Looks like another great photo op for Bush.
White House rebuts Guard shortage claimShe also said she spoke about the issue at great length with Bush when he was in Kansas in January 2006, and that Bush assured her that the money for replacements was in his budget.
Snow said the president recognizes there is a need to relieve pressure on the National Guard, and that it is one of the main reasons Bush has called for expanding the overall size of the military. But he also said that, regardless, there still are sizable numbers of personnel and equipment around the country ready to respond to disasters.
"If you take a look at the way the National Guard units are dispersed, you still have considerable strength in each state," he said.
___
Associated Press writer John Milburn contributed to this story.
cicerone imposter wrote:Looks like another great photo op for Bush.
You think he should have stayed away and not visited? Yeah, right ... then you'd really be howling.
Naw, I just remember when he spoke from Jackson Square in New Orleands after Katrina to make that special speech about "the biggest reconstruction project in the US."
Poll: Congress, Bush share low approval By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 11, 3:49 PM ET
WASHINGTON - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs and little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.
An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.
The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.
"It's mostly Iraq" plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. "These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name."
Having a standard for success isn't enough.
By David Peck
san francisco
President Bush has a (changing) standard for success in Iraq. But does he have a standard for failure? It's the kind of question I've faced with my clients in my work as an executive coach, helping leaders become more effective.
I met recently with a CEO client I've had for years. He has several pet projects that, in my opinion, should be shut down. His view is that, come hell or high water, they will continue until they succeed. We both have our perspectives, and many others have weighed in as well. At our recent meeting, I asked him to describe what success would look like. He did. But then I asked a tougher question: What is your standard that, if met, would leave no doubt of failure? Something that would say it's time to walk away from Business X or Project Y?
We discovered that he hadn't defined one. So as Business X limped along for nine months without scoring a win, and Project Y looked headed for defeat as well, there would continue to be plenty of opinions - but no definitive action. That's why we agreed on the need for a failure measurement that transcends opinions.
Great leaders set and stick with clear standards for failure as well as success. Others act like gambling addicts, greedily seeing only success, depleting their cash without any off switch.
Similar to my client's situation, there has never been agreement on the status of the war in Iraq because there are no agreed-upon measurements. Until such a yardstick exists, we can't agree about whether the US is winning or losing.
If we can't agree on present conditions, then it's critical that we have tripwires at both ends of the effectiveness spectrum: one for success, and one for failure.
The former is difficult to determine because it's shifted considerably. In 2005, the White House defined victory in Iraq in three stages that culminate in a peaceful, united, stable, and secure partner in the war on terror. But just this month, President Bush appeared to lower the bar, saying: "Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down...."
Meanwhile, the tripwire for failure doesn't seem to exist.
Obviously, the United States must not share its failure guidelines with the enemy. But if such standards were crystal clear among America's leaders, we would see much greater consensus in Washington, if not an end to the US occupation of Iraq.
Gen. David Petraeus and Mr. Bush ask that we wait until we assess the "surge." They, like my CEO client, won't know when to give up unless they develop a failure standard.
Being stubborn helps leaders rise to the top. They like to get their way, to be right, and to win. Taken too far, that lovable bull-headedness becomes naked obsession, ego, or self-will - signs of addiction. Recovering addicts, like great leaders, know when to admit defeat. It's not too late for our leaders to set and stick with an objective, measurable standard for losing.
David Peck is president of Leadership Unleashed, a coaching and consulting firm. He writes "The Recovering Leader" blog.
Here's some more to add to Bush's legacy:
VA bonus winners sat on review boards
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Nearly two dozen officials who received hefty performance bonuses last year at the Veterans Affairs Department also sat on the boards charged with recommending the payments.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press raise questions of conflicts of interest or appearances of conflicts in connection with the bonuses, some of which went to senior officials involved in crafting a budget that came up $1.3 billion short and jeopardized veterans' health care.
When are those bush supporters gonna wake up from their stupor?
cicerone imposter wrote:Poll: Congress, Bush share low approval By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 11, 3:49 PM ET
WASHINGTON - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs and little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.
An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.
The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.
"It's mostly Iraq" plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. "These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name."
But I thought the dems were elected to be the saviours of the country,and could do nothing wrong?
I thought the dems were supposed to be able to get everything accomplished within 100 working hours of being sworn in?
Are you saying that the dems made promises they cant keep,just to get elected?
I'm shocked!!!
Oh, come on guys, let's look at the polling:
There really isn't much of a comparison.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Oh, come on guys, let's look at the polling:
There really isn't much of a comparison.
