Bush should do the right thing, and quit

[Thom Little]

By August 2003, California Gov. Gray Davis' approval rating had plunged to 22 percent. Two months later, he lost a special recall election.

Now it's President George W. Bush's turn to take a drubbing. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that only 37 percent of Americans think he's doing a good job, a record low for him and a dangerous drop below the historical benchmark of 40 percent.

"When a president falls below 40 percent approval in public opinion polls -- as President Bush has done twice in the past two months -- it's usually a sign of serious political danger," writes Richard Benedetto in USA Today.

"Since 1950, five of the eight other presidents who fell below 40 percent -- Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush -- lost their bids for re-election or opted not to run again. A sixth, Richard Nixon, was overwhelmed by the Watergate scandal and resigned. Only two, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, turned things around."



http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20051206a1.htm

[tiptoe]

1. Bush will fight back w an aggressive "Get Out the Vote (machine) Campaign"

for his party in 2006.


Meanwhile, back in Ohio news...

Judge allows lawsuit challenging adequacy of Ohio election system
Warning Bell in Ohio
Tova Andrea Wang
The Century Foundation

12/6/2005

A federal court in Ohio has just issued a decision that has potentially enormous significance for elections all over the country. In The League of Women Voters et al. v. Blackwell, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss by the Governor and Secretary of State. Instead, he ruled that if the League and other voting rights organizations can demonstrate there were “systemic breakdowns” in the election system that led to widely disparate levels of voting access throughout the state in 2004 (and for over three decades before that), the state likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Judge James G. Carr writes,

"Put simply, LWV contends that defendants’ election system provides different voting rights to different citizens based solely on where those citizens happen to reside and vote. Some citizens get short lines, properly functioning voting machines, well trained and informed poll workers, accurate registration information, and the opportunity to cast unencumbered absentee or proper provisional ballots.

Other citizens, due to the vagaries of residence and registration, encounter long lines, defective voting machines, ill-trained and uninformed poll workers, inaccurate registration information, and absentee or provisional ballots that are ultimately deemed invalid.

If LWV’s allegations are well founded, defendants may be depriving citizens of the franchise depending on where they live in violation of the equal protection clause."

snip

What makes this case all the more interesting is that the judge found that the Governor and Secretary of State were the proper defendants in the action. In other words, those at the top will be held responsible for ensuring that our democracy is equally accessible to all voters—regardless of race, ethnicity, and yes, where they happen to live.

It also shows that no matter how many laws the federal or state government passes, if elections officials implement them in a wrongful or incompetent manner, true election reform can never have real meaning.

snip/wow!

[sweettater]

2. "historical benchmark of 40 percent"

he's there according to msn. :shrug: :eyes: