SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:05:25 AM
From: JDN  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Well, he gets 100% in my household. jdn



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:19:35 AM
From: DizzyG  Respond to of 769670
 
Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline
More Americans Upbeat on Iraq, Economy

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Page A01

President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he is handling his job. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism -- a traditional strong point in his reputation that nonetheless had flagged to 48 percent in the November poll.

The marked improvement in Bush's fortunes comes after months of erosion in the president's political standing that tracked a series of problems afflicting his administration. The most significant was the continuing violence and mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq, but high gasoline prices and the federal government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina also caused increasing numbers of Americans to register doubts about Bush's leadership.

The Post-ABC News poll suggests that the massive turnout in last week's elections in Iraq, coupled with a public relations offensive in which the president delivered five speeches and held one news conference in 19 days, have delivered a substantial year-end dividend to a president badly in need of good news.

Bush's pre-Christmas rebound was fueled largely by a sharp increase in support among his core supporters. In the past month, the proportion of Republicans approving of the president's performance rose nine percentage points, to 87 percent. And among conservatives, three in four said Bush was doing a good job, up 12 points from November. Among Democrats, independents and moderates Bush's support remained unchanged or increased only modestly.

Bush is still not in robust political health, with more Americans still disapproving of how he is handling the presidency, Iraq and the economy than approving. Those surveyed have a somewhat more positive view of whether Bush is a strong leader and whether he is honest and trustworthy than they did earlier in the fall, but Americans remain sharply divided on those presidential traits. On some key domestic issues, including immigration, Americans remain highly negative about the Bush presidency.

The other cautionary note for the administration is that Bush's approval ratings and public optimism about Iraq have spiked in the past after instances of positive news, such as the capture of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or the election in January of this year, only to recede later. But the gains in the latest poll represent a larger one-time jump than on previous occasions of favorable news from Iraq. Currently, 54 percent say they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq, up from 46 percent a year ago.

The year-end burst of optimism has extended to Congress as well, although not to the same degree. In the Post-ABC News poll, 43 percent said they approved of how Congress is doing its job, up from 37 percent in November, whereas 53 percent disapproved. Those surveyed were more favorably inclined toward their own representatives, with 65 percent saying they approved of how their representative is doing his or her job.

The improvement in Congress's standing, however, has not been enough to wipe out what had been a substantial advantage for the Democrats in which party Americans trust to handle the country's biggest issues. Democrats still hold a five-percentage-point advantage (47 to 42 percent) on that measure, although in early November they enjoyed a 12-point advantage. On three major issues -- Iraq, government ethics and standing up to lobbyists and special interests -- the public still trusts Democrats over Republicans.

The findings in the new poll are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults, taken between last Thursday and Sunday. The interviewing covered the period immediately after last week's Iraqi election but was completed before the president's nationally televised address on Sunday night. The margin of sampling error for the poll is plus or minus three percentage points.

The administration's strategy over the past month has been to move the Iraq debate past the question of whether it was right or wrong to go to war in March 2003 to the question of Iraq's future. The administration also sought to rebut arguments from a growing number of Democrats that the president should articulate a more precise strategy for drawing down the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq or withdrawing them immediately. In both cases, Bush's responses appear to be resonating with a significant number of people.

Slightly more than half of the country (52 percent) continues to believe the war was not worth fighting, according to the new poll, although the proportion who said it was rose seven points, to 46 percent. But a majority now believe the war has contributed positively to the long-term security of the country, after dipping below 50 percent during the late summer and fall.

Where Bush has made no progress, despite his five speeches, is in convincing Americans that he has a clear plan for success, with almost three in five saying they do not believe he does.

Sixty percent said the United States is making significant progress in restoring civil order in Iraq, a 26-point increase since November, and 65 percent said the United States is making significant progress in establishing a democratic government there. Almost three in four (71 percent) said last week's election brought the country closer to the day when U.S. forces can be withdrawn.

More than half the country (52 percent) said they favor decreasing the number of troops in Iraq, a five-percentage-point increase since early November. But far fewer of those anxious to bring troops home are calling for a speedy exit. Just 12 percent of those surveyed said they favor immediate withdrawal, down from 18 percent in November, whereas 40 percent said they favor a gradual withdrawal, up from 29 percent in November. Just over a third said they favor keeping troop levels where they are now.

