[www.smh.com.au]

Quote

Bush Least Popular US President: survey - December 17, 2005 - 7:29AM

President George W Bush ranks as the least popular and most bellicose of the last 10 US presidents, according to a new survey.

Only nine per cent of the 662 people polled picked Bush as their favourite among the last 10 presidents.

John F Kennedy topped that part of the survey with 26 per cent, closely followed by Bill Clinton (25 per cent) and Ronald Reagan (23 per cent).

Bush was also viewed as the most warlike president (43 per cent), the worst for the economy (42 per cent) and the least effective (33 per cent). But he was rated most highly in response to a question on who would do the right thing even if it were unpopular.

The survey was conducted by the Chicago-based National Qualitative Centers, a marketing research company, as part of research for a forthcoming book on popular preferences, one of its authors, Ken Berwitz, said.

© 2005 AAP

Tell me something I don't know already.


Bush: Defeated in Iraq, Bankrupt at Home, Despised Around the Globe (And That's Just the Good News)
[www.counterpunch.org]

Bush's Enthusiasm for Democracy in Iraq isn't evident here
[news.yahoo.com]
"It is curious that President Bush values the principles of secular democracy so highly in Iraq but gives them so little support here at home"

The Terrorists Don't Need to Destroy Democracy. Bush is Doing Their Work for Them.
[www.buzzflash.com]

Iraq: The War is Coming Home
[realclearpolitics.com]
“There are many costs the United States must pay for blundering into Iraq, and they cannot all be calculated in billions of dollars. Two of them are America's loss of confidence in itself and a drift back to isolationism more profound than before the World Trade Center attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

"the bottom line, as I read it, is that the most important reason for getting American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible is not what is happening on the ground there but what is happening here at home."


The real reasons that Bush and his handlers were so eager to go to war was not about "democracy", "national security", "WMDs" or any of the other stated reasons, but about political and financial gain for a select few. Spell it G-R-E-E-D. Political spoils, and war profits. But now that the profits have been taken, the nation is stuck in a quagmire, the economy is worse than ever for working folks, and all but the "elite" few who profit from making war will be suffering and paying for those profits for the next generation or two at least.

It is more than unfortunate that they were willing to sacrifice the lives of our fighting forces and their families and those of many other innocents, the unity of our country, and our economic well being for the personal gain of themselves and their friends.

---

hwystar
___________________

teelblue">"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who loves his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." ~H. L. Mencken Ibid.: "The Coolidge Buncombe", pp.411-2

Damn liberal media printing poll results like this. I'm outraged.

What are you talking about? Bush has a mandate from the people! I know, I heard it on talk radio.

---

_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.

He is unpopular among Americans who did not vote for him
anyway, but still popular among those who did vote for him.

Few remember Jimmy Carter, I see. "Stagflation," anyone?

Yah, I guess it was hunky-dorey to have 16 percent mortgage rates and 3-hour gas lines.

The good old days!

Macaficionado Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He is unpopular among Americans who did not vote
> for him
> anyway, but still popular among those who did vote
> for him.

And how many would that be, given that Republicans own and program the machines on which 80% of the votes were cast? The election was stolen in 2000, and thrown in 2004. Gutless Kerry solicited million$ to "count every vote," then folded within hours of the initial result, despite evidence of massive vote suppression and fraud.

Mussolini defined fascism as rule by corporations, and the same corporations backing Bush backed Kerry, though to a lesser extent, covering their bases. Did they tell him "Take a dive, and it's your turn next time" or did he just chicken out of a fight? We have fulfilled all Ike's fears about the military industries control. War is good business, so we've bombed 50 nations since WWII, killing up to six million and causing grievous suffering to ten times that number. We are 5% of the world's population and Bush has brought the majority of it over to Khomeini's assessment that we are "the Great Satan."

The PNAC's roadmap for world domination remains our course, and Iraq, to the neocon disciples of Leo Strauss, is just a pothole to be repaired once we go around it to destroy Iran and Syria, most likely through our surrogate, Israel, this Spring. The bunker busting bombs have already been delivered and the pilots rehearsed. This will cause today's oil prices to look like a bargain, which is also part of the plan. The more economic suffering at home the more willing economic conscripts for Bush's legions.

