Together again
By Patrick Kelley (Contact)
Originally published 08:56 a.m., June 28, 2008
Updated 08:56 a.m., June 28, 2008
George Bush famously sees the hand of God in the decisions he makes. But his critics say the president has great difficulty in distinguishing between “God wants me to” and “I wanna!”
It would be interesting to know what the president makes of the symbolism of Friday’s meeting between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.
The meeting, intended to officially reunify the Democratic Party, was one big celebration of intentional symbolism. The location, for a start. What better place to talk about common purpose than the little hamlet of Unity, N.H.?
But there was one detail that could not be planned by Obama’s campaign staff: In the New Hampshire primary, Unity gave precisely 107 votes to Obama and precisely 107 votes to Clinton.
To quote astonished human beings from time immemorial, “It’s as though it were meant!”
Whether the Unity meeting was blessed or just serendipitious, it seems to have been successful. The Democratic Party is now as unified as it has been in decades. That means that, apart from Sen. Joe Lieberman and a few people who say they adore Hillary Clinton but refuse to follow her lead, the gang is pretty much all there.
That is not good news for the campaign of John McCain, which had, for a while, hoped to see Democrats go into their convention bitterly divided and come out of it still nursing their grudges.
More than four months remain until the November election and there are sure to be some nasty surprises for both candidates along the way.
But for now, the Democrats are reveling in their reconciliation and raring to start campaigning in earnest.
As Clinton said Friday, “Unity is not only a beautiful place as we can see, it’s a wonderful feeling, isn’t it?”
To which, not a few Democrats must be responding, “Amen!”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That is great news! I am anxious to have all my taxes increased, including income tax, capital gains tax, social security tax, and many others. I am also looking forward to having my firearms banned and maybe even confiscated. I also look forward to having our troops yanked from the war on terrorism so Hamas and Al Qeada can begin the slaughter and start planning attacks on US soil. Besides, gas is far too cheap. Obama and his left-wing patriots will have it up to six bucks in no time!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A meeting in a town that was evenly divided is a symbol of reconciliation? This is spin at its apex.
The Gazette's editorial staff could not resist taking a shot at President Bush in a piece that has nothing to do with the President. I wonder what they will write about when Bush is gone.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bush is absolutely the worst president in the history of this country, and very well could be the most corrupt depending on the final months of his term play out. Defending his stint in office is a travesty; even his own party cannot explain his actions.
Posted by vankamp (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Patrick Kelly. Everytime I read your articles I am reassured that cancelling my Gazette subscription was a great decision.
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am looking forward to the government taking from all of the rich people and giving it to deserving poor people like me. I realize that I haven’t tried very hard but it is my birthright to receive all of the benefits of this Great Society. I think our Democrats will have a, “not one person left behind" policy in place within a short time after power is turned over to them. I feel sorry for all of those that will be getting ripped off but I thank them for the handout. As it has been said by one of the founders of our great party, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his own needs". We will all be one, under a new government, where folks like me will be just as rewarded, as folks who really put out some effort to get ahead. We will all receive equal rewards from our government. What a great day for America lies just ahead. I knew that I had equal rights to other folks but I truly never thought I would live to see the time that I would get an equal share of the riches of America. It is not how you live your life that counts, but rather that you have a life to count. Hopefully the spoils of the current dreadful leaders will be divided equally among all of us when we thrust our party into the winning column, come next November. Milk and Honey time is within our reach! And as for all of you Capitalists friends out there, keep up the good work. If you have the ability to produce, the rest of us who don’t, are counting on you to contribute heavily into our Nations coffers. We sure don’t want anything to happen to us like it did in the old USSR. The farmers there finally came to believe that they weren’t getting what they considered "just rewards" for their efforts, and they quit producing, and our brothers and sisters there nearly starved. CHANGE is the issue!!!
Posted by edorsey (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am by no means defending the president, but the one reason people seem to think he is so terrible is because of all the negative media coverage. If the media had a positive view on some of Bush's action it have lead to everyone feeling differently. In a age where there are 24/7 cable news channels, and hundreds of times more coverage on the internet is increasingly negative, is it possible not to be a screw-up?
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will be glad when Bush is gone,but I fail to see how he has been such a failure, especially in the war on terror. Our soil has not been attacked since 9-11. I am certain he has made some mistakes in the war and everything else, but the only people who don't make mistakes are people who do nothing.
Now that Saddam is gone and the Taliban are on the run, it is easy for everyone to say the war was a mistake, but how do we really know that for sure?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 1:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, at least Mr. Kelley is back to regular form. Those old-style journalism schools where they taught journalists to just report the news unbiased are no longer needed anyway, because that was back in the days when people were smarter and could think for themselves. Now, according to the left, we're all too darn stupid and helpless, that's why we need a huge government to hold our hand every single step of the way.
Hey goodoleboy, do you know who one of the most hated and reviled presidents of all time (during his term in office) was?......... Abraham Lincoln. Do a little research if you don't believe me.
I can name a WHOLE lot of people who express your exact sentiments......... about Bill Clinton.
History will be the ultimate judge, not people who for each 4 years violently hate whomever they did not vote for.
As for me, I'm with Observation. As one of those who "cling to my guns and religion", I've been working WAY too hard. If the Obama gravy train is good enough, I may just quit my job and sponge off the rich. After all, my great-great grandparents were immigrants, so I deserve special treatment.... LOL
Haven't you all heard? The verse in the Bible that states that nobody knows the day or the hour when the Messiah returns to earth, has been now shown to be untrue. We DO know the exact hour. It is at the exact moment Obama is sworn in as our president next year. According to MSNBC and the other news outlets that the Gazette worships, Obama is the Messiah! Halleluja! He has returned! Once he is coronated, all will be right with the world! He will correct/fix ALL evils brought upon us by the Bush administration, such as no attacks since 9/11, lower taxes, economic growth, and lowered unemployment! And most importantly, once Obama is on the throne, ALL nations of the world will start to once again kiss the USA's a$$, and adore Americans, unlike the hatred for us that Bush has single-handedly wrought! (By the way, I was in Europe in 1995, and they HATED us THEN, but that's beside the point, it was probably because they knew that in 5 years Bush would be elected).
Hallelujah! He has returned! (At least that's what I'm told/read)....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, we read the Gazette here, but only because it is free....
