Forget the polls. President Bush can bring them out on the streets

Maybe it's the streets being closed off. Maybe it's the prospect of the great limo -- well, actually, two limos, identical, with identical presidential seals on the door and the U.S. and presidential flags flying from the fenders. Maybe it's the sirens and flashing lights and hoopla of the motorcade.

But whatever it is, President Bush -- the president whose cellar-dwelling poll numbers have fallen below the approval ratings of any predecessor at least since modern polling began -- can still bring crowds to the streets to watch him pass.

The Iraq war? Afghanistan? Stock market turmoil? Credit crisis? All the factors that have chipped away at the president's standing notwithstanding, so it was in Coral Gables, Fla., on Friday. The president was in the midst of a $500,000 Republican fundraising visit and a short celebration with Cuban-Americans marking the 140th anniversary of Cuba's independence from Spain.

To be sure, it's nothing like an inaugural parade, such as the one in the picture above.

Still, our Chicago Tribune and Swamp colleague Mark Silva noted in his pool report that, observed from the press van at the tail end of the motorcade, the streets can come alive for the president.

"You know the polls," he wrote in his report, "but still people will line the street and wave, as they did today, as the president's motorcade rolled away from Havana Henry's in Coral Gables at 4:37 p.m. and up LeJeune Road bound for Miami's airport."

He wrote:

Along the route small groups of people stood at the corners and waved at the passing president, mainly older folks, it seemed, but among them small groups of schoolkids in uniform. A big American flag waved at the president at one corner, the small crowd cheering.

On the other hand, he observed: "Only an occasional and much smaller group of people, younger, displayed any signs of disapproval. Fingers were waved. Fewer than a dozen. A few hundred were more appreciative, guessing the total."

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: Leslie Kossoff/ AFP

Comments

[plankbob]

"What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." -- GW Bush

Some people will pay good money to see the bearded lady at the freak show too.

[southoc]

He has dragged the US into the gutter. Thank you very much to 1/2 the country who thought it was more important to keep a war time president no matter how stupid.

[Reyne]

Perhaps then, there is something wrong with the polls? I know people all over the country and not one of them has ever been polled about President Bush.

[Jorge I. Gomez]

People are really stupid or masochists or both. This "admiration" for the captain of the Titanic, makes no sense. It would be like a bunch of Jews saluting Hitler when he went or goes by or maybe people really love a parade. This is what I don't understand the sanity or insanity of many people. ABC went to Ohio and it seems like the economy has hit everybody there real hard, so, for whom, would you ask< are they voting for? For another third Bush term. This looks like a massive suicide and people don't want to recapacitate, but continue to the abyss. People deserve what they wish for. They wanted corruption, they got it; they wanted political nepotism, they got it; they wanted the administration above the law, they got it, but watch when they start complaining about the economy, they won't stop whining until the cows come home. Go figure!

[druid dude]

George W. Bush was one of the least most qualified persons to become president. However, compared to Barack Obama, George W. Bush is a Rhodes Scholar. Barack Obama is shockingly less qualified than George W. Bush. Whereas George W. Bush had a resume, Barack Obama has no resume, other than writing two books about himself. Financially speaking, the next four years do not look good for the U.S. In 2012, perhaps we'll finally get a qualified presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or someone that understands the financial markets. Barack Obama will be an extension of the 1976 Jimmy Carter presidency.

[Gus Philpott]

Hopefully, they were all waving Good Bye to Dubya.

[joan ca]

Has anyone thought the applauding was because it's his last days of the presidency? You betcha (per palin) I would give him more than a wave!

[Paul]

Oh come on - read what he wrote, not what the headline & photo imply.

"...small groups of people stood at the corners and waved at the passing president, mainly older folks,... small groups of schoolkids in uniform. ... the small crowd cheering.

... much smaller group of people, younger, displayed any signs of disapproval. ...Fewer than a dozen. A few hundred were more appreciative, guessing the total."