Americans, fearful and cowardly, mock their anthem's braggodocio about "home of the free, and land of the brave." They have surrendered essential liberty without a whimper in exchange for a little temporary false security. Bush knew Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airliners yet did nothing because the Wolfowitz's strategy required "another Pearl Harbor" to get the sheeple behind the PNAC's generational war to exploit our status as the sole remaining superpower and make the world safe for the greed of multinational corporations who are Bush's real constituents.

Bush matter-of-factly admits we've killed 30,000 civilians in Iraq, as if it's no big deal - just cost of doing business, you understand. These are only the ones hospitals have recorded with death certificates. The real number of Iraqis who have lost their lives prematurely because of disruption of society in crime, untreated disease, malnutrition or other collateral effects of our illegal, unnecessary preemptive war may reach half a million. The Democrats are silent because they are in the same corporate pockets. Madeleine Albright famously said "we think (the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids) was worth it, because it shows sanctions are working."

Anyone who thinks voting for Hillary will change things is naive or stupid. Bush's Bible says "as you sow, so shall you reap." If Americans believe in a just God, they should tremble.

Marcos Malo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you talking about? Bush has a mandate
> from the people! I know, I heard it on talk radio.
>
> _____________________________________________
> I think….
> there….
> 4a.m.


A mandate? Oh that's why they were holding hands.

---

G'man, they're not dating. Westerners just don't appreciate the close, trusting relationship between an Arabian king and his eunuch.

Al Baby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Few remember Jimmy Carter, I see. "Stagflation,"
> anyone?
>
> Yah, I guess it was hunky-dorey to have 16 percent
> mortgage rates and 3-hour gas lines.
>
> The good old days!
>

You have to admit the body count was a lot lower back then.

Your post shows your sub-par IQ.

Thanks for disclosing that fact.

Al Baby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your post shows your sub-par IQ.
>
> Thanks for disclosing that fact.

And thank you for responding with such an ill-mannered and unwarranted personal attack. It discloses a lot about you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2006 01:01PM by $tevie.

But what would that little doughboy Scott McClellan say?
[www.commondreams.org]

i agree, but poll-takers should consider a larger sample than 662. how about 50,000 nationwide, from all sectors of society?

---

In five years or less, there will not be a reuters, UPI, API
or MSM to fabricate this BS. Without advertising to pay for
the propaganda pages - they'll all be long gone! The news
will be solidly available on the Web, and the BLOGs will
handle the editorial comments and positions

Al Baby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Few remember Jimmy Carter, I see. "Stagflation,"
> anyone?
>
> Yah, I guess it was hunky-dorey to have 16 percent
> mortgage rates and 3-hour gas lines.
>
> The good old days!

Uh, Carter inherited Stagflation from President Ford. It didn't just magically appear. I remember Ford's solution. He wanted everyone to wear a button that read "Whip Inflation Now".

I guess Nixon's price controls were more to your liking?

---

_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.

Al Baby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > In five years or less, there will not be a
> reuters, UPI, API
> or MSM to fabricate this BS. Without advertising
> to pay for
> the propaganda pages - they'll all be long gone!
> The news
> will be solidly available on the Web, and the
> BLOGs will
> handle the editorial comments and positions

You must be joking. IMHO, this is a pretty naive statement if you really believe it.

---

JoeM

Corporate media are the essential propaganda element of the ruling class. They are necessary to shape the beliefs, prejudices and fear of the masses, so as to create the anger to channel as power.

JoeM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Baby Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > In five years or less, there will not be
> a
> > reuters, UPI, API
> > or MSM to fabricate this BS. Without
> advertising
> > to pay for
> > the propaganda pages - they'll all be long
> gone!
> > The news
> > will be solidly available on the Web, and
> the
> > BLOGs will
> > handle the editorial comments and positions
>
> You must be joking. IMHO, this is a pretty naive
> statement if you really believe it.
>
> ----------------
> JoeM
>


After reading some of Als other comments you gotta' believe it more a hope and wish than a belief and prediction.

Hmmm...