Yes, I did use quite a bit of sarcasm, but actually, I'm just repeating what the mainstream media seems to have annointed Obama with. I must not be the only one that thinks just about EVERY media today handles him with kid gloves, (with the exception of Fox News), Saturday Night Live even did a parody of it, so I must not be dreaming. Heck, if it wasn't for Fox, I doubt anyone would have heard about his close friend and personal spiritual advisor for the last 20 years, the extremely racist pastor Wright. There's an example for you right there, in the past these boards have been full of people just waiting like vultures to start screaming "racist" at the drop of a hat at anyone and everyone who disagrees with them on these forums, why have all those same people been so silent about Wright? (Of course, to those same people, that makes Fox extremely skewed and biased in THEIR reporting, but we know how that game is played - if they agree with you, no matter how skewed your own views are, they are a fair and balanced news outlet - if theyDARE even SHOW other slants/points of view that you DON'T agree with, well, then, they are extremely biased...)
People weep and faint from joy at revival meetings, they do the same thing at Obama campaign stops, so obviously I'm not TOO far off track...... :)
Like I mentioned above, in all cases, time will be the eventual judge...
Posted by MerkyWater (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, I am afred to coment!
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Me two! Sumtimes I tipe in a big hurrie, and dont always spelchek. But I figure unless its reely, reely bad, or the same word is konstantlie mispeled over an over, I try to ignor it..... we all mak a few mistaches..... LOL
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Openeyes
"Hey goodoleboy, do you know who one of the most hated and reviled presidents of all time (during his term in office) was?......... Abraham Lincoln. Do a little research if you don't believe me."
This is common knowledge and a poor comparison. Lincoln was disliked by those who favored slavery (white southerners). Bush is disliked unanimously across the board by all ethnicities. Never has a president had a worse approval rating since they started tracking it, including Nixon.
"I can name a WHOLE lot of people who express your exact sentiments......... about Bill Clinton."
Bill Clinton was guilty of having bad judgment in his personal affairs but as a president anyone that rates him as horrible should seriously educate themselves on the facts. This country soared to new heights of economic prosperity during his administration; the deficit actually was starting to shrink towards the end of it. Clinton also had a great foreign policy and the world itself viewed us much more favorably during his tenure than the current incumbent.
As for the current candidates, I'll be honest. I am not a blind Obama supporter but when it comes to the presidency what can you do? Pick the lesser of the 2 evils. Is Obama the Messiah? Not even close. But he is leaps and bounds better than McCain and light-years better than Bush. This country needs a 3rd party to be honest. Republican/Democrat black and white just does not really cut it anymore; we need a 3rd for the large gray area that has developed.
Edorsey,
"I am by no means defending the president, but the one reason people seem to think he is so terrible is because of all the negative media coverage. If the media had a positive view on some of Bush's action it have lead to everyone feeling differently. In an age where there are 24/7 cable news channels, and hundreds of times more coverage on the Internet is increasingly negative, is it possible not to be a screw-up?"
Bush is terrible because of the continuation of bad choices and the fact that he has a knack for conveying a sense of incompetence (see his public speaking). In comparison with Clinton who had the intern/whitewater scandals to contend with, what is the difference? The difference is that Clinton made mistakes but in the end he still managed to effectively run our country, Bush dos not, plain and simple. He gets negative coverage because he has the lowest approval rating of any president EVER. He deserves it.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
alfalfa,
"I will be glad when Bush is gone, but I fail to see how he has been such a failure, especially in the war on terror. Our soil has not been attacked since 9-11. I am certain he has made some mistakes in the war and everything else, but the only people who don't make mistakes are people who do nothing.
Now that Saddam is gone and the Taliban are on the run, it is easy for everyone to say the war was a mistake, but how do we really know that for sure?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The war on terror is and will continue to be a complete joke. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and did not have any capabilities to harm us ever. The Iraq war was for nothing, 100's of our troops died and the American taxpayer continues to suffer for no reason. There were and still are bigger threats to us than Al-Quada and what Iraq was (and its not Iran). Bush has pretty much written the book for future executives on what not to do, yet fails to realize the sad state that our country is in. I just hope that we can one day return to what we used to be as a nation.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
goodoleboy - your opinion, and you have every right to it.
I know people who like Bush..... so.... your claim of "unanimous"...... is false......
Never has a Congress had a worse approval rating than our current (Democratically-controlled) one. And Bush's approval rating of 27% is 50% higher than Congress's 18%, by my math. So, I guess you could say that if hatred of Bush is "unanimous", then what is Congress? The math is starting to make my head hurt....
But actually, to be factual, instead of just ranting, check out
http://ask.yahoo.com/20051011.html
Bush's approval rating is NOT the lowest ever, Truman, Carter and Nixon all had lower ratings. And Bush's rating at one time was the highest ever for a president.
Regarding Clinton: "anyone that rates him as horrible should seriously educate themselves on the facts. This country soared to new heights of economic prosperity during his administration"
Well, I HAVE seriously educated myself in the facts, (unlike you, who really doesn't know which president's had the all-time worst ratings, even though you claim you do). Many could say the exact same thing (state opinions) about pretty much every president. As for your next claim about economic prosperity, nobody denies that the internet bubble made alot of people rich. And 9/11 dealt our economy a serious blow. But lets compare the figures. For a comparison check out
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con...
Depends on what you find - I can find plenty of article touting Clinton's economy also. But I was looking for something with actual numbers.
"Clinton had a great foreign policy" - this one reallty makes me chuckle. As I said before, I was in Europe in the middle of Clinton's tenure (1995) and was shocked to find how much Americans were disliked by Europeans. I also believe that during Clinton's tenure, the Trade Centers were attacked in '93, the bombings in '98, and even though 9/11 did not happen on his watch, it was years in the planning. I guess all these events are proof of how beloved America was during his time in office. Again, I was SHOCKED in '95 in each country I went to the animosity Europeans had for Americans. 1995. Middle of Clinton era, in case you were wondering. If you think that Clinton's ONLY mistakes were in his "personal affairs", then there's nothing that can be done for you unless you take your rose-colored glasses off and view things objectively. (Oh, by the way, he had Osama in his sights and let him go.) I don't look at Bush thru rose-colored glasses - he has made PLENTY of mistakes (just like Clinton). I'm pretty critical of EVERY administration, regarless of party - but I try to be honest and objective about it also.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're right about picking the lesser of 2 evils. I am pretty disappointed in our choices this November. But, just like your Opinion, I can find plenty of people who wholeheartedly agree that "McCain or Bush are light-years better than Obama". And alot of those people are extremely well-educated. They just don't agree with YOUR Opinions. Doesn't make either view FACT. Everyone has their Opinions. I TOTALLY agree we need a 3rd party.
Let's see, what's next? Oh, another claim about Bush's approval rating being the worst EVER. Well, that pretty much says it all. You have your mindset, and nothing will change it. End of story. Good luck.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to abolish the two party political system in this country. It has become absurd beyond description. Partisan politics have become the method of madness. As for our choices for the next president: we are in trouble. McCain is a good man and a true patriot, but he is a fence-sitter. Obama is a disaster of historic proportions looking for a time and place to happen. If he is elected, our nation will enter into a nightmare of ultra-liberalism heretofore unimagined. Taxes will skyrocket, socialism will rule, freedoms will corrode, the lazy and unproductive will get a free ride from those who work hard and prosper, and the economy will suffer more than it already is. Our choces? Anybody but Obama.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh! And I DO agree that President Bush's approval rating is in the dumper. It isn't nearly as low as the approval rating for our do-nothing Democratic-controlled congress, but it is low.
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enlighten me then, goodoleboy, who are the bigger threats to America, bigger than even Iran? Apparenty you have access to some intelligence the government does not. Why keep it a secret, please do share, I would think it is vital to national security that you do.
Unfortunately, I am not in the same position you are to judge the war on terror as a total joke. Being a simple minded farmboy, I can only see that we have not been attacked again, and I don't believe it is because the only 19 people in the world who wanted to attack us on our soil perished in those airplanes on 9-11.
So, you are welcome to your opinion that the war on terror has been a total joke, to try to get along with you I will downgrade my assessment to a limited success.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
goodoleboy: You are wrong in your statement that Lincoln's popularity was low only with southerners. Southerners had removed themselves from the process and no longer counted one way or the other. There were riots in the streets of New York City in 1863 against Lincoln and his policies, especially his draft. The Supreme Court held that his actions in suspending Habeas Corpus were unconstitutional. His cabinet conspired against him because they believed that he would lose the election of 1864 due to his unpopularity. The only reasons that he won the election were 1) his own executive order that allowed soldiers in the field to vote (bypassing state laws and of questionable legality) and 2) Sherman burning Atlanta in late October, causing the North to believe that the end of the war was finally near. Of course, after his death, his popularity revived, as it should. Lincoln, like Bush, followed his convictions, not the polls. Most believe that if Lincoln had followed the polls, that the union would have lost the Civil War. Thank God for presidents like Lincoln and Bush.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's a little example of Clinton's "great" foreign policy, and what it brought us:
"For example, former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, now serving as a talking head on CNN, claimed that the Clinton administration contained the threat from North Korea. Clearly, Mr. Begala missed the 1990s.
Of course, Mr. Begala simply forgot that Clinton's military chief of staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.
During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.
Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.
The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.
In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program."
============================
And now, it is left to the Bush administration to undo Clinton's short-sighted policy with North Korea. Anyone following the news that North Korea is now demolishing their nuclear facilities????
Oh - and I just counted 3 posters that, while they may not think Bush is the greatest pres ever, they apparently don't think he is the worst ever, either. Actually 4, counting me. Since "unanimous" is supposed to be 100%, I think that estimate might be a little flawed..... LOL
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Open-eyes: I hope you are including me in those 4 who think Bush is bad, but not the worst. Actually, the worst president in the history of our nation is currently running for the office as a radical ultra-liberal socialist disguised as a Democrat.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker,
Clearly you missed the mark as to what I was trying to state. Lincoln was disliked by more than just the South yes, but that was the primary demographic, with Bush its different he is disliked by almost everyone universally. Comparisons between Lincoln and Bush are laughable, what he does now is only continuing to hurt this country, if he had it his way we would be at war with Iran as well. If you want to debate Lincoln lets do it elsewhere, the subject is Bush and his unpopularity. Lets keep it on that track and not examine comparisons when they do not apply. I can guarantee you no one will look back on Bush the way they do Lincoln.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It appears to me, Goodoleboy, that you have allowed your personal agenda and emotions to cloud your ability to reason. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with President Bush - most of us disagree with every president about something. A person who takes that job had best be thick skinned. I hope that Obama and McCain have the ability to accept harsh critic, because one of them is going to get it. Why do we feel the need to attack them personally? For the most part, Presidents do the best that they can. I believe that history will treat President Bush very well, as it did Lincoln (a Republican) and (finally) President Truman (a Democrat). All three of these Presidents made difficult and unpopular decisions and all three did so in their first terms, leaving re-election in question. All three, however, did so knowing that the decisions would be unpopular, but in the best interest of the country as they saw it. Bush will be seen as a man of strong conviction who did what he thought was right. That is the definition of a great president. What more could we ask of a person? I am proud of him, and proud to say that I voted for him both times. Even those who oppose him, however, should be able to recognize his strengths, even while disagreeing with him. That takes maturity and wisdom, which, unfortunately, is lacking in our culture.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Openeyes
Bush's approval rating is NOT the lowest ever; Truman, Carter and Nixon all had lower ratings. And Bush's rating at one time was the highest ever for a president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir you are just wrong:
George W. Bush holds the record, at 19% (2/16-19/08-- during the Iraq War).
Harry S. Truman is the second lowest, at 22% (2/9-14/1952 -- during the Korean War).
Richard Nixon is third lowest, with 24% (7/12-15/1974, 8/2-5/1974 -- during the Watergate scandal).
Jimmy Carter is fourth lowest, with 28% (6/29-7/2/79 -- during the Iran hostage crisis).
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating
And while he does hold the highest approval rating what does that tell you about his ability? Its horrible, worst drop-off in history. And yes Congress is horrible as well but they are not on trial here are they? I have equal disdain for them because they have not accomplished what they promised either, but that is another issue.
Clinton foreign policy was great, so you were in Europe in 95 during and that makes you the authority? I think not, I can cite source after source on how far we have fallen in the eyes of the world, One only needs to take one look at this country now and how it was at the end of Clinton's tenure, that pretty much should determine how good a president was generally. Was the country as good or better than when Bush took the reigns? The answer is a resounding no, and %80 of America agrees with me on this.
PS. 9/11 or a similar event could have happened on anyone's watch. There is a famous quote "If one is willing to die for a cause there is not much that can stop them". Mark my words; we will get attacked again, it will happen. I do look at things objectively, its hard to be objective with Bush, the negatives just far outweigh the positives.
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States…
His domestic policies have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.
His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
alfalfa
Enlighten me then, goodoleboy, who are the bigger threats to America, bigger than even Iran? Apparently you have access to some intelligence the government does not. Why keep it a secret, please do share, I would think it is vital to national security that you do.
