Latest US Polls on Approval Ratings.

[marriott0.01]

http://i44.tinypic.com/2moe8gk.png

Released last week, no one posted but just wanted to know people's opinions?

[-:Undertaker:-]

They think he'll be a one term President as well, well i'm pretty glad. I was no fan of George W Bush and Anglo-American foreign policy at all but at least Bush admire and to some extent understood the Anglo-American bond where as Obama has no regard for it.

[marriott0.01]

They think he'll be a one term President as well, well i'm pretty glad. I was no fan of George W Bush and Anglo-American foreign policy at all but at least Bush admire and to some extent understood the Anglo-American bond where as Obama has no regard for it.

Bush was in for 2 terms, and I fully supported him, at least he did some good.

[hah]

Can i ask what good he did?

[Titch]

Can i ask what good he did?

cared about britain, released that a big relation with britain was a good thing and not to treat us like **** like big forehead does.

[HotelUser]

cared about britain, released that a big relation with britain was a good thing and not to treat us like **** like big forehead does.

That's good, but what I think Americans want to know what he did good for America (a)

[Grig]

They think he'll be a one term President as well, well i'm pretty glad. I was no fan of George W Bush and Anglo-American foreign policy at all but at least Bush admire and to some extent understood the Anglo-American bond where as Obama has no regard for it.

Pretty silly, if you ask me. To say the Anglo-American bond is crucial at this time isn't the best thing to convey. Obama is busy at home, he took on a country with overflowing domestic probolems. He is focusing on his people first and formost, before any Anglo-American bond. Relations aren't in the pit or anything.

Although I must say at this current point, Obama is bringing nothing that special to the country. He is doing a solid job, achieving a few of his campaign promises.

You guys are judging a president on whether he cared on Britian, that is only a minor thing. Obama actually brought a better image abroad, so that's way more positive than Mr. Bush who was simply a lame duck. In actual sense, Bush brought worse international reputation to Britain than better. Although, he may be a one term president as most of the rich businessmen in America dislike his policies.

[alexxxxx]

can someone please explain to me what the anglo-american 'special' relationship apart from:

-pressuring britain to join stupid, costly wars and:
-not extraditing those resposible for friendly fire in afghanistan,
-arguably making us less safe in a stupid 'war on terror' and
-signing one-way extradition treaties.
-not giving us backing over the fawkland islands

seems like a bit of a myth...

[Jordy]

Bush hmm. While I would blame him (and of course Blair) for the war in Iraq I do think the Anglo-American relationship was particularly strong and positive at the time, reaching the heights of Thatcher/Reagan times.

I do honestly believe Bush did the right thing after 9/11 though and the polls reflected this (His popularity soared). The nation was devastated at the time, he got people confident in the government again. He also did virtually everything possible to defend and secure America, I honestly don't think he could of done even more, even to the point he chased the terrorists back to Afghanistan. I do believe his motives were right for that war and he was a truly excellent leader during them times.

Of course though, I can only judge American presidents on their Anglo-American and Foreign relations. From what I understand, the US Car industry was crippled under him and then when the credit crunch hit, it was doomed. In his last year of presidency he also did very little, instead leaving it all up to the next administration. He was voted in for four years, not three years. It's my understanding he also brought large amounts of debt to the USA.

Obama certainly isn't all that amazing, I know it's still fairly early days, but it's clear he is no miracle for America. There's still potential for him to be both a good or bad president, he won't be a great president though I can tell that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Pretty silly, if you ask me. To say the Anglo-American bond is crucial at this time isn't the best thing to convey. Obama is busy at home, he took on a country with overflowing domestic probolems. He is focusing on his people first and formost, before any Anglo-American bond. Relations aren't in the pit or anything.

Although I must say at this current point, Obama is bringing nothing that special to the country. He is doing a solid job, achieving a few of his campaign promises.

You guys are judging a president on whether he cared on Britian, that is only a minor thing. Obama actually brought a better image abroad, so that's way more positive than Mr. Bush who was simply a lame duck. In actual sense, Bush brought worse international reputation to Britain than better. Although, he may be a one term president as most of the rich businessmen in America dislike his policies.

The Anglo-American bond is always crucial and is the force that helped collapse the evil Soviet Union with the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The country is overflowing with domestic problems you are right but that is no reason to ignore the United Kingdom or treat as inferior/any other nation especially when the fact is that our soliders are fighting out in Afghanistan as we speak right now and thats a pretty important thing if you ask me, whether you agree with the war or not. Mr Bush was not a lame duck and to say so it just plain ignorant of the turbulent times of the two terms he served; I believe you have picked up the lame duck phrase from Farenheit 9/11(?) in which Michael Moore describes Bush before the 9/11 attacks. Now dont get me wrong, I loathe the way the Bush administration and Blair government acted and I find it shameful. However that said; two awful leaders are no reason to write the bond off.


can someone please explain to me what the anglo-american 'special' relationship apart from:

-pressuring britain to join stupid, costly wars and:
-not extraditing those resposible for friendly fire in afghanistan,
-arguably making us less safe in a stupid 'war on terror' and
-signing one-way extradition treaties.
-not giving us backing over the fawkland islands

seems like a bit of a myth...

The Anglo-American bond has been dented and nearly destroyed under both the Blair-Bush partnership and Brown-Obama partnership which i myself hate. I am with you on this one, all of them things just make it look totally unworthwhile and unfair and they are. The Anglo-American bond was at its prime during the Thatcher-Reagan era and thats about it really if i'm honest, although the people of America are the closet people we have in terms of similarities with us.

I hope the bond does come back one day on a fair and equal basis and i'm optimistic that it will, we will and so will the rest of the world when China begins to wake from its long deep sleep.

[Grig]

The Anglo-American bond is always crucial and is the force that helped collapse the evil Soviet Union with the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The country is overflowing with domestic problems you are right but that is no reason to ignore the United Kingdom or treat as inferior/any other nation especially when the fact is that our soliders are fighting out in Afghanistan as we speak right now and thats a pretty important thing if you ask me, whether you agree with the war or not. Mr Bush was not a lame duck and to say so it just plain ignorant of the turbulent times of the two terms he served; I believe you have picked up the lame duck phrase from Farenheit 9/11(?) in which Michael Moore describes Bush before the 9/11 attacks. Now dont get me wrong, I loathe the way the Bush administration and Blair government acted and I find it shameful. However that said; two awful leaders are no reason to write the bond off.



The Anglo-American bond has been dented and nearly destroyed under both the Blair-Bush partnership and Brown-Obama partnership which i myself hate. I am with you on this one, all of them things just make it look totally unworthwhile and unfair and they are. The Anglo-American bond was at its prime during the Thatcher-Reagan era and thats about it really if i'm honest, although the people of America are the closet people we have in terms of similarities with us.

I hope the bond does come back one day on a fair and equal basis and i'm optimistic that it will, we will and so will the rest of the world when China begins to wake from its long deep sleep.

I picked up that phrase, as it was of common use after his 8 year failed presidency. It is him that started the initial phases of the recession and weakened America's image two-fold abroad. Sure he might have acted like Blair was his best mate, he even made him the UN envoy to the Middle East. However, at the end of the day, if we go around every bsingle country and survey which president they liked better, it would be Obama. Bush struggled to garner any bsupport from any other countries tahn the UK. The Anglo-American bond is crucial for trade etc. but it is not crucial for the country as a whole. People in the US don't care about this bond, they care on the crucial domestic issues like healthcare and their jobs. Hence, you are taking a really nationalized view, and from your previous posts around here I can telll it is quite so.

I am not a fan of Obama, if I had a vote I would have voted Clinton, as I fewlt she was the stronger and more experienced of thew two. She also had a husband who basically was one of the strongest presidents in the history of Ameirca, in terms of domestic policies. It was things like reaising the minimum wage etc. that really made him very popular. I think Obama is trying yo do similair, but he inherted a country with bundles of problems. I do praise him for at least coming onto the road to progress, but he really has not done anytihng extraordinary, he has strong people by his side such a Clinton and Geithner and at the current rate he is a president that is performing at an average rate.

