**** 28% ****

[conjur]

Bush Poll Ratings Before Speech Fall to Nixon's Level
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=a.aveoiqdgBU

CBS, NBC Polls

Bush reached an all-time low 28 percent approval rating in a CBS poll released today. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed in the CBS poll said they opposed Bush's sending 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, and 75 percent said the war there is going badly. Fifty percent said Congress shouldn't provide money for the 20,000 additional troops.

The CBS poll surveyed 1,168 adults nationwide by telephone from Jan. 18 to 21. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Almost two-thirds of people in the U.S. don't support a troop increase in Iraq if Congress passes a resolution opposing it, and don't believe the war can succeed, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Investigators questioned 1,007 adults from Jan. 17 to Jan. 20, and the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Bush is bitter cold. Only the bitter radicals still approve of this atrocious excuse of a President residing in the White House.

But, after all, he is still The Decider

:roll:


Oh, btw, with the SotU address coming up, be prepared for Iraq Justification Version 8 and probably some turds dropped making Iran smell like it's cooking up some mushroom clouds.

 

[techs]

What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

 

[Zebo]

I heard something on NPR he has the highest disapproval rating ever at 50%..the talking heads seem to think this more significant as it's usually unrecoverable.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: techs
What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

There isn't a :roll: icon big enough for that post.

<obligatory>Clinton News Network</obligatory>
Every bit as touted and every bit as (un)true, depending on your prefered slant.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: techs
What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

There isn't a :roll: icon big enough for that post.

<obligatory>Clinton News Network</obligatory>
Every bit as touted and every bit as (un)true, depending on your prefered slant.

Yeah that makes so much sense because CNN never jumped on the Monica Lewinski scandal circle jerk ... oh wait

but anyway, I totally agree it's really starting to distill the pool down to the zealous irrational few who still support him.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: techs
What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

There isn't a :roll: icon big enough for that post.

<obligatory>Clinton News Network</obligatory>
Every bit as touted and every bit as (un)true, depending on your prefered slant.

Yeah that makes so much sense because CNN never jumped on the Monica Lewinski scandal circle jerk ... oh wait

but anyway, I totally agree it's really starting to distill the pool down to the zealous irrational few who still support him.

CNN bashed on clinton right along with the rest of them.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: techs
What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

There isn't a :roll: icon big enough for that post.

<obligatory>Clinton News Network</obligatory>
Every bit as touted and every bit as (un)true, depending on your prefered slant.

You have to be fvcking kidding me, as an outsider it is kind obvious that Fox goes out of it's way to only report news that are good to Bush while CNN report those news too AND the rest.

Or is reporting all news including the ones that does not paint GW in a good light meaning a lefty commie slant these days?

For example, Fox will start something with "despite great efforts from american troops" whether they were even in the vincinity, now that is a lie, since it is a lie CNN will report the same story but without the lie and you go "ooooh, those commie bastards" simply because you have been told a lie to begin with.

THAT is the propaganda he's talking about and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: techs
What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

There isn't a :roll: icon big enough for that post.

<obligatory>Clinton News Network</obligatory>
Every bit as touted and every bit as (un)true, depending on your prefered slant.

Are you 12 years-old? Are you really claiming that CNN gave deference to Clinton that's comparable to Faux News' Sycophants for Bush?

I don't recall seeing a single CNN story about Flowers, Paula Jones, Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Lewinski, impeachment, Sudan/Afghanistan, not inhaling, draft dodging, Kathleen Willey and his willy, cheeseburgers, the dress, or Hillary's investment acumen. You're right. It's quite clear that CNN was allied with Clinton.:roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Even his formerly rubber stamp house and senate republicans are starting to join the democratic opposition
over Iraq---as they are running for cover and can read the tea leaves as well as anyone else. The last thing
the American people want to hear is any kind of escalation in Iraq.

I still doubt GWB&co. will willingly allow any kind of congressional supervision--he may take that figurative one
step back but will use any indirect means to get around any roadblocks in his way. I hope I am wrong, but I am guessing that a GWB&co. without a congressional rubber stamp will prove far more dangerous than a GWB&co. with a congressional majority.