So a few hundred people stood on corners and waved at the passing limos, the streets were not "lined", the photo is from the inaugural parade. This story is pretty meaningless to try and prove any point of view. Was this announced in advance? How long was the route that drew a 'few hundred' people? There are people on most street corners normally, were they actually waiting? Unless it was 2 or 3 blocks, a few hundred people is pretty meager.

The only solid conclusion you can draw from this is that the people that waved well outnumbered the people that didn't, and whoever put together this article wanted to convince people that Bush is still well liked - witness the photo choice and headline, at odds with the few actual facts from the reporter on the scene.

[WyomingBob]

"a short celebration with Cuban-Americans marking the 140th anniversary of Cuba's independence from Spain."

140th? Didn't we fight against Spain to free Cuba in the Spanish-American War in 1898? Perhaps the Spaniards left Cuba 30 years earlier, and we just had some bad intelligence? History tells us there was a 10-year war between the Cubans and Spain that started in 1868, but that ended in a stalemate. However, I'm sure John McCain was there, two months after it began, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

[Lonnie Tullis]

I've been around a long time and have a good memory and I've never been presented with a choice as awful as the one I'll face on Nov 4th. Neither of the candidates offers me the assurance that the issues I really care about would be handled to my satisfaction if either one of them were elected as President of the United States.

There is a long history of people in this country voting AGAINST one cadidate over the other. They vote against their fears rather than FOR someone who can make their fears disappear. The reason is, quite simply, that the two major parties have the whole show rigged and as long as the electoral college is in place that situation is impossible to change.

The promises that candidates make during their campaigns are rarely made good during their terms of office. For the most part, the things they promise are not even within their power to deliver. Lies and more lies. People can't vote FOR something because the candidate, if they should win, cannot deliver anyway.

In 1964 (my first opportunity to vote), I voted AGAINST Lyndon Johnson -- the creep who, in his campaign speechs promised he "would never send American boys to fight in an Asian war". In 1968, after returning from Southeast Asia, I voted AGAINST Hubert Humphrey, for obvious reasons. In 1972, I abstained from voting -- the options were just too depressing.

In 1976, I voted AGAINST Gerald Ford, who had cut a backroom political deal to circumvent the judicial process by pardoning Nixon. In 1980, I voted AGAINST Jimmy Carter, a decent but weak-willed politician who repeatedly prayed, cried and crapped his pants as one calamity after another showed up on his doorstep.

In 1984, I was happy to vote FOR Ronald Reagan and AGAINST Walter Mondale -- an "empty suit" in every sense of the word. In 1988, I voted AGAINST Mike Dukakis, "Snoopy in a tank" -- a man so obviouly niave that he considered Jimmy Carter to have been a conservative.

In 1992, I voted AGAINST George H. W. Bush, another completely out-of-touch clown who had managed to find his way onto a major party ticket. He gave me three memorable reasons to vote AGAINST him -- 1) "Read my lips ... no new taxes," 2) "It (the Gulf War) is not about oil," and 3) during the presidential debates, while the country was sliding down deeper and deeper into a recession, he repeatedly told us that things "were not as bad as (we) thought."

In 1996, after suffering through 4 years of the Hilly-Billy show, and faced with an aged and politically bought-and-paid-for candidate (Dole) from the other major party, I voted FOR Harry Brown. It wasn't so much that I thought he had even a remote chance of winning, it was because his candidacy gave me a way to vote AGAINST both Clinton and Dole.

In 2000, I continued that same tactic by voting AGAINST both major parties and for Ralph Nader. Again, if I thought there was even a remote chance he could win the White House, I wouldn't have voted at all. But voting for Nader let me record my displeasure at the choices (Bush or Gore) presented to me by the major parties. In 2004, I did the same thing -- voted AGAINST Bush and Kerry -- by voting for Ralph Nader.

Yes, I'll be voting for Nader again this year. He's on the ballot in my state, running as an "Independent American" with no party affiliation. By voting for Nader, I'm voting AGAINST both Obama and McCain.

Think about it.

[gastropoda]

Be nice to show a photo to back up the words here, given that most of America never saw the protests in the streets when this disaster was inaugurated in 2001.