AP Poll: President Bush is the hero (and villain) of 2006

[RickSp]

Interesting comentary on the polarization of America today. President George Bush was the overwhelming choice of "the biggest villain of the year" in a recent poll, far exceeding Bin Laden or Saddam. Bush also ranked first, by a much smaller margin, as "biggest hero of the year". What effect do you think this polarization will have in the coming two years?

AP Poll: President Bush is the hero (and villain) of 2006

The Associated Press-AOL News poll on who people think were the villains and heroes of the last year was conducted Dec. 19-21 and is based on telephone interviews with 1,004 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii. The poll was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm. 1. If you were asked to name a famous person to be the biggest villain of the year, whom would you choose? _George W. Bush, 25 percent _Osama bin Laden, 8 percent _Saddam Hussein, 6 percent _President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, 5 percent _Kim Jong Il, North Korean leader, 2 percent _Donald Rumsfeld, 2 percent _John Kerry, 1 percent _Rosie O'Donnell, 1 percent _Dick Cheney, 1 percent _Hillary Clinton, 1 percent _Brad Pitt, 1 percent _Tom Cruise, 1 percent _Satan/The Devil, 1 percent _Donald Trump, 1 percent _O.J. Simpson, 1 percent _Hugo Chavez, 1 percent _George Clooney, 1 percent _Nancy Pelosi, 1 percent _Bill Clinton, 1 percent _Colin Farrell, 1 percent _Other, 15 percent _Not sure, 20 percent 2. If you were asked to name a famous person to be the biggest hero of the year, whom would you choose? _George W. Bush, 13 percent _Soldiers/troops in Iraq, 6 percent _Oprah Winfrey, 3 percent _Barack Obama, 3 percent _Jesus Christ, 3 percent _Bono, 2 percent _Angelina Jolie, 1 percent _Al Gore, 1 percent _Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1 percent _Colin Powell, 1 percent _Mel Gibson, 1 percent _George Clooney, 1 percent _Bill Gates, 1 percent _Donald Rumsfeld, 1 percent _Bill Clinton, 1 percent _Jimmy Carter, 1 percent _Martin Luther King, 1 percent _Condoleeza Rice, 1 percent _Billy Graham, 1 percent _Warren Buffett, 1 percent _Other, 25 percent _None, 1 percent _Not sure, 27 percent

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'd choose the troops in Iraq for hero, but I don't know about villain, it hasn't been a big year for villains, just incompetant buffoons. W's the biggest one of these, but he's not actively trying to do bad.

Who picks W for hero? the man's sat in Washington doing nothing.

[bishop]

those polls are retarded... for all the bad that bush has done, is he worse than kim jong il? i don't see uzbekistan's president (the man who boils people alive) on the list - but colin farrell???

it seemed to me that the past election cycle was a resounding veto of bush's rule - as voters voted against him and his party. we're definitely polarized, but i don't think there are many people out there hoping for more of king george's stupidity/incompetence/arrogance.

[RickSp]

Regardless of lables - villian or hero, the poll reflects other polls of the mood in America. People dislike Bush's policies by two to one. The interesting question, at least to me, is whether these views will help to change things or merely further polarize the country.

[bishop]

there will be polarization as long as this "war on terrorism" continues. the dems/reps are competing to out-war the other, both in terms of domestic surveillance as well as pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. those who advocate draconionism will alienate one group whereas their opposite will alienate the gung-ho (down's syndrome) crowd.

plus, the fact that the media is largely monopolized by polarizing pundits, and the fact that our country exists in a perma-state of campaign rhetoric doesn't help the situation one iota.

issues that americans seem most united in are ignored by politicians - the prime example being illegal immigration. on iraq, there seems to be indecision amongst all americans, which has resulted in indecision in washington (because these "leaders" only act when the political winds are favorable). most americans also seem to think that balancing the budget is a good thing, and look how much action has been taken on that issue.

i'm thinking that we'll still be as polarized as usual - with the parties hoisting up their wedge issues (like gay marriage) to maintain the status quo. in the meantime, the important issues will just coast along as usual, never being corrected/fixed (ex. social security).

