" Unfortunately, many politicians rely on short-term fixes that make people happy enough to keep poll numbers high. "

Like the jerks that spend and spend and "pay" for it with borrowing. Those guys should be driven from office.

I've never ONCE doubted the importance of the war in Iraq and our decision to take the fight there. I HAVE doubted the polls that show the support for it is low.

What irks me is that you never hear about the Sarin gas shells that WERE found there as proof of WMD (remember when they were attached to an IED a couple years back), the fact that Iraq had met with terrorists and WERE in league with them, etc. and so forth. Of course the MSM would suppress this, but why in the heck hasn't the administration countered all the MSM BS and whitewash???

I also have another theory about the WMD, that I have yet to see investigated. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for the UN weapons "inspectors" to help Saddam dispose of WMD in order to prevent our invasion of Iraq? With the Oil-for-Food scandal as widespread as it was, I think it would only be logical that they would try and protect themselves by eliminating them to avoid the invasion.

Mark,

Your enthusiastic cheerleading to the contrary, the Bush administration has been a fiscal disaster. You don't need to take my word for it; take a look at the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute sites. Bush and your beloved GOP majority congress has spent at a rate faster than that under the LBJ presidency. You have gotten screwed too, Mark. Hopefully you'll raise a few bucks from your sycophantic audience on this blog to offset that, but most don't have that option.

You can keep bailing Mark, but the Bushtanic is sinking. Only 35% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job (the balance being referred to as the "sentient 65%") and 55% of Americans now understand that Bush lied as a pretext to the Iraq war. You had better break out a new set of red white and blue pompoms. Maybe the former Yale pep-squadder can show you a few cheers. Good luck!

I continue to be a strong supporter of my president. Thank you for yours.

I think we should all get together and place an ad in the WSJ and NY Times stating that we support our President. We are free to do that and he needs our support more than ever. I feel like the democrats and idiots in media have gotten to him and he needs to know that we are still behind him 100%. Interested, please reply to this comment.

phil aka Bagdad Bob is that you? How have you been?

For good or ill, Bush really only cares about polls near elections. The entire war has been conducted with election timing in mind.

Look for Bush's policies to bear fruit in time for the 2006 elections.

Unfortunately, i think that the next President will ultimately reap the rewards of what tremendous work Bush has done, much in the same way that Clinton was able to benefit from the great work on the economy done by the first Bush. It is actually mind-boggling how the entire MSM simply ignores good economic news.

Semby, good idea. I am defintely game.

"Our leftwing friends will never understand it - they will go to their graves convinced that President Bush was an utter disaster. Of course, as the benefits of Bush Administraiton policies become increasingly manifest they will take credit for what they can, and say the rest was never a problem to begin with."

You could change 'leftwing' to 'rightwing' and 'President Bush' for 'President Clinton, wind the clock back to the late 1990's and this would be a familiar argument. That is the problem with a deeply partisan era and a divided populace. Each thinks they are right and the other is evil.

Phil,

The fine people at Heritage and Cato are far more libertarian than they are conservative...they have their priorities, I have mine.

As for the polls - well, 62 million people appear to have voted for President Bush a year ago and you have absolutely nothing other than that fact to go on...you'll have to wait until the election next year to find out if the people are happy or angry with the course of events.

Semby,

That is a good idea - any idea on how to get it started?

"Wouldn't it make perfect sense for the UN weapons "inspectors" to help Saddam dispose of WMD in order to prevent our invasion of Iraq?"

If Saddam had WMD programs after Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign against WMD facilities, then wouldn't you think the DoD or Heritage or RNC or someone would have brought forward at least a janitor, a secretary, a lab assistant, a merterials handler - at least ONE person from Iraq who can verify that they worked on a WMD program?

Oh yeah that far-sighted Reagan legacy!

Where would we be today if Reagan had not gutted that short-sighted Carter legacy of energy conservation and alternatives development.

Oh yeah that's right, the Saudis would have less leverage on us and we wouldn't be fighting a war.

So if we give Bush enough time, we'll eventually see that he's right?!? How much time were you thinking? Please be specific.

"...it is better to be right than to have a high approval rating."

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'

Bush has three years of hell in front of him - provided he doesn't get removed from office or resign in the mean time.

I'm an independant, but just to contrast. Clinton had approval ratings in the 70-80% range during the height of Monica-gate.

Bush is well below 30% and continuing to fall. They've used the press, treated them like shit. They've played winner take all - a fight to the death.

This is all well and good as long as you're winning. However they're losing now, and it's not going to be pretty. The media gave Bush a pass from 9/11 through probably 6-8 months ago. That bye is now gone and everyone is lining up to stick the shiv in.

We've got a whole set of messes to take care of. And Bush isn't going to have the leadership position or credibility to take care of them.

Prediction: When Bush leaves office, the immediate concensus is that he's one of the WORST modern presidents.

That will sour over time to IMHO, one of the worst in the nations history.

Is he right? Not by a mile in my book. However, the best test is how one is viewed in the long term by the nation. I don't think this will bode well for GWB.

Wow, just wow. I never thought I would say this but a couple of you sound just like far-left whackos to me. Spewing conspiracy theories everywhere, come on you're sounding like the whiney liberals.

Additionally the Neo-con agenda is not the conservative agenda. What are the positive long-term benefits of this administration going to be? It's an honest question because as a fiscal conservative I see only short-term fixes coming from the current administration.

Dave

My quick view on the WMD issue is we have found some things ie the Gas and such. However in my eyes we found WMDS. Saddaam and his sons Udey and Qusay were WMDS all on their own.

I admire you guys for your dogged determination if nothing else. Bush and the GOP majority have relentlessly screwed the American people from a fiscal standpoint,yourselves included. Now with the spectre of Bush's tax panel recommending the rate cuts for the downtrodden rich that you have for so long desired (with the concomitant increase in the tax burden that you all will bear) you guys are trying to raise funds for a pro-Bush ad in the Wall Street Journal? Listen fellas, I'll give you a hint...the people at the WSJ already think you're fools, placing an ad will only confirm it. Bush and the GOP majority are beating the hell out of you, and you want to place an ad congratulating them? Orwell lives...

Mark since you are the Sr. Writer of this blog would you like to spearhead this and ask for contributions from those that enter this blog. We need to find out how much an ad would be in the NYT and WSJ. I'll try to do that and then we can just see how money we get by the end of the week - are people able to contribute directly to this blog. Let me know what you are capable of doing Mark! Thanks -- Bush needs us more than ever now!

Glad everyone is still so supportive of Bush. It is also gratifying to see the ad on this site urging sending money to support Tom DeLay. I strongly urge all true republicans to make an immediate contribution to Tom Delay's defense. I know you are saying -- hey, I gave all I had to help win the elections last year. I say -- so what, that was last year. what have you done for the cause lately? Tom will need lots of money to defend against all this ethics stuff. Not just this case, there are more looming -- some deal with an indian tribe paying to prevent some other indian tribe from getting a gambling license. theres also something out there about a lobbyist and all sorts of alleged improprieties. I say, hey, our government has always been full of corrupt politicians and it always will be. It's the American Way. Tom has made clear that he won't even talk to a lobbyist if the lobbyist hasn't given lots of money to the republicans. If you don't agree you need to grow up. The only issue is whether the corrupt politicians will be our corrupt politicians or theirs. I think the choice is obvious. So, empty your bank accounts all you who are true believers. But, wait, don't completely empty them because Scooter, Karl (the dark wizard himself), Sen. Frist and others will likely need your help soon as well. And you will surely hear of plenty more of our people with ethical problems. That's the price of "leadership". Why do we have these damn ethics laws anyway?

