US Features
Bush's absence in election season reflects unpopularity (News Feature)
By Mike McCarthy Nov 3, 2008, 18:27 GMT
Washington - US President George W Bush has been a no-show on the campaign trail as the election season comes to a close, with Republicans worried that his unpopularity will hurt their chances with voters heading to the ballot box on Tuesday.
Bush has not made any public campaign appearances with Senator John McCain or any other Republican running for office in the past few months, limiting his role to a handful of fundraisers behind closed doors.
As the campaign wrapped up over the weekend and McCain was working fervently to close the gap with Democrat Barack Obama, Bush spent his time at the Camp David presidential retreat away from the spotlight. He has no public appearances scheduled for Monday or Tuesday.
'We're realistic about the political environment that we are in,' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters Monday. 'We're not immune to the questions that you ask almost daily about popularity approval ratings. We're aware of it.'
Bush's job approval ratings have been stuck in the mid-20 per cent range during the last year, hampered by the war in Iraq despite strong signs of progress and by the economic crisis that led to national and worldwide turmoil ahead of the elections. His ratings are the lowest since Richard Nixon.
Bush has been the focus of Democratic attacks throughout the campaign season. Obama ties McCain's policies to the current president. Democrats challenging Republican seats in Congress exploit their opponents' legislative records of voting with the White House.
McCain has also been critical of the Bush administration as he seeks to distance himself from the White House, and rebuked Obama in a final October presidential debate for his continued efforts to portray Bush and himself as one and the same.
'Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush,' McCain said. 'If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.'
No sitting president who completed two terms has been so devoid of campaign appearances for his party. Ronald Reagan campaigned aggressively for George Bush's successful 1988 campaign and Bill Clinton hit the stump for Al Gore in 2000.
Bush even voted for McCain through an absentee ballot rather than show up at a polling booth in Texas. Perino said Bush has closely followed the presidential campaign as well as congressional races, but is comfortable with not playing a role after 14 years of campaigns dating back to his days as governor of his home state.
The president has been focused on his economic recovery plans to ensure he hands over the reigns of government with the country in the best situation possible, and is preparing for a summit this month with leaders of 20 countries to address the global financial crisis, Perino said.
Bush has reconciled his lagging numbers in the polls with his convictions that he always led true to his values to do what he believed was best for the United States and national security, even if the 'tough decisions' he made no longer sit well with the public.
'Everybody would like to be popular,' Perino said. 'We can all remember that back in high school, everyone really wanted to be popular - and some of us just weren't.'
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Hey idiot, I love it you are on your knees begging for your albino chipmunk. Wendsday morning you need to get a life, you POS spammer.
No, but nice of you to ask. Why would I vote for GWB's 3rd term?
'No, but nice of you to ask. Why would I vote for GWB's 3rd term?'
To see if the jesus-bombs keep killing muslims and to prove that I am even more right than I have been in the past.
There is a chance that Obama might leave the Middle East alone to its own devices and then I would probably post less often, which would be a crying shame.
Lets all vote for McCain and hope that he feels he has a strong mandate to go after Iran and kick their butt with a huge inventory of jesus-bombs!!
I interviewed two plumbing company owners over the weekend about Barack Obama's economic proposals for small business.
One has 15 employees and 12 trucks. The other has 52 employees and 34 trucks. They're Joe the Plumber, writ large.
Both owners had the same reaction to Obama's proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they'd be forced to lay off employees.
story continues below
Specifically, here's what the owner of the larger firm said regarding six of Obama's key proposals for the small-business sector: The average wage at his company, figuring the 52 paychecks of his office staff, installers and service workers, is $31,200, $15 an hour.
First, 'Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year,' states the Obama campaign's Web site. 'I give three paid sick days,' explained the business owner. His extra cost for this one new regulation would be $24,960 (4 extra days, 52 employees, at an average of $120 per day). 'That's one of the women in the office,' he said. 'I can make up that cost by letting one of the office people go.'
Second, Obama states that employers will be required to pay 100 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums for 100 percent of their employees or face a tax penalty. 'I pay 75 percent of their coverage,' explained the owner. 'The family policy is about $11,000. For single guys, it's about $5,000.' At an average annual cost of $7,000 per policy, his additional cost for 52 employees to cover the 25 percent of the premiums that he currently doesn't pay is $91,000. 'That's the price of three installers,' he said. 'Just to stay even with where I am, I'd have to fire three more people or raise some prices and fire two.'
The result is more unemployment or more inflation, or both.
