Feb 26 2007

Who Is More Popular – Bush Or Congressional Reps?

Published by at 4:53 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

For Republicans (and I would assume conservatives like me) it seems Bush is much more popular than Congressional Republicans:

The Feb. 9-11 poll puts Bush’s job approval at 37%, but among people who identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, his approval rating is 76%.

The poll also shows that rank-and-file Republicans have higher regard for the president than they do Republicans in Congress. They gave GOP lawmakers a 63% job-approval rating, 13 points below Bush’s. And 72% of Republicans do not think Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq.

Just as a reminder, I am a Bush(W)-Reagan Conservative Independent. My support for Republicans in Congress is at an all time low, especially after they road their ‘purity’ all the way to a resounding defeat last fall. Am I surprised? Not at all. So, now that the Tancredo’s have all taught us such a wonderful lesson on politics and the need for coalitions and compromise, maybe we can avoid handing the reigns of government over to the liberals the next time we have to decide between ‘purity’ and ‘progress’. Besides, purity is a fantasy – it doesn’t exist.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Who Is More Popular – Bush Or Congressional Reps?”

  1. Terrye says:

    the last time I looked at Rasmussens Bush was at 42%. In the last year he has gone back forth from 37 to 45.

  2. kittymyers says:

    “My support for Republicans in Congress is at an all time low, especially after they road their ‘purity’ all the way to a resounding defeat last fall.”


  3. Carol_Herman says:

    This is an UNcivil war. To most people? A plague on both houses.

    The social conservatives want to go back and force people to be religious. Did they ever hold sway?

    My mom, who came to America, in 1913, never felt good about being subjected to Jesus in public school prayers.

    The donks didn’t really carry “powers,” if you look at history. Because in 1860 it’s a miracle they had a party left; while the Whigs totally disintegrated.

    But if there was a divide? Starting around 1840, or so, immigration to this country grew gigantically. (What will kill the Whigs, was being identifed as a “nativist” party.) And, not quite knowing how to react to “prohibition,” which seemed to be something the influx of immigrants brought to the fore. Of course, the issue of slavery. Especially after the clown in the Supreme Ct., wrote Dred Scot. And, of course, the short clown in the senate, the democratic midget Stephen Douglas, sort of wrapped the democrats up to lose.

    Yes. Lincoln was assassinated. We’ve gotten then four times, already. But our country doesn’t disintegrate like the crowned heads of europe.

    Still, for the 20th century? The big kahuna was Marx. And, again, the incoming wave of labor immigrants pushed socialism high. This only worked in one party. And, it wasn’t the republican party.

    While FDR did a herculean job. He was beset with the communists. No question. So was England! That little Kim Philby team? Almost ended up running M15. Or is it M16? The communists are deeply imbedded in England and France. And, it shows.

    While here? Nixon was a maverick. And, yet, when we had our big scandal, it wasn’t over Alger HIss, any longer. But Nixon.

    And, Woodward and Alger Hiss share common ground. Both LIVE on secrets! When Mark Felt exposed Woodward for tolerating 20 years or more of name calling against innocent men; along came Armitage.

    Yes, Iraq is a key of sorts. And, a mess. With both the HOUSE OF SAUD, and the Iranians pulling from either end. Nothing is permanent. Lasting forever. But the fortunes imbedded in the HOUSE OF SAUD does make them look like they own a few countries in Europe in their pocket. Heaven help us if they also own Bush.

    But Bush only has less than two years to go.

    And, Woodward’s current secret-keeping isn’t on par with what he had with Deep Throat. And, how long he kept the truth hidden. Like his homosexuality, I guess.

    As to the religious radicals on the right; it’s very distructive stuff. As it was to the Whigs. It’s not so much a “strong” movement, as a loud one. As society, itself, dips away from all the things that used to keep us glued together: Great Broadway musical theater. And, hollywood films.

    TV? Was here. And, is gone. The Internet? Just shaping up.

    But the UNcivil warriors? They don’t have all that many people saluting them. Which is a very good thing.

  4. Carol_Herman says:

    One of the funny things, that may have turned the 70-year-old-art-historian-juror OUT, this morning; is that she’s adept at using the Internet. It seems she didn’t think the Internet was off-limits.

    And, “somehow” she got caught “looking beyond the testimony in the courtroom.”

    Make of this what you will.

    But to me? All the polling data in the world will tell you sex, and the Internet, are for young people.

    Just another reason, when you hear “polling” … or you see the elites trying to get Bush to slip up on a banana peel … aren’t winning.

  5. stevevvs says:

    I’d be interested to know where you get your information that tells you the republicans lost due to their purity on enforcing Immigration laws?
    A couple links would do the trick.
    I suspect it’s more of a case of Fitz Disease. Where you go out and make all kinds of charges, but come time to back them up, you can’t.
    Your a Bush/Reagan Conservative. Interesting. I’d say Bush bears little resemblance to Reagan. The only area that jumps out at me is Cutting Taxes. Beyond that none come to mind. If it weren’t for such a weak field of candidates for 08, I’d be excitted for 08 to roll around.
    The only true conservatives I see running are Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Newt, if he actually runs. Beyond them, I see nothing to be excitted about.
    You view Conservativism the same way Liberals view the Constitution, as something that can change and be wattered down over time. Just keep lowering the bar, and soon, both will have no real meaning.

  6. ivehadit says:

    No gov’t funding for Stem cell research, cutting gov’t funding for military abortions, terry schiavo, …shall I gp on, Steve?

    Yes, he is not like Reagan on these two issues: George actually is taking it to the terrorists unlike Reagan in Beirut and he wants to punish those who have come here illegally vs. amnesty as Reagan did.

  7. stevevvs says:

    We fund Existing Stem Cell Lines!
    Military Abortions- Why is that a Gov’t funded practice anyway?
    Terry Shiavo? Where are you going with that?
    Your dilusional on him “Punishing” illegals! It is AMNESTY dumbie!