[Compugasm]

Bishop took my answer.

[BobbyO]

It probably means the electorate dislikes how Bush is fighting the war on terror, but agrees that there needs to be an agressive war in some fashion against terror. Not caving to poor poll numbers could also explain the 'hero" aspect of it as well. But for 2008, having a stong conviction (any strong conviction) and sticking with it will not be of sufficient benefit, unless it is the right conviction.And that conviction will have to be one of fighting a strong war on terror, a problem which the Democrats unfortunately have been unable to come up with a proposal.

[RickSp]

Bush has been too busy invading other nations to fight against terror. America has woken up to the obvious fact that Bush's imperialism has made us less safe.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp Bush has been too busy invading other nations to fight against terror. America has woken up to the obvious fact that Bush's imperialism has made us less safe.

So what explains the "hero" aspect of the poll?

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO So what explains the "hero" aspect of the poll?

You mean the remaining true believers now in an ever dwindling minority? I have no doubt that they will always be with us.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: BobbyO It probably means the electorate dislikes how Bush is fighting the war on terror, but agrees that there needs to be an agressive war in some fashion against terror. Not caving to poor poll numbers could also explain the 'hero" aspect of it as well. But for 2008, having a stong conviction (any strong conviction) and sticking with it will not be of sufficient benefit, unless it is the right conviction.And that conviction will have to be one of fighting a strong war on terror, a problem which the Democrats unfortunately have been unable to come up with a proposal.

did you learn NOTHING from the thread where we discussed how to properly fight terrorism ? biggest point is that military aspect of the "fight" is the smallest one

[Gods_Mercenary]

You can't fight terrorists with conventional military power, no matter how good it is. We've had to learn that the hard way.

[Ken Carman]

The phrase "uniter not a divider" comes to mind here.

I have had a lot of success in the past six years predicting what will be done, what actual policy will become, scandals that will erupt and what will fail by listening to what he says he believes, will do, or will happen.and then predicting the exact opposite. If only I had been one who likes to bet...

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You can't fight terrorists with conventional military power, no matter how good it is. We've had to learn that the hard way.

Sad to say there were many of us who said just that after 9/11. But we were called traitors, buffoons and every name the Neo-Cons could find. Is it any surprise the nation is so divided? You cannot unite a nation by attempting to humiliate or silence those who disagree with you. That's another unlearned lesson. I would never say the Left hasn't had their share of name callers, even myself from time to time. But we weren't the ones to claim "uniter not divider," or the ones who insist it's only, or exclusively, the other side that uses name-calling rather than reason as some rhetorical form of WMD.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Unfortunately after 9-11 emotions took over, and you know what everybody wanted, revenge. Anyway, Afganistan isn't so bad, if we had the troops currently in Iraq we'd be more than O.K. But in 2003 we should have listened more carefully. But We still had the image of those towers falling seered into our eyelids so we listened to idiots.

Actually, W hasn't had an awful presidency, minus Iraq, but that's what he'll be judged by, and rightfully so.

[Osborn F Enready]

I'll bet if they had a poll for biggest "schmuck" of the year, worst "public speaker" of the year, and most "unintelligent looking" of the year, he would have sweeped those too.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You can't fight terrorists with conventional military power, no matter how good it is. We've had to learn that the hard way.

We have a winner!

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Actually, W hasn't had an awful presidency, minus Iraq, but that's what he'll be judged by, and rightfully so.

ROFL, i doubt his presidency would have been OK if it wasnt for 9/11 or iraq.
Tell me some of his accomplishments in the first 9 months of his term before 911?

[Gods_Mercenary]

He would have been mediocre beyond imagination without 9-11, We probably would have gotten rid of him in 2004.