"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:qp8u3356vckn8r2j26otvmmphd5s32k89c@4ax.com...

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/06/george-bush-the-gops-albat...

May 6, 2007

George Bush: The GOP's Albatross

According to the latest MSNBC/Newsweek poll, George W. Bush has the
worst approval rating of any President since Jimmy Carter, and he's
holding the entire GOP Presidential field back:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

It's hard to say which is worse news for Republicans:

that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American
president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every '08
Republican presidential candidate down with him.

But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public's approval of Bush
has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our
poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush
Sr.'s nadir.

The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also
scored a 28 percent approval in 1979.

This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the
GOP's chances for victory in '08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the
leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in
head-to-head matchups.

Just as Carter's downfall was the Iranian Hostage Crisis, it seems
that the Iraq War, which remains increasingly unpopular among all
segments of the public, is Bush's downfall and he's dragging the
Republican Party down with him.

Even William F. Buckley, Jr, the conservatives conservative, had this
to say about the Administration's Iraq policy and it's impact on the
party:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlk...
kOTc=

Beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George
Bush going to do?

It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq.

The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to
month.

In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy.

There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against
our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in
Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we
have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing
importance.

All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to
believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

(.)

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure.

But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against
it.

Students of politics ask then the derivative question:

How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a
war he can't see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the
voters?

General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported
persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, "I want to
be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the
board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just
getting started with the new effort."

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political
implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider
arena.

There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will
survive this dilemma.

Some will say that Buckley is being overly dramatic, and he probably
is.

The Iraq War may not bring about the end of the Republican Party as an
organized entity, but it could very well force it into the same kind
of permanent minority status that it saw in the aftermath of the Great
Depression.

From 1932 until 1952, not a single Republican was elected President
and, even then, it wasn't a GOP politician who won but a war hero.

Politically, though, the lesson is clear.

Republican candidates will suffer at the poll to the extent they are
associated with the policies of George W. Bush.

______________________________________________________

Sounds wonderful

Harry

The repugs must like this stranglehold because they are doing nothing to
limit it. They won't help override Bush's veto of the war funding bill and,
in general, are still war mongering, talking tough and waving the flag. In
the recent debates there was much bluster about Iran and more saber rattling
on Iraq but only Ron Paul took an anti war stance. You would think that the
repugs would grasp the gravity of their impending doom and move quickly to
put Bush and the war behind them. But that has not happened yet. I guess
they are waiting for Petraeus to come up with his September miracle where
the surge will be pronounced a rousing success. It would seem that the odds
are petty long on that one. A more likely senario is Petraeus claiming, as
he does now, that the surge is making strides but more time is needed to
complete the mission, be patient. What will the repugs do then? Will they
bolt or will they hang on to the sinking ship to the end. Time will tell,
Stay tuned