What Americans Really Think of Bush’s State of the Union Speech

KMAN · Jan 22, 2004

What Americans Really Think of Bush’s State of the Union Speech

New numbers from the Office of Strategic Initiatives show overwhelming support for President Bush and say that 76 percent rated the speech favorably, and 70 percent say the policies outlined in the speech will move the nation in the right direction, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But Bush has Americans’ favor all the way around:

69% express satisfaction with their financial situation (NBC/WSJ)
68% approve of Bush’s handling of terrorism (NYT)
64% rate Bush as a strong leader (CBS/NYT)
59% say Bush cares about their needs and problems (CBS/NYT)
58% say the Bush Administration has made progress on the economy (CBS/NYT)
58% approve of the President’s job performance (ABC/Wash. Post)
54% approve of Bush’s handling of the economy (Gallup)
54% favor the new Medicare law (NBC/WSJ)

When it comes to siding with the GOP or the Dems, Americans favor the GOP on national defense by 37 points, moral values by 22 points, foreign policy by 15 points, and taxes and controlling spending by 2 points.

lander · Jan 22, 2004

I didn't watch, because the big elf gives my such a headache ...

it's as if his stupidity radiates out of my TV straight to my brain. I suspect many other's feel the same way and didn't take the poll since they can't stand watching the dumbass in the first place.

I'd like to see his approval rating on capturing Osama Bin Laden.

D2bets · Jan 22, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
What Americans Really Think of Bush’s State of the Union Speech

New numbers from the Office of Strategic Initiatives show overwhelming support for President Bush and say that 76 percent rated the speech favorably, and 70 percent say the policies outlined in the speech will move the nation in the right direction, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But Bush has Americans’ favor all the way around:

69% express satisfaction with their financial situation (NBC/WSJ)
68% approve of Bush’s handling of terrorism (NYT)
64% rate Bush as a strong leader (CBS/NYT)
59% say Bush cares about their needs and problems (CBS/NYT)
58% say the Bush Administration has made progress on the economy (CBS/NYT)
58% approve of the President’s job performance (ABC/Wash. Post)
54% approve of Bush’s handling of the economy (Gallup)
54% favor the new Medicare law (NBC/WSJ)

When it comes to siding with the GOP or the Dems, Americans favor the GOP on national defense by 37 points, moral values by 22 points, foreign policy by 15 points, and taxes and controlling spending by 2 points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EVETY SOTU speech is received favorably. There is no news there. As for the other stuff, you cherry-picked ceryain items for various polls. That CBS poll had Bush losing to an unnamed Dem 48-46. A story on the ABS poll said the following:

"..the public believes Democrats would do a better job on domestic issues, such as the economy, prescription drugs for the elderly, health insurance, Medicare, the budget deficit, immigration and taxes. And Bush has lost the advantage on education policy he once enjoyed."

Claiming that Bush has Americans' favor "all the way around" is just nonsense.

Jointpleasure · Jan 22, 2004

It was a very good speach. Foriegn policy was exceptionally strong. Bush truly enjoys being underestimated and performs exceptional strong as an underdog. He had some hidden 'verses' in his speach that only the politicians or political junkie of would pick up on. He ripped the libs a few times very gracefully which I could tell the republican members in attendance truly enjoyed.

xpanda · Jan 22, 2004

I watched the SOTU address as well, and would like to give credit where credit is due: Bush has certainly come a long way in his ability to deliver a speech (content notwithstanding) since his 9/11 days. I was impressed by the prisoner release program, although am shocked to see it served up by a Republican -- obviously an attempt to sway liberal-leaning undecideds. I also approve of testing standards in schools, something which Ontario adopted under Premier Mike Harris a few years back.

However, the content of his speach still had many overtones of paranoia -- when he claims that the country has not been attacked by terrorists in over two years, but the threat is alive and well -- he makes it seem a little like the country was routinely attacked by terrorists before 9/11 and the military efforts to prevent a recurrence. Also, as an aside, was it just me or did the token military people in the audience appear disinterested and irritated much of the time? I did see one of them actually roll his eyes when Bush commanded the room to stand behind the troops.