A solid majority (60 percent) agree with Bush on his opposition to setting a timetable for withdrawing forces, whereas 31 percent would like to see all U.S. troops removed by the end of next year. The poll also found Americans slightly more receptive to a candidate for Congress next year who opposes a timetable than to one who supports a timetable.

Americans still express doubts about aspects of Bush's handling of Iraq. Sixty percent said they do not believe he has adequately explained why the United States is in Iraq, and almost the same percentage said the administration does not have a clear plan for success there. But even more Americans (74 percent) said the Democrats in Congress do not have a plan either.

washingtonpost.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:33:04 AM
From: DizzyG  Respond to of 769670
 
Here is another poll done in the House yesterday...

BILL TITLE: Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq

Every single Nay vote (with the exception of one Independent) was a Democrat. Here are the Nays...

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lynch
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

clerk.house.gov

Not impressive at all.

Diz-



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:36:44 AM
From: DizzyG  Respond to of 769670
 
A 2003 paper by Rutgers sociologist Ted Goertzel offers some interesting insight into the left-wing psyche:

In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of "new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .

The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.

opinionjournal.com

Sounds like this paper was written with you in mind, Kenneth. :)

Diz-



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:40:20 AM
From: DizzyG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
This sums up the left's strategy. Should we put you on suicide watch, Kenneth?

Watching President Bush's political recovery on Iraq, one is tempted to think that this has all been part of a rope-a-dope strategy. In recent weeks Democrats have taken a host of outrageous positions on Iraq: John Kerry* accuses our troops of "terrorizing kids and children." Howard Dean says victory is "just plain wrong." On Friday the House voted 279-109 in favor of a resolution "expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq," which means that 108 Democrats and socialist Bernie Sanders are now on record opposing victory. (Fifty-nine Dems voted for victory, and 32 of them, along with two Republicans, voted "present.")

Most of the pro-surrender Dems--including last month's media darling, Jack Murtha--also voted against Murtha's proposal for immediate withdrawal, so it seems they want to turn tail and run, but not before taking some more casualties--a position they seem to have calibrated carefully with an eye toward completely discrediting themselves.

Meanwhile, Iraq held a successful election (or a "surprisingly successful election," as a New York Times news article calls it), and London's Daily Telegraph reports from Tal Afar, a Sunni area that was until recently a center of the terrorist insurgency, that "the approach of an American military convoy brings people out to wave and even clap."

The president last night addressed the nation, and he crystallized the issue:

We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. . . .

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country--victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance.

All of which places Democrats in an untenable position. Do they continue insisting on defeat, or do they flip-flop and embrace victory? Either way they look silly, though less so in the latter case.

Was this the result of a brilliant administration strategy? Given the administration's genuine stumbles of late--the Harriet Miers nomination, abdicating control of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--we're inclined to be a little stingy with the credit. But the Democrats are such extreme dopes, they can't help but get roped.

opinionjournal.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:41:33 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Dear liar boy Kenneth E. Phillipps, I see you did not report that no date for that poll was given. Does just seeing it make you feel better. Well the recent poll others have seen has the President up to 47% and 65% believing we are winning in Iraq. And that is before the President on Sunday night. It is before yesterday's press conference. I wonder can liar boy Kenneth E. Phillipps refute the cited law and rationale of this Wall Street Journal editorial????

Will the liar boy who falsely claims being a lawyer opine????

Thank You for Wiretapping
Why the Founders made presidents dominant on national security.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.

That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.

The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)

The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.

Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.

All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.

In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed.

What the critics in Congress seem to be proposing--to the extent they've even thought much about it--is the establishment of a new intelligence "wall" that would allow the NSA only to tap phones overseas while the FBI would tap them here. Terrorists aren't about to honor such a distinction. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," before 9/11 "our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could--terrorists could--exploit the seam between them." The wiretaps are designed to close the seam.

As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing.

Which brings us to this national security leak, which Mr. Bush yesterday called "a shameful act." We won't second-guess the New York Times decision to publish. But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which did zero national security damage.

By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.

The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that make us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.
opinionjournal.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:43:27 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
kennyboyglaucoma: To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718942) 12/19/2005 9:31:34 PM
From: johnflipflopper of 718994

kennyboy: skipping this hot news President's Approval Rating Rebounds

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 19, 2005; 6:00 PM



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (718985)12/20/2005 10:56:43 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
kennyboy: get back to your daily job americanangst.com