 

[cyclohexane]

that's still high when compared to Taiwan's president's approval rating of 2%.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
that's still high when compared to Taiwan's president's approval rating of 2%.

yikes!

 

[Lemon law]

Well the only real question we should ask is how low can GWB go? I am sorta guessing 25% as a floor value.
But if GWB launches a plan that quickly flops it could go far far lower than that.

Sorta like that joke about the Chinese football coach---Win Wan Soon.

And let George do it is choosing a track record of lose every time. is there some virtue in consistency?

Mr. 90% approval has managed to parlay those impressive numbers down to size---just like his daddy--only with
far more dishonesty. GHB will stand the test of time as a run of the mill President with some good things to point to.

GWB's history has yet to end---somehow I doubt time will be kind to his standing---but he may yet prove to be a shining example of what future leaders should NEVER DO!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: techs
What makes the 28 percent even more appalling is that Bush is the first President to have an entire network of propaganda (fox) pushing his agenda.

There isn't a :roll: icon big enough for that post.

<obligatory>Clinton News Network</obligatory>
Every bit as touted and every bit as (un)true, depending on your prefered slant.

Are you 12 years-old? Are you really claiming that CNN gave deference to Clinton that's comparable to Faux News' Sycophants for Bush?

I don't recall seeing a single CNN story about Flowers, Paula Jones, Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Lewinski, impeachment, Sudan/Afghanistan, not inhaling, draft dodging, Kathleen Willey and his willy, cheeseburgers, the dress, or Hillary's investment acumen. You're right. It's quite clear that CNN was allied with Clinton.:roll:

For crying out loud... I specifically used the CNN poke as an example how CNN was NOT a Clinton ally. I even said as much in my post. The "liberal media" was no more pandering en masse to Clinton than Fox does to Bush. Next time I'll spell it out so it doesn't fly over all your heads.

 

[slash196]

The SotU will be interesting this year. I predict much fewer standing ovations.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: slash196
The SotU will be interesting this year. I predict much fewer standing ovations.

I found it interesting one of the loudest ones from the Republicans was about tort reform (I thought they already passed legislation that dealt with that?)

 

[Hecubus2000]

You would think that after the last two presidential elections, people would realize that poles are not a good indicator of measuring something of this nature. Especially when the results are obtained over the internet.

 

[Lemon law]

Now that the SOTU speech is over---its time to comment about how the battle lines are shaping up---and the democratic rebuttal delivered by Jim Webb. And the constitution of the United States which is supposed to govern how conflicts of this nature between the executive and legislative are supposed to be resolved.

Given that the election of 11/06 was basically a public vote of no confidence in GWB&co. I comment on the democratic response first. The democratic response basically boiled down to the line that GWB&co, could either lead in the right direction or the new democratic majority would show GWB&co. the correct way.

The Presidents SOTU domestic agenda clearly contains elements both republicans and democrats can agree needs addressed. The real question is can the President control that agenda or will the democrats seize that agenda and go further than the President is willing to tolerate? But some common ground exists across vague public policy with the devil lying in the details. And hence the delivered SOTU speech lines register well on the applause meter.

What failed to register on the applause meter in the SOTU speech was the advocated position of the GWB administration regarding Iraq. What we all longed to hear was some sort of advocacy for a bold new diplomatic initiative. Instead we got a more of the same plus a surge. Precisely what GWB&co's track record has not earned, exactly what most did not want to hear, and 100% against the message of the of the the 11/06 election.

And now a day later GWB&co. is floating a request for a free hand to do anything they care to in the region. Which I am pretty sure congress will not grant. And congress also has the power of the purse. They can cut funding for this optional war, so strangling the President, and thereby setting up a constitutional struggle and a divisive public pissing contest that will throw the baby out with the bath water. In short we have a lose lose situation pitting an idiotic executive against a less idiotic but more grid locked congress.

Our founding fathers clearly tucked the responsibility for the conduct of a war into the executive branch. And likewise tucked the responsibility of conducting foreign policy into the executive as well.

Which means--at least in my mind, the possibility that the other constitutional remedy of Presidential impeach.

 

[Genx87]

I am sure his re-election comittee is shatting itself right now.

What is the point of these stupid polls and troll threads anyways? Bush is gone in under 2 years, he could have a 0% approval rating and nothing will change it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am sure his re-election comittee is shatting itself right now.

What is the point of these stupid polls and troll threads anyways? Bush is gone in under 2 years, he could have a 0% approval rating and nothing will change it.

His particular stink rubs off on the GOP at-large, that's the point. God save any Republican running for President if it's the same old stay-the-course+20K troops line from Bush two years from now and the Iraq occupation grinds on into its 5th year and US$ Trillion is down the shitter.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
You would think that after the last two presidential elections, people would realize that poles are not a good indicator of measuring something of this nature. Especially when the results are obtained over the internet.

Well I, for one, wouldn't take the word of a Pole over a poll either.

Esp. one taken over the internet.


The CBS poll surveyed 1,168 adults nationwide by telephone from Jan. 18 to 21. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

🙂

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
You would think that after the last two presidential elections, people would realize that poles are not a good indicator of measuring something of this nature. Especially when the results are obtained over the internet.

Well I, for one, wouldn't take the word of a Pole over a poll either.

Esp. one taken over the internet.


The CBS poll surveyed 1,168 adults nationwide by telephone from Jan. 18 to 21. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

🙂

😱 Lol, I guess taking too many AT Off Topic ?poles? has finally rubbed off on me.

Regardless of the types of methods used to gather the poll results, I believe that the sample size is not large enough to accurately represent the Country. In addition, the fact that it had been conducted by CBS and NBC is enough to question the poll?s validity.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
You would think that after the last two presidential elections, people would realize that poles are not a good indicator of measuring something of this nature. Especially when the results are obtained over the internet.

Well I, for one, wouldn't take the word of a Pole over a poll either.

Esp. one taken over the internet.


The CBS poll surveyed 1,168 adults nationwide by telephone from Jan. 18 to 21. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

🙂

😱 Lol, I guess taking too many AT Off Topic ?poles? has finally rubbed off on me.

Regardless of the types of methods used to gather the poll results, I believe that the sample size is not large enough to accurately represent the Country. In addition, the fact that it had been conducted by CBS and NBC is enough to question the poll?s validity.

Oh, FFS.

:roll:


Never taken a Statistics class, eh?

 

[techs]

Bush is frozen solid but he's still The Decider

Actually James Webb has just informed Bush that the Constitution says Congress is the Decider and will soon exercise that power.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
😱 Lol, I guess taking too many AT Off Topic ?poles? has finally rubbed off on me.

Regardless of the types of methods used to gather the poll results, I believe that the sample size is not large enough to accurately represent the Country. In addition, the fact that it had been conducted by CBS and NBC is enough to question the poll?s validity.

Dude, that's twice in a row you've managed to own yourself. Geeze, take a breather and maybe pick up a book

 

[trenchfoot]

seems pretty obvious that bush does not care one iota about public opinion, election results and how to properly face facts. it also seems pretty obvious that his power of rationalizng his thoughts are impressive beyond description.

his single-minded stubborness on how he is running our ship of state alludes to a priority that even transcends the welfare of the party he leads. for surely, he must know how much damage he has done to it and how much further damage will ensue if he "stays the course". yet, Mr. George "Don Quixote" Bush carries on, blinders, ear muffs and baby mittens securely in place, regaling himself of his own heroic deeds that he performed whilst standing on that well-worn spot in front of his full length bedroom mirror.

throughout his tenure as CIC, he has proven time and again that what really matters to him is sticking to his own misguided opinion of himself and his abilities as our leader. this list is as long as it is infamous.

he has anointed himself as "the decider". but he has never ever blamed himself personally for all the screwed up decisions he has personally made since taking office.

although proven beyond doubt that he and his henchmen lied to the world to get us to invade iraq, he is still insisting that the CIA gave him faulty data instead of recognizing the facts of the matter: they coerced, cherry-picked and fraudulently cooked up the intel they were looking for to support what turned out be their excuses for invading.

the "war on terror" was and is a creation of his own making and is thoroughly integrated with the lies and half-truths that were made by him and his crew of pathologial liars to justify it.

he is insisting on behaving this way, and he is insisting that his way is the right way and every other way is treasonous and un-patriotic.

small wonder then at his poll numbers, and, from a logical point of view, he must not care.