digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

58% of Americans Wish the Bush Presidency were "just over"

msnbc.msn.com — The president ’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats, and is shared by a clear majority of independents and even one in five Republicans.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -251/+39History will determine Bush's place among presidents... not polls. For example, Lincoln was despised by the south and many in the north for his war. Read historical NYT articles of FDR, Truman, and even JFK and they lambasted them as war presidents. Yet today, these presidents are considered some of our very best. Most of us will be dead until we learn the pecking order of presidents.
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -22/+139This isn't determining Bush's place among other presidents, this is just saying that right now, a majority of Americans want Bush out.
    • loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -20/+310And lets be honest about it, Bush is way ahead of any of those in the debarcle stakes. Lincoln may have been despised, but his legacy will be remembered in terms of emmancipation....JFK had the Bay of Pigs, but then again he was charasmatic, successfully displayed some first class brinkmanship in the missile crisis and it's amazing what assassination does to your posthumous popularity....FDR may have been seen as pinko bleeding heart by some, but at the end of the day he died just before winning the war, thus ensuring semi-cannonisation. Looking at Bush, I seriously can't think of anything that might endear him to posterity....tax cuts for the rich? Hardly a later day robin hood. Iraq? Well that makes the Bay of Pigs look like a picnic on a rainy day. And Katrina? A largely preventable catastrophy the exposed the grisly faultlines of institutional racism. Seriously, I'm not engaging in my default 'Bush is Bad' rhetoric here....I really can't think of anything good that he will be remembered for unless he happens to be struck down by some cruel illness or assassinated. Any suggestions welcome.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -25/+294I will never forget the ten minutes of sitting dumbfounded when told of the attack on 9/11. Probably the last non-negative moment in his presidency.

      I still cant believe we reelected him. We must look stupid to the rest of the world.
    • crgnetworks, on 10/12/2007, -28/+190@wild

      I ponder the same thing myself:
      "I still cant believe we reelected him. We must look stupid to the rest of the world."

      We do :-(

      Sorry world, I didn't vote for him, in fact 90% of my town didn't vote for him, so when the world invades the US, could you guys leave Austintown, Ohio alone?
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -33/+50[loudribs terrorist rating goes up 4000 points]

      Sorry world, I didn't vote for him, in fact 90% of my town didn't vote for him, so when the world invades the US, could you guys leave Austintown, Ohio alone?

      @ The Terrorists
      Please leave Boston, MA alone too please.
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -152/+18Bush Presidency "were" just over?? You mean "was"

      Not surprise why the american educational system is failed, can't do math, can't vote.
    • mistercharlie, on 10/12/2007, -44/+71IMPEACH
    • awm4, on 10/12/2007, -30/+54I think that the % would be higher if the question was: Are you tired of hearing the results of opinion polls on the President.

      Is it just me or does a new poll come out every other day saying basically the same thing.
    • DrTall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+75@birkoph. Maybe you're the one who needs to back to school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood#The_subjunctive_in_English
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -33/+69Every time you say something bad about Bush, the terrorists kill a puppy........................

      Of course, by "the terrorists" I mean the GOP.
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -79/+6@drtall

      I'm still in school *****.
    • CaptainBukko, on 10/12/2007, -63/+17Loudribs:
      And Katrina? A largely preventable catastrophe the exposed the grisly fault lines of institutional racism

      What, Katrina was preventable? I didn't realize that Bush controlled the weather. The only part that may have been preventable was the co lapse of the levees. The levees were designed to withstand a cat 3 hurricane, not a cat 5. The army corps of engineers came to New Orleans in the late 90s advising that they could upgrade the levees to withstand a more powerful storm but the city/state governments would have to front part of the bill. The city/state governments refused. All of this mind you has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. I'll admit his handling of it afterward wasn't perfect, but he could have done nothing to prevent it before hand.

      The rest of your points I agree with, but if you were looking for something positive that he could be remembered for I'd point to his handling of 9/11.
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -19/+97"I still cant believe we reelected him. We must look stupid to the rest of the world."

      Go watch "Jesus Camp" and realize that 25% of Americans describe themselves as Evangelical. It becomes really easy to see why Bush was re-elected.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -21/+45@analyze, I find it very funny that you compare Bush's lack of approval to Lincoln's, because last time I checked, half of the country was at Civil War with the other half when Lincoln was fighting, which automatically means a huge chunk of the population would be against Lincoln. George W. Bush's administration has been the biggest joke in history, except the joke is on us Americans. I almost pity Bush, because he is so clearly just a face/pinata for the neo-cons working behind the scenes in his administration. AGING ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES, which implies that they are stubborn about changing. Look at how theyve been completely embarassed with their old school war techniques in Iraq. Not only was this war complete BS, they didn't even execute it properly!
      Bush got re-elected because of brainwashed conservative farmers and devout Christians in the Red States. I live in New Jersey so it's hard to imagine people actually REALLY LIKING Bush...it feels like being in a liberal bubble... I guess that's how the whole northeast is, especially the Boston to D.C. Metropolis. This country is not just the northeast, and the West coast...theres a whole lot bigger chunk of country in between that is still filled with people who are old-school conservative farmers and blue collar workers, and I won't say they are uneducated, but I will say that those people like in Kansas are a lot more concerned with the politics of THEIR village whereas as we get caught in the GLOBAL village. The result: apparently those red staters don;t question Big Government beyond what they say...n who cares as long as they stay out of their business.
      I'm sure at least one Red Stater will try to tell me off about how I'm wrong and stuff, but I mean come on guys, the Red States helped re-elect a blatantly incompetent Administration which was OBVIOUSLY filled with scandals and I refrained from calling you poeple a bunch of morons. You shoudl respect the fact that I'm trying to rationalize what appears to be blatant stupidity.
    • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -42/+13Some "Great Presidents" myth dispelling
      JFK-not great. Started US involvement in Vietnam. How did that turn out again?
      FDR-Not Great. Like Lenin before him and Chavez and Castro after him, a typical socialist wants to be in power forever since the state cannot live without him.
      Lincoln-Not Great. Remembered for Emancipation Proclamation. This is a good thing, yes. But his lasting legacy was to use the 10th Amendment as toilet paper. By destroying that Amendment, Lincoln became the worst president in history and the one most responsible for the Federal government slowly taking away more and more of the rights that, Constitutionality speaking, should be yours or your state's rights.
    • DeezNutz420, on 10/12/2007, -66/+9more of the same old liberal lies. you leftists and your failed attempts to bash our country are just getting pathetic. BURIED as SPAM
    • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12I'm curious, stonewalljackson, who "brainwashed" conservatives? And since when was New Jersey the Lawrence Fishburne of the U.S.... the unbrainwashed minority? What makes you so clear-headed that you think the rest of the country doesn't get?
    • loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28CaptainBucko: Can I point you in the direction of Baalzebubs post a couple of threads below in response to the Katrina inquiry. As for 9-11, his response was pretty much what you would expect from someone in the White House in a time of unprecendented national calmity (although the whole 'My Pet Goat' incident was pretty unsettling). What is unforgivable is who he used 9-11 and the threat of terrorism as a blank cheque to go to war against whoever he saw fit. Not only that, but he also monumentally ***** those wars up, making the world a much more dangerous place for everyone. During 911, he did his job (just about). Whoptee-do....that's one crushing disappointment less. The rest of his tenure is nothing other than an unmitigated disaster that just appears to compound itself with each passing month. Be his appologist if you want, but history will judge him as dim, arrogant and dangerous.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39@DeepDoo

      I didn't see you mention Nixon in that article, which is funny, because in ten years we will be looking at Bush in the same light that we looked at Nixon, not FDR, Kennedy, Or Lincoln.

      "I am not a crook"
    • tralalaa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23"I will never forget the ten minutes of sitting dumbfounded when told of the attack on 9/11. Probably the last non-negative moment in his presidency."