To deny that Bush was a complete idiot is silly, but that is true. His oration was just terrible; "these are my two daughter" etc. etc. An American friend of mine who comes from Texas, did say he was a decent governor, but when he came to power as president he lost all his brain cells. He formed an idiotic pact with Blair to go to war in Iraq, sure over a dictatorship, but he defended it over them having nuclear weapons, which later was proved to be wrong. As for Ragen and Thatcher and the Soviet Union, it was following the domino theory of nthe Cold War, and those two were strong allies ever since the WW2, it's a good alliance, but not crucial all of the time, only when it matters for issues that affect both sides.

[RedStratocas]

the low approval rating for congress is no surprise, i dont see how even that 17% could possibly justify their approval. if youre a republican you obviously cant approve because youre not in power, democrats cant approve because they havent been able to unify to actually get things done (until very recently) and even if you dont have a party affiliation both the house and senate are useless, so im taking it as the 17% who approve are really just people who have no idea what theyre talking about.

obama's approval rating seems about right. theres been some people who have lost their trust in him, after some of his promises have gone unfulfilled (Guantanamo is still open, dont ask dont tell still in effect). i never thought he was the superhero people made him out to be, but i still support him. the problem is that a lot of his major goals have to go through either the house or the senate, which as i mentioned before, are both currently dysfunctional bodies. a lot of the disapproval comes from people being misled, confused or impatient, really. about a month ago there was a poll that asked people their stance on health care, and something like 40% of people disapproved of what the poll called "obama health care." but in the same poll, when the surveyors explained the elements of the bill and asked whether or not they approved of the specific policies (without calling it "obama health care"), 70% of people approved. so really 30% of people just hate anything that has to do with obama, whether they actually agree with something or not.

fortunately though, and surprisingly, the approval of health care actually went up after it was passed. hopefully now that people actually have to personally deal with the new health care system, they'll see its actually quite reasonable and not a communist threat as they've been told the past year.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I picked up that phrase, as it was of common use after his 8 year failed presidency. It is him that started the initial phases of the recession and weakened America's image two-fold abroad. Sure he might have acted like Blair was his best mate, he even made him the UN envoy to the Middle East. However, at the end of the day, if we go around every bsingle country and survey which president they liked better, it would be Obama. Bush struggled to garner any bsupport from any other countries tahn the UK. The Anglo-American bond is crucial for trade etc. but it is not crucial for the country as a whole. People in the US don't care about this bond, they care on the crucial domestic issues like healthcare and their jobs. Hence, you are taking a really nationalized view, and from your previous posts around here I can telll it is quite so.

I am not a fan of Obama, if I had a vote I would have voted Clinton, as I fewlt she was the stronger and more experienced of thew two. She also had a husband who basically was one of the strongest presidents in the history of Ameirca, in terms of domestic policies. It was things like reaising the minimum wage etc. that really made him very popular. I think Obama is trying yo do similair, but he inherted a country with bundles of problems. I do praise him for at least coming onto the road to progress, but he really has not done anytihng extraordinary, he has strong people by his side such a Clinton and Geithner and at the current rate he is a president that is performing at an average rate.

To deny that Bush was a complete idiot is silly, but that is true. His oration was just terrible; "these are my two daughter" etc. etc. An American friend of mine who comes from Texas, did say he was a decent governor, but when he came to power as president he lost all his brain cells. He formed an idiotic pact with Blair to go to war in Iraq, sure over a dictatorship, but he defended it over them having nuclear weapons, which later was proved to be wrong. As for Ragen and Thatcher and the Soviet Union, it was following the domino theory of nthe Cold War, and those two were strong allies ever since the WW2, it's a good alliance, but not crucial all of the time, only when it matters for issues that affect both sides.

I know the Anglo-American bond is important to the American people; i've often seen around the net Americans annoyed at the treatment Obama gives the United Kingdom so often and its not suprising that, coupled with his false promises. Obama was Americas Tony Blair, and quite frankly you were all duped just like we were back in 1997. Bush was a complete idiot, I haven't denied that at all. His home policies double crossed the American people at various times (cutting funding for war veterans and passing the US Patriot Act) and his foreign policy;- well that doesnt even need explaining.

Bush was an idiot, a lame duck at first but after 9/11 he certainly was not a lame duck President.

[Wig44.]

Would Obama be president had he been white?