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A JOKE. I DO NOT SUPPORT UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR NOR DO I HAVE PROOF THAT ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED FOLKS ARE UNETHICAL. IN OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, THE GUILTY ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY THEIR PEERS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN A COURT OF LAW. THUS, AT THIS TIME, TOM, KARL, SCOOTER, AND SEN. FRIST ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT. (well, actually i think poor Tom was indeed found administratively responsible by Congress for some ethical lapse or another, but nothing criminal yet) THIS POST IS SIMPLY MEANT TO ENCOURAGE THOUGHT. A RARE COMMODITY IN CERTAIN CIRCLES.

but i really do want as many republicans as possible to dump as much money as possible down Majority Leader DeLay's rabbit hole. i also really do hope he gets off on some technicality so that he can return to his exalted position of power in Washington and all Americans can clearly see who is leading them.

Where do you guys buy the Kool Aid?

I noticed that the Why I Keep Supporting Bush doesn't actually mention even one example of great Bush policies. Should we continue to run up the debt, put cronies into office, lie US into a war they were unprepared for? Hmmm?

Let's face it the reason you still support Bush is that to admit how badly he's screwed up will show you up as a sap whose ideas turn out to be disasters for the country.

Congrats!

You Dems really are afraid of Tom DeLay, aren't you? No, that's not your real fear. Your real fear is that the Dem constituency will waken from its blissful New Deal slumber of ignorance to discover the value of common sense and mental independence.

Are you kidding me? Saying it is better to be right than have a high approval rating is like saying that we are better than you so kiss my.

If you are wondering I vote for the best person.

To what you have said about being right is arrogant. If you vote strict party lines I hope that you will will change your narrow minded views.

Let's see Phil....your rantings will make me:
1. Vote Demwit in the next election
2. Buy a used water logged New Orleans bus
3. Believe Michael Moore
4. Invite Cindy Shehan to supper

Many posters here keep writing about "good economic news." Aside from record corporate profits in some sectors, what is this news. I haven't heard it. And, if it's only GDP growth (which has largely been fueled by this record corporate profit in just a few areas) you're talking about, just how does this benefit the American people?

Gee, Bill, we can start with the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. These two figures are the King and Queen of statistical election forecasting. Check these historically and you will find that Bush eeks out a lead over Clinton who, as we know from media accounts of the day, presided over unparalleled prosperity. Unparalleled but then surpassed during the hellish Bush regime. Then we have productivity... this is the true foundation of all economic improvement, doing more with less. Productivity has been on an ahistorical surge. Home ownership is at an all time high, yes, per capita. Yes, minority home ownership also, and at a greater rate. Growth stats are continually revised up. Even with Katrina et al, 3d q was at 3.8%. Hopefully you are familiar enough with economic stats to know that this is historically at the upper limit of conventionally supportable growth. I say conventionally because I think, like the conventions on the unemployment rate of yesteryear, this will be outstripped by a wide margin. Then we have the record number of business start-ups and housing starts, we have revisions to the income figures that show income up across the board during the Bush Tyranny and those job claims of Bush, that he would create 3 mil in his first term, a claim universally derided as a fantasty... well, we'll have to wait for the revisions to last years numbers but they are close, quite close if not exceding the claim. So, Bill, this is off the top of my head. What's the bad news? Can you be specific?

Has there ever been an 8-year administration in which the stock market ended up lower than when the administration began? I really don't know the answer to that. Does anyone here know the history on this.

I will grant George W. Bush this much. I don't think he has cheated on his wife, which is more than his dad did.

And that is the extent of his positive legacy.

First of all, megapotamus, you are repeating a current myth about unemployment, disseminated by Fox News, that unemployment levels are better than Clinton's. I don't believe the unemployment level during this administration has ever been as low as Clinton's low of 4.3%. Secondly, I believe inflation numbers are currently figured without taking into account housing and energy. Since we have had bubbles in both, the current inflation number is unrealistic. Home ownership at this time is the product of a bubble created by the FED. All serious forecasters see big problems for homeowners who have purchased as investment. This growth rate you're proud of is a product of oil corporation profits which are the highest in the history of all corporations. I'm not sure how that helps the average American citizen. Real wages have gone down over the last 4 years. Poverty levels have increased every year for the last 4 years. The true unemployment rate is a good 3 or 4 points higher than the published one because so many American workers have just quit looking. Our trade imbalance is at historic levels, as is our foreign debt. The stock market, for what I believe will be the first time in history, will be at a lower level at the end of an 8-year presidency than when it started. And, at this time, accounting for population growth, I think this administration is working on the worst job creation performance in history -- worse than Hoover. The record numer of business starts is a function of the masses of people who have become self-employed after losing corporate jobs. The vast majority of these startups, according to Forbes, are what they call microbusinesses. I don't think it serves any of us well to pretend we don't have problems.

I agree 100 Percent. President Bush is easily the best president/leader in my lifetime. I will argue that he may end up being the greatest president in American history. Even Abraham Lincoln didn't have to deal with a world containing both suicide bombers and nuclear weapons. America has not been attacked in over 4 years, he has gotten out of a recession and past natural disasters, freed 50 million people, begun to change the landscape of the mideast and the world towards freedom forever. These are only a few of the highlights amongst many. And yes, he lowered my taxes too. Good for him.

And, Mega, I just realized you are talking about Bush job creation numbers in his first term. You must know that he had the worst job creation performance since Hoover. Accounting for population growth, there were no new net jobs! What are you talking about!??

I'm sorry, I got some of my numbers wrong. Correction: unemployment levels in 2000, Clinton's last year were 3.8%, lowest in decades. It was in the 4's for the 3 years before that. It was over 7 when he took over for HW Bush.

The ad is a GREAT idea! If you decide to pursue this, let me know . . . I can promote it on a high volume blog of which I am a member!

Hey there to the valiant defenders of truth at B4B! Thanks for reminding me again why I love my President. Sometimes it's hard to keep the faith when I'm be shoveled lies by my Economics teacher and the MSM. Please keep me updated on this ad for Bush idea.

"Bush needs us more than ever now!"

Wow, that's creepy. Is this some sort of cult of personality site?
The president is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

keep taking those mini-thins john, it's doing wonders for your mind man!

President Bush's economic accomplishments are many. Thanks to the tax cuts, tax revenue is now greater than anytime during the Clinton administration. More people are working now than any time in American history. Other than a couple of quarters right after Clinton dumped his recession on Pres. Bush in 2001, there has been sustained economic growth. Even with Clintons recession, 9/11, two wars and natural disasters, unemployment is at 5 percent and falling. President Bush also cleaned up the corporate corruption, most of which happened on Clintons watch, most notably Enron and Worldcom. A deficit exists because Pres. Bush had the guts to fight World War 3, a war which was declared on us years before, but which Clinton lacked the courage/leadership to fight. The bulls eye that was put on this country by 8 years of Clinton, was taken off by President Bush. Notwithstanding the BS by the MSM, minorities are much better off than any time under Clinton. Home ownership, employment, wages, assistence to the poor are all up under Pres. Bush. Crime rate is at a 30 year low. It was easy for Clinton to have a surplus. All he had to do was gut the military, refuse to fight a declared war against the USA and allow us to get hit over and over and over with no response, allow bin laden to plan and set in motion 9/11, and allow 500,000 rwandans and 500,000 iraqis to be killed. Peace and prosperity they called it.

