Bush's numbers improving.
Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Posted: 6:52 p.m. EDT (22:52 GMT)
In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.
Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.
The latest poll results, released Tuesday, were based on interviews with 1,008 adults conducted by telephone October 21-23.
In the poll, 42 percent of those interviewed approved of the way the president is handling his job and 55 percent disapproved. In the previous poll, released October 17, 39 percent approved of Bush's job performance -- the lowest number of his presidency -- and 58 percent disapproved.
However, all the numbers are within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, so it's possible that the public's opinion has not changed at all.
More than half, 57 percent, said they don't agree with the president's views on issues that are important to them, while 41 percent said their views are in alignment with those of Bush on important issues.
Democrats preferred on issues
On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.
The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are.
And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.
This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.
___________________
The more he challenges the Dem's previously unchallenged noise of lies, the better he will do.
Yes, I'm seeing the same trend in the polls I watch, Lash. If President Bush stays angry and keeps giving speeches like he gave this week, he can turn it around.
I've been glad to see it.
It's about time. I know he has a distaste re presidents addressing partisan issues, but when people are continuing to make rampant, unsubstantiated accusations with impunity, it's time to fire back.
It's already making a difference.
Yay!
Hate to break the news but Bush's poll numbers are still trending down.
I am just wondering how someone's mindset has to be to think Bush is not in deep ****.
Bush is in deep ****? Does that mean he won't be re-elected?
Well he won't if only Democrats vote which I suspect are who is being polled in some of the results posted.
Fedral wrote:I love the way the Liberals are bemoaning the 'absolute control' of the Republicans in Congress and how bad it will be for the country.
Were they expressing the same sentiments for ALL the years that we had a Democrat majority in both Houses and a Democrat in the White House???
I think not!
I don't know what you mean by "the" liberals -- but this classical, European liberal has always preferred a gridlocked US government over the one-party kind. (PS: Whenever I see myself on the brink of turning into a Republican, it is collective invectives like yours that remind me I'm a liberal after all.)
At least the Republican, lilly livered wimps that they are, are attempting to do something here and there. As inadequaely as they represent the classical liberal ideology--the ideology that Americans call 'conservative'--it is the Democrats who have their heels dug in, no ideas, and obstruct any progress in any way they can. Thus is it the Democrats who are the classical conservatives these days.
Speaking of lawyers--we WERE speaking of lawyers somewhere--there is this:
Quote:AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Some 1,100 Iraqi lawyers have withdrawn from Saddam Hussein's defense team, citing insufficient protection following the slayings of two peers representing co-defendants of the ousted Iraqi leader.
In a statement obtained Sunday, the lawyers did not say whether Saddam's chief Iraqi attorney, Khalil al-Dulaimi, was among those who withdrew. But the statement said other members of the team in Baghdad were continuing their duties ``under complex and dangerous circumstances.''
Support lawyers for Saddam's team in Jordan were not immediately available for comment.
More at. . . .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5412002,00.html
Judging from the context, this was by no means the entire team. How many lawyers does one person, even one ex-dictator, need?
Lash wrote:There's very good news trickling out recently. The bombings in Jordon (OF MUSLIMS!!) a) turn fence sitting Muslims against AQ, and b) is evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.
The surrounding Arab countries aren't too happy about it--but that will just force them to help us eradicate terrorists. And, they are incensed that AQ is attacking them.
By your logic, another major attack on the scale of 9/11 on the United States would be "very good news", because it would a) turn fence sitting anti-war Liberals against AQ, and b) would be evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.
old europe wrote:Lash wrote:There's very good news trickling out recently. The bombings in Jordon (OF MUSLIMS!!) a) turn fence sitting Muslims against AQ, and b) is evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.
The surrounding Arab countries aren't too happy about it--but that will just force them to help us eradicate terrorists. And, they are incensed that AQ is attacking them.
By your logic, another major attack on the scale of 9/11 on the United States would be "very good news", because it would a) turn fence sitting anti-war Liberals against AQ, and b) would be evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.
OE, that's just silly. The USA has already had their attack and all reasonable people are already mad as hell and determined to take the fight to Al-Qaida. Now, at least for now, so is Jordan. When enough reasonable people of the world are mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore, Al-Qaida will be no more. The fence sitting anti-war Liberals should be persuaded by common sense, but unfortunate some have their opinions set in granite and are unwilling to be persuaded by anything other than what they have decided to believe.
Foxfyre wrote:old europe wrote:Lash wrote:There's very good news trickling out recently. The bombings in Jordon (OF MUSLIMS!!) a) turn fence sitting Muslims against AQ, and b) is evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.
The surrounding Arab countries aren't too happy about it--but that will just force them to help us eradicate terrorists. And, they are incensed that AQ is attacking them.
