The American people's rejection of Bush is growing...
 

Of course, 700 people do not make a wholesale rejection of this man, but it is kind of shocking that significant numbers of people hate Bush, are disgusted by Bush, to this degree.

I mean, politicians going through the motions of tribute for the photo opp is hardly a new concept. The line that was most interesting to me was he was supposed to be there to make his tribute, oh, but there happens to be a $2000 dollar a plate fundraiser there too... it does look bad and for someone who is so unpopular amongst whole swathes of America it isnt too smart to set himself up for such a bad media.

From my distance, I can only see one fate for Bush and Blair in their next elections, complete rejection... how can either of them win against a public that feels like this?

Oh.

I thought you had a poll or something.

So a couple of hundred people protesting Bush means that "The American People's rejection of Bush is growing..."

Actually, since there were only a couple of hundred, down from the thousands of last year during the war, could we spin it differently and say,

"Fewer Americans disagree with Bush in '04 than in '03..."


See?

Both are nonsense.


We'll see what the elections bring.

Significant numbers hated Bush before the election. Significant numbers hate every republican. Significant numbers hate every democrat, they just aren't the protesting type. This is no indication whatsoever of a growing resentment towards Bush.


The country is still as divided as it was 4 years ago, or at least that's what I've been hearing. I wouldn't expect it to change all that soon. Just imagine the outrage if Bush didn't recognize King's birthday.

Basically the man is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, like Conclamo said.

They slip that job description into page 367d of the list of "what you have to do when you become president."

Well it seems like he was disrupting the days activities there pretty significantly. Several activities had to be canceled all together, and the secret service was trying to order a congregation from across the street to vacate the premices at a certain time, before Bush would arive.
That is where much of the protest came from that day, because of that stuff. If he can't deal with the days activities, maybe he shouldn't go and allow the mans followers to spend the day as they saw fit.
It's kind of reminiscent of Bush's visit to England, all kinds of demands were made of the Queen. Such as bullet proof glass, to SS specs had to be put in (the glass in the palace is antique, they refused) staff members had to be certified by the SS to be allowed to enter the grounds, then when Bush got there he landed in a Helo, and tore up expensive and rare flowers and stressed the queens flock of flamingoes so badly they will never return to the grounds. And there was an enormous damage bill after they left where they cut into palace walls, wallpaper and carpeting (much of which is also antique) to put in wiring and equipment that they wanted.

Overall I think Bush is not very accomodating to people when he comes to visit, and that is a source of some of the protests and outrage we see, like with the MLK protest.

Chuckle, after Clinton's little 'haircut', I don't think there is anything Bush has done that’s any worse.

Its the nature of the presidency, you go somewhere, someone else gets hosed. Maybe its laying a wreath on a grave and people have to leave a church, maybe its getting a haircut and people get stuck on a runway, but its part of being the president. Hell I really wish Gore and Clinton wouldn't have decided the best time to drive the expressways to Chicago for political events was during rush hour, it would close the expressway, both directions.

Population of Atlanta: 416474
Number of protestors: ~700
Percentage of the population of Atlanta who showed up for the protest (making the incorrect assumption that every one of the people lived in Atlanta):0.0168%

(for Comparison)Percentage of the US population who voted fro Ralph Nader in 2000: 2.74% [source:http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm]

700 people is nothing.

Actually, it takes quite an effort to get 700 people to show up for a protest. What's the last protest/demonstration/political meeting you went to?

In the same way, congresspeople tend to pay attention to people who send them letters, even if it's just a form letter. The theory is that the people who actually make the effort to do something are the people that will vote, and influence the vote of others.

That said, I agree that 700 people showing up is not a mandate on the president's national performance. There are really good surveys that measure that.

A quick googling show's Bush's current approval rating at 52 percent. This is based on the Field poll, which is pretty reputable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/na...partner=GOOGLE

I agree that the American people's rejection of bush is growing. If you guys even took two seconds to browse the titty board you would know that bush is quite unpopular with young americans right now, inparticular the teen demographic.


Hmmmm, is that pun funny enough to justify the use of a pun in the poltx forum ? ah, a question for the philo board !

Teens don't vote.

You forget that all of the teens on the TB are 18, making them able to vote. Some of them will invariably walk into a polling place on the right day and make an attempt at voting, possibly succeeding.

I didn't forget.

Teens don't vote.

Need me to pull up the stats for you?

At least one teen voted in the last election... Well I'm pretty sure one teen voted, I think Gary represented teens in the last election.


What, Gary was stoned during the last election day ? I guess teens don't vote.

Lebell 1, Nano 0, Gary stoned.

BTW I read on CNN, numbers put the crowd closer to 400.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president's visit was a way to pay tribute to "Dr. King's legacy, his vision and his lifetime of service."
"This is a way to honor a lifetime dedicated to fighting for equal opportunity and equal justice for all people," he said.

I like how McClellan is basically saying: Well, the President's appearance on this one specific day totally makes up for MLK's lifetime of dedication to equality. Nevermind that <i>"not one policy decision made by the Bush administration — from the war in Iraq to the economy, from education to the environment — has mirrored King's dream." (- Elijah E. Cummings, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.) </i>But hey, we bought a wreath.