Bill,

What James said - Clinton's economy was built on sand, and it took President Bush's policies to pull us out of the economic morass Clintonism landed us in. We dodged a depression by electing President Bush in 2000.

if interested in supporting the idea for an ad for bush please email me at jjsember@att.net

This is such a "through the wormhole" experience for me. I was an econ major in the early 90s, but I was the only Democrat in the room, except during the Environmental Economics class, which was a requirement for a bunch of Enviro majors who were Dems or further left and all thought that Econ was Republican propaganda. A decade later the Republicans are talking about how Econ is liberal propaganda and how Clinton's economic policies (which were run, if you remember, by a rather brilliant Republican) are "a pile of sand."

What comes around goes around, I guess.

Don't you guys even bother to check the facts?

"Thanks to the tax cuts, tax revenue is now greater than anytime during the Clinton administration."

Not so. Here are the numbers on total federal revenues, courtesy of the CBO:

2000 2,025.2
2001 1,992.1
2002 1,853.2
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1

"More people are working now than any time in American history."

True, but a distortion of the facts. Here are BLS total nonfarm employment figures for August (the most recent month for which final figures are available) of the last 11 years:

1995 117538
1996 120078
1997 122911
1998 126322
1999 129338
2000 132004
2001 131941
2002 131803
2003 129859
2004 131750
2005 134013

The truth is, we are just now surpassing the employment figures of five years ago. From 1995 to 2000, total employment increased by 12.3%; from 2000 to 2005, under Bush, total employment has increased 1.5%.

"Too many "facts" getting in the way all the time."

Reality is biased towards liberals. We have to live in unreality.

I agree with ILoveBush. How can we trust our own eyes and ears when we should be having blind faith in our Beloved Leader?

Facts can be used to prove anything even remotely true! - Homer J Simpson

Pesky facts. Don't you liberals know that St. Ronnie proclaimed facts to be "stupid things". Put your faith in the God-ordained moron. We now have the freedom to torture anyone we please, thanks to our great leader.

An economist's take on increasing "productivity" rates:

It's math, really, to which GWB owes his thanks. If you lower the number of people employed (fire people), and have them all work harder (increase hours worked individually), the result is a "surge" in productivity. I'm rather insulted that certain members of the Republican Party continue to claim that this is good economics, indeed, it's exactly the situation that Reagan's policies were meant to alleviate.

Andy,

Why aren't you putting FY 2005 numbers up? Aren't they $2.142 trillion? You know, higher than any time during Clinton's Administration? Its right there over at CBO...don't tell me you just cherry picked info to confirm your leftwing views? You do want to know all the facts, don't you?

Here's a simple question:

If all other things were equal and Gore was President, would you be equally glad?

blimfark,

I guess what you mean is would I be happy if a President Gore had done what President Bush did...yes; but more than that, I'd be surprised.

If Gore had been President on 9/11 then we would have luanched a few half-hearted attacks on terrorist bases and gone on business-as-usual in foreign affairs. Meanwhile, Gore's solution to the dot-com bust and 9/11 would have been to raise taxes and increase regulation, so we would have fallen into an economic depression...which means, of course, that Gore would have been trounced last year in his re-election bid.

Mark,

That's not exactly what I mean. Let's stick with Gore doing exactly the same thing. And let's just start with 9/11:

If 9/11 had happened on Gore's watch -- after he'd gotten an explicit warning about Bin Laden -- who is still at large... would you be happy? I don't think so. Would you?

blimfark,

I guess if you're asking me if I'm happy that Bin Laden is not yet in US custody, then, yes, I'm not happy about it...he's responsible for the murder of 3,000 of my fellow Americans...but, then again, I'm also disappointed that the entire senior leadership of the old USSR wasn't put in the dock after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We don't always get all we want.

Additionally, bin Laden was never our problem...he's just a nut; there are nuts all over the world, including right here at home...it takes, however, a rich stew of hatred, repression, poverty and propaganda to allow a bin Laden to convince 19 people to drive themselves into buildings. It is the socio-political mess of the Arab/Moslem world which is the problem, and that we have set ourselves to solve under President Bush's excellent leadership. Take away the socio-political mess and bin Laden just becomes another screwball on the lose...something for the local police to handle.

He can be on the run 20 years from now, and as long as the Arab/Moslem world is free and peaceful, it won't matter in the slightest.

Mark,

Personally, I feel it matters a great deal that the man responsible for the murder of 3,000 of our fellow Americans hasn't been brought to justice. At one point, it also mattered a great deal to President Bush ("The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.").

I think it would matter a great deal to you, too -- if Gore were President. Forgive my skepticism, but I bet you'd also hold Gore accountable for 9/11 if it happened on his watch (esp. knowing he'd been warned firsthand).

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not saying 9/11 wouldn't have happened on Gore's watch, or that he would have caught Bin Laden, or that he'd have made a better President. (For what it's worth, I don't happen to think that Gore would have made a very good President). I do think that it's imporant to be honest with ourselves about Bush's failures. Starting with this one.

Mark,

Personally, I feel it matters a great deal that the man responsible for the murder of 3,000 of our fellow Americans hasn't been brought to justice. At one point, it also mattered a great deal to President Bush ("The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.").

I think it would matter a great deal to you, too -- if Gore were President. Forgive my skepticism, but I bet you'd also hold Gore accountable for 9/11 if it happened on his watch (esp. knowing he'd been warned firsthand).

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not saying 9/11 wouldn't have happened on Gore's watch, or that he would have caught Bin Laden, or that he'd have made a better President. (For what it's worth, I don't happen to think that Gore would have made a very good President). I do think that it's imporant to be honest with ourselves about Bush's failures. Starting with this one.

blimfark,

What you're doing here is mistaking happenstance for error...President Bush didn't let bin Laden get away any more than Bill Clinton allowed the Cole attack to happen. We sent the troops in, they did the best they could (and it was a magnificent effort - something which will be studied by military historians a century from now) but bin Laden slipped away...if, indeed, he did slip away. Remember, all those videos and tapes of bin Laden are rated something like "80% certain" to be bin Laden...for all we know, he's a grease spot in the Toro Bora and minions are pasting together old bin Laden speeches. You'd figure if he were alive he could have a video taken of him holding up a recent newspaper, right?

I would love to have had bin Laden in the dock and long since executed for his crimes...but for one reason or another, it is not to be, at least not yet. More important though is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. You've got to remember that in me you're talking to a person who figured by noon on 9/11 that we'd have to go into Iraq in order to win this war. It is changing the Arab/Moslem world which is important, not the fate of individuals.

Given this, I can state with certainty that if Gore had been President on 9/11 and bin Laden were still at large, I would not be upset about that provided Gore had done all the things that President Bush had done...my view, however, is that if Gore were President on 9/11 then not only would Saddam be in Baghdad, but bin Laden would still be in Kabul.

Mark,

We will have to agree to disagree. For my part, what you've written about "happenstance" reads like a litany of excuses. I simply can't believe that this country lacks the capacity to bring Bin Laden to either justice or a certain demise. To me, that would be a failure of leadership -- one that promised us not to rest until the job was done. If Bush leaves office with Bin Laden at large (or, God forbid, if Bin Laden hits us again), that will indeed be a disaster.

The discussion about unemployment, job loss, and the economy seems to be missing one point. What kind of jobs have the unemployed taken to replace all those good paying jobs that were exported to foriegn countries? The truth is the long term unemployed, have taken jobs that pay minimum wage or just above minimum wage, just to survive, if you can call that surviving. The highest percentage of anti-Bush converts is the working poor, those that believed that the trickle down economics would leave them better off, after 5 years they have realized that only the wealthiest citizens were blessed. Or could it be that their ranks have swollen from Bush's policies?

I support president Bush
i always have some of you might not like or agree with him but you voted him in. Bush is a great man and the news is trying to make him look bad because the press is mostly democratic. while they Can't Stop me. BUSH I SUPPORT YOU!!!!!!!!!