Cycloptichorn
Are you saying that the dem controlled congress is NOT getting a very low rating,or are you saying that since they are still higher then the President that means that congress is still doing a good job?
Or,are you like me and saying that the polls are meaningless?
mysteryman wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Oh, come on guys, let's look at the polling:
There really isn't much of a comparison.
Cycloptichorn
Are you saying that the dem controlled congress is NOT getting a very low rating,or are you saying that since they are still higher then the President that means that congress is still doing a good job?
Or,are you like me and saying that the polls are meaningless?
Well, neither.
If you look at the polling, you'll see a definite positive trend for Congress since they took over the leadership. But Bush has pretty much plateaued as low as he will go, until the scandals this summer push him lower, that is. To compare the two is ridiculous. One has an upward trend, the other, a many-years long downward one.
In addition, from the same site these graphs come from, politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com - a really good site for all sorts of graphs, by the way:
Quote:
The level of approval of Congress was very low in late 2006 and remains well short of its high points in early 1998 and following 9/11 in 2002. (See the entire Congressional approval series since 1990 here.) But Congress is rarely loved. In the 17 years since 1990, Congressional approval has risen above 50% only twice-- rising just above 50% in early 1998 before dropping sharply after the impeachment of President Clinton late in 1998, and for a few months following 9/11. For the vast majority of the time since 1990, approval of Congress has been below 45% and below 40% for much of the time.
In 1995, following the Republicans capture of control, approval stood at just over 30% and did not break 40% until mid-1997. By contrast, Presidents routinely enjoy approval over 50% and are seen as in some trouble politically when their approval falls below 50%. President Bush's lengthy record below 40% is unusually low and long in comparison to previous presidents (though a number dip briefly to the 30s.)
Let's also examine the independent polling of Congress - how the different parties are doing:
You can see that once again, there really is no comparison. While Democrats lead Republicans by 8 points on approval, Republican disapproval is a whopping 21 points higher than disapproval of the Democrats. In addition, while it took years for the Republican-ran Congress to break 40%, the Dems are on track to do it this year. Not that I know they will or won't. But the current group isn't doing bad according to polling and trends.
Cycloptichorn
Many Bush supporters also seem to forget that the GOP in congress are handicapping the democratic led congress on what the American People wants; our troops to leave Iraq in a un-winnable war. Bush also VETOED what the democrats and American People wants. Some people can't see the truth for what's in front of their eyes.
cicerone imposter wrote:Many Bush supporters also seem to forget that the GOP in congress are handicapping the democratic led congress on what the American People wants; our troops to leave Iraq in a un-winnable war. Bush also VETOED what the democrats and American People wants. Some people can't see the truth for what's in front of their eyes.
But if it was what "the American people wanted",the dems should have been able to override the veto with no trouble
As for the GOP "handicapping" the "democrat led congress",That is exactly what the minority party is supposed to do.
You applauded it when the dems did it to the repubs,yet you decry it now?
Why is that?
BTW,the repubs still control the Senate,because the dems dont have the votes to pass anything without repub help.
Some people still don't understand that without a majority in congress, no party can override a president's VETO.
Bush and the GOP in congress can remain stubborn as long as they wish. It'll be fun to watch the next election cycle as they lose more support from the moderates and the American Public.
Bush, GOP Congress Losing Core Supporters
Conservatives Point to Spending, Immigration
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 11, 2006; Page A01
Disaffection over spending and immigration have caused conservatives to take flight from President Bush and the Republican Congress at a rapid pace in recent weeks, sending Bush's approval ratings to record lows and presenting a new threat to the GOP's 12-year reign on Capitol Hill, according to White House officials, lawmakers and new polling data.
Bush and Congress have suffered a decline in support from almost every part of the conservative coalition over the past year, a trend that has accelerated with alarming implications for Bush's governing strategy.
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple of weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and, more generally, an abandonment of core conservative principles.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict same-sex marriage, and put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
cicerone imposter wrote:Some people still don't understand that without a majority in congress, no party can override a president's VETO.
Numerically,the dems have the majority.
They just dont have ENOUGH of a majority.
Most of the time people stick to their party lines when it comes time to vote. Nevertheless; now the polls show that more than a simple majority disaprove of the surge and want a timeline. The republicans who wanted a change in the Iraq war, should have just held their noses and voted democrat since the republicans in Congress now have more or less just been a rubber stamp for Bush.
I believe the next president, whether democrat or republican is going to be a lot more moderate than the current administration because that is what a majority of the American voting public wants.
