Monday, March 06, 2006
34% !!
Bush's approval rating has hit an all-time low for his 5+ years in office. That's impressive in my book. The previous low was 35%, right after Katrina. Now, with the renewed interest in New Orleans after Mardi Gras, (a perfect 6-month follow-up for the reporters) along with Michael Brown absolutely tearing apart the administration with video proof, those memories have come back. But that's probably not what this is about. I'm guessing that yes, Bush will still have <5% approval rating from blacks, but what is driving him to new lows?
I think most polls are showing that Bush is getting flak from the Dubai Ports World deal. Now, I want to put in my two cents in about that just so that you have a point of reference on my bias/perspective. I think... it's all stupid! Ok, not surprising there. Here we have a foreign company that wants to invest money (read: buy) in the US. It wouldn't be in their best interests (read: profit) to destroy our infrastructure- we're allies for a reason- we have money and deals with them, they have money and deals with us. It was reviewed by all the appropriate agencies and approved. Now, after the 45 day review, the VERY same agencies are going to review them again. I think they'll get approved. In fact, if they don't get approved, it's almost definitely going to be a result of politics and not the result of any real change in security. The fact that the company is saying 'we'll submit to any security check' rather than being offended by the subtly racist furor shows that they're just trying to make a buck, and there's no profit in offending the country whose ports you want to buy.
Anyway, I side with Bush on this one (and Bill Clinton too, apparently.) They're allies, they'll still be subject to security like any other company, and they still have to operate under US law. And let's be perfectly honest- the owners of the company have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of a port. The longshoremen and operators of the port are not suddenly going to let in terrorists or bombs just because the owners said 'no, we like terrorists now.'
If it happens, it'll be because of plain old incompetence, not because of some nefarious from-the-top conspiracy. But the problem is, Bush didn't let the public understand all of this. When he found out about the deal after approval, he simply said "It's fine. I approve." So there's the problem. The one base that Bush could always count on was the security faction- sure, he may not understand civil liberties, or executive power limits, or even disaster relief, but he 'got' security and he 'made the world safer' in everything he did. It was hard to see how this made the world safer. Without that support, the ultra-conservatives were in an uproar, and the Democrats joined in, because any bad publicity for Bush needs to be played up as much as possible.
I feel bad for you, Georgie. For once, you made me happy, and it might start the beginning of the end for you. I suppose that's what politics is about anyway- please 51% of the constitutency, even if it means horrifying the other 49%. Well, I'm on the wrong side. And that's too bad, I guess. So, I'll leave you with this quote: "Don't start trying to do the right thing, boyo. You haven't had the practice."
I think most polls are showing that Bush is getting flak from the Dubai Ports World deal. Now, I want to put in my two cents in about that just so that you have a point of reference on my bias/perspective. I think... it's all stupid! Ok, not surprising there. Here we have a foreign company that wants to invest money (read: buy) in the US. It wouldn't be in their best interests (read: profit) to destroy our infrastructure- we're allies for a reason- we have money and deals with them, they have money and deals with us. It was reviewed by all the appropriate agencies and approved. Now, after the 45 day review, the VERY same agencies are going to review them again. I think they'll get approved. In fact, if they don't get approved, it's almost definitely going to be a result of politics and not the result of any real change in security. The fact that the company is saying 'we'll submit to any security check' rather than being offended by the subtly racist furor shows that they're just trying to make a buck, and there's no profit in offending the country whose ports you want to buy.
Anyway, I side with Bush on this one (and Bill Clinton too, apparently.) They're allies, they'll still be subject to security like any other company, and they still have to operate under US law. And let's be perfectly honest- the owners of the company have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of a port. The longshoremen and operators of the port are not suddenly going to let in terrorists or bombs just because the owners said 'no, we like terrorists now.'
If it happens, it'll be because of plain old incompetence, not because of some nefarious from-the-top conspiracy. But the problem is, Bush didn't let the public understand all of this. When he found out about the deal after approval, he simply said "It's fine. I approve." So there's the problem. The one base that Bush could always count on was the security faction- sure, he may not understand civil liberties, or executive power limits, or even disaster relief, but he 'got' security and he 'made the world safer' in everything he did. It was hard to see how this made the world safer. Without that support, the ultra-conservatives were in an uproar, and the Democrats joined in, because any bad publicity for Bush needs to be played up as much as possible.
I feel bad for you, Georgie. For once, you made me happy, and it might start the beginning of the end for you. I suppose that's what politics is about anyway- please 51% of the constitutency, even if it means horrifying the other 49%. Well, I'm on the wrong side. And that's too bad, I guess. So, I'll leave you with this quote: "Don't start trying to do the right thing, boyo. You haven't had the practice."
# posted by Stuart @ 4:03 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
That's true- Why should one state fund another state when they may have different ideologies and priorities? I don't want my tax dollars going to anywhere but my state! Let's secede from the Union!
People in New Orleans do need to take care of themselves. I mean, what pathetic person can't stand up to a category 5 hurricane? And who can't build their own multi-level housing complex?
I also don't want my tax money going to lazy people. I mean, maybe there are non-lazy people who I would like to help, but then I would run the risk of helping lazy people! And that just isn't worth it.
Also Stuart, I don't think you go far enough. I don't want tax dollars going to anyone! I have created a fortress for myself in the mountains and I think we should just abolish the idea of the state in general.
Oh, and I forgot about people blaming Bush. Is he in charge of everything that goes on in the country? Does he have time to talk to one out of the many, many governors of the United States when an impending disastor is about to strike that governor's state? She clearly should have called him.
Post a Comment
I also don't want my tax money going to lazy people. I mean, maybe there are non-lazy people who I would like to help, but then I would run the risk of helping lazy people! And that just isn't worth it.
Also Stuart, I don't think you go far enough. I don't want tax dollars going to anyone! I have created a fortress for myself in the mountains and I think we should just abolish the idea of the state in general.
Oh, and I forgot about people blaming Bush. Is he in charge of everything that goes on in the country? Does he have time to talk to one out of the many, many governors of the United States when an impending disastor is about to strike that governor's state? She clearly should have called him.
<< Home
