Good news

And good news is hard to come by nowadays.

A new Gallup Poll finds a decline in George W. Bush’s job approval rating. After standing at 49% approval in the prior two CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls conducted this month, now just 44% of Americans say they approve of Bush, a new low mark for the president. The poll also shows a drop in Bush’s favorable rating to 48%, which is the first time it has dropped below 50% since Gallup began tracking this opinion in 1999. Four in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, which is essentially unchanged from early July. The poll shows continued positive momentum for the Democratic Party in terms of national party identification and ratings of the two major political parties, both of which were evident before the drop in Bush approval occurred.

The July 25-28 Gallup Poll finds 44% of Americans approving and 51% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. Bush’s prior low approval rating was 45%, which occurred once in March and once again in June of this year.

Don’t you see? Bush’s popularity with the masses is a myth. All those controlled rallies and faux-townhalls with rigged questions and hand-picked audiences — those choreographed events helped Bush bask in what appeared to be an aura of popularity, except it was all faked. He’s not popular. The people don’t like him. He sucks. He ran on the single issue of national security, and now that the world is less safe than ever the emperor has nary a shred of clothing. He sucks. Write that down. Memorize it.

Via Atrios.

  • Good news - http://www.pekingduck.org/2005/07/good-news-2/" data-url="http://www.pekingduck.org/2005/07/good-news-2/" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="horizontal">Tweet

The Discussion: 94 Comments

How comes nobodies told mees da party wuz down here? Tryin’ to git rid o’ me. Huh!

July 30, 2005 @ 6:03 am | Comment

This seems slightly hypocritical to me. You claim genocide is wrong, but then suggest that we should not do anything about it.

Just because something is wrong, doesn’t mean that it’s our place to use our military to fix it.

I think the way the Chinese government abuses its own people is wrong, but that doesn’t mean I think we should send our military in after them.

July 30, 2005 @ 6:09 am | Comment

Unless there’s oil of course! Or really fine, cheap maidens.

July 30, 2005 @ 7:56 am | Comment

I guess since he is so hated and despised, that is why he got elected.

July 30, 2005 @ 10:55 am | Comment

His popularity has plunged since he got elected and continues to fall at unprecedented levels. Schwartzenegger got elected, too. Do you think he is popular now? We Americans have litttle patience for miserable failures.

July 30, 2005 @ 10:57 am | Comment

Yes, But unfortunately he’s still calling the shots.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:09 am | Comment

You know, Gordon, I find it really fascinating that one of your most strenuous complaints against the great Bill Clinton is that he successfully fought a war that ended genocide. Most people, even those who say we shouldn’t use the military to end genocide, would have to say there was something good about this. The worst you can say is you disagree with his philosophy of saving defenseless victims of ethnic cleansing, but can’t you praise him for a job well done, of securing peace and ending the slaughter of innocents. Now compare with our current war, re-labelled by the bushies as a war of liberation and freedom. You’ve now got the same Clinton rationale of liberating the oppressed, but you’ve got none of the success, none of the good planning, none of the promises kept. Yet it’s Clinton you rip. Clinton never touched down on an aircraft carrier donning an idiotic codpiece-enabled flightsuit to declare with grotesque hubris that the mission was accomplished. He never sneered that the Serbs should “bring ’em on.” He was a real leader, a real man, flaws and all, and there is good reason he remains universally beloved, much to the teeth-gnashing chagrin of the Rush Limbaugh crowd that so badly wants to see him demonized. When Hillary is sworn in as our first female president, maybe we can get back to being a real country again, and not a chest-thumping gorilla full of sound and fury, failing at virtually all we do.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:19 am | Comment

Richard,

It’s 1:30 in the morning here.

I’ll get back to your failed explanation after I’ve waken up and recovered from my extra-curricular activities.

In the meantime..eat my short.

At least Bush hasn’t sold national security to the Chinese! doht!

July 30, 2005 @ 11:25 am | Comment

I think you’re missing the point of all this. He’s a Democrat.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:25 am | Comment

Gordon, you’re fantasizing. I only hear this from you and the Rush corner. There is a reason Clinton is so beloved by Americans, just as there’s a reason Bush’s popularity is in the low 40s. Everone loves Clinton and you can’t deal with that. Get a hold of yourself and try to hold in the hatred. Just because he succeeded and made America beloved and rich is no reason to foam at the mouth.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:28 am | Comment

Xena, I think you have hit the nail on the head!

July 30, 2005 @ 11:29 am | Comment

Clinton loves poontang! I knew it!Sorry Richard.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:31 am | Comment

Don’t git me wrong now.I loves poooontang too.I am a man.I’m an American Man.Dagnubittt!

July 30, 2005 @ 11:35 am | Comment

America Man, I though you were going to tone it down.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:36 am | Comment

What is poontang? I’m lost. So much yet to learn, sigh.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:38 am | Comment

Don’t worry Bing, I don’t know what poontang is either. It is not an English word (is it, AM?).

July 30, 2005 @ 11:41 am | Comment

Zimbabwean(sic)?

July 30, 2005 @ 11:43 am | Comment

And why does everyone assume i’m AM?

July 30, 2005 @ 11:44 am | Comment

poontang {mildly vulgar} (n)
y;o7m r b W?@ Female genitalia. Eg., A girl might say, “He wants the poontang.” [California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA, 1998]

July 30, 2005 @ 11:45 am | Comment

Bing,you’re alright.Again.

July 30, 2005 @ 11:51 am | Comment

AM

You have to be AM

July 30, 2005 @ 11:52 am | Comment

Bing I still love you, you commie you!

July 30, 2005 @ 11:56 am | Comment

I told you you could call me Xeno, if you like.

July 30, 2005 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

And I’m not a commie anymore.

I haven’t paid my membership for a long time.

July 30, 2005 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

Amway’s calling………

July 30, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

Xeno!

July 30, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

I’ve never had an ex-CCP Member. Only current Members.How exciting!

July 30, 2005 @ 12:14 pm | Comment

Bing are you there? Bing…..?

July 30, 2005 @ 12:47 pm | Comment

E.L. Doctorow:

I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be.

On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn’t the mind for it.
You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can’t seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn’t understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young
Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life…. They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq. How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew,
unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war’s aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing — to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children.

He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills — it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners’ jobs, and that he is depriving
workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

July 30, 2005 @ 12:56 pm | Comment

A for Effort! Gordon?

July 30, 2005 @ 12:58 pm | Comment

Just hope the past and forthcoming several years is only a glitch other than a trend for the greatest democracy in history.

Will the fall of a great empire and the rise of new powers always end up with a World Wide War? You never know.

July 30, 2005 @ 1:37 pm | Comment

You better hope not!

July 30, 2005 @ 1:44 pm | Comment

Earth to Bing, Your’s is not a rising power.A malfunctioning toaster oven does not make China a World Power. Maybe in Asia, but not the world.Now,Where aaaaarre those Fortune cookies?

July 30, 2005 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

AM

You are right, China is at most a World factory.

Taiwan is, however, a veritable World powerhouse.

They are not yet a complete one, but much much more than two trading partners.

Besides, what is a superpower?

Essentially, that is defined by the manpower, resources and millitary/political/economic clout, i.e., comprehensive national strength.

There are countless examples in history on how barbarian conquered civilised. Why and how? Check youself.

Again, things always change so quick and so much, you just never know.

July 30, 2005 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

Bing, Ghana has about the same chance as China of becoming a superpower. If I lived in America I would probably believe all this China Hype.Unfortunately, I’ve seen it ALL first hand.China ain’t going anywhere. My money’s on India.

July 30, 2005 @ 8:27 pm | Comment

I disagree. China can become a superpower in she short run (a few decades), but they don’t have a solid foundation to lead on…meaning they can’t lead other countries past promises of money, markets or anything else. And once the Chinese economic engine slows, they will certainly still be powerful…I just doubt they will dominate more then themselves and their immediate neighbors. As the world starts to learn more about China, the country will need a major face-lift both culturally and aesthetically to appeal to the masses of other countries. If this is done…then we’ll see…

July 30, 2005 @ 10:04 pm | Comment

See the new post I just put up on China’s “upper hand.” It touches on your points, Thomas.

July 30, 2005 @ 10:14 pm | Comment

Don’t worry Bing, I don’t know what poontang is either.

Surely you see the humor in that remark?

July 31, 2005 @ 8:43 am | Comment

There is a reason Clinton is so beloved by Americans, just as there’s a reason Bush’s popularity is in the low 40s. Everyone loves Clinton and you can’t deal with that. Get a hold of yourself and try to hold in the hatred. Just because he succeeded and made America beloved and rich is no reason to foam at the mouth.

Richard, Richard, Richard,…

I really don’t care if people love Clinton. Hell, I like the guy now that he is out of the White House..I mean he is the most entertaining character since ..well..Robert Downey Junior, I guess. (did they ever do coke together?)

Despite your beliefs, I’m not Bush’s biggest fan. I would have much rather seen him deal with the issue of illegal immigration over the Mexican border, the kidnapping of American citizens (on American soil) by Mexican gangs, the shooting of American border patrol agents by fully armed Mexican soldiers as well as several other issues before going after Iraq.

Hell, why go several thousand miles away to fight a war when there’s one in your own back yard?

My point is (and I know you just can’t admit it), though the military action in Kosovo went as planned and the Iraq war hasn’t (if it was even planned) Iraq posed a risk to national security interests….Kosovo didn’t.