Unfortunately, I am not in the same position you are to judge the war on terror as a total joke. Being a simple-minded farm boy, I can only see that we have not been attacked again, and I don't believe it is because the only 19 people in the world who wanted to attack us on our soil perished in those airplanes on 9-11.
So, you are welcome to your opinion that the war on terror has been a total joke; to try to get along with you I will downgrade my assessment to a limited success.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a joke because for all our soldiers, technology, etc one guy continues to get away. It’s a joke because Iraq was not a threat to us, we were made to believe so and now we lose thousands of our soldiers and trillions of dollars fighting an unwinnable civil war.
As far as countries that are a threat to us go, well read the news sir.
North Korea up until recently could have been, countries of the old Soviet Union could be, and have the weapons to back that up I might add, the number of nukes they have unaccounted for is staggering. There are others listed by the NSA in a recent report but that is a whole other story. We will get attacked again, it will happen. I don't want it to but it will. There are irrational people in the world my friend, being who are comes with a price.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting numbers, goodoleboy. Not to spend all day arguing a minor point, but just to set the record straight, I pulled up every major poll done on approval ratings here, broken down by each week:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.ht...
You claimed that "George W. Bush holds the record, at 19% (2/16-19/08-- during the Iraq War)."
Here is what each poll showed from the above link:
The Los Angeles Times (not really recognized as one of the major national polls) shows his lowest at 23%
The Gallup poll shows his lowest at 28%
Fox News Opinion shows lowest at 29%
Associated Press shows lowest at 28%
ABCNews/Washington Times shows lowest at 29%
In addition, EVERY single one of these polls showed his rating in the low 30's during the week you state it was 19. Sure you didn't get Congress's rating instead?
You're right on North Korea - and exactly who, if you think back and read my earlier post, gave millions of our taxpayer $$$ to NK so they could build lie to the world and build their weapons program? While he starved 1 mil of his own people? GREAT use of our tax $$, Mr. Clinton. Sure, the world loved us at the time. History has proven that move to be idiotic, and those that applauded sorely mistaken in their judgement. And another country with WMD's that we didn't even KNOW about, Libya, voluntarily came clean and gave up their programs after we went into Iraq. Everyone seems to ignore that fact.
You have your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Alot of Americans have died thruout history to guarantee you that right. You can dig and dig until you find some obscure poll that will fit your view, make up numbers, ignore everything that doensn't agree with you, label everyone and everything that you disagree with as irrational, you have every right. But some of us, as much as it chaps our hide, are open to looking at things objectively, hearing both sides, and accepting the truth even if it really ticks us off that it isn't what we wanted to hear. And some people are set in stone. Reminds me of the old saying "a wise man changes his mind....." I'm not saying you are wrong, or that you need to change your mind. I'm just saying that we are all stating OPINIONS here (aside from your who-knows-what-offbeat-poll-they-came-from) approval numbers, and when you make statements like "unanimous", and try to tell us all how wonderful Clinton was. I saw alot of things in his administration that I didn't agree with at the time, and now time later has proven to be BIG mistakes - just as I look critically at the Bush terms. Nothing sadder than a closed mind....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, I've been admonished on here before by others about the "dubious" accuracy of Wikipedia. Since then I've noticed other things I've pulled up on their site that aren't exactly on the mark. Me thinks some people that update that site have their own agenda.....
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Goodoleboy, I do read the news. Certainly CNN, CBS, etc cannot be counted on as the final word on who is a threat to us and who is not. I agree that North Korea is a threat, but I fail to see how you classify it as more of a threat than Iran, and make the assumption you do so because since George Bush thinks Iran is a big threat, it cannot possibly be a threat because GWB is the dumbest and most incompetent President in US history and quite possibly could be the antichrist, in your opinion and the opinion of the liberal left.
So, what should GW have done about North Korea? The people are already starving to death so I don't think sanctions would work. What should he have done?? It is easy for everyone to look back and say what any given President should or should not have done after the fact, however the line is short to accept responsibility for helping to make decisions before the fact, Hillary said it best when she said, "if I knew then what I know now" . Well, duh, if I knew then what I know now I would probably be rich and not reading this forum.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Alfalfa, I know what to do about North Korea - CHANGE!!!! (Don't ask me to expain it any further, - that answer alone should assure me of near demi-god status- LOL)
Let's see, they're already giving up their nuke program.... so..... who's the pres right now? Should this victory be attributed to his administration, or will the news eventually come out that Bill Clinton or Obama snuck over to NK a few months ago and negotiated it all by themselves? If that policy which has apparently gotten NK to give up the nukes (that CLINTON allowed and even basically HELPED them to build) is "reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent", then I'll take it!!!!
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
openeyes
By the way, I've been admonished on here before by others about the "dubious" accuracy of Wikipedia. Since then I've noticed other things I've pulled up on their site that aren't exactly on the mark. Me thinks some people that update that site have their own agenda.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL please! It links directly to the sources, feel free to check them, the information is in fact accurate and very credible. But by all means feel free to check the sources listed, and accept fact that you were just flat out wrong. See the external links at the bottom to confirm what I said.
Bush's fall from in approval and his general disapproval are a testament to his incompetence. Republican or Democrat, I don't care, a moron is a moron.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alfalfa,
I am not a liberal or conservative, I have issues with BOTH parties, but currently the Democrats are the lesser of the 2 evils, it is unfortunate that it is all we have to choose from.
This comment from you
"GWB is the dumbest and most incompetent President in US history"
sums it up in my book.
My point is that there are far bigger threats to us than Iran, or Iraq. Not who is the biggest or who resolved what. Which leads me to question just why we are still there or went in the first place.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
openeyes
Let's see, they're already giving up their nuke program.... so..... who's the pres right now? Should this victory be attributed to his administration, or will the news eventually come out that Bill Clinton or Obama snuck over to NK a few months ago and negotiated it all by themselves? If that policy which has apparently gotten NK to give up the nukes (that CLINTON allowed and even basically HELPED them to build) is "reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent", then I'll take it!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never once did I mention anything about who handled North Korea better, merely that they were more of a threat than Iran or Iraq.
North Korea's disarming was not just the work of our administration, there were quite a few other countries instrumental in it, and the best part was that it was all done without having to invade them LOL. I really do care less, which party in office my friend, what I care about is the job getting done, and at that the current incumbent fails.
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not fair goodoleboy, you didn't answer the question. What would YOU do about North Korea, or any other threat you want to throw out. If you are going to criticize the President or others in power, then it is only fair you be able to give the proper solution to the problem.
I will agree with you that neither party has much to offer the ordinary working American beyond a few catchy slogans and empty promises. But the issue at hand is the war on terror and GWB. I am not wild about him, but I don't believe he is the worst President ever. He was faced with a situation few Presidents(hopefully) will ever be faced with on 9-11.
I also agree with your statement we will be attacked again, absolutely I think you are right. Will that be GWBs fault? Even if he is not President, because of the inept way(in your opinion) he has fought the war on terror?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So.... why were all the polls I pulled up in disagreement with Wiki's? Please explain why a week-by-week listing I showed of ALL the major polls does now match with yours? Also, I've never heard once on the news any agreement with your Wiki numbers..... must be EVERYONE else is wrong, except an encyclopedia that anyone is free to edit at any time they wish, as long as they give a link (to anything they wish).
Well, you said Clinton's foreign policy was "great", and blasted Bush's, so I would think that any specific instance we would point out would be fair game for comparison, right?
I'm glad you pointed out that NK disarming was not just our administration, quite a few other countries. While the Democratic party was calling for 1-on-1 direct talks with NK, It was BUSH who insisted on 6-party talks. And now you are really confusing: The job "got done", not a shot was fired, it WAS because of the current administration's foreign policy of bringing in the other countries, but suddenly, in the middle of your ranting about how wonderful Clinton is and how terrible Bush is, you admit the job got done, but, "the current incumbent failed"........ So, NK was more of a threat than Iran/Iraq, and it looks like that problem may be solved now, but the credit goes to everyone else....... I'm dizzy.... geesh, talk about an and run to avoid what you don't want to admit.... it's actually hilarious how hard you're trying to avoid it - LOL
What was the original thread about anyway? Oh, right, a Democratic pep rally. Well, Mr. Kelley, I'm sure (at least its a strong guess) that in the past you've ranted and raved blasting Bush for not getting anything done on NK, so, how about a follow up now on NK's disarmament? (I won't hold my breath). Of course, I'm sure if you do, like goodoleboy, it will be ALL because of everyone else, and the "current incumbent will have failed", but I understand, after all, I wouldn't want you to have a heart attack writing anything positive about Bush's role in this..... LOL
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, your still attacking my sources? Wikipedia was just an easy of presenting the data without having for you go through all the links, instead of complaining about it follow the external links at the bottom of the page and read. The listed sources that generated that Wiki are extremely credible; I am not going to spam my entry with hypertext just to make it easy on you. I find it funny that instead of admitting your wrong you attack my sources, very juvenile in my opinion, which is why I choose not to. Regardless of what you think about my or your own sources one indisputable fact is that Bush has fallen further than any President before him. That sir is called incompetence. He fails, plain and simple.
Clinton's foreign policy was great, especially in comparison to Bush's. Bush started down the wrong path when he went against the UN and invaded Iraq. He lacked hard evidence, and used the Sept 11 attempt to justify it. Effectively thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. Now you and I will pay this blunder for the rest of lives in taxes, but whets worse is the people that are DEAD because of it. I guarantee you that in 1999-2000, that the world as a whole viewed America much better than it does now in 2008. Argue that one please, there is a plethora of information out there stating that very thing.
You want to pick out specific incidents that Bush has down right, and I concede that he has done some things right (never said that he did not), but so do criminals. But on the whole he is a failure as a president, a disappointment to the people, and I can say confidently that he will never be considered a good president.
Finally I just want to reiterate that when I use Clinton as examples, it is not because I am a staunch democrat, it is because he was a good president. I would say the same if he was a republican. I vote and stand behind presidents that allow our nation to prosper and listen to the people. Not this current moron who has made mistake after mistake.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
alfalfa
"Not fair goodoleboy, you didn't answer the question. What would YOU do about North Korea, or any other threat you want to throw out. If you are going to criticize the President or others in power, then it is only fair you be able to give the proper solution to the problem."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is off topic, and I cannot make that call until I have all the information that President Bush does at his disposal. I never said I had the answers or claimed to, just said that NK was more of a threat than Iran or Iraq. Suggestions I have plenty of, but this is not the place as it is off topic.
"I will agree with you that neither party has much to offer the ordinary working American beyond a few catchy slogans and empty promises. But the issue at hand is the war on terror and GWB. I am not wild about him, but I don't believe he is the worst President ever. He was faced with a situation few Presidents (hopefully) will ever be faced with on 9-11."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama will win the election and if he does half of what he says he does things for the middle class and working class will improve. 9/11 was a hell of an obstacle to overcome, would have been hard for any president, but using the American people's emotions at the time to justify a war in Iraq was bad form. I would wager that had 9/11 not happened then we would never gone to Iraq.
"I also agree with your statement we will be attacked again, absolutely I think you are right. Will that be GWBs fault? Even if he is not President, because of the inept way(in your opinion) he has fought the war on terror?"
No it won't be his fault, if someone wants to attack and kill Americans they will find a way regardless of what we do, its impossible to anticipate the unknown. What scares me most is that it likely be much worse than 9/11, but I can say that if we were not occupying zones in the Middle East that the number of people wanting to do us harm would go down significantly, we are our own worst enemy there.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Goodoleboy, you just don't get it. Do you really believe that our enemies will leave us alone if we stay out of the middle east and are nice to them? Do you really believe that we have not been attacked again because of the vigorous response we made to their last attack? Do you really not see that by establishing a military presence in their midst (Iraq) that our nation is safer by being in a position to respond anywhere in the region? Do you really not see that by placing our military in the region that we have drawn them to us so that we can fight them in the mid east instead of the mid west? Do you really believe that if we had not strongly responded to them (including despots like Saddam) that they would be satisfied? I am so thankful that those with your outlook were in the minority in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War and World Wars I and II. Just because things are hard, require sacrifice, determination, honor and character is no reason to give up on them. Thank God we had George Bush in the White House during this time of national crisis, and thank God for the brave young men and women who have put their very lives on the line for something greater than themselves, in service of others, even in spite of some of their countrymen.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And..... stating my data as incorrect, is somehow NOT attacking my sources?????
