News The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[pattylou]

Kat: I follow Rasmussen, too.

But interestingly, if you go to Polling report

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and look through polls by different organisations... Most show a definite downward trend, and Rasmussen is a definite outlyer.

You also have to concede that the 36% report is the first time in his residency that he has hit so low, under any circumstances ---- This is getting into Carter territory. WE may have to "weight" it and I doubt he can sink much lower as his core won't abandon him, but there is no denying we haven't seen anything as low as 36% reported before.

The trend would seem to be downwards, taking all such information into account.

 

[TRCSF]

Aaaaaanndddd then there's Fruitcake!

BAHAHA!

Feel free to address any of the points made.

 

[edward]

The latest Gallup poll shows Bush's approval rating to be the lowest of any second term president in recent history.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=18148

As for His henchmen, they are incredibly Nazi like in their media control and dissinformation tactics. Planting a fake reporter in news conferences, and sending "canned" news releases to the media, was an all time low for a presidents cabinet.

Outing the name of a CIA agent, in retaliation because someone told them the truth, was a criminal act.

As for Bush and Hitler, they do have one thing in common: Neither was particularly successful at anything until they discovered politics.

 

[Smurf]

Do you sincerely believe that to be the reason? They already have a Cross and a Crescent. How naive can you be?

Yes, I do believe that to be the reason. What do you believe then, more nazi's have it out for israel?

 

[vanesch]

Could you be more specific...?

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

This one is great: even Hitler knew that the "war on terror(ists)" was a lost cause:

One question came to the fore, however: can spiritual ideas be exterminated by the sword? Can 'philosophies' be combated by the use of brute force?
Even at that time I pondered this question more than once: If we ponder analogous cases, particularly on a religious basis, which can be found in history, the following fundamental principle emerges:
Conceptions and ideas, as well as movements with a definite spiritual foundation, regardless whether the latter is false or true, can, after a certain point in their development, only be broken with technical instruments of power if these physical weapons are at the same time the support of a new kindling thought, idea, or philosophy.
The application of force alone, without the impetus of a basic spiritual idea as a starting point, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its dissemination, except in the form of a complete extermination of even the very last exponent of the idea and the destruction of the last tradition. This, however, usually means the disappearance of such a state from the sphere of political importance, often for an indefinite time and some-times forever; for experience shows that such a blood sacrifice strikes the best part of the people, since every persecution which occurs without a spiritual basis seems morally unjustified and whips up precisely the more valuable parts of a people in protest, which results in an adoption of the spiritual content of the unjustly persecuted movement. In many this occurs simply through a feeling of opposition against the attempt to bludgeon down an idea by brute force.
As a result, the number of inward supporters grows in proportion as the persecution increases. Consequently, the complete annihilation of the new doctrine can be carried out only through a process of extermination so great and constantly increasing that in the end all the truly valuable blood is drawn out of the people or state in question. The consequence is that, though a so-called 'inner' purge can now take place, it will only be at the cost of total impotence. Such a method will always prove vain in advance if the doctrine to be combated has overstepped a certain small circle.

 

[pattylou]

I'll give it a rest in a minute (and apologies for off-topic-ness relating to the OP) but these graphics say something (Google image "bush approval" for more similar results - I chose these because they are current)

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/NEWBUSHINDEX_3657_image001.gif

(The three major peaks correspond to 9/11, Iraq war, and Saddam captured)

Edit: Ooops! Sorry, 9/11 isn't on the graph. It would have been one month prior. The first major peak may correspond to Afghanistan, but I'm not sure.


http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif

I tried to insert the images directly, no luck.

 

[vanesch]

Some fragments of Mein Kampf on propaganda. Note that Hitler learned it from the British and the Americans :-)

There seems to have been no clarity on the very first question: Is propaganda a means or an end?
It is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves. It is also obvious that its aim can vary in importance from the standpoint of general need, and that the inner value of the propaganda will vary accordingly. The aim for which we were fighting the War was the loftiest, the most overpowering, that man can conceive: it was the freedom and independence of our nation, the security of our future food supply, and-our national honor; a thing which, despite all contrary opinions prevailing today, nevertheless exists, or rather should exist, since peoples without honor have sooner or later lost their freedom and independence, which in turn is only the result of a higher justice, since generations of rabble without honor deserve no freedom. Any man who wants to be a cowardly slave can have no honor) or honor itself would soon fall into general contempt