Kosovo was a military action fought for humanitarian reasons (such a liberal thing and French whining).

Clinton really had no reason to take us into Kosovo and it was a totally different situation than Iraq is. In fact, it’s basically comparing apples to oranges except that there was no justifiable reason for sending our troops there.

July 31, 2005 @ 9:01 am | Comment

We will never agree on this I’m afraid. Iraq was run by an impotent tyrant in the twilight of his crue reign. He had no weapons. He gave some gifts to suicide bomber families whose relatives blew themselves up attacking Israel — how was that a national security issue to America, in the wake of REAL threats, like Pakistan selling nukes to the highest bidders, Kim Jong Il, Saudi Arabia and Iran – a country with real weapons? The rhetoric that “the world is safer without Saddam Hussein” rings embarrassingly hollow. Was it worth the deaths of the scores of thousands, which only resulted in a new rush to join the terrorists? Was there some specific threat that Saddam posed for which you wouild give up your own life to fight, or the life of your child or spouse? I wouldn’t. I would have been the first to enlist in WWII. Not in Iraq. A total waste based on old family grudges.

Bottom line: Clinton made our lives better. Bush made them worse. And most people applaud the Kosovo mission and point to it as America at its very best, working with the global community and doing its job well. Iraq is the exact opposite and has left us disgraced, maybe for generations. All we have to show for it is higher gas prices and a big boost in profits for prosthetic limb companies.

July 31, 2005 @ 12:58 pm | Comment

Yes, actually I would. In fact, in 2003 I re-enlisted in the Marines so that I could be on the front lines, but in March of that year I sustained a knee injury on my mountain bike that prevented me from going.

You keep side-skating the main point here by reflecting on the issue of success / failure.

My point, the point I’ve been making a ll along, is that you said Bush led us into an illegal war. He didn’t and if he didn’t have the full support of Congress it couldn’t have lasted any longer than 90 days because that is the length of time that a President can commit military troops before it falls under the scrutiny of Congress.

If you don’t think rewarding the families of homicide bombers is contributing to regional instability, then you’re missing something and that falls under our national security because the rest of the world, especially the Middle-East, look to the US to solve the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Something that is finally making progress…

You think he was a God when in fact he was just an accident that happened to get elected at the right time – enabling him to ride in on a paved road.

July 31, 2005 @ 7:23 pm | Comment

I’m willing to forget the word “illegal” and put it to the side. It’s a minor point. Thepoint is he led us into a war, legal or not, based on either monumentally bad intelligence or, more likely, a conscious pattern of lies epitomized by his BS yellowcake assertion. But even that I am willing to put aside. It was a poorly planned war. No goals were attained. All the promises of being greeted as liberators, of paying for it all with Iraq oil, of setting up a beacon of democracy — one by one, each promise was broken. And then the casualties started coming in following his idiotic strutting across the aircrafty carrier. Forget whether it was illegal. Forget whether it was justified. For sheer bungling alone, and failure to protect our troops and for aloientating so many Iraqis — for these things alone Bush ranks as our most miserable war leader ever, right alongside his Vietnam-era predecessors. Now, combine the intelligence incompetence and the charges from his own staff, like Paul O’Neil and Richard Clarke that he intended from the onset of his presidencey to invade Iraq and we have a picture not only of gross incompetency but of petty lust for vengeance, an obsessive hatred based on family feuds (much discussed in the book by former Nixon advisor Kevin Johnson, American Dynasty) and a little man who has noright being president, dragging our nation into war, which sould always be the very last resort, for nothing. Under the mantra that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda. It was insanity. Admire it all you want, but I maintain that one day the families of those dead soldiers – even the ones who are today most supportive of our “president” – will look on their deaths almost as an act of murder, as unnecessary casualties for a trigger-happy, power-drunk idiot who conned us into a war. To hell with him.

July 31, 2005 @ 7:37 pm | Comment

You’ll get no arguments from me about this being a poorly planned war. I think that’s one of the things that gets under my skin the most.

We were welcomed as liberators to some degree when we first moved in, but thanks to poor planning things haven’t been going so well.

Unfortunately, I don’t see any other options other than seeing it through.

July 31, 2005 @ 7:55 pm | Comment

Okay, we agree on something, so let’s leave it there. I was so hopeful when we went in. You may know, I supported the warm and got into some bitter fights about it here. I stood by Bush after 911. Again, he had so much political and human capital, and he squandered it. It didn’t have to be this way. It’s like when I think what other countries could have been if only a foolish leader hadn’ty fucked up so badly. It’s not as bad as the Great Leap Backward or the Cultural Revolution. But for America, it’s right up there with the worst tragedies we’ve ever faced.

July 31, 2005 @ 8:05 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.