Third, with the estate tax, Obama is calling for a top tax rate of 45 percent on estates valued above $3.5 million, producing an estimated 'death tax' of $675,000 on an estate of $5 million. 'You're kidding,' he said. 'They took half my income on the way up and now they want another half when I die?' He estimated that his business is already valued at more than $3 million, in addition to the value of his home and investments. 'Why,' he asked, 'would I want to grow to 100 employees? What'll stop them from changing it to 75 percent?'
The cost in jobs that will never be created in the U.S. economy because of this single disincentive to growth? Incalculable.
Fourth, Obama's economic plan calls for a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour within three years. The business owner's reaction? 'That's bad for two reasons. I don't have anyone at minimum, but raise the bottom by $3 and a guy making $15 wants $18. Plus it's bad for productivity when people think their pay raises are coming from government instead of from their own individual effort.'
Fifth, saying he'll 'play offense for organized labor,' Obama is proposing that workers should be denied the right to a private ballot at work in deciding whether to unionize. 'That'll never be,' said the plumbing entrepreneur. 'I'm in business because I'm independent, not to take orders from a grievance chairman. I'd shut down.'
Sixth, the increase in taxes on this small business owner from Obama's proposed hike in the income tax rate from 36% to 39.8% on incomes above $200,000 and the proposed increase in Social Security taxes comes to $32,000 per year. 'That's another employee,' he said, referring to the termination of another installer in order to just stay even.
And the jobless plumbers? They can be re-socialized to work for ACORN.
As Obama explained in July: 'We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.'
As 'well funded' as our Armed Forces personnel comes to $119 billion per year in paychecks for 'community activism,' a lot of money for registering dead voters, caulking windows, making sure that all the guns are locked up at the municipal buildings, and monitoring the airways to make sure that conservatives don't have too many talk shows.
Bottom line, Obama's economic plan doesn't hold water. Neither will our pipes.
@ Please vote for McCainNov 3rd, 2008 - 19:54:18
No, but nice of you to ask. Why would I vote for GWB's 3rd term?'''
Obama will be such a disaster that even you will miss Bush.
Reflecting on all that I’ve written about Barack Obama over these past six months, four inter-related points stand out: Obama’s radicalism, his stealthy incrementalism, his interest in funding and organization-building, and his willingness to use — or quietly support — Alinskyite intimidation tactics. Since we stand on the cusp of the election, I’ll lay out the bottom line. For those who want to know more, go back and read the detailed studies on which I base these conclusions.
Obama’s troubling associations are more than isolated friendships or instances of bad judgment. His ties to Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Pfleger, James Meeks, ACORN, the New Party, and the Gamaliel Foundation all reflect Obama’s sympathy with radical-left ideas and causes — wealth redistribution prominent among them. At both the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for example, Obama and Ayers channeled money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN, a militant group pursuing economic redistribution, succeeded in undermining credit standards throughout the banking system, thereby modeling the New Party’s plans to tame capitalism itself. So the association with Ayers is not an outlier issue, but part and parcel of a network of radical ties through which Obama’s supported “major redistributive change.” Via ACORN, that project has already nearly wrecked our economy. What will happen when it’s generalized?
Similarly, Obama’s “association” with Wright was far more than a mere pastor-parishioner — or even mentor-protégé — relationship. Obama’s work with the Gamaliel Foundation required him to “organize” left-leaning churches into a larger political force. His real interest in Wright, Pfleger, and Meeks was to turn them into the nucleus of a far broader politicized coalition of radical black churches — as shown, for example, by his work with them on the Illinois racial-profiling bill. Again, we are not dealing with mere “associations,” but with intentional political partnerships.
Although media malfeasance is at the heart of our ignorance about these broader patterns, Obama’s absorption of Alinskyite strategies of stealthy incrementalism have helped to hide the truth. Following well-worn organizer strategies, Obama knows how to wrap ideological radicalism in the soothing rhetoric of “pragmatism” and classic American values. There is a kernel of truth to the pragmatism, however. Radical though his ultimate goals may be, Obama follows classic organizer strategy — pursuing his ends in tiny, incremental, and cumulative baby-steps. The municipal “living wage” campaigns supported by Obama, Wright, and groups like ACORN and the New Party were never designed, in themselves, to bring fundamental economic change. These ordinances actually applied to only a very small number of companies. The broader purpose of these battles was to build coalitions for deeper structural change on the national level, when the moment was right. Obama would likely hew to this incrementalism in power, with the same radical long-term goals in mind.