      Uh, non-negative?

      That was a pretty negative moment in his presidency... not sure what you meant there.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42@ Diggsonlyneocon

      I'm not quite sure what makes me so clearheaded, but I clearly remember knowing and warning that Bush was bad for this country when his approval was in the high 50s even before the Iraq war. Well well well, it looks liek a lot of those people who supported Bush suddenly...DONT. What's the difference? ummm...if people like you caught on as quick as us liberals, we might've been able to save our country some dignity and not re-elect him.
      btw, you were brainwashed by Karl Rove, who casted the Republicans as the "Evangelical Party"
      ...suckers
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27The US citizens, slightly perturbed by annoying newcasts and marginally ominous economic foresights, might be "embarrassed" by president Bush and his cabal, in the mean time the rest of the world is pissed off as hell, or are actually having their entrails scattered all over the place by US exported weapons.

      WE DONT HATE YOUR FREEDOMS - WE HATE YOUR POLICIES !
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26You're.. you're comparing Bush to Lincoln, FDR and Truman? I'm not sure I can even wrap my mind around that.
    • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3@stonewall
      I was dispelling popular myths about supposedly great presidents from the past.
      Nixon was never one of those so I did not write about him.
      There have been very few guys throughout history that I think did a good job.
      Truman, Teddy, Washington, Jefferson, and maybe Reagan are all that I can think of off hand.
    • mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+63@CaptainBukko

      "The rest of your points I agree with, but if you were looking for something positive that he could be remembered for I'd point to his handling of 9/11."

      Are you kidding me? First of all, that look on his face when he was told about it was priceless. I mean, you are just told that some planes just smacked the WTC and killed a lot of people, and you sit there for what seemed an eternity before you decide to leave?

      Add to that the disgrace that happened afterward. We never caught Bin Laden. He is out there right now, laughing his bearded face off at us, planning his next assault. Not only that, but we drug Iraq into this mess, citing that they "harbor terrorists" and totally playing the 9/11 card to get US support for this war. All the while the real victims of the tragedy are saddled with a bunch of pompous asses trying to erect some ***** looking tower at the same time they tell the victims families to piss up a rope on their simple demands for a memorial at the site. Drive by the WTC site today, and you see a *****, mud-filled pit. Its deplorable.

      We had a real chance to change the minds and hearts of the people of the world. After 9/11, other countries actually cared about us, and wanted to lend a hand. Bush missed the best US Public Relations opportunity there ever was, and probably ever will be. Instead of turning this situation to good, he instead lead it straight to the toilet. Now, the world hates us more than ever.

      His handling of 9/11 stunk worse than anything else he did. More than his tax cuts for the rich, more than his lack of foresight on domestic policies like universal health care or the cost of medications, and more than his apparent ineptitude at public speaking. I for one look forward to the day I can call him ex-president.
    • tralalaa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7@DeepDoo

      LOL - shouldn't you be in school instead of trolling digg?
    • Atreiu, on 10/12/2007, -31/+8Another poll....The majority of media is left wing except for talk radio. You cant believe any polls.
    • fyre2012, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23So, if that many people want his 'reign of terror' over, than why don't they just impeach him? Oh yah, balls... that seems to be what's missing.
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6First off I personally hate all these presidents but there is an obvious reason why these presidents are seen as heroes and Bush is going to go down as a loser.
      Lincoln was president of the US when the Union won the Civil War. Still the bloodiest (in terms of American deaths) war in US history.
      FDR and Truman were president during WW2. The US also won this war, the second bloodiest war in US history.
      JFK is less loved than the others by historians but was seen to have won the Cuban missile crisis and opposing the spread of communism. If he had not been assassinated he would have had to of done far more damage to be popular today.

      His successor LBJ is not seen as a very good president. He started a war that was lost and is looked upon as one of the worst US presidents for this reason.
      Unless some miracle takes place Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents in US history, American's hate losers.

      Why do I hate our favored presidents? In Dostoyevsky's masterpiece "Crime and Punishment" the main character plots and carries out a murder. He does this to prove he can kill without conscience. He has studied history and learned that all great man in the history books have presided over great wars where death and destruction had been great. So he wants to see if he has greatness in himself. The human brain reacts to fear and emotion and wars stimulate fear and emotion in us all. That is why humans regard successful war leaders as great men. Leaders who preside over times of peace and prosperity are remembered as do nothing leaders and men who have led during war are great. That is the lesson of history and also a lesson in the failings and sinful nature of man.

      Although I am not a fan of Bush he is vastly better than Lincoln who led the nation into a war that lost a million American lives. You can go to Washington DC and visit the Lincoln memorial. There is a display of 4 designs for the Lincoln memorial. One of them is an Aztec temple of human sacrifice. Whoever that artist was captured the true essence of not only Lincoln but the human attraction to war.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+66The problem with George W. Bush is an issue of denial, stubbornness and lack of accountability. How many times has Bush and company been caught in a lie? How many times the President told us one thing and everything else pointed to the exact opposite? It's almost to a point that it feels like every other word coming from his mouth is a lie. You can't have a leader who you can't trust.

      Here are some examples of what I mean...

      • Iraq with WMD's. Swore up and down of mushroom clouds and the whole bit. We find no WMD's in Iraq. Bush blames it on bad intelligence. What the hell does he do soon after, gives George Tenet, former director of the CIA, the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

      • Katrina. All goes to ***** in region due to the failed levees. We are all seeing on LIVE television the government's lack of a rapid response. George W. Bush goes to the region, and tells now former FEMA chief Michael D. Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

      • Rumsfeld. Great majority of the Generals retiring and coming out on the piss ass job Don Rumsfeld is doing as defense secretary. Two major military magazines call for his resignation. What does George W. Bush do? He proclaims, "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." Bush gets his ass handed to him in 2006 election, and guess what? Rumsfeld resigns.

      • Iraq civil war. George W. Bush was claiming that there was no civil war going on in Iraq. Yet on a daily basis, military and the media are issuing reports of Iraqi ***** vs Iraqi Sunni mass violence.

      • [Insert your own Bush mess up here]

      What does George W. Bush think take us for? Total idiots? Does he think because he says one thing that we can't see the other side of the coin with our own very eyes. And we all know all the other stories (and with this administration it is countless). And don't even get me started with Dick "Shoot you in the Face" Cheney.

      In the mean time, the entire world has been witness to this from a distance. All of them thinking, how stupid could Americans possibly be? But what they don't understand is the viciousness and the blind loyalty of the Republican Party and its sheep.

      It got to a point that no matter what George Bush and company said, they could do no wrong. Anyone that saw the truth and spoke out was quickly discredited and labeled a liberal. If George Bush told them to eat a pile of ***** because it would "stop terrorism", they would have done it with a smile.

      But it seems like now the kool-aide is wearing off. They are waking up and finding out that all that ***** that they were fed. Was exactly what it was and that was *****. Nothing more or nothing less. It had nothing to do with fighting terrorism or to help our nation. Much like a majority of the policies of George W. Bush during his administration.

      Now more than half of Americans want Bush's presidency over. Funny thing not to long ago, more than half wanted him in power thus he was elected twice. So the real question is, how did the ***** taste like? Because at one point the Republicans couldn't get enough of it.

      Can we impeach his ass already? Spread the word. "Let's Roll" ...
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/liberal_shop/1174718
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Wasn't this the same percentage of Americans that believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks?

      Do we REALLY want to put our faith in polls?
    • numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@ crgnetworks...

      "Sorry world, I didn't vote for him, in fact 90% of my town didn't vote for him, so when the world invades the US, could you guys leave Austintown, Ohio alone?"

      Made me laugh - but you're also missing another point. That in fact the rest of the world doesn't just go around 'invading' countries because they've done something to piss them off. It just seemed a very American way of viewing things to me.

      However, if it's any consolation, we in the UK thought we'd elected a half decent government but unfortunately they lead us into the same unjustifiable war when the majority of the population were against it.

      Politicians... who needs em.

    • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6where were they when they were accepting the invasion of iraq and the re-election of bush.
    • conmulligan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15@wild

      "I still cant believe we reelected him. We must look stupid to the rest of the world."

      You can make up for it by electing someone like Obama ;-)
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"I still cant believe we reelected him." We didn't. Did you hear about that recent little thing with Ohio?
    • curunir, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2"[loudribs terrorist rating goes up 4000 points]

      Sorry world, I didn't vote for him, in fact 90% of my town didn't vote for him, so when the world invades the US, could you guys leave Austintown, Ohio alone?

      @ The Terrorists
      Please leave Boston, MA alone too please."

      Oh, and can you please tell me who to vote for next time, too? Also, a list of rules for how to behave in public to avoid a terrorist attack would be really helpful. Thank you for your consideration.
    • Zipko, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@CapNCash
      I agree, we should lock up all people who's names sound like Osama, Hitler, or Cheney. Those people are way to scary too let anyone with any connection to them be allowed in our country. It's kind of like how I will never trust anyone named Damien. The Omen was creepy, and one of these bastards just has to be the antichrist.

      /scrcasm (well, maybe not about locking up Cheney, but spare the unlucky few with the same name)
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@stonewall

      DeepDoo wasn't defending Bush. In fact, Lincoln's rehabilitation in the history books is way overrated. The Civil War is one of the great disasters of human history and Lincoln bears a lot of the blame for a huge and largely senseless pile of corpses. Don't believe everything they tell you about presidents in high school history books.

      Both Lincoln and FDR did a lot of damage to the Constitution.
    • CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"We must look stupid to the rest of the world."

      Whenever I leave the country now, I don't let anyone know that I'm American, it's just way too embarrassing.
    • 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@DrTall

      If you're going to blast someone for their grammar, perhaps you should at least read the link you're sending.

      'were' is used if the subject is plural, 'was' if it is singular.

      The presidency in question is singular, and therefore we wish it WAS over.

      numnutz.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4oops... wrong place
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10ANYONE who condones illegal wars, high treason, SPYING on Americans, and automatic citizenry for millions of uneducated immigrants, is too brain-dead to make ANY intelligent comments!

      NO FIX FOR STUPID!!!!!

      Bush supporters are WORSE than bush himself!

      Bush is a border-line retard corporate puppet. Never forget who supported this failure, don't let them distance themselves from him. Whining about Libs and Dems and CLinton and Kerry and gay sex, while offering nothing of substance - and most notably - no defense for the lying little sack of ***** from Texas they shackled us with!

      It is because of a bush voter that the country is in the atrocious position it is in today.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@capncash

      Obama is a Christian.

      It's the conservatives who are going to use his name as a political tool, so let's not play stupid and act like they won't. I'm all for Obama, especially over Hillary, but I think we're more likely to see him running for Vice President.
      How can you call liberals simplistic when it was the foolish conservatives who thought terrorism could be stopped by talking tough and roughing up Muslims?
      conservatives...so simplistic
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@captainbukko
      "What, Katrina was preventable? I didn't realize that Bush controlled the weather."

      Well then I guess you never heard of or seriously looked into the HAARP project (a US military project, based in Alaska...that can in fact divert the path of hurricanes anywhere on the planet. Russia had built a similar one)

      I'm not saying that Bush or the rest of his cronies did that to New Orleans, but from the way they avoided helping for the most part, it would seem tso, if it were indeed possible. And apparently it is.
      just do a bit of research and you will learn about very high energy beams that can super heat a small section of the atmosphere, causing it to rise, forming a kind of 'lens' , which then can be used to bounce a beam off, hitting just about any spot on the planet.
      It is really quite ingenious science...as in evil-genius, since it may really disrupt the atmosphere, and in fact can easily be used for malicious purposes.

      The project is for real, and the science behind it is really solid. It is just not publicized.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4@foxifiednutjob

      What illegal war? You mean we can't punish someone for consistently violating the terms of a cease fire from Gulf War I? (saddam)

      Spying on Americans? Oh, you mean intercepting over-seas calls....


      And finally... Just because someone has a different idea of how to run the country than you, doesn't make them an idiot. If anything it points out your intolerance.

      @Mikershov

      Evangelical != Jesus camp... those people I'd classify as "militant christians" and I think of them just like I do militant muslims. Poooorly
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The rest of your points I agree with, but if you were looking for something positive that he could be remembered for I'd point to his handling of 9/11."

      I disagree. Only peace can conquer hate. Although what I am about to say would be a most unpopular comment, the right and only move, Christian or non-Christian, to improve the world after the 9/11 attacks is to foster peace. That means to engage in nation building around the world, not war. Use whatever analogy you want, the pen is mightier then the sword.

      If a country's people cannot set aside it's blood lust and vengence once and for all, then it hasn't a chance to improve the world or have a successful go at it. The only right move for America after nine eleven was to reach out to it's enemies and make them friends. America talks big about the greater good. In this case the greater good would be forgiveness. Time to grow up and take one for the team America. The legacy of the lives lost could have been as a catalyst for peace. Instead they will forever be remembered as a catalyst for death and destruction.
    • guiscard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Before Bush was elected, everything he had ever done in is life was a failure.

      Why we put him in control of the most powerful nation in the world is beyond me. The fact that we did it twice is unforgivable in the eyes of the world.

      At least he lost the first election.

      Shame on us.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@analyze - "Most of us will be dead until we learn the pecking order of presidents"

      So, once we learn the pecking order, we're not dead anymore? What will we be then, undead zombie presidential historians?
    • mogget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How come I never get polled for these studies?
    • fastfood15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@stonewaljackson

      i must say you are nearly correct about the mid-united states being at fault for the republican rise to power. However there are notable exceptions. Kansas, as you cited, has a Democrat Governor and prominent democrat representative. I would say that the majority of big cities, such as Kansas City and Witchita are considerably more liberal. This pattern is repeated all throughout the mid-west. I myself live in a sub-burb of Kansas City, a county that is one of the richest in the country btw, and i am liberal and so are most of the people i know.

      Although this does not account for the fact that without exception rural counties are dominantly conservative. You wouldn't draw the line from rural to lack of education, and i agree, but the correlation between rural areas and conservatism can not be ignored.
    • thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@analyze

      Fidel Castro has been known to have said "History will absolve me".
    • morsosky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you know what sucks? that diggers force all dissenting opinions off the wall; im with you all on these issues but I think its dumb that digg forces itself into homogeneity. so go ahead and bury this now and get a good laugh, but i wanted to get it out there
    • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@loudribs
      That is why he is building his own library thing.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I really can't think of anything good that he will be remembered for unless he happens to be struck down by some cruel illness or assassinated."

      We can only hope.
    • Saiing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It still staggers me to this day, that in a country of 300 million people, the best you guys could come up with was Bush. Not once, but twice! Mind you, us Brits can't really criticize. At least you have the original. Our leader is just a poor copy.
    • stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I still cant believe we reelected him. We must look stupid to the rest of the world."

      You do
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wish the federal reserve were shut down and our dollar backed by gold again.
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Backed by gold? My friend, it's a little late for that. The gold is gone.
  • Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -37/+8Lets see.. He got about 51% of the votes... 58% Don't seem to want him.. somethings just not adding up right here, people who voted for him just want him gone now? Or maybe, many of them didn't even vote. We are stuck with him, thanks non-voting/can't make up your mind *****.
    • FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -11/+66The 2004 election was a farce. Neither of the two major-party choices was a good one. There were a large number of people who voted for Bush because they figured they already knew how he was going to screw up, Kerry was an untrustworthy wild card.

      In 2004 people still felt that there might be a chance to claim a "win" in Iraq. Katrina hadn't yet occurred. Rumsfeld hadn't resigned. There were a lot of factors that hadn't yet come into play.

      It blows my mind that people have this assertion that no one is ever allowed to change their mind on political topics on the basis on new information without being assumed "wafflers".

      Bush should at least take comfort in the fact that his remaining 30% of support is blindly, fiercely loyal. Probably in the minds of some, that makes up for the low approval ratings.
    • sscaff1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Along with what FyreGoddess said I believe it was also the abortion issue that gave President Bush the edge. It's amazing to me how many people vote Republican over the abortion issue when anyone with half a brain knows Presidents have no control what so ever over the issue.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54Best explanation of the 2004 election:

      "Lets face it, when you went into those voting booths you had a choice between 2 bowls of *****... the only difference was the smell."
      -Lewis Black
    • logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5while agree that the overall choices were poor many people still have critisms even though didn't vote. My old boss who fought in the initial afghan conflict just after 9/11 still criticizes me for voting for kerry yet the man has never voted.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4@logicalnoise

      While I agree that people who don't vote should STFU, I'm modding you down for admitting you voted for Kerry. I deliberately obstained from the 04 election because, being educated on both candidates, I didn't think either was qualified for the job.
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Let's all vote "none of the above" like in that one Richard Prior movie....

      That will never actually happen, but it should. It is time for America, as a country, to stand up and say "We will no longer be forced to chose the lesser of two evils".
    • biggrz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28@craigb12

      by not voting for either, you essentially voted in the incumbent.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3@biggrz

      Can someone explain that to me, I fail to see how my not voting for either helped bush get back in the whitehouse. (Please don't use the fact that he did get elected as proof because doesn't help).
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5If you had the opportunity to vote and didn't vote, don't complain.

      Just as the Rep's have fiercely loyal blind followers, the Dem's do as well. So talking about the "evangelical" is a farce. Need an example? Looks at digg. Reread any posting about Bush. Concentrate on finding the news in the news and realize that when something is said bad about Bush how many people dive on him calling him an idiot and how anyone who believes in a policy is idiots and that if you aren't fiercly anti-Bush, you are an idiot.

      Then, and only then will you understand how two people can have different opinions. I was coming into this thread to admit that I would be 1 of the 58% of people that want it over even though I voted for him and accept most of what he has been doing. But after reading most of the comments, I realize how much jackassery is there on the Dem side that pushes me back Rep.
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@saigumi - I don't care for the Dems either but the Repubs even less. They are warring wings of the same Big Government Party.

      Vote Libertarian. The only real choice IMO.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8BETWEEN FUNDIES, FOX, AND DIEBOLD, Democracy never stood a chance!
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@saigumi

      The Republicans did everything to align themselves with the Christian Right coming up just short of openly saying it. Do you think that wasnt a plan? Casting the Democratic party as "God-less" won the election for Bush in 04. They blurred the line between Church and State. The Democrats apparently just aren't slick enough to play those dirty games.
      And yeah buddy, you GOTTA be blind or stupid or something to really think Bush did/is doing a good job. If you wanna go Republican just because us liberals finally have the chance to show the conservatives how foolish they were for the first time since 9/11, go ahead and do it. Just blind yourself to all the wrong turns the Republicans have made in the past 6 years.
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The biggest problem is that people are too stupid or ignorant to vote for people they AGREE WITH. People instead, decide to ALWAYS vote for a major party 'because they'll win'.

      The only way that you can POSSIBLY waste a vote is by voting for someone that you don't entirely agree with.
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38Loudribs, i agree with everything you say except for the Katrina hurricane that hit New Orleans, all the weather warnings were given, the mayor (nagin) could have done much more, all those buses sitting in that flooded parking lot is a prime example, he should have found drivers and bussed many people out days before, the Federal government can not baby-sit every city in the USA, it is up to local authorities to take matters in to their own hands, what did the people of New Orleans expect? a personal invitation to leave New Orleans before the hurricane hit?, the whole nation knew it was coming a week before it hit, people HAVE to take matters in to their own hands and DO SOMETHING beforehand, during tornado warnings i dont wait for the mayor or police to invite me to a storm shelter, i take cover on my own accord...
    • loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Point taken baalzebub. I'm from the UK where we don't really have much of a concept of federalism. Basically, if this had happened here people would be braying for Blairs blood even more than they are now. However, it is worth pointing out that in the eyes of the rest of the world, this was hardly an edyfying moment for Bush. Giving props to your pal 'Brownie' while the camera shows thousands of black people up to their necks (or beyond) in water did little to dispell the perception of this befuddled and simian like creature who was clearly out of his own depth. I do get your point though.
    • xpliclt777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+64@ Baalzebub. Obviously you've never seen poverty. Put yourself in this situation: you're on welfare, have no car, no family, your only asset is your house (shack), you have a total of $100 in your bank account, and you're given the slim hope that the levees 'might' withstand a hurricane that you have yet to experience in person and really have no clue of its destructive capabilities other than TV and movies. You say to yourself, hell, if the hurricane hits hard enough to demolish what I DO have my life is over anyways, so you stay in your 1 bedroom hole in the ground.

      I see this happen everyday.. I'm from the Philippines and the poverty that exists there is indescribable. Hundreds die from mudslides all the time, yearly, for as long as I've known. These people KNOW that mudslides happen during the heavy rain season and STILL reside in vulnerable areas, all due to living in poverty. Grinding poverty makes the line between life with no means, and life in general very thin.

      In retrospect, I guess they 'did' have a weeks warning and could've at least saved enough money for a bus ticket or started walking. Then again, what's the point if your going to be homeless and broke..
    • inajeep, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@xpliclt777: Well said.
    • DeezNutz420, on 10/12/2007, -32/+4more of the same old liberal lies. you leftists and your failed attempts to bash our country are just getting pathetic.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9The only people on welfare I've seen who are "broke" are the ones who don't give a ***** and just spend the money on whatever they want.

      It says a lot about the US when poverty means the following of people "in poverty"

      98% have color TVs
      85% have a vehicle
      60% have a computer
      ....


      As for educating our people across the pond (and some here). The federal government could NOT (by law) send in the National Guard unless invited. So, no Corp of Engineers, no fast distribution of basic necessities, etc. The Government has poured BILLIONS into the Gulf Coast. New Orleans is focused on, but there were hundreds of miles of damage.

      An example of the differences in mentalities:

      My best friend rode out the hurricane in Waveland, MS (on the rough side). He and his family opened their store the next day and was helping their employees out with living arrangements and such even though their own home was literally washed off it's foundation. All their vehicles were destroyed.

      What was going on in New Orleans? Everyone was bitching about how FEMA wasn't there immediately with ICE, Water, shelter, pumping out the water and repairing the levees...

      At this point, it's no longer about what the Federal Government is not doing. It's all about what the PEOPLE are not doing. Mississippi is coming back fast because the people didn't wait for government support, they just started doing.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19There was literally 10 feet of water covering the whole city, and people literally had NOTHING (as in zero possesions left). I fail to see how you can blaim liberals for being angry when the government left the entire city marinating in sewerage for a week. This isn't a failure on the part of just Bush, but the entire administration (federally and on the state level). People need to stop crying democrat and republican and look at situations with some sort of intelligent frame of refference.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@baalzebub
      It was not Bush's fault; people just like to blame him because the local government was completely at fault (and they are Democrats). Had Bush tried to reinforce the levees with the Corp of Engineers there would have been an article on Digg "Bush Smashes Local Government to Hand Contract to Federal Government." Louisiana received plenty of money ahead of time to reinforce the levees when the Corp suggested it but they are so corrupt that they squandered the money. P.S. an equal number of caucasions and African-Americans died.