On abstinence and steroid use -- are you kidding me? How do either of these topics make their way into a SOTU Address? Diversionary tactics by a moral opportunist?

At any rate, I doubt the speech did much to sway voters one way or another. If it weren't for the sit-and-stand clap-a-thons of the Republicans or the incessant head-shaking by Edward Kennedy, this whole affair would have been uneventful.

SENDITIN · Jan 22, 2004

However, the content of his speach still had many overtones of paranoia -- when he claims that the country has not been attacked by terrorists in over two years, but the threat is alive and well
________________________________________________
You call being concerned about Al Qaeda paranoia? Do you think these guys would hesitate to hit us again if given the opportunity?

P.S. Thought Bush gave a good speech...particularly enjoyed him rattling off all the countries behind us in Iraq...and of course Teddy K having a coronary.

Jointpleasure · Jan 22, 2004

xpanda,

I was a little surprised to here him bring up steroids in the SOTU address as well. Was wondering if he was going expand a bit and state whether he was for or against instant replay.

He did take a few shots at the anti-war crowd very, very successfully, I thought.

xpanda · Jan 22, 2004

Senditin: I can recall back in the '80s wondering if the US and Russia would ever get into a nuclear arms battle and what that probably meant for Canada, being in the middle and all. It's a scary place to be. That said, I do believe that Bush has the opportunity to diminish this fear of terrorists, by putting to rest the National Security Strategy and its hegemonous ideology. Disarming states one by one leaves anti-Americans (and this number may very well be increasing by the minute) feeling as though perhaps terrorist organizations will provide a better/stronger outlet for their interests. In other words, the war in Iraq may well have been the most effective recruitment marketing campaign Al Qaeda could have imagined.

US foreign policy (including and especially the National Security Strategy) will very much have itself to blame if another terrorist attack occurs.

In other words, yes, I believe Al Qaeda may try to attack the US again, but Bush's preventive war doctrine is practically begging for it. So, is Bush right when he tells you to be afraid of the terrorists, or could Bush's actions be deemed 'reckless endangerment?'

[This message was edited by xpanda on January 22, 2004 at 02:09 PM.]

Brazil4Worldcup2002 · Jan 22, 2004

My equity and trusts lecture was more entertaining and thought provoking than that speech.

UncleMoneybags · Jan 22, 2004

I try not to unjustly wish ill on anyone, but I think Canada should get a taste of a terrorist disaster. They won't let anyone knock them off their high horse to see things from another perspective.

FloydGondolli · Jan 22, 2004

"I can recall back in the '80s wondering if the US and Russia would ever get into a nuclear arms battle and what that probably meant for Canada, being in the middle and all. "

What a foolish statement. Canada was not in the "middle" of anything during the Cold War. Canada was on the chopping block with the rest of the western world and if the Soviets had their way Canada would have been a communist puppet regime and you would be waiting in line for toilet paper right now.

Grow up lady.

xpanda · Jan 23, 2004

Floyd: I meant geographically in the middle. Nukes from or at the US would fly directly over our heads, not travel east/west.

Moneybags: if/when Canada gets a taste of terrorist disaster, I highly doubt it will have anything to do with our invasive, arrogant, brutish foreign policy because, well, it doesn't exist. Or do you think that Bin Laden attacked the US out of jealousy?

UncleMoneybags · Jan 23, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> our invasive, arrogant, brutish foreign policy because, well, it doesn't exist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never said anything of the sort. I don't think anyone would confuse Canada's military (if you can call it that) with a threat. I want the Canadians with whom I speak online (here and elsewhere) to understand the real world. You think if the U.S. would just stay home everything would be fine. What your theory doesn't take into account is the hatred for the infidels (non-Muslims) that some groups harbor.

xpanda · Jan 23, 2004

And what you fail to take into account is the source of that hatred. I highly doubt Bin Laden got up one morning and just decided, over breakfast, that he needed a new enemy. Canada has been exempt from foreign attack, or even the threat of foreign attack, for a very long time. You could argue it's because we're backed in large part by the American military, which of course is true, but that wouldn't explain why we weren't a target of Al Qaeda, who had little trouble attacking the US. Face it, if you stay out of other people's business, they tend to stay out of yours. (That said, I'm surprised nobody's dug up any Canadian dirt to get back at me ... and there's lots of it. LOL.)

