles the mind. He knew not what to do when told of the attacks, spending seven minutes continuing to read a children's story to kiddies. He was absent from the White House for three days while his handlers and puppet masters coached him on how to act and what to say when he emerged from hiding. At Ground Zero he made a speech prepared by much-brighter men which was well received and cast him as a strong and resolute leader when he, in fact, is neither.
Bush has managed to prove two things in his presidency. 1) White supremacy is a fallacy and 2) Ivy League degrees aren't worth a bucket of dirt (in the wrong hands). So why do not more people get off his bandwagon when his actions prove him to be an incompetent buffoon?
Some of Bush's supporters are captains of industry who are used to the gifts government throws their way while cutting their taxes, so they want to keep that gravy train running even if it runs off a cliff to destroy the US. They know that at the destruction of the USSR, nothing was gone except governing principles; party leaders who ran commerce entities were freed to confiscate business properties for themselves and became billionaires while ordinary Russians suffered. The people remained, the land remained, the military remained, the police remained, the prisons and jails remained as did the wardens and jailers, the schools and universities remained.
Our American "comrades" know that at the destruction of the United States, all will remain except public constraints on their lust, greed and voracious appetite for more. They may have it all now; but that isn't enough. That they don't care if our democratic republic follows the Soviet Union into oblivion is borne out by the fact that they have made millionaires of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and many others whose only reason to exist is to trash the principles of this nation and smear anyone who clings to those principles. Our "comrades" will always support a regime that gives them more, but they are a tiny sliver of Bush's support.
To understand why others, including ordinary working-class people, refuse to abandon a sinking ship we need to know history.
It has long defied logic why peasants continued to serve in king's armies which suppressed the peasantry from which they came. Why go to battle for the king and aristocracy and die for them? But the peasants, in their uneducated way, had been indoctrinated about the divine right of kings to rule, and that meant supporting the king and to die for the king no matter how cruel he is was also supporting God and dying for God.
Where did people get that stupid idea and hold it for hundreds or thousands of years? From the Bible of course, which says that God chose David to be the king of the Jews. That false reading of the David story was all that was needed to brainwash subjects into thinking that God chose their kings, no matter how despicable. God determined who would always rule by choosing who would be born into the ruling royal family and He'she-it put the preferred choice for inheriting the crown as the first born. Sound familiar? The Bible has stories of fearful kings ordering the murder of all first-born sons in order that none of them may claim for themselves the title of king. That is the story of Passover. Pharaoh did it. Herod did it.
1 | 2