Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In a message dated 8/1/07 12:25:03 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's just some of what the Republicans have obstructed: raising the minimum wage; ethics reform; immigration reform; Medicare prescription drug reform; electronic campaign funding disclosure; funding for renewable energy; funding for the intelligence community; appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Actually the Republicans had far better Ideas on many of these issues. Ideas with teeth in them that the Democrats stripped out of legislation or prevented to begin with. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In a message dated 7/30/07 10:01:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That 60 vote majority came back to bite the Dems in the ass, didn't it? You mean, are the Republicans such hypocrites as to use the filibuster after condemning it and threatening to ban it to keep the Democrats from using it when they were in the minority? Goes without saying. It seems there's no hypocrisy that's beyond the Republicans. As you almost certainly know, the Republicans are on their way to *tripling* the average number of filibusters in the preceding several decades: Ah, but Judy, they didn't ban it, did they? And of course you know the difference in how the Republicans used the filibuster and the Democrats used it. The Republicans used it to protect the power of the Presidency put forth in the constitution, to select federal judges, establish foreign policy and to act as Commander in Chief. The Democrats have used the filibuster to stall and delay and now want to dictate foreign policy from the Congressional level as well as interfere in the duties of the Commander in Chief. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/30/07 10:01:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That 60 vote majority came back to bite the Dems in the ass, didn't it? You mean, are the Republicans such hypocrites as to use the filibuster after condemning it and threatening to ban it to keep the Democrats from using it when they were in the minority? Goes without saying. It seems there's no hypocrisy that's beyond the Republicans. As you almost certainly know, the Republicans are on their way to *tripling* the average number of filibusters in the preceding several decades: Ah, but Judy, they didn't ban it, did they? And of course you know the difference in how the Republicans used the filibuster and the Democrats used it. The Republicans used it to protect the power of the Presidency put forth in the constitution, to select federal judges, establish foreign policy and to act as Commander in Chief. The Democrats have used the filibuster to stall and delay and now want to dictate foreign policy from the Congressional level as well as interfere in the duties of the Commander in Chief. MDixon, you have Kool-Aid poisoning. What a ludicrous litany.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 7/30/07 10:01:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jstein@ writes: That 60 vote majority came back to bite the Dems in the ass, didn't it? You mean, are the Republicans such hypocrites as to use the filibuster after condemning it and threatening to ban it to keep the Democrats from using it when they were in the minority? Goes without saying. It seems there's no hypocrisy that's beyond the Republicans. As you almost certainly know, the Republicans are on their way to *tripling* the average number of filibusters in the preceding several decades: Ah, but Judy, they didn't ban it, did they? And of course you know the difference in how the Republicans used the filibuster and the Democrats used it. The Republicans used it to protect the power of the Presidency put forth in the constitution, to select federal judges, establish foreign policy and to act as Commander in Chief. The Democrats have used the filibuster to stall and delay and now want to dictate foreign policy from the Congressional level as well as interfere in the duties of the Commander in Chief. MDixon, you have Kool-Aid poisoning. What a ludicrous litany. Here's just some of what the Republicans have obstructed: raising the minimum wage; ethics reform; immigration reform; Medicare prescription drug reform; electronic campaign funding disclosure; funding for renewable energy; funding for the intelligence community; appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The strategy of being obstructionist can work or failSo far it's working for us.--Republican Whip Senator Trent Lott, April 7, 2007 http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=277868 And here's a little cherry to top off this pile of stinking garbage, from Politico's blog The Crypt: Stevens threatens to block ethics bill Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, whose home back in Alaska was raided by federal investigators Monday in a wide-ranging corruption investigation, has threatened to place a hold on the Democratic- drafted ethics legislation just passed by the House and expected on the Senate floor by week's end. The senator told a closed session of fellow Republicans today, including Vice President Dick Cheney, that he was upset that the measure would interfere with his travel to and from Alaska and vowed to block it. And Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), confirming Steven's threat, said bluntly: There could be a lot of holds on this bill. http://tinyurl.com/2xygjw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 7/30/07 10:01:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jstein@ writes: That 60 vote majority came back to bite the Dems in the ass, didn't it? You mean, are the Republicans such hypocrites as to use the filibuster after condemning it and threatening to ban it to keep the Democrats from using it when they were in the minority? Goes without saying. It seems there's no hypocrisy that's beyond the Republicans. As you almost certainly know, the Republicans are on their way to *tripling* the average number of filibusters in the preceding several decades: Ah, but Judy, they didn't ban it, did they? And of course you know the difference in how the Republicans used the filibuster and the Democrats used it. The Republicans used it to protect the power of the Presidency put forth in the constitution, to select federal judges, establish foreign policy and to act as Commander in Chief. The Democrats have used the filibuster to stall and delay and now want to dictate foreign policy from the Congressional level as well as interfere in the duties of the Commander in Chief. MDixon, you have Kool-Aid poisoning. What a ludicrous litany. Here's just some of what the Republicans have obstructed: raising the minimum wage; ethics reform; immigration reform; Medicare prescription drug reform; electronic campaign funding disclosure; funding for renewable energy; funding for the intelligence community; appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The strategy of being obstructionist can work or failSo far it's working for us.--Republican Whip Senator Trent Lott, April 7, 2007 http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=277868
