Actually the latest polls are showing a 52% approval rating, so things arent necessarily looking bad for him, especially noting historically, these are good numbers.  In 1996, Clinton was a couple points lower at this time of year.

And really, who is going to follow a humble leader.  People love someone inspiring (not to say Bush is), someone who says they will fight to the death for their issues, whether they actually plan on it or not.  You think Hitler would have had a million people at a rally in Berlin screaming his glory if he were humble.

Bush loses at the moment if he’s running against Kerry.

As to polls, TIME’s latest has his disapproval higher than his approval, but 8%, I think? Maybe more?

This is a one-term president who will do all he can to cling to power. Watch out for another rigged election.

So Bush says that he’s not going to sway in the breeze with various polls that come out.  Actually, assuming that’s true, I think that’s kind of nice.  While it’s good for an elected representative to pay attention to the will of the People, it’s also good for him or her not to govern by committee-of-270-million (plus or minus 3%). 

The “poll” that Bush should be most worried about is the one that occurs every four years—and, to a lesser degree, the one every two years.

Frankly, I’d rather he stuck to his guns than pander to the current voting mood.

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
—Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Speech to the electors of Bristol (3 Nov 1774)

As to the “I-I-I”—well, better than than the Imperial “We” that too many candidates affect.

I have to admit I’m with ***Dave on this one. I can appreciate a candidate who stands up for what he believes to be right regardless of what the popular opinion happens to be particularly when popular opinion threatens the rights of minority viewpoint. At the same time, however, that same candidate isn’t doing anyone any favors if he’s not at least open to listening to and considering a reasonable argument for an opposing viewpoint.

Issues such as the words “under God” in the Pledge came to be because politicians made decisions that were popular at the time regardless of the obvious Constitutional violation such a decision created.  Had there been more congressmen in office back then with a good understanding of the problems of that decision and the backbone to stand up for what is right over what is popular we wouldn’t be having a Supreme Court hearing to determine if the Pledge as it currently stands violates the First Amendment.

That said, the problems I have with Bush’s comments above has to do with the fact that he makes it clear he’s not open to even hearing, let alone considering, opposing viewpoints as he has no doubts his decision will always be the correct ones to make. A good politicians opinions and values don’t wobble back and forth depending on how the winds of the polls happens to be blowing, but a good politician also doesn’t ignore outright the voices of the people for his own personal viewpoint. At the very least he should acknowledge the will of the people and, if he’s not going to follow it, explain why he feels the popular opinion is misguided. Educate the voters, don’t ignore them or dismiss them outright and you stand a better chance of getting the votes of not just the people who agree with you, but the ones who disagreed with you.

Was this comment made before or after W stated that W would not use the military for nation building?

Isn’t that a bit like saying that a tank’s gun barrel is really a peace sensor?