Obama was a master at channeling funding to his organizer allies. He was the key force turning the Woods Fund toward a major increase in support for community organizers, at a moment when other foundations shied away from funding the militant and confrontational tactics of groups like ACORN. In his now infamous 2001 radio remarks, Obama’s preferred strategy for promoting “major redistributive change” was through society-wide organizing from below. As president, Obama would connect his massive youth-volunteer program to his favorite community-organizer groups, thereby creating a political force for long-term restructuring of the American economy. This was the program of the New Party, and I believe it is still Obama’s long-term goal.
In pursuit of his goals, Obama has shown himself willing to quietly support, and sometimes to openly use, radical Alinskyite tactics. At the Woods Fund, Obama’s allies bragged about the way their “post-ideological” cover had allowed them to fund ACORN’s confrontational tactics, while escaping public criticism. Obama has shamelessly used Alinskyite “direct action” to silence and intimidate political foes during the current campaign (a matter well-known to conservatives, yet little noted by the mainstream press). Victory would only cement the conviction in Obama and his allies that these tactics had “won,” and therefore should be used again.
Has Obama changed? Was he merely using his radical Chicago allies to gain national renown, and thereby an opening for a more moderate political program? I find this view unconvincing. Obama has often claimed that his early community organizing, and his redistributive legislative work, were at the very core of his political identity. We’ve heard his radicalism on the radio in 2001. Does anyone really believe that he’s changed in 2008? Obama’s political radicalism consolidated his shaky personal identity. It formed him as an adult. He cannot abandon that inner stance without losing hold of an already precarious self. Obama chose to live in Hyde Park — chose that radical setting as the site of his adult self-creation. Hyde Park was never the place Obama needed to conquer in order to escape. On the contrary, it was the personally chosen home he now hopes to nationalize by spreading his organizing gospel to America’s youth.
Obama is clever and pragmatic, it’s true. But his pragmatism is deployed on behalf of radical goals. Obama’s heart is, and will remain, with the Far Left. Yet he will surely be cautious about grasping for more, at any given moment, than the political traffic will bear. That should not be mistaken for genuine moderation. It will merely be the beginning stages of a habitually incremental radicalism. In his heart and soul, Barack Obama was and remains a radical-stealthy, organizationally sophisticated, and — when necessary — tactically ruthless. The real Obama — the man beyond the feel-good symbol — is no mystery. He’s there for anyone willing to look.
Sad to say, few are
hes a scrooge-hed be just as useless as bush trying to win the war-you needed someone we could trust with a proven-anti-scrooge mentality like palin
Only one more day of having to read the same old lies from the GOP(what's in a name) over and over again.I told you all months ago that they would repeat these false accusations,even if they were debunked .That doesn't matter to the GOP internet smear campaign task force,not a bit.
All they want to do is install doubts,even if these damn lies harm democracy itself.Those are the same guys that pretend they are free .Free of what:free of shame to disgrace the very nature of democracy which should be about debating the options for the improvement of your nation.
A lot of improvements could be performed on health care,education,job creation;welfare.
That implicates for the strongest to take care of the weakest.
The top one percent has to pay it's duties ;remember that ythe bottom 50 percent of your nation only owns 2.5 percent of it's wealth.That is a gross injustice,the richest would rather destroy democracy itself in order to cling on to their privileges.The way they conducted their campaign was a perfect illustration for that.Tanks for the smear and insults.
Only one more day of it...
thats just the way it is ,the men in charge omly look after themselves ,and its been that way for decades if you voted for palin you could of really shaken thoinga uup but voting for mcain its just more of the same -rich geting richer poor geting poorer
a lot of improvements could of been made but have not been-its the men that have done this,a lot of men nknow this and would give blood to have palin as president all those stupid womaqn who arent supporting palin but obama-thats not change-obama wont change a bloody thing-its a real shame peole are that stupid -but the rich are laughing-only a woman would really spread the wealth.amen.over and out.adios.the rich rule-tony get used to it-you are the author of your own stupidity-nothing has changed -for the last 60years-yet every 10 years-you talk change-its all hot air.
obama is going to spend billions more on thr war if he wanted to spread the wealth he would end the war tomorrow-all nthat money could of gone to the poor-.bushes half hearted attempt to win this warhas been a disaster nothing will cnange under obama-palin for president-mcain has just lost the plot-hes had a lovely lifestyle-he could of sucked up to the average joe instead talked about joe the well off,joe the plumber will need one of those big black suction tools to clear mcains dirty toilet -hes left his party covered in crap-we need sarah and her moral intelligence to win this war.
Lets be honest this dude ruined the US economy, front to back. He is even more stupider than McCane. At least tho he is not as ugly as that handicap albino chipmonk.
page: 1
SharNov 3rd, 2008 - 18:32:59
Why would he show up supporting McCain when every other word, other than knocking Obama, is knocking Bush and his administration.
Report this comment