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/26/07 8:31:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time, j [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the major reasons Congress doesn't have better ratings is that Democrats were elected to do something about the Bush disaster, and they haven't been able to accomplish much yet because of all the crap the administration and the Republicans have been pulling, refusing to obey subpoenas, withholding documents and other information on the grounds of executive privilege, and filibustering anything the Democrats try to do so that a 60-vote majority is required to get anything passed. Not to mention instructing Attorney General Gonzales to stonewall and lie in hearings, and blocking any attempt to establish contempt of Congress proceedings. That 60 vote majority came back to bite the Dems in the ass, didn't it? You mean, are the Republicans such hypocrites as to use the filibuster after condemning it and threatening to ban it to keep the Democrats from using it when they were in the minority? Goes without saying. It seems there's no hypocrisy that's beyond the Republicans. As you almost certainly know, the Republicans are on their way to *tripling* the average number of filibusters in the preceding several decades: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/26/07 9:50:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All polls until this week consistently reported 10 points less support for Congress than for the President. Fact. Deal with it. Shemp, say, Oops, Judy, you're right, Bush's ratings are now lower than those of Congress, and it said so right in the very article I was commenting on. I guess I really should read before I comment on so I don't look so incredibly foolish. As to other facts: In April, a USA Today/Gallup poll had Bush at 38 percent, Congress at 33 percent (5 points, not 10, difference). The same poll on May 15 had Bush at 33 and Congress at 29 (4 points, not 10, difference). Shemp, say, Oh, gee, I got that wrong too; Bush's ratings have *not* been consistently 10 points higher than those of Congress. I guess I should have checked before spouting off and calling my blooper a 'fact.' In any case, here's another *real* fact for you: Congress's approval ratings are traditionally lower than those of the president, no matter which party is in power. For the president's ratings to sink lower than those of Congress is almost unheard-of. Lets look at a slightly more recent poll since April or May._Americans' Confidence in Congress at All-Time Low_ (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946) Your point, of course, doesn't contest any of mine, nor does it validate Shemp's misstatement. The poll in question, of course, was issued this past Wednesday, yet here you are pretending that somehow a June poll is more up to date.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In a message dated 7/26/07 8:31:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time, j [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the major reasons Congress doesn't have better ratings is that Democrats were elected to do something about the Bush disaster, and they haven't been able to accomplish much yet because of all the crap the administration and the Republicans have been pulling, refusing to obey subpoenas, withholding documents and other information on the grounds of executive privilege, and filibustering anything the Democrats try to do so that a 60-vote majority is required to get anything passed. Not to mention instructing Attorney General Gonzales to stonewall and lie in hearings, and blocking any attempt to establish contempt of Congress proceedings. That 60 vote majority came back to bite the Dems in the ass, didn't it? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In a message dated 7/26/07 9:50:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All polls until this week consistently reported 10 points less support for Congress than for the President. Fact. Deal with it. Shemp, say, Oops, Judy, you're right, Bush's ratings are now lower than those of Congress, and it said so right in the very article I was commenting on. I guess I really should read before I comment on so I don't look so incredibly foolish. As to other facts: In April, a USA Today/Gallup poll had Bush at 38 percent, Congress at 33 percent (5 points, not 10, difference). The same poll on May 15 had Bush at 33 and Congress at 29 (4 points, not 10, difference). Shemp, say, Oh, gee, I got that wrong too; Bush's ratings have *not* been consistently 10 points higher than those of Congress. I guess I should have checked before spouting off and calling my blooper a 'fact.' In any case, here's another *real* fact for you: Congress's approval ratings are traditionally lower than those of the president, no matter which party is in power. For the president's ratings to sink lower than those of Congress is almost unheard-of. Lets look at a slightly more recent poll since April or May._Americans' Confidence in Congress at All-Time Low_ (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946) ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In a message dated 7/26/07 9:50:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to other facts: In April, a USA Today/Gallup poll had Bush at 38 percent, Congress at 33 percent (5 points, not 10, difference). The same poll on May 15 had Bush at 33 and Congress at 29 (4 points, not 10, difference). Shemp, say, Oh, gee, I got that wrong too; Bush's ratings have *not* been consistently 10 points higher than those of Congress. I guess I should have checked before spouting off and calling my blooper a 'fact.' In any case, here's another *real* fact for you: Congress's approval ratings are traditionally lower than those of the president, no matter which