By your logic, another major attack on the scale of 9/11 on the United States would be "very good news", because it would a) turn fence sitting anti-war Liberals against AQ, and b) would be evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.
OE, that's just silly. The USA has already had their attack and all reasonable people are already mad as hell and determined to take the fight to Al-Qaida. Now, at least for now, so is Jordan. When enough reasonable people of the world are mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore, Al-Qaida will be no more. The fence sitting anti-war Liberals should be persuaded by common sense, but unfortunate some have their opinions set in granite and are unwilling to be persuaded by anything other than what they have decided to believe.
Of course that's just silly. It's as silly as calling attacks on a peaceful country - attacks that killed 57 innocent people - "very good news".
Were the London bombings "very good news", too? How about Madrid? Was that "very good news"? Or the attacks on Israel? Or maybe Bali, or Egypt, or Turkey?
Jordan, even though ruled by a king, is a democratic country. It has parliamentary and municipal elections, with a National Assembly that consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Do you feel there is a need to bomb them away from the course they are on? Do you think they have to be "persuaded", as you put it, by killing some of their citizens?
Sick.
I think OE, I am safe in speaking for Lash that she in no way rejoices in the death or injury to any innocent people or loss of innocent people's property. She does rejoice in the unintended good consequences of changes in attitude and resolve that such wickedness not be either condoned or allowed. I know you know the difference between the two.
Foxfyre wrote:I think OE, I am safe in speaking for Lash that she in no way rejoices in the death or injury to any innocent people or loss of innocent people's property. She does rejoice in the unintended good consequences of changes in attitude and resolve that such wickedness not be either condoned or allowed. I know you know the difference between the two.
I didn't know that the people of Jordan were considered to be on the terrorists' side or that their attitudes had needed a change.
But even if that was your belief, you should be careful on how you word it. For reference look at your own reaction when I used Lash's words.
old europe wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I think OE, I am safe in speaking for Lash that she in no way rejoices in the death or injury to any innocent people or loss of innocent people's property. She does rejoice in the unintended good consequences of changes in attitude and resolve that such wickedness not be either condoned or allowed. I know you know the difference between the two.
I didn't know that the people of Jordan were considered to be on the terrorists' side or that their attitudes had needed a change.
But even if that was your belief, you should be careful on how you word it. For reference look at your own reaction when I used Lash's words.
You used Lash's words to insinuate a motive that I simply do not believe she had in mind at all. And I said so. And as far as how I word things, I am more than happy to clarify my meaning if I say something unclearly or am misunderstood. My friends give me the opportunity to do so. Those who want to take me down don't and just draw their mean spirited conclusions. I do not consider you to be in that latter group.
I won't apologize for recognizing and appreciating the good that can come out of a tragic, indefensible, and unconscionable event such as the bombings in Jordan. If we don't capitalize on the good, all that remains is the evil.
Foxfyre wrote:old europe wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I think OE, I am safe in speaking for Lash that she in no way rejoices in the death or injury to any innocent people or loss of innocent people's property. She does rejoice in the unintended good consequences of changes in attitude and resolve that such wickedness not be either condoned or allowed. I know you know the difference between the two.
I didn't know that the people of Jordan were considered to be on the terrorists' side or that their attitudes had needed a change.
But even if that was your belief, you should be careful on how you word it. For reference look at your own reaction when I used Lash's words.
You used Lash's words to insinuate a motive that I simply do not believe she had in mind at all. And I said so. And as far as how I word things, I am more than happy to clarify my meaning if I say something unclearly or am misunderstood. My friends give me the opportunity to do so. Those who want to take me down don't and just draw their mean spirited conclusions. I do not consider you to be in that latter group.
I won't apologize for recognizing and appreciating the good that can come out of a tragic, indefensible, and unconscionable event such as the bombings in Jordan. If we don't capitalize on the good, all that remains is the evil.
I don't know what she had in mind. And rereading her post, I still find it offensive.
... but of course I'd appreciate it if she could clarify what she meant.
McTag wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:dyslexia wrote:Yeah Foxfyre that reminds me very little of Don Rumsfeld. But, it might be one of the reasons we lost the war of Iraq.
It's over?
That's news to most of us.
Most influential comment in newspapers here opines that the Iraq invasion is a failure, i.e. has not achieved its aims, and matters will not improve in the forseeable future.
I can understand, while not agreeing with, the opinion that the war in Iraq has
thus far been a failure. What I can't understand is the any assertion that the war in Iraq has been lost.
Clearly it is not over.
UK newspapers
of influence are perfectly welcome to their opinions as are ersatz Will Rogers in Wolf Hole Arizona, but I'm afraid I'm reluctant to grant them prescience.