Well, I DID go to Wikpedia. They have lots of charts, and list approval ratings from no less than 16 different pollsters. None of the big, well-know ones like Gallup or AP ever had his approval rating that low. The only one that DID, was the American Research Group poll, which I've never heard of. I understand your reasoning. Ignore all the major polls, I'm sure if you dig hard enough you can find somebody somewhere that will have data to support your claim. 15 major polls don't, but there is the one that does. Ok, you win. His approval rating was at 19%. I also just conducted my own poll among a group of people who despise Clinton, and his approval rating came in at a -38%, which officially sets the record for the all-time lowest for a president - LOL
Thank you for conceding that Bush has done some things right. There's hope for you yet :). Now if you can only realize that Clinton did some things wrong.... (and I'm not just talking about his personal life).
There's no doubt that America is not viewed as favorable in the world now as it was in the '90's. Yes, Bush has made some missteps. But how everyone else views us is not always my FIRST priority, nor should it be the President's. I'm sure we would have gotten more favorable ratings from Iran, Iraq, and NK if we had just said do what you want, and gave them Billions of $$ in aid to help them develop their programs. The fact that I traveled quite a bit in Europe in 1995 and met alot of hostility towards Americans does NOT make me an expert - however, it does make me qualified to give an opinion that the world at that time did not look at America all rosy like you seem to think they did, either. And I'll take my own experiences face-to-face with people over a poll when it comes to day-to-day reality. Besides, I'm not so sure that (speaking of Europe) countries that have fought 2 world wars, invented Communism, Fascism, Socialism, had multiple dictatorships and numerous other wars throughout history - outside Europe, countries that still have slavery, treat women like cattle, etc... - well, I'm not so sure their opinion really means that much to me anyway......
I know a SURE-FIRE way Bush could raise our approval rating to an all-time high among about 1 Billion Muslims - attack and destroy Israel. He'd see his approval ratings go thru the roof - they'd be so happy they'd probably GIVE us oil for 10 cents/barrel. But I don't think that is the correct thing to do, regardless of what 1/6 of the world wants.
NOTHING in life is unanimous.... except death..... and maybe taxes..... LOL
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, goodoleboy, I truly have no animosity towards you, despite my (at times) sarcastic statements. You obviously care very passionately about this country, and I cannot be too seriously upset at anyone with that demeanor. I guess what I (and others) here are trying to get at, is that when a pres makes decisions and actions that have long-term consequences, nobody can know what the eventual outcome will be. Clinton made a choice to give NK money and look the other way, believe them at their word, the world applauded us for it, and now look at what that move wrought - we basically looked the other way and helped finance them to build nukes. Similarly, who knows how this will all turn out? This might be the harbinger of WW3, which absolutely will be a disgrace to GWB's legacy - BUT - who knows what the world would look like today if he had not? If we had concentrated on Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, who knows (given Saddam's hatred of the US) he would have started openly welcoming them to shelter and aiding them? Maybe Libya would have started arming terrorists with their own WMD's that the world never knew about? Suppose 50 years from now, the Middle East has finally transformed into a peaceful democracy (many difficult steps along the way - but who knows what the future holds) - if that happens, Bush will go down in history as one of the all-time greats...... Who knows? Again, I'm not too fond of him right now - and for things OTHER than just the Iraq war - but I don't believe he is the worst ever, just as I don't believe Clinton is the best ever. Time, not you or me, will be the eventual rightful judge of that - in the meantime, you & I are entitled to our OPINIONS...... side thought: If 28% of the poeple give Bush a favorable rating, let's see, out of say, 115 million that voted last election, that's over 30 million people..... long way from unanimous...... and the people who lost all their relatives & friends to Saddams "secret police" in the middle of the night, they love Bush..... but I bet nobody ever asks them when they do a world opinion poll....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry to post so much, but once I start on a roll, the Gazette cuts me off at 3,000 chars..... LOL
Look at Reagan. He was widely blasted for his "cowboy diplomacy" during his term. He went against world opinion many times. And now look at his legacy. The fall of the Iron Curtain, Berlin Wall, and Communism in Russia.
Throughout history, a policy of appeasement has hardly ever turned out to be the correct one, but it always seems to be the popular one at the time. Look at Britain's Chamberlain & Germany. In 1938 he was hailed as bringing "peace to Europe", and upon returning from the signing, read it to "jubilant" crowd gathered at the airport in London. How did that turn out down the road?
You can't be 100% either way - but every president walks a fine line in international politics - knowing when to appease, and when the right thing to do is not necesarily what "world opinion" thinks is the right thing. And usually, it takes years before the final judgement can be made. In the meantime, those who sit idly by and test world opinion before making every move aren't fit to be president.
Look at the worthless, toothless UN - they sit by and watch millions get slaughtered in Rwanda, and they're doing the same thing now in Darfur. What a totally incompetent, useless organization. They should rename themselves the "World Food and Disaster Aid Organization", and just leave it at that......
Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad the Gazette has someone who is a real columnist in Pat Kelly. It takes balls to write stuff like this with all of these country folk believing that King George can do no wrong. What amazes me is the fact that these people complain when the Gazette, an extremely bias publication, actually speaks the truth.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, Fixed_News, what are you saying? Country folk are what? Less intelligent than city people? Or merely ignorant? What an arrogant, ill mannered snob.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems to me most of the posters here that defend GB make statements like "he's made missteps", "he's bad but not the worst", "I'll be glad when he's gone, but I fail to see how he's been such a failure", "I'm not wild about him", and "I'm not too fond of him". If all those are "country folk believing that King George can do no wrong", then I guess I need to move out of the city and give up my university diploma. But yet, we can have unabashed worshipping of Clinton, gushing all over the place about how great he was....... funny........ it's ok to worship who YOU like, just nobody else.....
Well, ya know, I was going to just be nice and let it go at that, as I mentioned before, with certain people, once they get their mindset, not even the Hand of God writing in the sky will make them believe otherwise. And that's fine. But, Fixed_News, where you ticked me off, was your proof-of-how-narrow-and-small-minded you are when you made the reference to "country folk". I grew up on a farm, and even though I live in a city now, half the extremely talented and even brilliant professionals I work with have "country backgrounds". So if you want to start labeling people and get snobbish about it, fine - you only make yourself look like the fool. Lincoln was born in a log cabin, so I guess you're one of those who wanted slavery to continue? After all, he was just a "country folk". There's no sense or point in trying to have a sensible discussion with someone as small-minded as you with your inane stereotypes.
Oh, and I almost forgot to throw this in: Racist!!! Racist!!!! Racist!!!! (Against people from a rural background).
By the way, you DID catch that study last year that showed kids from small towns and rural backgrounds consistently scored better in school than urban and city kids? I don't know if you did, because, taking your attitude towards things, I'm not sure if "city people" are literate or not..... LOL
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Open eyes, you stole my thunder with your reference to Chamberlin and Germany. Surely you know that the liberal elite never like to be reminded of a time when talking didn't work.
