84% of Republicans approve of George W Bush

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a bunch of lunatics.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a17BushRetrospective.pdf

[Indy Texas]

So much for the whole "We oppose big government ideas in BOTH parties!" meme.

These people claim the tea party is just upset about TARP and Obamacare. Then they turned around and voted for a guy who openly and enthusiastically supported TARP and created the predecessor to Obamacare. And now they wholeheartedly approve of the guy who actually signed TARP into law along with federal mandates like No Child Left Behind and "free stuff" like Medicare Part D.

And they wonder why everyone else thinks their a bunch of racist bigots.

[Tender Branson]

Already posted here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172515.0

Why wouldn't they ? More than 90% voted for him too.

[Lurker]

So much for the whole "We oppose big government ideas in BOTH parties!" meme.

These people claim the tea party is just upset about TARP and Obamacare. Then they turned around and voted for a guy who openly and enthusiastically supported TARP and created the predecessor to Obamacare. And now they wholeheartedly approve of the guy who actually signed TARP into law along with federal mandates like No Child Left Behind and "free stuff" like Medicare Part D.

And they wonder why everyone else thinks their a bunch of racist bigots.

The "Tea Party" has never existed. It was nothing more than Republican hacks angry at having lost an election.

While nothing about the GOP should surprise me, I'm slightly shocked that 43% of voters approve of Bush's handling of the economy - which means that a massive majority (almost all!) of Republicans must think so. Could any Republicans here explain the reasoning of these people?

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Do these people also approve of the way that Dubya is still costing them elections? His presidency was objectively a failure.

[courts]

So much for the whole "We oppose big government ideas in BOTH parties!" meme.

These people claim the tea party is just upset about TARP and Obamacare. Then they turned around and voted for a guy who openly and enthusiastically supported TARP and created the predecessor to Obamacare. And now they wholeheartedly approve of the guy who actually signed TARP into law along with federal mandates like No Child Left Behind and "free stuff" like Medicare Part D.

And they wonder why everyone else thinks their a bunch of racist bigots.

The "Tea Party" has never existed. It was nothing more than Republican hacks angry at having lost an election.

While nothing about the GOP should surprise me, I'm slightly shocked that 43% of voters approve of Bush's handling of the economy - which means that a massive majority (almost all!) of Republicans must think so. Could any Republicans here explain the reasoning of these people?

there's a fairly common myth that bush tried to rein in the banks but the democratic congress stopped him. also a lot of people think tarp was signed under obama. i suspect a lot of the people repeating these things are also the same people that say bush kept us safe from terrorism because there weren't any attacks on his watch.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Clearly they're just nostalgic for the fiscal conservatism that marked the Bush years as opposed to Obama's reckless spending.

[Zarn]

So much for the whole "We oppose big government ideas in BOTH parties!" meme.

These people claim the tea party is just upset about TARP and Obamacare. Then they turned around and voted for a guy who openly and enthusiastically supported TARP and created the predecessor to Obamacare. And now they wholeheartedly approve of the guy who actually signed TARP into law along with federal mandates like No Child Left Behind and "free stuff" like Medicare Part D.

And they wonder why everyone else thinks their a bunch of racist bigots.

The "Tea Party" has never existed. It was nothing more than Republican hacks angry at having lost an election.

While nothing about the GOP should surprise me, I'm slightly shocked that 43% of voters approve of Bush's handling of the economy - which means that a massive majority (almost all!) of Republicans must think so. Could any Republicans here explain the reasoning of these people?

It did exist. It was hijacked by the establishment, and we ended up with the Tea Party Express, Sarah Palin, and idiots wearing teabags on their heads talking about everything but spending/taxation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why not?  I approve of what George W Bush is up to these days. 

[Vosem]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

[Vosem]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

Bush ran reasonable and extremely successful policies with regards to conflicts in the Caucasus, in regards to epidemics and war in Africa, and in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His one mistake, launching the 2003 war in Iraq, is only really apparent in hindsight and without hindsight was clearly the correct decision to have made. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out quite well; had McCain won the election in 2008, I'm confident today Iraq would be a solid American ally. (McCain compared it to South Korea after the Korean War, which I think is a good comparison). Obama reflexively pulled out, which was one of his greatest mistakes. (Not that going in wasn't a mistake, but pulling back once you're already there is also rarely a good move).

[Maxwell]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

He's a neo-con. Elaborate enough?

[BluegrassBlueVote]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

He's a neo-con. Elaborate enough?

I didn't think Neo-cons actually believed they were doing anything in the name of freedom.

[JerryArkansas]

I approve of my family.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

Bush ran reasonable and extremely successful policies with regards to conflicts in the Caucasus, in regards to epidemics and war in Africa, and in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His one mistake, launching the 2003 war in Iraq, is only really apparent in hindsight and without hindsight was clearly the correct decision to have made. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out quite well; had McCain won the election in 2008, I'm confident today Iraq would be a solid American ally. (McCain compared it to South Korea after the Korean War, which I think is a good comparison). Obama reflexively pulled out, which was one of his greatest mistakes. (Not that going in wasn't a mistake, but pulling back once you're already there is also rarely a good move).

I would type "lol", but considering how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost directly due to Bush's wars...not a laughing matter, I'm afraid.

[courts]

I know I do. Bush's economic governance, while not great, was at least OK, and he certainly ran an FF foreign policy. I'd rather have him than the current President.

Ignoring whatever delusions you have about the recession, I'll offer you the chance to elaborate on this.

Bush ran reasonable and extremely successful policies with regards to conflicts in the Caucasus, in regards to epidemics and war in Africa, and in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His one mistake, launching the 2003 war in Iraq, is only really apparent in hindsight and without hindsight was clearly the correct decision to have made. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out quite well; had McCain won the election in 2008, I'm confident today Iraq would be a solid American ally. (McCain compared it to South Korea after the Korean War, which I think is a good comparison). Obama reflexively pulled out, which was one of his greatest mistakes. (Not that going in wasn't a mistake, but pulling back once you're already there is also rarely a good move).

I would type "lol", but considering how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost directly due to Bush's wars...not a laughing matter, I'm afraid.