{"id":69869,"date":"2008-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-03T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/05\/03\/gw-absolument-historique\/"},"modified":"2008-05-03T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-05-03T00:00:00","slug":"gw-absolument-historique","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/05\/03\/gw-absolument-historique\/","title":{"rendered":"GW absolument historique"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le pr\u00e9sident GW Bush verra sans aucun doute l’exaucement de son voeu secret (il en a un, il nous l’a dit) de rester dans l’Histoire. A tous les points de vue, GW termine son mandat d’une fa\u00e7on historique par son caract\u00e8re exceptionnel. Nul n’a jamais fait comme lui avant lui et l’on se demande si quelqu’un pourra faire mieux (c’est-\u00e0-dire pire, mais \u00e0 quoi cela sert-il d’insister?).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t D’abord, les sondages qui d\u00e9filent et le fixent effectivement dans l’Histoire. GW bat tous les records de l’histoire statistique des USA par les opinions n\u00e9gatives. Un nouveau sondage (CNN\/Opinion Research Corp. du 2 mai<\/a>) nous le confirme: \u00abBush Disapproval Rating Makes History<\/em>\u00bb. Ce qui est remarquable, ce sont effectivement les opinions n\u00e9gatives qui battent tous les records (alors que les opinions positives restent meilleures que ses deux concurrents en impoptlarit\u00e9, Harry Truman et Richard Nixon).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abA CNN\/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president. No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president’s disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark, said Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBush’s approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon [22 percent and 24 percent, respectively], but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s, Holland said. The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhile Gallup polling goes back to the 1930s, it wasn’t until the Truman years that they began surveying monthly approval ratings.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974. President Nixon’s disapproval rating in August 1974 stood at 66 percent.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t On ajoutera un autre r\u00e9sultat (du m\u00eame sondage), confirmant le pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, notamment dans la mesure o\u00f9 la raret\u00e9 du cas de GW est qu’il soul\u00e8ve plus l’opinion contre lui qu’il n’est abandonn\u00e9 par ses rares soutiens. Il s’agit de l’opinion sur la guerre en Irak, malgr\u00e9 les efforts m\u00e9ritoires de ces 16 derniers mois et le montage du surge<\/em> du complaisant g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Petraeus: \u00abThe poll also indicates that support for the war in Iraq has never been lower. Thirty percent of those questioned favored the war, while 68 percent opposed it. Americans are growing more pessimistic about the war, Holland said. In January, nearly half believed that things were going well for the U.S. in Iraq; now that figure has dropped to 39 percent.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Un autre aspect fait sortir d\u00e9finitivement GW Bush des s\u00e9ries pour nous convaincre qu’il y a chez lui quelque chose d’unique: sa roborative certitude d’avoir raison et son intention de poursuivre jusqu’au dernier jour sa bataille, notamment contre le Congr\u00e8s, dans divers domaines o\u00f9 il n’a absolument aucune chance d’imposer quoi que ce soit. Il y a sans aucun doute quelque chose d’admirable chez lui, un ent\u00eatement d’une puissance inou\u00efe, une formidable assurance, dont l’effet est de ne cesser d’accentuer la destruction et la puissance du syst\u00e8me. Il s’agit d’un somnambule extraordinairement actif, entreprenant, on dirait presque: joyeux<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tM\u00eame le digne et conformiste, et notoirement align\u00e9 Washington Post<\/em> ne peut dissimuler, entre les lignes, une certaine stup\u00e9faction, voire m\u00eame de la fascination devant un animal aussi rare, d’une esp\u00e8ce dont on ne croyait pas qu’elle p\u00fbt exister. Tout cela se trouve dans un article du Post<\/em> de ce jour<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAfter U.S. gasoline prices surged to a record high this week, President Bush strode into the Rose Garden to unveil his plans for coping with skyrocketing energy costs: drill for oil in Alaska, add U.S. refineries and build more nuclear plants. Even the White House conceded that the ideas did not have a chance. Democrats howled, Republicans shrugged and Washington moved on.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIgnoring the conventions of a lame-duck presidency, Bush is forging ahead with proposals that appear to have little chance of passage during his last nine months, relying on sharp rhetoric and strong-arm tactics in an attempt to influence the Democratic Congress. His plan for housing reform has languished since August, his push for a free trade pact with Colombia has been crushed, his climate-warming initiative has been largely ignored and he has yet to persuade the House to pass terrorist-surveillance legislation he deems vital to protecting the country.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbPresidential aides characterize Bush as intent on pursuing matters of principle, regardless of the polls. Democrats accuse him of needless stubbornness at the expense of improving a battered economy and addressing other problems.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI believe they’re letting the American people down, Bush said of Congress during his Tuesday news conference in the Rose Garden. He added a moment later: I’m perplexed, I guess is the best way to describe it, about why there’s no action inactivity on big issues.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’affaire est si \u00e9tonnante que m\u00eame des commentateurs qu’on classerait parmi ses adversaires ne peuvent s’emp\u00eacher d’une certaine admiration. (Certes c’est cela ou bien c’est reconna\u00eetre qu’un syst\u00e8me qui permet une telle situation, comme le fait le syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, est quelque chose qui signe son propre arr\u00eat de mort.) \u00abPatrick J. Griffin, a White House legislative affairs chief during the Clinton administration, said Bush appears unconcerned with major legislation in his final year and is focused instead on long-range conservative goals. They’re at a moment where their concern about a legacy is much bigger than how much legislation they pass, Griffin said. He’s defining himself as a man of principle and obviously not caring about the polls, not caring about what’s politically expedient. Based on those criteria, then he’s doing it just right.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl est certain qu’au fil du temps, lorsqu’il s’av\u00e8re que les choses ne varient pas, lorsque le personnage tient ferme sur ses positions \u00e0 ce point, on ne peut se d\u00e9fendre d’une certaine estime. C’est une sorte de chapeau l’artiste. GW Bush a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 d’une fa\u00e7on presque uniforme, sans un pli, d’une fa\u00e7on presque parfaite en un sens, une seule et unique politique, dont la caract\u00e9ristique centrale est bien entendu la nullit\u00e9 absolue avec un caract\u00e8re absolument destructeur. Ecartons cette caract\u00e9ristique centrale de la nullit\u00e9 sans la moindre h\u00e9sitation et appr\u00e9cions la rectitude de l’ent\u00eatement. La puissance de sa psychologie, dans cette bataille pour maintenir droit le cap d’une politique nulle jusqu’au dernier souffle de sa pr\u00e9sidence, est de l’ordre de l’exception. D’un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9 et parce que les voies du Seigneur sont imp\u00e9n\u00e9trables, si GW a eu comme mission de d\u00e9truire la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste, ce qui prouverait qu’effectivement il reste en rapport constant avec le Seigneur, on ne pourrait alors que s’exclamer \u00e0 propos de sa dimension historique. Jamais aucun homme n’aurait pu et ne pourrait faire mieux, et il s’agit d’un personnage historique. Nanti de cette certitude, il est assur\u00e9 que GW Bush ira jusqu’au bout.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 3 mai 2008 \u00e0 18H00<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le pr\u00e9sident GW Bush verra sans aucun doute l’exaucement de son voeu secret (il en a un, il nous l’a dit) de rester dans l’Histoire. A tous les points de vue, GW termine son mandat d’une fa\u00e7on historique par son caract\u00e8re exceptionnel. Nul n’a jamais fait comme lui avant lui et l’on se demande si… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[868,3198,3518,5370,1492],"class_list":["post-69869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bush","tag-gw","tag-histoire","tag-impopularite","tag-sondages"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69869\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}