In my mind no he would not be had he been white.

[Catzsy]

So the first black president of the USA was voted in because he was black? That makes no sense at all.
He has had a tough time with the global recession and Health Care Bill but watch this space. The man will go down in history - he has already negotiated and reduction in nuclear arms with Russia which has gone on a year. Perhaps he just doesn't like to boast about it every five minutes. The man's is a doer - enough said.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So the first black president of the USA was voted in because he was black? That makes no sense at all.
He has had a tough time with the global recession and Health Care Bill but watch this space. The man will go down in history - he has already negotiated and reduction in nuclear arms with Russia which has gone on a year. Perhaps he just doesn't like to boast about it every five minutes. The man's is a doer - enough said.

Its pretty simple what he is saying;- that people only voted for Obama because he is black. The man is not really a doer, most American Presidents have their major bill moments and the Healthcare bill is just one of them, not to mention the fact that the nuclear arms deal was due to be updated again anyway as the previous treaties had been accomplished and new deadlines needed to be set; henceforth another treaty. He from what I have seen has gone back on a lot of promises (closing the Guantamino Bay/covering up the torture allegations) which makes him as I said earlier, Americas Blair.

[Catzsy]

Its pretty simple what he is saying;- that people only voted for Obama because he is black. The man is not really a doer, most American Presidents have their major bill moments and the Healthcare bill is just one of them, not to mention the fact that the nuclear arms deal was due to be updated again anyway as the previous treaties had been accomplished and new deadlines needed to be set; henceforth another treaty. He from what I have seen has gone back on a lot of promises (closing the Guantamino Bay/covering up the torture allegations) which makes him as I said earlier, Americas Blair.

Can you support that assumption that he was only voted in because he was black as he had a heavyweight contender in Hilary Clinton? Why would the american people suddenly just vote somebody in because they are black? Lets have some facts please. Well I actually think that Tony Blair was a great prime minister and this view is valid as far as I am concerned and I am not interested in spending pages and pages arguing with you about Tony Blair. This is not a debate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Can you support that assumption that he was only voted in because he was black as he had a heavyweight contender in Hilary Clinton? Why would the american people suddenly just vote somebody in because they are black? Lets have some facts please. Well I actually think that Tony Blair was a great prime minister and this view is valid as far as I am concerned and I am not interested in spending pages and pages arguing with you about Tony Blair. This is not a debate.

I am not saying that he was voted in solely because he was black, I was reaffirming what Wig meant. Obama was voted in partly because he was black so lets be honest, the African American vote surely went to him and I remember the cameras/interviewers asking some people why they were voting Obama and the answer was 'because he can be the first black President of the United States' - sad to say its like that but that was the case with a lot of people. To add to that, when he was voted in all we heard time and time again was 'first black President'.

I'm not debating Tony Blair but if we are talking about the hype folowed by broken promises then that is historical fact. Tony Blair went back on a lot of his promises, he promised a lot when running for office (so much so that people cried, same with Obama) yet strangely when he gained the keys to number 10 he went back on these promises, the same can be said for Obama. The 2005 Labour General Election pledge for example; we promose a referendum on the EU consitution - another broken promise.

That is not my 'opinion' hence why a lot of people who voted Blair back in 1997 (the swing voters) are now disillusioned as ever as they feel they have been let down.

[Catzsy]

I am not saying that he was voted in solely because he was black, I was reaffirming what Wig meant. Obama was voted in partly because he was black so lets be honest, the African American vote surely went to him and I remember the cameras/interviewers asking some people why they were voting Obama and the answer was 'because he can be the first black President of the United States' - sad to say its like that but that was the case with a lot of people. To add to that, when he was voted in all we heard time and time again was 'first black President'.

I'm not debating Tony Blair but if we are talking about the hype folowed by broken promises then that is historical fact. Tony Blair went back on a lot of his promises, he promised a lot when running for office (so much so that people cried, same with Obama) yet strangely when he gained the keys to number 10 he went back on these promises, the same can be said for Obama. The 2005 Labour General Election pledge for example; we promose a referendum on the EU consitution - another broken promise.