My concern about current US foreign policy is entirely based on my fear that our close geographic proximity to the US will become very attractive to would-be attackers of your country. Given that we have somewhat 'lax-er' immigration and refugee status laws, we could easily become the 'first stop' for those who wish to do harm on the US. Or, if we are seen to be too much of a friend of the US, we may become a target ourselves. Or, if the US is attacked in a grander fashion than 9/11, we may become incidental casualties.

I live less than an hour from the border, so I'm a little concerned about my personal safety, as you are as well. I just don't think that anything Bush is doing will serve as a deterrent in the long run ... I believe he is practically begging other states and/or terrorist groups to take up more extreme arms in order to defend themselves, if need be. It's a simple snowball effect, and I worry that Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Bush don't care.

UncleMoneybags · Jan 23, 2004

I know very well the reasons for their hatred. Canada is NOT exempt from the wrath because of their foreign policy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Given that we have somewhat 'lax-er' immigration and refugee status laws, we could easily become the 'first stop' for those who wish to do harm on the US. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The border control between U.S. and Canada is a joke. If they only want to attack us you have no problems unless the U.S. takes you out for giving the terrorists an easy platform with with to launch their attacks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I live less than an hour from the border, so I'm a little concerned about my personal safety, as you are as well. I just don't think that anything Bush is doing will serve as a deterrent in the long run ... I believe he is practically begging other states and/or terrorist groups to take up more extreme arms in order to defend themselves, if need be. It's a simple snowball effect, and I worry that Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Bush don't care. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know you from Adam. In that regard, I wouldn't shed a tear if you were killed. Obviously, we have different opinions on just about everything. I think I have a better grip on the terrorists than you just because of the life I lead and have lead.

UncleMoneybags · Jan 23, 2004

Hava a nice Day!

xpanda · Jan 23, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Uncle Moneybags:
The border control between U.S. and Canada is a joke. If they only want to attack us you have no problems unless the U.S. takes you out for giving the terrorists an easy platform with with to launch their attacks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, the border control is a bit of a joke, from an exclusionary standpoint. You wouldn't believe the amount of gun-runners we get flooding into this country from the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I don't know you from Adam. In that regard, I wouldn't shed a tear if you were killed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you cut and paste that from the book 'Why the World Hates America'??

FloydGondolli · Jan 23, 2004

xpanda - So you didn't mean "the middle" in the sense that Canada had no "side" in the Cold War. I hope that isn't what you meant. If you didn't mean that then apologies for interpreting your words incorrectly.

Would you not agree that Canada had as much to lose as the US did if the Soviets prevailed in the Cold War?

SENDITIN · Jan 23, 2004

Xpanda,

Seeing Al Qaeda had pretty much a free reign to operate before 9/11, please explain the SPECIFIC foreign policy mistakes this administration has made that resulted in Al Qaeda hating us so much and what you would be doing differently!

xpanda · Jan 23, 2004

Senditin: Intervention in the Israel/Palestine peace talks are what likely led to Al Qaeda having it in for the US. (I say likely because Bin Laden and I don't go for martinis much ..) Anti-American sentiment is common in the Middle East (so says my Iraqi friend, Ali) but has increased dramatically since the US sided with Israel.

Floyd: yes, that was all I meant. Frankly, I think it will prove down the road that it wasn't in the world's best interest for EITHER side to win the Cold War ... the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is being treated like toilet paper by some states (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea) and, with his track record so far, I'd say Bush may follow suit on getting the US out of that one, too. In my rose-coloured-glasses world, there are no nukes.