I took a WW2 course when I went to ESU(most country bumpkins go to K-State, I went to ESU) and learned that the Czechs begged Britain and France to go to war with Germany rather than let them annex the Sudetenland. No one at the time had the stomach for war, so Germany and France did nothing. What if there had been a preemptive war against Germany? I bet alot of people would have died, but not nearly as many as did once the entire world was at war. Those who initiated the preemptive strike would have been called warmongers and told Germany was never a threat.
Goodoleboy, you don't have enough information to say how to deal with North Korea, but you do have enough to tell me that they are a greater threat than Iran or Iraq. You don't have access to the same information GWB has so you tell me you cannot answer my question, yet you can tell me how poorly he has handled the war on terror. Quite interesting.
NONE of us has the information Bush acted on when going to war, but some of our elected officials did, including Hillary Clinton who voted to go. I NEVER want a President who lets the UN dictate what the USA does in defense of our nation. It has already been pointed out how useless the UN is.
I don't believe GW is the best President we will ever have, or the worst. I believe that 9-11 was planned on someone elses watch under some one elses nose, and GW inherited it. I believe he genuinely thought Iraq was a threat to our nation, and it may well have been. 30 years ago the USSR was a threat to our nation, with ICBMs and a huge army along with the other Warsaw pact nations. We knew where they were, we knew how to spot an oncoming attack. Our most serious enemies now operate in the shadows, with the tacit approval of some governments. If those governments do nothing to reign them in, I want a President not afraid to act against them in defense of our people regardless of world opinion. US lives are more important to me than what the rest of the world thinks of this nation..
I am pretty tired of all the liberals acting like Bush invaded Iraq just for the hell of it. What could that gain him? I am as suspicious as the next person, but why would anyone stay the course when it means he may leave office with approval ratings in the teens unless he truly believed what he was doing was right?
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty simple really, NK had or possibly still has nuclear capability and short range missles, Iran and Iraq did not. This is all common knowledge. Therfore they are more of a threat to us. There are many many things that he could have gained from invading Iraq including a grudge againist Saddam for threatening his father, Bush is also an Oil man, Haliburton is raking in contracts, I could go on and on about possible gains he might have, anbd the sad thing is there are probably 5 for every 1 that I do not know about. NK was and is still a greater threat than Iran or Iraq, just because I do not have an end all solution to the issue does not make this any less true, if I had all the solutions I might as well run for office.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that fixed news was just trying to reiterate how this state is predominately a republican, and I might add, on the average, clueless about politics. How many Kansas residents do you think really visit candidates websites, research and read about things. It saddens me it really does, I am a rural resident, and the number of people I talk to around here really have no clue what is going on when engaged in actual debate. I am generalizing here so please don't take offense, the people that will read this or more than likely excluded on what I just said based on the simple fact they actually think and pay attention.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The urban areas would have the same voters that you refer to, goodoleboy. The difference is that they vote Democratic. Since there is more of them, by far, the Democrats are the beneficiary of the uninformed voters bloc.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've also been amazed, inside a large city, how many people are absolutely clueless about politics. They really have no idea about the world at large. You'd be amazed at how many residents in large cities never visit candidate websites, research and read about things. Their only interest is in having a bigger Hummer than the neighbor down the street.
So I DON'T buy into your stereotype that Kansans and rural people are more ignorant, because they live in the country, and possibly because they may be Republicans. Just because you look around you and see alot of people who have no clue, don't think you are alone. There are politically clueless people everywhere, in big cities, too. And I'm not just talking about downtrodden inner city areas, I'm talking nice, suburban upper-class places as well.
Besides, as I'll point out again, and I'll just cut/paste a paragraph from the study, "According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Education, students in rural areas perform better in science and math than those in urban areas. At all grade levels, rural students scored better on national science and math tests than children in cities".
So what happens to all these kids? They just get dumb as they age?
You mention predominately republican, as if it was another reason for ignorance. So, if I go to say, an extremely poor inner-city neighborhood, where the literacy rate is low and the dropout rate high, and that neighborhood is predominately democrat, does that mean that there is more ignorance there because they're democrats? I don't think so.....
Sorry. You're stereotypes don't swim.
By the way, National Geographic channel had a special last night on Saddam Hussein's torture and cruelty. I couldn't even stomach watching the whole thing. His henchman liked to videotape alot. They showed people that they would strap grenades to their chest and then blow them up remotely. (Of course, they blacked out the film for a couple seconds during the blast). And another man who actually survived being dumped in a mass grave. Nobody knows for sure, but aside from the 1 million that died (on both sides) in the Iran-Iraq war, they figure Saddam's regime itself murdered between 500,000 and 1 million of his own people. It was pretty gruesome....
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Never did I stereotype anyone, just stated an OBSERVATION made from living around here. What do cities or education have to do with it? Intelligent and unintelligent people alike are ignorant or informed of current events. Never once did I claim that education had anything to do with it, just that I speak with quite a few people in this area who are ill informed when put to the test about important issues. See what I did there? Not a stereotype, a statement based on my observations. Examples of a stereotype would be me saying all people in western Kansas stink, being that I really have no knowledge of this and know no one who lives in Western Kansas.
How does saying that this state is predominately republican stereotype anything? Its a FACT, because its a fact does that make it a stereotype? No it does not. If I wanted to assert that most Kansans are uneducated, republican idiots I would say so. But I do not believe this to be the case.
Yes Saddam was a horrid individual, his sons probably worse than him. But again that is another topic and has no bearing on this debate about Iraq being a threat to us, threat to his people yes, us no. That is a matter for the UN, NOT the United States.
Please read my points and do not assume, the only broad sweeping stereotype I have made is that Bush is a bad President, which in point of fact, %80 of people in this nation agrees with. Majority rules my friend.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would say that saying Kansans are, "on the average, clueless about politics" is a pretty broad-ranging generalization and stereotype, not just an observation about your neighbors. An observation would be that "my neighbors, on the average, are clueless about politics". That's the same as saying "Kansan's, on average, stink" - which you admit IS a stereotype. In MY experience, the number of Kansans who "visit candidates websites, research and read about things" is about the same as the US everywhere. Plenty that do, plenty that don't. Sometimes spread evenly throughout the population, sometimes pockets predominately one way or the other. Republicans and Democrats both on both sides of the coin.
I also don't understand why my experiences in Europe somehow don't qualify me to make observations and generalizations, but your experiences with your neighbors DO. Oh well.....