party is in power. For the president's ratings to sink lower than those of Congress is almost unheard-of One other comment_Charleston Daily Mail_ (http://www.dailymail.com/story/Opinion/2007072075/Don-Surber-Democrats-achieve-14-percent-approval/) ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... Funny, that. From the article: And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post-ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's. Funny indeed. You'd better write the Post and tell them they got it wrong. All polls until this week consistently reported 10 points less support for Congress than for the President. Fact. Deal with it. Shemp, say, Oops, Judy, you're right, Bush's ratings are now lower than those of Congress, and it said so right in the very article I was commenting on. I guess I really should read before I comment on so I don't look so incredibly foolish. As to other facts: In April, a USA Today/Gallup poll had Bush at 38 percent, Congress at 33 percent (5 points, not 10, difference). The same poll on May 15 had Bush at 33 and Congress at 29 (4 points, not 10, difference). Shemp, say, Oh, gee, I got that wrong too; Bush's ratings have *not* been consistently 10 points higher than those of Congress. I guess I should have checked before spouting off and calling my blooper a 'fact.' In any case, here's another *real* fact for you: Congress's approval ratings are traditionally lower than those of the president, no matter which party is in power. For the president's ratings to sink lower than those of Congress is almost unheard-of.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... Funny, that. From the article: And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post- ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's. Funny indeed. You'd better write the Post and tell them they got it wrong. All polls until this week consistently reported 10 points less support for Congress than for the President. Yes, you are right Shemp, those republicans still in congress are really messing it up for the country. Luckily Ron Paul is not one of them, and has wide democratic support for his bill to bring the troops home in 6 months. Not saying I agree with this bill, but after the mess in Iraq you guys made, it may be the only way. However even that won't work. The Iraqmire is an impossible quandry. No way out for you . OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... Funny, that. From the article: And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post- ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's. Funny indeed. You'd better write the Post and tell them they got it wrong. One of the major reasons Congress doesn't have better ratings is that Democrats were elected to do something about the Bush disaster, and they haven't been able to accomplish much yet because of all the crap the administration and the Republicans have been pulling, refusing to obey subpoenas, withholding documents and other information on the grounds of executive privilege, and filibustering anything the Democrats try to do so that a 60-vote majority is required to get anything passed. Not to mention instructing Attorney General Gonzales to stonewall and lie in hearings, and blocking any attempt to establish contempt of Congress proceedings.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In a message dated 7/25/07 11:58:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... the last I saw was 14% for Congress. Now that is bad. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/25/07 11:58:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... the last I saw was 14% for Congress. Now that is bad. Let's just say that both the legislative and the executive branches look like a bunch of clowns to the american public. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you behave like an arrogant, idiot asshole there are consequences, yes? Is that a judgement? Is there possibly any projection in that judgement? (Thats a non-judgemental and non-leading question. We like you either way.) --- Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights In Modern Era, Only Nixon and Truman Scored Worse, Just Barely By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling. The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only twice has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- Harry S. Truman, who hit 67 percent during the Korean War, and Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before resigning. The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency. Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills. The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. It isn't just the Iraq war, said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. It's everything. Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy, said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. Not both. Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. It's astonishing, said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him. That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as angry. A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh, said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions. Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... Funny, that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights In Modern Era, Only Nixon and Truman Scored Worse, Just Barely By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling. The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only twice has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- Harry S. Truman, who hit 67 percent during the Korean War, and Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before resigning. The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency. Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills. The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. It isn't just the Iraq war, said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. It's everything. Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy, said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. Not both. Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. It's astonishing, said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him. That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as angry. A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh, said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions. Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy