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.
The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely canceled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

For instance, it was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous, as the Austrian and German comic papers did. It was absolutely wrong because actual contact with an enemy soldier was bound to arouse an entirely different conviction, and the results were devastating; for now the German soldier, under the direct impression of the enemy's resistance, felt himself swindled by his propaganda service. His desire to fight, or even to stand film, was not strengthened, but the opposite occurred. His courage flagged.
By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound. By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the individual soldier for the terrors of war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments. After this, the most terrible weapon that was used against him seemed only to confirm what his propagandists had told him; it likewise reinforced his faith in the truth of his government's assertions, while on the other hand it increased his rage and hatred against the vile enemy For the cruel effects of the weapon, whose use by the enemy he now came to know, gradually came to confirm for him the 'Hunnish' brutality of the barbarous enemy, which he had heard all about; and it never dawned on him for a moment that his own weapons possibly, if not probably, might be even more terrible in their effects.
And so the English soldier could never feel that he had been misinformed by his own countrymen, as unhappily was so much the case with the German soldier that in the end he rejected everything coming from this source as 'swindles' and 'bunk.' All this resulted from the idea that any old simpleton (or even somebody who was intelligent ' in other things ') could be assigned to propaganda work, and the failure to realize that the most brilliant psychologists would have been none too good.
And so the German war propaganda offered an unparalleled example of an 'enlightenment' service working in reverse, since any correct psychology was totally lacking.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

As soon as our own propaganda admits so much as a glimmer of right on the other side, the foundation for doubt in our own right has been laid. The masses are then in no position to distinguish where foreign injustice ends and our own begins. In such a case they become uncertain and suspicious, especially if the enemy refrains from going in for the same nonsense, but unloads every bit of blame on his adversary. Isn't it perfectly understandable that the whole country ends up by lending more credence to enemy propaganda, which is more unified and coherent, than to its own?

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

But the masses are slowmoving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.
When there is a change, it must not alter the content of what the propaganda is driving at, but in the end must always say the same thing. For instance, a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.

 

[Burnsys]

Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops!

 

[edward]

Aaaaaanndddd then there's Fruitcake!

BAHAHA!

Take the recent flap over Durbin's comments concerning detention practices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Quoting from an FBI report — which described one detainee, chained by hand and foot, covered in his own defecation — the Illinois Democrat expressed legitimate horror at our conduct. In response, no government official ever denied that the incident took place; more importantly, no government official ever offered any defense that the detainee to whom it happened was of particular consequence. Instead, the focus was on Durbin's unfortunate (and subsequently retracted) reference to the tactics of Nazi Germany.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/071005_kayyem.htm

As this article states, Durbin's entire point was lost when he used the term Nazi. His message was about the treatment of prisoners. So what do we call that treatment?

A four year long series of Administration approved, inhuman, immoral acts, works for me. If a normal person would be sent to prison for treating a dog like the prisoners were treated, something is wrong with the situation.

Historically the last time people were treated in this manner by a government approved program it was in Nazi Germany. Thinking people got to looking at the situation and realized that there were other aspects of the Administration's tactics that had similar Hitlerian overtones.

Me thinks you want to have your fruitcake and eat it too.

 

[TRCSF]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/071005_kayyem.htm

As this article states, Durbin's entire point was lost when he used the term Nazi. His message was about the treatment of prisoners. So what do we call that treatment?

QUOTE]

The photos clearly show troops raping, torturing, and murdering human beings.

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

 

[edward]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/071005_kayyem.htm

As this article states, Durbin's entire point was lost when he used the term Nazi. His message was about the treatment of prisoners. So what do we call that treatment?

QUOTE]

The photos clearly show troops raping, torturing, and murdering human beings.

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

The problem is that if the term Nazi is used, it carries such a nasty connotation that Bush defenders (Karl Rove) can use it to distract people from looking at the facts. And that is exactly what happened in Durbin's case.

 

[TRCSF]

The problem is that if the term Nazi is used, it carries such a nasty connotation that Bush defenders (Karl Rove) can use it to distract people from looking at the facts. And that is exactly what happened in Durbin's case.

Yup, which is probably why he retracted it. Nevertheless, he was right.

So what does that say about the Bush defenders?

 

[Hurkyl]

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

Well, seeing how "Nazi" refers either to a specific political party, or one of its members, it certainly is not applicable as a description of treatment of prisoners.


The whole principle here is fairly well documented in articles on Godwin's law: I suggest you go read up on that. But the main point is that people make comparisons with Nazis specifically for the emotional response it invokes -- in other words, because they want to argue with emotion, and not reason. This is why it is often said that the first one in an internet debate to invoke the word "Nazi" loses the debate: it's usually a crystal clear indication that the person has given up on rational arguments.

Comparisons with Nazis usually (implicitly) take the fallacious form:

Person A did B.
Nazis did B.
Therefore, person A is as bad as a Nazi.

 

[TRCSF]

Well, seeing how "Nazi" refers either to a specific political party, or one of its members, it certainly is not applicable as a description of treatment of prisoners.


The whole principle here is fairly well documented in articles on Godwin's law: I suggest you go read up on that. But the main point is that people make comparisons with Nazis specifically for the emotional response it invokes -- in other words, because they want to argue with emotion, and not reason. This is why it is often said that the first one in an internet debate to invoke the word "Nazi" loses the debate: it's usually a crystal clear indication that the person has given up on rational arguments.

Comparisons with Nazis usually (implicitly) take the fallacious form:

Person A did B.
Nazis did B.
Therefore, person A is as bad as a Nazi.

The term "Nazi" in the modern world can refer to either somebody who's literally a member of the party, or more commonly it's used figuratively as somebody who mirrors nazi behavior.

Godwin's Law is usually spot on the money. It works when people are using "Nazi" to describe somebody they just think is an *******. For example: "Boy, that traffic cop sure is a Nazi, I only parked illegally for a few minutes."

That's a perfect example of Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law does not apply when people actually are acting like Nazis, i.e. committing crimes against humanity.

 

[pattylou]

But the main point is that people make comparisons with Nazis specifically for the emotional response it invokes -- in other words, because they want to argue with emotion, and not reason.

Hmmmm. I disagree. I expect the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler" are useful descriptive words because they are readily accessible to so many individuals. If I say Bush is another Attila, well, people may get the reference, but won't have as clear and image as if I say "Hitler." Likewise for Napolean, or Ghengis Khan, or others - These are part of our history and we "know" them but not in the detail of knowing Hitler.

"He's a Hun."

It sounds bad, but what is that, exactly? Aren't Huns (somewhat) forgiven for the simple reason that they are pretty distant in our memory?

To the extent that "Nazi" carries an emotional charge, yes, I think that is part of the reason why people use the word. But I think people such words for other reasons as well.

You could theoretically get away from the terms altogether - and maybe this is what you're saying - and say simply that Bush is a liar, a thief, a torturer and a murderer. A slimebag. A chimp. A disgrace to the human species and an abomination to America. An embarassment and a moron. An ugly man with a misplaced savior complex who claims to talk to God. A man who can't ride a bicycle properly.

But each of these points has been debated Rovian style to negate them (as other notorious leaders were no doubt defended in similar style to get them off any individual charge.) But the gestalt of Bush is bad, and so is more succinctly summed up in a name, than in a list of offenses.

And no, I have not ever compared Bush to Hitler myself. This post is the closest I have ever done so and it was merely for the sake of debating your claim quoted above.

 

[edward]

Hmmm So how do we catagorize the infamous "Soup Nazi"?

 

[TRCSF]

Hmmm So how do we catagorize the infamous "Soup Nazi"?

Perfect example.

When I think of Godwin's Law I think of a scene from the Simpsons. Patty's manager at the DMV finds her lit cigarette, Homer covers for Patty and says it's his. As Homer takes a drag, the manager slaps it out of his mouth and says, "you, sir, are worse than Hitler."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As for Bush and Hitler, they do have one thing in common: Neither was particularly successful at anything until they discovered politics.

Actually Hitler had a somewhat successful military career before he was in politics.

The photos clearly show troops raping, torturing, and murdering human beings.

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

So then you're calling those troops Nazis? I thought we were talking about Bush? You do realize don't you that these people were Court Marshalled and punished for their crimes by our government whom you declare nazis.

Historically the last time people were treated in this manner by a government approved program it was in Nazi Germany. Thinking people got to looking at the situation and realized that there were other aspects of the Administration's tactics that had similar Hitlerian overtones

Historically Hitler built concentartion camps specifically for the purpose of torture and execution in mass numbers. How does this parallel? Secondly the last time something akin to what Hitler's Concentration Camps did was done was Abu Ghraib before the US invasion. Also so you know there have been other wars since WWII where people were captured and tortured and killed, and I'd like to add treated far worse than anyone held in Abu Ghraib under US control ever was.

Some of you people really need to read up on history and get some perspective. Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply childish and immature.

 

[hypatia]

Thank you Ape, your correct. We should compare him to a kudzu vine, invasive and nonproductive, and hard to get rid of. Apologies to all kudzu vines I have offended.

 

[edward]

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1148hiltercall

President Bush stunned political observers Thursday, announcing that he'd "prefer if the hardcore leftists out there would stop referring to me as Hitler" and maybe "tone things down a bit by calling me Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun."

Although not being a hardcore leftist, I shall henceforth from this very day honor the presidents own wishes. I shall now and forever refer to him as Attila the Hun

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, no. "Bush is a Nazi" remains an opinion. It does not change into a fact.

That's like saying that whether or not the world is round is an opinion. The Nazis are a specific group. Bush either is or is not a member of that group.

I'm actually floored here - is the entire problem with the politics forum that people don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion?

 

[russ_watters]

If you're asking if he's an official card carrying member of the National Socialist Party, then no, obviously he's not.

This is another obvious red flag for a crackpot argument: saying things that you know are factually wrong just for the emotional impact. It was good of you to admit it, though.

 

[kat]

Kat: I follow Rasmussen, too.

But interestingly, if you go to Polling report

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and look through polls by different organisations... Most show a definite downward trend, and Rasmussen is a definite outlyer.

You also have to concede that the 36% report is the first time in his residency that he has hit so low, under any circumstances ---- This is getting into Carter territory. WE may have to "weight" it and I doubt he can sink much lower as his core won't abandon him, but there is no denying we haven't seen anything as low as 36% reported before.

The trend would seem to be downwards, taking all such information into account.

I haven't seen anything resembling a 36% rating on the link you gave. I have an idea of where it may have come from..but I think if you look over the polls on the site you've linked to you'd have to agree 36% would probably be considered an abberation. I also don't see information on the Gallop poll linked in the post after your's on weighting or actual methodology. I'm not a Gallup subscribee so I don't believe I can access the information. Maybe someone else has it. I'd be curious to see it.
I suppose if your correct and if even after adjusting for methodology you were to find the extremely lower ratings. (Although I think it's deceptive for polling companies to compare #'s from polls using likely voters in some and all adults in this one) Bush's ratings are dropping...radically...and continue to...I guess we'll just have to get used to the idea that there's just no way he'll ever get elected in the next presidential election.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So I actually looked at the site. They have no plan. Their only plan is to walk out in the street and make as big a scene as possible. And they think this is going to get Bush out of office? I can't find mention of any other actions they are intending to make on that site. Have they contacted lawyers or their congressmen? Are they actually putting any sort of real effort into this?

 

[pattylou]

I haven't seen anything resembling a 36% rating on the link you gave. I have an idea of where it may have come from..but I think if you look over the polls on the site you've linked to you'd have to agree 36% would probably be considered an abberation. I also don't see information on the Gallop poll linked in the post after your's on weighting or actual methodology. I'm not a Gallup subscribee so I don't believe I can access the information. Maybe someone else has it. I'd be curious to see it.
I suppose if your correct and if even after adjusting for methodology you were to find the extremely lower ratings. (Although I think it's deceptive for polling companies to compare #'s from polls using likely voters in some and all adults in this one) Bush's ratings are dropping...radically...and continue to...I guess we'll just have to get used to the idea that there's just no way he'll ever get elected in the next presidential election.

I don't recall where it came from. I do recall that googling 36% approval Bush, will pull it up as one of the first hits. Particularly in Google News.

The issue isn't whether he will be elected in 2008. I'd guess he won't run. The issue is how low can he go, what effect can this have on everything from global opinion of America to the 2006 elections to how the Christian right may suffer as a result of his ratings.

I suppose there may be ramifications for Jeb, as well, in a 2012 bid. But that's getting increasingly speculative. The electorate seems to have a short attention span, and rightly try not to hold one person responsible for another's actions.

 

[vanesch]

The problem is that if the term Nazi is used, it carries such a nasty connotation that Bush defenders (Karl Rove) can use it to distract people from looking at the facts. And that is exactly what happened in Durbin's case.

Yes, I think I have to agree with Russ that you cannot call Bush a Nazi ; the point made earlier (and for which I extracted some stuff out of Mein Kampf thanks to Russ' link) that Bush applies similar propaganda techniques only means that Hitler and Bush understood the importance of this to convince people.

 

[vanesch]

I shall now and forever refer to him as Attila the Hun

How about Caligula ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about Caligula ?

Well he's from the south but he doesn't have a sister does he?

 

[redwinter]

how to do this...

I haven't checked the site yet but do they make any statements about how they will get Bush out of office? Here in CA we had a recall election, is something like that accounted for in Federal Law? Otherwise he would have to be brought up on criminal charges requiring an investigation and a full legal proceedings inorder to have him impeached. That in and of itself could take the next three years by which time he would be out of office anyway.

This movement's vision is more broad than just impeaching Bush. We're looking to push the entire administration out of power because of the unjust wars, torture, illegal detentions, repression of the rights of women and homosexuals, and moves toward a Christian fascist theocracy. It's not enough to impeach Bush, we'll just get Cheney and Bush's whole cabinet will still be in power pulling the strings. We need to organize a movement based on the same kind of "people power" that drove out the Ferdinand Marcos regime in the Phillippines a few years back -- mass resistance in all fields of society and culture.

The WCW call itself mentions that we can't rely on the Democrats to oppose anything that the Bush regime is doing. Look at their support for giving Bush the power to declare wars at will, supporting his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, letting Bush appoint whatever judicial nominees he wants (they barely put up a fight, and didn't filibuster anyone just not to lose the right to filibuster forever -- does that make sense to you?) Impeachment means that the Senate has to hold him accountable, and ultimately I think that they are in collusion with his interests more than those of most of the people.

And (speaking to someone who said "America voted for Bush") according to Wikipedia, 62,040,610 people in the U.S. voted for Bush. The voting age population of the U.S. (18+) at the time of the election was 215,694,000 - so about 28% of American adults voted for Bush (a lot of them who did so maybe because of some issue like religion or "moral values" -- which is obviously bull**** if you know what's really up with this regime, but you wouldn't if you only had access to Fox News). 46% of the voting age population did not vote -- about ten percent of that is non-citizens or felons without voting rights -- but I'm sure a large portion of those who didn't vote were people who are disillusioned with the electoral process in the U.S. and didn't like either Bush or Kerry (their positions were pretty similar anyway), and more than that, didn't think their vote mattered anyway since the Supreme Court seems to decide the elections more than the actual polls do.

And to those who say that this call contains a logical fallacy because of the following line:

"People look at all this and think of Hitler – and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance."

I don't see anything wrong or unfactual in that statement. Bush does remind people of Hitler. Bush's regime is trying to do things like imposing theocratic rule and denying women, gays, and anybody who doesn't fall in line with the Bush Regime's Christian Fascist agenda their fundamental rights -- including a lot of Christians and even anyone in his own "base" that criticizes any part of his plans. And the future IS in the balance: that's why I encourage everyone who agrees with the thrust of this call to distribute it themselves and start organizing for November 2nd right now.

 

[vanesch]

We're looking to push the entire administration out of power because of the unjust wars, torture, illegal detentions, repression of the rights of women and homosexuals, and moves toward a Christian fascist theocracy.

Looking from the outside that's also a bit the fear of many people of what's happening there. But you do have a problem: after all, the US is still a democratic system on paper. So why don't you play the game ? Start a political party ? If you think that the great majority of all citizens were disenfranchized with the two traditional parties, "there's a market to take". And honestly this debate over a few votes of who finally won or not doesn't matter. Does it really matter whether the leader represents 49.5% or 50.5% of the population ? He represents about half of it. This is not like a dictator whose true support is 5% and who claims to be elected by 95%.
Because ousting an administration is one thing, but what comes in place ? You ?