Fixed_New's comment was a direct stereotype at "country folk", which is a form of ignorance that ALWAYS gets me riled, so I would say replies to that mentioning city and education have everything to do with that statement. Trying to defend his/her bias isn't going to help you any, my friend.
And I've repeatedly said that I have many problems with Bush. My point was just a technical one, on his having the worst rating ever. I have serious questions, when polls generally advertise an accuracy of +- 3%, how every major, well-known poll during the 19% week you quote, was within 3% points of each other, in the low 30's, and 1 small barely-heard-of poll somehow was roughly 14 percentage points lower than all the rest. Being someone who refuses to drink the Koolaide being passed around freely, and able to think for myself, I have serious questions about the accuracy of that poll. Nor do I know of any major news orgs or historical records that accept that poll as the defacto standard. But, again, just a technical point.... it IS a low approval rating.....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and I forgot, the UN DID do something about Saddam. They passed 17 resolutions, each one about as worthless as a used gum wrapper. Thank God for the UN.
Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you goodoleboy, at least someone sees where I was going. I think many of you should read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas" book. I highly doubt many of the people on here, or around the area, like has been said, have visited the candidates campaign sites. Many people will get there information from Fox Noise or other places like that. A good example of something that I am sure you believe is Wesley Clark's comment on whether or not getting shot down gives you qualities to be President of the United States. You cannont gain the information from places like MSNBC or FOX or CNN. You must look up the facts, not just to back up your arguments on here, but so you actually know the policies.
And I wanted to add:open_eyes, I think it is funny that you brought up Yahoo Answers as a source, which the question was from 3 years ago, then criticized goodoleboy for using Wikipedia. Both of which are not good sources of information as Wikipedia can be very unreliable, and your Yahoo one is extremely outdated. You might bring some more updated data to the table next time. Just FYI.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fixed - I DID bring updated data to the table - you just didn't read it. Check out the pollingreport link I posted earlier. Each major poll, broken down week-by-week, current up to June 23, 2008. Every single link I've followed, including those from Wikipedia, all have the same numbers for those polls. The issue is, that 1 poll listed on Wiki had numbers 13% lower than every other major poll had at that same time. Given all the polls advertise a +- 3% accuracy, I would say that poll is seriously suspect. Do some digging, and you will still find plenty of updated sources that will agree with the lowest numbers for Truman, Carter, etc... posted on the Yahoo link.
And where do non-Kansans get all their info? MySpace pages? I haven't read the book above, but from the title I can pretty much infer what's in it, but I'll give it about as much weight as you give Wikipedia or Yahoo Answers. Nope, I've seen too much of the world to believe that Kansans or "country folk", in general are any stupider or any smarter, more educated or less educated, than anyone else. But I sure am amazed at the people I run in to that think that. And I'm pretty amazed at how uninformed alot of those people are. Kindof reminds me of people that are pretty convinced that blacks and Mexicans are inferior to everyone else.....
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I stated earlier, I used Wikipedia because it was a good summation of the data I trying to convey. The sources at he bottom of that Wikipedia page are extremely credible and reliable sources, which you can bank on. I did not really think having 10-15 hypertext links was necessary. One can argue the accuracy of said ratings till they are blue in the face but one indisputable fact still looms larger than any despite whatever source you use. Bush has fallen further in approval with the people in this country than anyone before him. This is a spotlight to incompetence and poor leadership anyway you look at it period, there just is no arguing it. Also you must consider that the same +/- applies to the other presidents in those polls, and I would also wager that the margin of error was going to be a little higher in the past based on the fact we track data much better now.
Now Webster’s defines stereotype as the following:
Something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially: a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment
Based on that definition I fail to see how you can conclude that I am stereotyping people in this area based on my personal experience of living here for the last 20 years. Stereotypes require an assumption not grounded in facts, my statement was made based on what I encountered. There are some very well informed people in this community but from my personal experience in speaking with members of this community I conclude that the well informed are outnumbered by the uninformed people who ironically enough, drop stereotypical nonsense like it was going out of style.
Your experiences in Europe do qualify you to make statements certainly. But saying my experiences in Europe is a very broad stroke. Europe is composed of many different nations, were you in all of them? Here is the US we are one entity where as they are many, example in France we are no thought of very, whereas in England we are favored. Mind you this is just an example not a statement of fact. We have many states but are one country, Europe is the opposite.
And lastly my intent was never to defend anyone; I merely try to see all sides and points of views before I make a decision. With Fixed_News I was merely trying to convey his sentiments because I think he was misunderstood when he threw in the word country folk and it was misunderstood. I am proud to be part of the "country folk" and it does make me any less educated or complex than "city folk". I merely think it slang taken the wrong way, insert the word "dudes" it would mean the same lol.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on July 1, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Time to move, folks:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was in 5 different countries in western Europe that summer, and have been in more since. You're right, it does vary from country to country. Funny how it works though - one of the rudest countries WAS France - and we saved their butts in the World Wars. They must be peeved about all the prime real estate that thousands of American soldier graves are occupying. And one of the friendliest was Germany, who's butt we kicked in the wars. Go figure.
I never said you were stereotyping people in this area. You merely made a local observation. I said you were stereotyping Kansans in general. Your statement that "Kansans are, on the average, clueless about politics", is a stereotype everyway you look at it, and pretty much fits exactly your definition from Websters. As is Fixed_News derogatory comment about "country folk". I understand and applaud your pride to be a part of "country folk" (as I will always consider myself to be at heart, no matter where I end up living) - but Fixed's statement was pretty blatantly straightforward - if I had made a statement that "all these city folk think that King Bill Clinton can do no wrong", would that not be a stereotype????? Then Fixed needs a better choice of words. When you say the sky is blue, I assume you mean the sky is blue, and when you say water is wet, I assume you mean water is wet, so when make a derogatory statement about "country folk", then you should be prepared to explain it.
Oh well, enough about that. The sentiments came thru loud and clear. Sometimes the first thing out of your mouth reveals the most about your true inner feelings.
This is an old link from 1999, but Kansas 4th-8th graders scored near the top in national tests. So maybe there IS something to the book "What's the matter with Kansas?". The question is, "how did Kansas kids get to be so much smarter than the rest of the country? Must be something in our water....
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn...
Hey, here's a funny I ran across - at least Kansans are the BEST drivers in the US!!! - Kansans must all have "smarter" cars than other Americans - cause we all learned to drive from watching Fox News!!!! - LOL
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/car...