Poll: Bush and Congress' Approval Slumping

Yahoo! News - Poll: Bush, Congress Approval Slumping

Ok, someone needs to tap the mic to make sure it's working, and then ask, "Hello?" Because the issues mentioned in this article are nothing new, indeed they were debated. But, the reason Bush won according to what I remember was his "moral" stance, or at least the perception that he is moral. He isn't, he's as big of a liar as anyone else in politics, but it's all in a stearing wheel that Rove is behind so that a winning perception is seen. Everything in this administration is run off of perceptions, and the fact that Bush won just proves that many here in the USA are old, gullible, and vote on feelings rather than information.

Who was a more capable person in the past election? If you answer Bush, it's because you're pretty biased towards either the party or a particular issue that Bush either supports or is perceived as supporting. If you're like me and don't really care about party affiliation, look at the overall person, and can tell when you're reading bullshit (Ann Coulter comes to mind as well as this woman on the election day coverage who was pretty much a snobby democrat counting eggs that weren't in the basket), then looking at Bush and Kerry you would have to say that although Bush a determined individual, the focus of his determination is not admirable or distinctive, and that even though Kerry's demeanor was not as forceful as Bush's, Kerry is much more qualified and would make sound, even-handed, thought-out, decisions in fulfilling his duties.

No, I'm not a Democrat, and no, I'm not a Republican though I used to vote for more Republicans earlier. I remember "hating" Tip O'Neil (sp?) because he always seemed to be a roadblock to achieving Reagan's goals. I didn't like Jimmy Carter because of a couple things that I shouldn't have been hating him for... the Iranian hostage mess, and inflation. The actual cause for the inflation was Congress, they knew it would get rid of him since Carter was more of an independent than democrat (I like that about him now). And the hostage crisis was not his doing, but the failed military operation to get them, which would have re-elected Carter had it been successful, made us, the USA, feel helpless. Reagan did a great job turning that 180 degrees. I also like Phil Grahm. He used to be a Democrat but then turned Republican. I like to think he switched because he believed his ideals were closer to Republican, but everyone could see that people were identifying with Republican policy more so than Democratic at the time, so he switched because he wanted to win. As long as he continues to vote on what he believes to be right, and not on what the party would like to see, then he's ok.

I think Clinton did ok, not really sure because the only thing remarkable about his terms were the scandals. Other than that, the country seemed to be doing fine economically... Greenspan probably deserves the most credit for it though. But maybe Clinton is one of those people so good that they make tough things look easy.

When Bush and Gore debated, I could see that Bush was nothing but hype and Gore had substantive arguments and ideas. I could aslo see spin being made during the debates by Bush. I found Bush for the first time, even though he was governor of my state, to be a puppet, something hollow and deceptive, and cruel. The national spotlight can really be revealing. I found out more about his past, and his willingness to profit from corporate interests. To this day it continues with his trying to sell the people "privitized social security" which looks oxymoronic. Anyway, then came Sept. 11, and I think Bush could have risen to the occasion and maybe even been another Reagan, but he didn't, he just blamed Clinton, blamed this, and blamed that. He could have really brought this country together at the time, but he didn't, he just isn't a very adept leader or he let his aides decide what to do. Doesn't matter, either way he's a loser.

So then it's time for the next election and Kerry debates and wins every argument. Don't think so? Then you're kidding yourself. Anyway, Kerry is obviously the better of the two, and yet Bush won. Why? Because even the issues mentioned in this article, which were brought up before and Kerry, like Gore before him, had a more logical way thinking and dealing with the circumstances, but the apparent overriding factor for many of the people who voted, had nothing to do with the debated or current issues... they just thought Bush was more of a Christian than Kerry. So, with an ever-increasing elderly population, we have people voting on what matters to them more than individual issues, the character of the person. And I say, even considering the character of the candidates, they made the wrong choice. They were told that Bush was more moral, and they didn't bother questioning it. And when I compare, I'm not looking at which candidate says they're moral more often or references God more, I look at their actions, not words. And by Bush's actions, he's very deceptive. But again, it's the spin that wins.