He signed something for the African-American Museum, something that has been in the works for decades I believe. He didn't make a big show about it though and was criticized for it. If he did make a big show of it he would have been criticized for making it into a photo-op.

Then you've got Colin Powell and Condi Rice, two pretty powerful positions held by African-Americans. I'm sure he's done a few things that mirror King's dream, but King's dream has become less about Civil Rights and more about politics. The Congressional Black Caucus wouldn't be happy with anything Republicans do.

Could he do more? Most definitely a lot more, but anything he does do will always be overlooked or downplayed, Bush is in the wrong party to please Elijah E. Cummings.

I think if MLK was still alive, he wouldn't like Bush either.

Oh no, the teens full of angst who whine on BBS systems won't vote for Bush?!?! Oh golly golly!

One fun thing about liberals is that they tend to only hang around other liberals and then are shocked to find out they are not a majority.

This right winger is not worried about the 'teen vote'.

Maybe, maybe not.

"The words of the dead man are modified in the guts of the living"
-WH Auden

It's a fairly accurate statistic to say that teh age is teh percentage of people that age who actually vote. age 18 - around 18% show up, age 50, about 50% show up. This is why the teen vote isn't a threat to the Republicans.

**Groan

Well, in the interest of arguing, there was that whole Bob Jones "University" thing. That runs counter to everything MLKjr stood for.

*scratches head*

When's the last time Republicans won a plurality of votes in the presidential election?

Oh yeah, 16 years...

OK.

I see the signs, so both of you please stop now.

I can't believe that Bush gets so much criticism on racial matters. The biggest racists in this country are the ones who get pissed off that so and so didn't honor a black guy this way or didn't make a big deal out of helping this black church over here, etc.

Racism will always be prevalent as long as these groups go out of their way to point out that they are different from everybody else because of their skin color.

How can you honestly look past a person's skin color if they are always whining about it?

Laugh, what a cute and obtuse way to whine about the 2000 election. You don't like it, go change the constitution :p .

Sorry Lebelll ;)

I have voted at every opportunity since I was 18

I don't know how it is in the UK, but from above, 18% do not a power voting block make.

Now seniors...there's a block that is pandered to. Why? Because they vote.

En Masse.

400 people is a joke. There are more people sitting in a room watching Return of the King as I type this. And I highly doubt they were all from Atlanta.

I'm so sick of people saying, "we didnt elect president bush" bla bla bla. To be elected president you must win the electoral college not the popular vote. dammnit people.

Bush lost the electotal college. He won Florida by criminal means. This is widely documentated

All I can say to that is Score board:

Bush 271
Gore 266

Hmmm... nope that looks right too me.

Saddam Hussain won elections in Iraq too. They dont count either, because he cheated too.

Its documented that Gore cheated, whats your point?

Right, just like 700 people out of close to 500,000 do not a grand number make, three counties do not a state make. Comparing the situations with Hussein to how Bush won the election in 2000 is kind of irresponsible. Hussein held people at gun point, Nader cost Gore the election in Florida just like Perot cost HW Bush the election in 92 (not exactly but in similar ways). See, here's my thing, if Gore had won his HOME STATE OF TENNESSEE, he would have won the election, that plain and simple. Tennessee electoral votes=11, take 11 away from Bush's 271 and you have 260, and then add that same 11 into Gore's 266, you get 277 and Gore wins the election no problem, no recount, etc. If your home state does not elect you, then you don't deserve to win.

Look at all the warrants, sources and evidence backing-up that claim. If you are going to make a statement like that, which you claim is "documented," could you provide us with a link to the docuement, k thx.

Strange, you are acting like a troll. You made this same allegation in another thread, and it was shredded when other posters started documenting the contrary facts of the situation for you, and you disappeared from the thread.

Now you want to hijack another thread with the same ridiculous claim?


Anyhow, back on topic, the polls are pretty strong for Bush right now. There isn't a candidate in the Democratic field who polls well against him.

This claim was not shredded and it is true.

People can find right wing websites that say anything they like, the facts remain. And it is hardly an unrelated point. i am talking about the people's rejection of Bush, and of course this is based in part on the fact he is not their elected leader.

Let us, always, be clear on one thing. Al Gore won the election. Bush was made president by the Supreme Court.

Strange Famous the only thing we are clear on is that you are a FAR, FAR, FAR, left wing young man who thinks the world socialist web sites are a good place to find unbiased news. I've long ago given up any up any hope logical argument from you if somehow president Bush is part of the debate, and I know I'm not alone.

As such lets try to keep it close to on topic, especially when we already had this debated in an another thread with you. We don't need to do it again. There is nothing you can do besides hijack at this point making such statements.

I agree.

The highest court in the land decided that Bush won Florida and that is final, no do-overs.

It would be great if this wasn't brought up time and time again.

I didn't hear that part on the news.
The question is, can any of the potential democrat canidates beat him out?