Author Topic: Will GW submit to an election next year? (Read 1095 times)

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #30 on:** January 28, 2003, 11:40:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Was your constitution written to handle the concept of your country waging an unpopular war of aggression on the other side of the world to either secure the supply of oil for a generation or to restrict that country from having weapons that you yourselves have? How relevent is your constitution to the situtation that is emerging?

These are entirely different questions than the one you asked earlier about the possibility that Bush would not "call" for elections in 2004. The fact is that no president would succeed in "calling off" elections, and doing so would both destroy his constitutional mandate and ensure him a quick trip to jail. If a dictator ever emerged out of American politics, he would be one by popular choice and not by personal edict.

The rest of your questions are obviously leading and essentially irrelevant to the first one, unless you're suggesting that unpopular international wars for whatever motives lead presidents to circumvent the constitution. I'm sure Truman and Johnson would disagree with you there after both chose not to run for reelection when it became obvious that they would lose their own party's nomination.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Rude · « **Reply #31 on:** January 28, 2003, 01:08:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Erlkonig
You mean, in the way that his approval rating is currently sinking to pre-9/11 numbers, and his disapproval rating the highest it's ever been during his entire presidency?

Let's see a source for this cheap talk

Pongo · « **Reply #32 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:08:51 PM »

We should perhaps distinguish for purposes of this discussion between the precidents set in previos wars that started out with a base of popularity because of thier defensive nature in Trumans case, Wars that sort of dribbled to a start where never put to the popularity test till they had plumited out of credibility in Johnsons case and this potential war.

This action would have none of those characteristics
There will not be long hisorical study to try to poke holes in the reasoning behind it. It will go down in history as naked aggression.

A strange place for the land of the free to be in.

funkedup · « **Reply #33 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:15:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
It will go down in history as naked aggression.

I think it will go down as what it is. A continuation of the 1991 war that never officially ended.

Thrawn · « **Reply #34 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:30:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
Let's see a source for this cheap talk

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #35 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:42:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
A strange place for the land of the free to be in.

Not really. First of all, unpopular wars aren't uncommon. Korea was never popular, and Eisenhower ran almost exclusively on the promise of getting out of Korea ASAP. Vietnam started with popular support which diminished slowly over time. Domestically, there is support for military action against Iraq, albeit waning, so I'm not sure what you mean by unpopular. Do you mean internationally? If so, America's surely been involved in plenty of internationally unpopular wars through throughout the 19th century.

I'm curious how you'd classify the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War on your aggressiveness measure. Remember the Alamo! Remember the Maine! Hell, Old Hickory Jackson wanted to attack both Mexico and England in Oregon to faciliate western expansion, but the thought of a two front war dissuaded him.

To go back to your original question of constitutionality: There is nothing unconstitutional about what Bush has done at this point. The constitution does not attribute motive to war but rather places obstacles in the path of its easy pursuit. Bush has obtained the constitutionally-required approval for military force by Congress regardless of his motives, so constitutionally speaking he is fine. Statute requires periodic review of the war effort by Congress, which may as it sees fit remove this mandate for military action.

-- Todd/Leviathn

WpnX · « **Reply #36 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:44:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Erlkonig
You mean, in the way that his approval rating is currently sinking to pre-9/11 numbers, and his disapproval rating the highest it's ever been during his entire presidency?

His approval rating According to CNN and Fox News is currently at 63%. If that's the lowest it's been during his entire presidency as you state, that's pretty good. If you do a little research on former presidents, you'll find that is not bad. Do your homework next time before opening your mouth.

Thrawn · « **Reply #37 on:** January 28, 2003, 02:51:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WpnX
His approval rating According to CNN and Fox News is currently at 63%. If that's the lowest it's been during his entire presidency as you state, that's pretty good. If you do a little research on former presidents, you'll find that is not bad. Do your homework next time before opening your mouth.

According to some polls it is at it's lowest.

One example.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Latest: Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=1,025 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"

Approval / Disapproval / Don't Know by %.

1/19-21/03 54 40 6
12/7-9/02 62 33 5
10/18-21/02 63 31 6 RV
9/3-5/02 64 30 6
7/19-21/02 67 27 6
6/8-10/02 69 23 8
5/18/02 75 18 7
4/5-7/02 74 20 6
1/18-21/02 82 13 5
12/8-10/01 85 11 4
11/9-11/01 88 7 5
9/15-16/01 82 12 6
6/23-25/01 50 35 15
4/21-23/01 56 30 14
3/1-4/01 57 22 21

There is a general trend being shown in all the polls though.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Nash · « **Reply #38 on:** January 28, 2003, 03:11:13 PM »

A pretty good graph of Bush's slipping support here.

Pongo · « **Reply #39 on:** January 28, 2003, 03:12:38 PM »

Im thinking on it Levi. Thanks for the points.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 28, 2003, 03:13:36 PM »

No President has ever been re-elected when the Misery Factor has went UP. The misery factor is a rise in unemployment and inflation. Well, I take that back, Regan was re-elected, but the economy was just getting warmed up.

2stony · « **Reply #41 on:** January 28, 2003, 03:29:35 PM »

Quote

The Democrats don't have anyone who can beat him so why worry?

And this is the problem. We'll be stuck with GW for another four years. Help us all!

Erlkonig · « **Reply #42 on:** January 28, 2003, 03:34:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WpnX
His approval rating According to CNN and Fox News is currently at 63%. If that's the lowest it's been during his entire presidency as you state, that's pretty good. If you do a little research on former presidents, you'll find that is not bad. Do your homework next time before opening your mouth.

I did my homework, so maybe you should take a look in the mirror, pal. I was refering to the data that Thrawn and Nash have given links to above. Bush's support among the American people is slipping, and will continue to plummet unless he can drum up some kind of success, foreign or domestic.