“George Bush got elected by a bunch of gay-hating bigots, religious fanatics a bunch of gun owners.”

Republicans own and program the machines counting 80% of the vote. Election irregularities in Ohio were widespread, including misallocating voting machines in black precincts so that people waited in the rain for eight hours or more to vote. It's called "suppressing the vote." As Joe Stalin said, "It's not who votes but who counts the votes."

Kerry sold us out by not fighting on to "count every vote" as he promised. Why?

I think the polling place is subject. Anyone look at their website? you can write to him at aol.com

Aside from that.

Democrats never counted the one million overseas absentee votes from military members, whose majority republican preference would have smashed any 200,000 vote disparity.

Democrats lost, even though they didn't count ALL the votes. get over it.

Yes, Gore did win. I didn't vote for him, though.
[www.legitgov.org]

---

Since Marcos Bad asked....

It isn't the number of people in the survey. It is the construction of the survey itself. I actually had quite a bit of psychostatistical analysis class work at Purdue as part of the program I was in.

As some may know, much of the Ph.D. work in psychology (such as developmental) is at least an M.S. in statistics along with the graduate work in the field of study. My program just happened to cash in on a few of those areas for surveys and marketing efficacy.

The numbers that are utilized in polling come from tests way back. The magic number, if I recall correctly, is 453.

Provided you utilize a statistically neutral and random sample (SMSA was the old term for Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area - such as Muncie, Indiana - a city that actually mirrored the diversity of the nation at a point in time, by percentage of male/female, Rep/Dem, age distribution, religion... etc.) and the survey is constructed to be NEUTRAL, (and preferably using a Likert Scale) - then here is what you get:


453 surveyed:

(example)

300 yes
153 no


453,000 surveyed
299,879 yes
153, 121 no

4,530,000 surveyed
3,001,522 yes
1,528,478 no

The degree of disparity actually gets smaller and smaller with each order of magnitude in the size of the survey. Again, this is VERY dependent upon who constructed the survey and how the sample was obtained.

Surveys that say:

"Is XXX just an arsehole or an even bigger arsehole?"

They obviously have no viability, but can easily be presented as such. That goes for anything positive as well. Such as:

"Will you be going to DisneyWorld tomorrow? Or sometime in the future?"

Obviously nearly ALL will count as being in the vast majority of "goin' to DW!" - this is the classic "Are you still beating your wife?" type of question.

Companies like Procter & Gamble are the true masters of this form of market research for data mining the potential success of a new product introduction. I was, at one time, really quite good at it. But like winkies.... without use, the skills go limp.

NOT THAT I HAVE ANY TROUBLE IN THAT AREA....... !!

It doesn't matter if 99&44/100% of the American people want the war stopped. As long as the extreme right owns and programs the voting machines their candidates will continue to "squeak by" in elections. Our democracy is bought, sold, and in the pocket of the corporations Ike warned us about.
[www.sonyclassics.com]

---

Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Yes, Gore did win. I didn't vote for him, though.

"That's a net of 3,300 votes for Bush!"

That's a shootload less than needed to overturn the 1 million oversease votes from military members, which were never included in the count.

Try again.

HeyDude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Refurbvirgin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > Yes, Gore did win. I didn't vote for him,
> though.
>
> "That's a net of 3,300 votes for Bush!"
>
> That's a shootload less than needed to overturn
> the 1 million oversease votes from military
> members, which were never included in the count.
>
> Try again.

1 million overseasoned votes? What? We're not talking about cooking the books, we're talking about jiggering the election. Besides which, I think your numbers are a bit brown from having pulled them out of your arse.

---

_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.

So Jimmypoo's a "Boilermaker", that explains a lot, not everything mind you, but just maybe enough to imagine I now know more about 'poo than I do about G'man.

(if it's all the same to everyone, I'd like to keep it that way)

Paul Craig Roberts, former Wall St. Journal editor & Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Treasury wrote this:
'Political machines: Was the 2004 election fixed?'
[www.smirkingchimp.com]

---

From Rv's article:

"It seems contrary to American common sense for voters to have reelected a president who had failed in such a dramatic way."

Thank God that there's at least one other Republican that is not a dupe.

---

_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.