      Oh yeah, if I were to say "I wanted to make Dallas a white city" I would be torn to shreds but when Nagin does it, its fine. The good ol double standard of racism.
    • xpliclt777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@thcobbs

      Unfortunately you are correct. A majority of these people have put priority in material things rather than necessities; although I wonder where you pull those statistics from. You keep quoting the word poverty like it does not exist and is simply slang for whatever the beholder states its definition to be. Poverty does exist, whether you put yourself in that situation or not.

      You seem to have completely missed the point. The fact is, your friend's family OWNED a store, so riding out the storm was a more intricately decided choice and I am nobody to speak on whether or not they had the means to survive given such catastrophe. I speak of the mentality that the impoverished have when faced with a situation like Katrina; it can be borderline suicidal.

      I did not target the government as the source of blame either, simply our society as a whole. Respect of and generosity towards your fellow man would have played a more significant role pre-Katrina than any government can provide.

      Yes... it is about what the people are doing, for each other. We may see eye to eye yet..
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@xplicit777

      "I did not target the government as the source of blame either, simply our society as a whole. Respect of and generosity towards your fellow man would have played a more significant role pre-Katrina than any government can provide."

      So the billions of dollars spent and millions of hours of volenteer work didn't count of anything? I think you underestimate the cleanup job the national guard could have done if they were dispatched the day after. Saying this is a failure by our society is idiotic.
    • tslag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7My understanding was that Bush declared New Orleans a federal disaster area, thus putting the responsibility on the federal gov't. But then he did nothing. I think that is why people are blaming Bush and the Feds.
    • xpliclt777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@CraigB12

      I never underestimated the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS or the MILLION HOURS of volunteer work that was offered AFTER the catastrophe, no sir...
      You obviously have an issue with reading comprehension.

      As for the national guard being dispatched, you make it seem like society WASN'T responsible for electing the ones who makes these decisions...
      To exclude society's role in an argument based on moral conduct is idiotic... although I agree with that Bush could have done a lot more than he did..
    • u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3it says a lot when the "poor" that is on welfare have the money to purchase newly released jordans on release, yet somehow cannot find a job!
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@thcobbs:

      "It says a lot about the US when poverty means the following of people "in poverty"

      98% have color TVs
      85% have a vehicle
      60% have a computer
      ...."

      Please site your source for those numbers.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@xplicit777

      So, i'm wrong, but you're agreeing with me?
    • xpliclt777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@u&myfoood

      So the "poor" that don't know how to manage their money deserve to be left behind and rot?
    • xpliclt777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@CraigB12

      No, I never stated that you were wrong, simply that you misunderstood that I was speaking of 'prevention' rather than addressing the actions taken after Katrina hit. The government has to take some blame, but as a society we have to take a share of that blame as well. You cannot simply think of yourself without regard for the impoverished in New Orleans prior to Katrina, and then put sole blame on the U.S. government afterwards for not doing enough.

      To add, I am not supporting or justifying the government's response to Katrina at all. They could've done a better job, it's as obvious to me as anyone else here posting.
    • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@DeezNutz420
      Sorry, that argument just doesn't hold up anymore. 70% of the country disapproves of bush, and I highly dought 70% of the country is "leftist".
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tslag

      No, that basically allows the government to expedite funds and special bills. The military can only be sent on request of the Governor... You know.. State's rights.

      @DaveV

      http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/PovertyNowComesWithAColorTV.aspx Scroll to the bottom and see the survey from the BLS (Bureau of Labor and statistics)

      Also, PDF of document detailing "what it means to be poor in america" circa 1993, but the numbers are still close to the same http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/05/art1full.pdf




    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@xplicit777

      Yes, the poor got hit hard, but if push came to shove, they could have found a way out. Hardship is better than drowning.

      Have you ever been to a poor neighborhood? It's not that they don't have money, they just spend on things that most consider stupid. If you've ever been to New Orleans you would see what I'm talking about. $500 cars with $3000 wheels. A rats hole house with a plasma screen and satellite. No good food, but $300 shoes and designer clothes.

      For the infirm and the elderly, something more should have been done. However, a vast majority of New Orleans is neither elderly nor infirm. What a lot of people seem to look over was the sheer number of looters in the streets after the storm blew past. I'm not talking about the people searching for food and clean water, i'm talking about the ones going for the TV's, stereo's, and computers. THAT was why so many stayed.

      While I'm not a Bush supporter, it's hardly fair to throw the blame squarely on him. The governor and the mayor could have done A LOT more to ensure the safety of their citizens. They are the ones that didn't get the buses moving, they are the ones who didn't have contingency plans. They had over 20 YEARS to fix/upgrade the levees. A simple dollar per person tax state wide could have financed it. Louisiana is by and far one of the most ( if not the most) corrupt states in America. I hope I never have to live there again.
    • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ thcobbs

      those statistics do not illustrate the growing wealth of the poor, it illustrates the declining value of consumer electronics. Colour televisions were invented 50 years ago, and have been replaced every ten years, leaving millions of 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand televisions that have to go somewhere. Tip fees and transport costs mean that my old television has a negative resale value to me, i have to pay to get rid of it. So while there are parts of the world where a colour television is still a luxury, in a first world country, televisions are free.

      the same goes for any consumer electronic that has been around for a long time.
      I can go to a second hand store and pick up a toaster, a jug, a microwave, a tele, a video player, a tape deck and a whole pile of assorted cutlery and crockery, all for under $20. everything will be 20 years old and hideously uncool, but it will work and it will be incredibly cheap. A computer does not mean the latest dell, how much does a mac classic or a 486 go for? $1?
      And cars, there are soo many millions of shoddy old cars that just barely run that you can pick them up for spare change, some people let you have it for free if you'll take it off their lawn.

      These things cost to much to send over seas, where they would still be luxury items, here in the first world, they are not the status symbols and luxury items they once were. They are the all pervasive remnants of a half century long constant upgrade cycle.
  • malcolmreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -39/+6George Bush has a hard time in this presidency. Did he do it badly? Perhaps, but could anyone really have done it any better?
    • loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26I could. Even with my hands down my trousers, beer goggles on and lit cigarettes in my ears, I could still have a better crack at it than he. Whoops....looks like I just fell back into my default position.
    • asaccin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@malcolmreynolds
      He fell off a segway, choked on a pretzel, exited a room through the wrong door in China, called the Spanish Prime Minister a goose, quoted saying "Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we". and was caught saying 'Yo Blair'...

      I can think of many ways he could have presided better, and I haven't even got onto his politics yet!!

      For those who want to know about his political foibles, go here:
      http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/facts

      Asa,
      UK.
  • malcolmreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3That is the exact kind of idiocy of the american public that I'm talking about.
  • Recusant, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10Why does "AMERICA HATES BUSH" still qualify for news?
    • loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33Because it what the rest of the world wants to hear. Despite what some may say, the bulk of non-US opinion is not anti-american....we just can't stand Bush. Hearing that you guys hate him as well is heartening and gives us hope that the worlds only hyperpower still has the capacity for good. I agree that it's hardly headline stuff, but after six years tearing your hair out on the side lines it does bring a limited ray of sunshine into the picture.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24You know what, I could care less what the world wants to hear right now. I do want the troops to come safely soon, and I'd like us to get out of Iraq as soon as the Iraqis are ready to take over. After that though, I think its time to go back to more of an isolationist country. The way it is now, everybody is lining up to take shots at the US. Even a lot of our so called allies. Let's just pack up our stuff, go home, and let someone else take their turn at being world police.
    • kutaone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Well said ruffrider...
    • qcfb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14ruffridr, isolationism? What? Ok, I know it sounds good. Walling ourselves off telling the rest of the world to go ***** themselves, but the truth of the matter is we can't do that anymore. If we go isolationist China will become the sole world super power. We don't need to be isolationists we just need to be less violent and more diplomatic when it comes to dealing with other countries. If we cut the John Wayne ***** and started acting like a member of the world community we'd be much better off. Isolationism would be a horrible idea.
    • loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8well said gcfb....I wonder how America's globalised economy will stand up to isolationism? And I hope for America's sake that whoever comes after Bush mends a few international fences because this is not going to be a unipolar world much longer. Wise up or you're destined to a prolonged and painful atrophy.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Why does ending our military debacle in Iraq = isolationism?

      Hell, isolationism isn't even possible for any capitalist economy anymore. I don't think anyone in their right mind is claiming we should hole up like the Forbidden City or anything.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I didn't say we would be totally isolationist, but I think we need to lean more in that direction. I'd like to see no more farming out our military to every little conflict that arises in the world. Everybody is crying about Darfur. Is there no other country that can step up to the plate? What about the U.N.? Ya, I know, good one.
  • JohnnyZito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Keep investigating.

    Maybe Fitzgerald can find a reason for it to be over.
  • foxhaze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2His presidency will not be "just over." I don't know how low his approval ratings need to get before people just give it up. For Christ's sake, give it up.
  • Chadster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0"just over" or "HELL AND DONE WITH?"
  • durzagott, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3"wish the Bush presidency *were* simply over" --- were???? Shouldn't that be was?? Lord, give me strength!
    • GarethSaxby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Never thought I'd have to go that far down in comments to find an article title correction. Good job for holding out so long folks.
  • OMFGmatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4if so many people want him to get outta the white house why don't they move for an impeachment -_-
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't support an impeachment any more than I support the war in Iraq. If we move to impeach its going to take years of paperwork and *****, and neither he nor congress will get anything done. I'd rather have a president making average/bad decisions than having a president who doesn't make any decisions at all. But, he's basically a lame duck at this point anyway.
    • benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9because then cheney is president
    • xoxuxox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think Cheney already is president, he just doesn't have the heart to simply tell his friend George. Or Congress. I wonder what happened to his real heart? I heard that it takes a barrel of oil a day to run his fake heart.
  • Gunsmith, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4when you're done with Bush can you come over here and help get rid of Blair for us? theres too many of us Brits here that just whine and complain yet do ***** all about it.
    • conmulligan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Blair certainly has his flaws but you can't compare him to Bush; he's smart, considerate and has done an awful lot for Britain.
  • broken1812, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2358%? Well, 100% of the 51% that beat the 49% out of the 70% think that 95%of these polls are 100% crap.
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I wish they would post the questions used to create a particular result in a poll. The way in which the questions are worded can have a profound impact on the results of a poll.
    • broken1812, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Not to mention where these polls are located. If you go to the page this title links to there is a poll there. Most people that are on that page are liberal because its a liberal media source and they are reading an article about Bush's low ratings. Almost all of these polls are biased.
  • jaderobbins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah, let's have him resign and Cheney can have the presidency
    • logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooah *darth vader voice
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's the only thing fathomably worse lol.
    • SilverBack101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Duuuuuude. If that ever happened...well nothing would change...puppet master you know?
    • hcl40u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Same kind of thing with Bush Sr. They both are impeachment proof presidents.
  • gfair, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They want it over? So they can forget it and be doomed to vote for another neo-con superhawk and endorse the same policies all over again?

    I sure hope to hell that America never repeats the mistakes it has made. May US citizens be cursed with the memory of bad presidents and the consequences of voting for them.
  • southport, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I do take solace in the fact that he will go down in history as a below-average president. It's practically etched in stone already. His so-called "legacy" will be his colossal error in judgment that is Iraq.
  • NoahK, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I guess I'm in the 42%.
  • dlite386, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Bush makes me feel embarrassed to be American. I voted against him twice. We can thank all of the people who voted for him for the wake of ***** he's leaving behind him. What a legacy.
    • southport, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The sick part is that they think Bush is a great man. Hell, even Hitler had admirers.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Hey, next time how about you prop up somebody better than Kerry as his opponent. The 2004 election could not have had two worse choices.
    • baggachipz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Like I tell people I know, if you voted for Bush, the blood of fallen American soldiers is on YOUR hands. You voted for this guy, then re-elected him, therefore supporting his actions. Every death that is a result of this unnecessary debacle should weigh heavily on your conscience, because you helped cause it. There were choices other than Kerry; why can't people get it through their thick skulls that there are options? Saying that another candidate hasn't a chance of winning is lemming groupthink of the worst kind. Shame on everyone who condoned this president's actions.
    • ibjhb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@baggachipz:

      If you want to use that reasoning, it is on every American who voted because Congress approved us going over there.
    • ibjhb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't agree with everything that the current admin has done, but I'm amazed at how many people claim "I didn't vote for him". Either Digg is extremely liberal, or people did vote for him and aren't going to admit it.

      Regardless, does it really matter how many Americans want his Presidency over? You can't just impeach someone for not liking them; so come up with hard evidence and have a member of the House of Representatives start the process or wait a couple more years and vote for someone else...
    • baggachipz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ibjhb

      The secondary blame lies on congress as well. However, they weren't privy to the same "intel" that the president and his cronies supposedly had. Regardless, they were certainly not blameless. If one of my representatives voted to authorize the Iraq war, I voted against them every chance I had since that action. War is not something to be entered into upon a whim, hunch, or desire to stave off a recession. It's a monumental decision, literally altering the lives of thousands, even millions. Yet, in 2004, this country had the opportunity to oust the ringleader and his staff for their horrendous actions and chose not to. Many of the members of the offending congress were voted out in 2006; a partial victory. However, I stand by the assertion that if you voted for the current president (especially in 2004), this continuing war is your fault. Feel free to try to weasel out of that guilt by using any available conjecture, but the fact remains that the voter's actions translated into thousands of deaths and many thousands more casualties. If this country is to learn one thing from this entire mess, it's that war is a horrific situation to be only entered into under the most dire of circumstances.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was a major Howard Dean supporter in the Democratic Primaries in the last election. What we needed a fiscally conservative liberal, and that is exactly what Howard Dean was. He was far more moderate than his opponents were casting him as, and being a Governor he didn't have John Kerry's retarded flip-flop senate voting record. Seeing Kerry get the nomination was the most disappointing thing I have ever seen and I lost all my faith in the Democratic Party. I still voted Kerry though, because I wasnt just voting against Bush the puppet, it was his whole administration that had to be ousted.
      well John Kerry the complete tool got embarassed in the election (one question: why is the first democratic primary in relatively conservative IOWA?!? I'll admit I dont know the background and why they go there first).
      Dean got named DNC Chairman...his website transformed into a grassroots organizing system, and look what happened in 2006.
      Let's not be fooled by talk about "looking presidential" and being a "latte sipping liberal" in 2008.
  • sfeldkamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Too bad the constitution doesn't have a mechanism to call for early elections the way many other democracies can. I would support that as an amendment, if it wasn't too easy to achieve.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure that sounds good now, but wait until there's a candidate in office you like who wants to do something that's right, but unpopular (such as legalize gay marriage). Do you really want your candidate to refrain from action for fear of political reprisal? The no confidence vote taeks away the confidence of leaders to do much other than whatever their focus groups tell them to.
  • neolarthytep, on 10/12/2007, -26/+0GET THIS ***** OFF DIGG! SERIOUSLY THIS IS *****!
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Caps lock is cruise control for awesome.
  • LooterMcBeer, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3When are most of you going to wakeup and realize how BS polls are? If polls were accurate Bush wouldnt be your president right now. Polls are conducted primarily in the NE US and and surrounding areas of DC. If everyone actually had a say in polls Bush's approval rating would be probably around 50% maybe higher.
    Sites like Digg lean hardcore to the left. If thats not totally obvious by the amount of bush bashing stories make it to the front page and the lack of anything pro bush has ever made it to the front page.
    • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3At least they polled some people instead of pulling numbers and facts out of your ass like you did.
    • jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"If thats not totally obvious by the amount of bush bashing stories make it to the front page and the lack of anything pro bush has ever made it to the front page."

      In all fairness, there's an awful lot of Fox News stories that make the front page.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6The constant criticism and denigration of Bush reminds me of the quote by Dale Carnegie, "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain -- and most fools do."
    • dynamolife, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I'm with @analyze on this one. Criticism, complaining, and condemning a president does nothing. What are your alternative solutions? Do you have any ideas or just whine along with the rest of the baby lemmings? We will see how everything evolves now that the dems have the majority in congress. Will they just piss and moan about what's going on or will they actually do something other than blocking everything the president tries to do? Our political system is a mess with the two party system, on that I think we mostly agree. It is time for America to stand up and elect someone other than a rep or dem. It is only then that the two main parties will realize that their system is not working.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5They have no solutions. Their whole mantra is "Blame Bush".
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"They have no solutions. Their whole mantra is "Blame Bush"."

      They do have a solution. Pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis slaughter each other. No Democrat will say it, because it doesn't make them sound very compassionate, but that is their solution.
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"They have no solutions. Their whole mantra is "Blame Bush"."

      Since when is wanted to get rid of a bad president NOT a solution??? They are simply addressing the biggest problem facing America today.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9If wishes were horses...
    dick cheney would probably accidentally shoot it in the face with a shotgun.
  • davids1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0The statistical lemming populace of USA will always follow Bush.
    • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Did you actually see the election results? Neither was by landslide.
  • kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Well, end it then. That's why the word "impeach" exists.
    • jaderobbins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4impeaching exists for punishing a president for crimes committed, not because you regret your decision of making him president. You ***** dolt, please don't involve yourself in the American Process anymore.
    • PersonX2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@jaderobbins, "impeaching exists for punishing a president for crimes committed" Right, and he is a ***** criminal.
    • sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"impeaching exists for punishing a president for crimes committed"

      Seems like a home-run then.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@PersonX2
      Can you list the crimes hes committed? I mean if you have evidence I'm sure the ACLU would like to see it.
    • jaderobbins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Tell you what, quit bitching to the internet and bitch to your ***** senators and representative. If you think he committed a crime then tell your congress to start the proceedings and stop being a whining annoying douche to the rest of us on the internet.
    • sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jaderobbins,

      Forget to take your medication again? Chill out.

      I didn't know posting on Digg was to the exclusion of all other actions. Just because someone complains on here doesn't mean they aren't doing more outside of Digg and even the internet. Not all of us live solely on Digg like you do... some of us also have Real Lives in the Real World where indeed, we do write to our congressmen. We get on the internet and post on Digg in our in-between moments.

      So, with all due respect... STFU.

    • PersonX2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ jaderobbins, FYI, I do write my congressmen and senators on issues that concern me. How do you initially assume that I don't?
    • jaderobbins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because ovbiously most people don't or Bush would be pressured out of office or charged with a crime and impeached.
  • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5You guys all make me ill. You've gotten the first President since Truman who wasn't a slick, polished talking-head puppet. This is what its like when your next door neighbor gets elected President. But all you can do is make fun of his unpolished mannerisms and foibles. No, all you can do is complain, insult, bitch and moan cause he's not Martin ***** Sheen or some other actor-president.

    You're all so full of *****, it's pathetic!

    • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Truman was very unpopular too.
    • mattyfatty182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Not a talking head? You don't honestly think Bush is smart enough to make some of these decisions himself do you? He's Cheney's' puppet.

      The guy is the biggest running joke in modern history. I often wonder what it must be like to be wake up and think to yourself...." 2/3 of the country basically hates me". Honestly.

      08AMA
    • PersonX2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I haven't heard of anyone that wants to impeach him for his public speaking skills. But lying to the American public and the world over and over again, stubbornly supporting an INVASION for oil that most people don't want a part of, Ignoring the constitution in the name of "security" (*****) i.e. the "Patriot" act....these and more are reasons to impeach him.
    • shelle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are you serious? Is that really what you think we are so pissed at him for?!
  • anagai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Think all of congress has way to much respect for the man. Id vote for the first congressman that calls him a moron and douche bag of a leader. Thats what he deserves. Way way to much respect for the man. Dont recall him having any one real success in office, except for maybe his tax cuts which benefit the top 2% of this country and make the economic stats look great. Guy has no vision or leadership skills. He reminds me of a big child with a toy soldier set. "I am the war president. I make decisions. We will kill the killers and evil doers.". Its something that a 5 year old would say in a sandbox with his tanks and toy soldiers. This guy is leader of the most powerful nation on earth? You guys voted for a man with a 5 year old mind.
  • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -29/+2Do you all remember the sleaze and corruption of the Clinton era? I love President Bush. He is the greatest President of all time. He has steadfastly 'done the right thing' in Iraq. He has masterfully presided over a booming economy. It is morning America. This story is just liberal press tripe anyway. Buried.
    • mattyfatty182, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4r u serios?

      U cannot b serios
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Using the word 'masterfully', when discussing G.W. Bush, is so wrong. The only thing that I can think of that the man has ever done 'masterfully', was avoid the draft.
    • bubisparks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@amightywind

      Is that a Fart?
    • mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Clinton was a much...MUCH better president than Bush.

      Actually....most presidents have been better than bush.
  • ringave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Only 58%? That pretty low and disappointing man....
    • bubisparks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2That's what I was going to say "ONLY 58%"???? You Americans obviously deserve your current reputation.....
    • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder if they polled the soldiers.
  • Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The one thing from which Bush has largely escaped criticism is his documented failure to prevent 9/11. I'm not some conspiracy nut who thinks Bush was in on it, but his administration's incompetence, arrogance, and shortsightetness allowed it to happen. Somehow, the media and his supporters have given him a pass anyway.
    • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Actually Clinton hack Sandy Berger has miraculously avoided attracting attention for his role in nurturing Bin Laden. Even after destroying classified documents to cover up his failures, the liberal press will not call him out.

      Bush rulez!
    • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2does that mean Clinton was to blame for the failure to stop the first attack on the WTC or the USS Cole?
      If so, why has no one called him on those failures?
    • Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Nurturing" bin Laden? Need I remind you that the Clinton Administration actually attempted to kill him? By contrast, Cheney - who chaired the administration's task force on terrorism - spent the summer of 2001 meeting with energy companies, and didn't convene a single meeting until September 10th. Last but not least, Bush and company ignored the urgent warnings from the CIA that an attack was imminent, A senior CIA analyst even flew to Crawford to brief the President, to which Bush responded, "Okay, you've covered your ass, now." (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608240013?offset=40&show=1). And don't forget about his dereliction of duty at Tora Bora.

      The man is a disgrace.
    • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1>"Nurturing" bin Laden? Need I remind you that the Clinton Administration actually attempted to kill him?

      Yes, I saw the unedited version of the Path to 9/11 and the 13 'attempts' to grease Bin Laden. Sandy Berger should be shot for cowardice.
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@amightywind
      I saw that scene in the movie Contact when Clinton congratulated the NASA scientist for discovering a message from outer space. How come no one brings this up since things that happen in made for TV movies and on the big screen are all real?! Anyone? Anyone?

      You are pathetic.
  • Montie24, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2When the democrats take over and the country goes socialist, you will wish President Bush was still the President. Open your eyes and see for the first time what is really happening.
    • shendi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Socialism or the monopolistic regime that we have now. I think the majority of the fairly educated crowd would choose the former. One word... Halliburton.
    • milarepa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2care to explain why?
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bush has been a socialists' friend... increasing government spending like crazy!
    • kineticabstract, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Montie24, you're an idiot. The Democrats have been in control of the government many times in our history:

      http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm

      Did we become socialists every time, then revert to capitalism when the glorious Republicans wrenched control back? No. Nothing in the current Democratic rhetoric speaks to going that far left, either, so how about you stop spouting the ***** being fed to you by your right-wing blogs and do some thinking for yourself? Just a thought.
  • Kirpernicus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Too little, too late anyways people..... Too bad the learning curve is so slow with everyday Americans who don't pay attention enough. Blame the ones who voted for this idiot in '04, the writing was on the wall back then. Not even sure if he actually won in '04 either, with new info about all the election hanky panky (election officials charged with crimes) going on in Ohio coming out recently. Can't wait until Bush is a bad memory.
    • neolarthytep, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I can't wait til you libs wake up and see that Kerry would of been worse
    • Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's "would have," not "would of," genius.
    • Durinthal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@neolarthytep:

      By 'libs', do you mean libertarians, liberals, or Liberaces?
  • mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ahmen to that, brother...
  • Montie24, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Clinton had 8 years to deal with the terrorists and he only bombed countries when Monica or Ken was about to testify. Bush had 8 months to prepare. Where does the real blame lie???
    • Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Clinton tried to go after osama and it's well documented. The republican congress wouldnt give him the power to do it
      he talked about it a lot in his fox news interview not too long ago, that im sure someone of your political stance had a good chance of seeing, but chose to selectively listen to
    • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1BS! Clinton turned down Sudan when they offered Osama. Thanx Bill
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Thanks to Sandy Berger we'll never know.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings at one time that were low. Those ratings include Lyndon Johnson's 35%, Richard Nixon's 24%, Gerald Ford's 37%, Jimmy Carter's 28%, Ronald Reagan's 35%, the elder George Bush's 29% and Bill Clinton's 37%. Consider their legacy staus today:
    Lyndon Johnson: Vietnam (low-medium)
    Richard Nixon: Watergate (low)
    Jimmy Carter: Iran hostage crisis/misery index (low)
    Ronald Reagan: Ended of cold war/Fall of USSR/Booming economy (high)
    George Bush I: Gulf War I/Poor economy (low to medium)
    Bill Clinton: Monica Lewinski/Robust economy (TBD)
    George W. Bush: 9-11/Iraq War (TBD)

    Only time will tell what Bush's legacy will be...

  • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I am from Texas.
    I have had this guy on my ballot three times now. Once for Govener and twice for President.
    For Govener-Voted against. I loved Anne Richards. RIP Queen Anne. It seemed like Bush was just using his name to get a job.
    First time for President. I voted for Bush. Lesser of two evils and he did an alright job as govener
    Second time for President. I voted for the Libertarian Guy. Bush handled 9-11 well, but Iraq pissed me off. I couldnt stand Kerry. "I actually voted for the war before I voted against the war" Dude, you only get one vote.

    Sure would be nice to not have to pick the lesser of two ***** for our Chief Executive.
  • Montie24, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, they all said Saddam had WMD's and had to be dealt with. President Bush dealt with him and you liberals should be happy as President Bush enforced the UN resolutions that had been passed against Saddam, as you all love the UN. Bush won both elections so quit crying.
    • Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah and the timing was great, we didn't have any greater threats at the time at all. who cares about the war on terror, or the bigger actual threats to our country when we can go finish dad's *****

      Like father..
    • mattyfatty182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0In the beginning I wasn't totally against the war, to be honest with you. I just really dislike the way Bush has handled it thus far. It's been drug out too long with too little progress and too many lives lost. Iraq is in a marginally better state right now than it was before we intervened. I started as Bush vote, I'll admit it. He continually betrayed my trust and made me realize what I should have seen sooner... that he really was a ***** president. Kerry wouldn't have been much better, I admit it.

      Face it guys, we got Bush whether or not we like it now. No sense in arguing. Just make damn sure you remember what he has done in 2008.
  • elbxmatatan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Only 58%?
  • spiderfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The reason that "America hates Bush" is still news, is that in spite of the fact that a MAJORITY of Americans want him out. He still remains in office. It's news because the fact that we leave him in office is proof of the apathy and laziness in our country as a whole, proof of the corruption in our system, AND probably most importantly, proof of the arrogance that the rest of the world hates about America we are letting our President (who most disapprove of) go around representing us by declaring unjustified war on any oil-rich middle eastern country that he feels like. That's why it's still news. This shouldn't just go away, we shouldn't just ignore this. Stop waving flags for a moment and consider what we look like to the world community. If you love America, try to make it a better place, don't just accept the idea that we are good and everyone else that doesn't agree can kiss our asses. Remember the good old fashioned idea of checks and balances?
    • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Another "Blame America For Everything" naysayer worried about reputation. All complaining...no solutions. Is there not one liberal / Democrat / Progressive who has any solutions to offer other than "I hate Bush"....?

      "Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are."
      John Wooden
    • joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2you've used MAJORITY wrong. A majority would be "most people". Not just the little enclaves of far left liberals, such as California and Massachusetts. Unfortunately you forget there are 50 states full of people, not just you and your communist friends
    • kineticabstract, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@joe122370 -

      Yeah, 'cause only blue states hate Bush, right?

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/032206a.html

      Let's see: "According to SurveyUSA.com, which tracks Bush’s approval ratings in all 50 states, Bush’s support in the March readings plunged to double-digit net negative numbers even in some staunchly Republican states: -12% in South Carolina, -17% in Indiana, -18% in Virginia, and -19% in Tennessee. In Bush’s home state of Texas, public disapproval topped approval by 14 percentage points."

      What state do you live in, Joe? Maybe you should be looking around at your communist neighbors, eh?

      Just because we hate idiocy doesn't make us communists, twit.


  • Walt65, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1That whole war Iraq thing was fun for a minute, but it's old now.
    A war with Iran war is what we need for some more good old fashion American fun.
    Fire up the jets and lets get to work...


  • Montie24, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Go to YouTube and watch Hillary Clinton call for Iraq to be attacked. She lies these days about what she said, but she is a Clinton, so of course she lies.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Nah, she just "forgets". Kinda like Bill being unable to recall facts 249 times during his deposition.
  • Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Interesting.
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2How much power do you want the president to have over the countries' checkbook?

    Americans should now question the entire political structure of the United States. The founders realized it could only work with moral politicans, but did all they could to protect against corruption.

  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bush has done a lot for America but we may need to sell Alaska to pay for it.

    California may have been an option but he gave that back to Mexico.
  • D1STORT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Fact is that the Bush presidency has been a failure in every quantifiable way. Worse of all, we will all be recovering from the results of his decisions for decades. Stay the course indeed...
  • Jangles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1So why'd they vote for him? Morons.
  • Montie24, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0PM Neville Chamberlain wished that Hitler would go away. England could have crushed Germany at the start, but they wanted peace so England let Hitler build up his army and air force, break the treaty that was set after WW1 and all in appeasement to a mad man. You see what that mad man did. You liberals are something else. Just wish the bad people away and they will go away....LOL.
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not true. You can't just assume things would have turned out better if England had fought Germany after they took over Checkoslovakia. They had a formidable army then and their manufacturing base was on a war footing. Churchill tried to shoot down Chamberlain's funding for the radar. If that had happened they might have lost the Battle of Britain. If England attacks Germany...Germany might not ever start a war with Russia and Stalin might even help Hitler out. The Russians lost 20 million people fighting Germany's army. If i'm an Englishman I'm thinking 20 million dead Russians are better than 20 million dead Englishman. I just bring this up because sometimes doing nothing can work out better than doing something. It is all a guessing game after the fact.
  • Montie24, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Lowest unemployment in decades, tax revenues are at record highs, the economy is booming and President Bush failed??
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Get your pesky facts out of this Diggeral circle jerk, please.
  • compujunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2...really makes you wonder about the other 42% that still want him in. Yikes!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.