That is not my 'opinion' hence why a lot of people who voted Blair back in 1997 (the swing voters) are now disillusioned as ever as they feel they have been let down.

Well that is different to saying he was only voted in because he was black which was basically the post - I agree with you. He is the first black man to mobilise the black, hispanics and other minorities to even vote which has to be good for democracy but he also got the majority of the votes from the under 30s. I will wait and see what happens next with him. Got to give him a chance. He has promised to come down hard on the Israeli situation so wait and see. There are many reasons that I feel Tony Blair was a great prime minister but they are obviously on the socialist(not markist!) agenda that I agree with and that you never will which is fair enough.

[Wig44.]

Well that is different to saying he was only voted in because he was black which was basically the post - I agree with you. He is the first black man to mobilise the black, hispanics and other minorities to even vote which has to be good for democracy but he also got the majority of the votes from the under 30s. I will wait and see what happens next with him. Got to give him a chance. He has promised to come down hard on the Israeli situation so wait and see. There are many reasons that I feel Tony Blair was a great prime minister but they are obviously on the socialist(not markist!) agenda that I agree with and that you never will which is fair enough.

Undoubtedly I need to elaborate on what I meant. I do not think he was voted in solely because he was black. If he wasn't a solid contender he would never have been a president, but my point was that had he been the exact same man but was white he would not currently be president. That is because droves of African Americans who said themselves that they normally never vote decided to vote this year (and they constitute a significant portion of America's population). Who did they vote for? Obama of course. Why? As they said themsleves, because they wanted a black president. Note I said the African Americans I am talking about are/were the ones who never voted before. If he was white he would probably not have had these votes (though we can't be certain) thus he would not be president now. You have to remember these disillusioned voters make up a hefty portion of the population.

[RedStratocas]

Undoubtedly I need to elaborate on what I meant. I do not think he was voted in solely because he was black. If he wasn't a solid contender he would never have been a president, but my point was that had he been the exact same man but was white he would not currently be president. That is because droves of African Americans who said themselves that they normally never vote decided to vote this year (and they constitute a significant portion of America's population). Who did they vote for? Obama of course. Why? As they said themsleves, because they wanted a black president. Note I said the African Americans I am talking about are/were the ones who never voted before. If he was white he would probably not have had these votes (though we can't be certain) thus he would not be president now. You have to remember these disillusioned voters make up a hefty portion of the population.

there aren't any statistics to back this up, but as an american, i feel i must say i think just as many people voted against him because he was black, including new voters. there may be disillusioned leftists but if fox news has taught me anything there are probably way more disillusioned to the right.

[Wig44.]

If Fox news has taught you anything, then you'd better forget it all quickly! :P

[Catzsy]

Undoubtedly I need to elaborate on what I meant. I do not think he was voted in solely because he was black. If he wasn't a solid contender he would never have been a president, but my point was that had he been the exact same man but was white he would not currently be president. That is because droves of African Americans who said themselves that they normally never vote decided to vote this year (and they constitute a significant portion of America's population). Who did they vote for? Obama of course. Why? As they said themsleves, because they wanted a black president. Note I said the African Americans I am talking about are/were the ones who never voted before. If he was white he would probably not have had these votes (though we can't be certain) thus he would not be president now. You have to remember these disillusioned voters make up a hefty portion of the population.

Yes well I agree partially with you there but I still think he would be president as there was only 4% between the contenders in the white. Probably would have been a lot closer but I think he would have won. But you know the old saying 'if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle' and you could perpetuate this theory to the democratic nomination - if the black vote hadn't come out Hilary Clinton would have been the Democratic nomination and so on and so on. I believe this man was powerful enough and charismatic enough to motivate the black voters in a way that other black men such as Jesse Jackson have not in the past. I am going to wait to give my verdict on him as a president - I do not feel he has been in office long enough to give a informed and valid judgment. Bush will go down in history for his bloopers, a few are here:



"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany." (5th May 2006)

Wow! Brazil is big." (6th Nov 2005

"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur

"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific." (18th Feb 2002)

"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." (24 Sep 2001)

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."

[RedStratocas]

If Fox news has taught you anything, then you'd better forget it all quickly! :P

hahaha so true, but its pretty scary to me that fox news is the most watched news network.