I heard Dick Morris the other day, and he stated the obvious that polls can move 20 points in a matter of weeks. The other factor is - take all the polls you want as a referendum on one man, but it doesn't mean that much until you bring another name into it and they run against each other.
As a conservative, I am backing Bush in the war on terror, I am not happy over spending, border security, illegal immigration, and spending, but I am infinitely much happier with court appointees and other things Bush has done than what any liberal would do. So if they asked my opinion for their poll, it would depend on how the questions are framed, but bottom line, no way would I vote for Kerry or Gore if given another chance.
okie wrote:I heard Dick Morris the other day, and he stated the obvious that polls can move 20 points in a matter of weeks. The other factor is - take all the polls you want as a referendum on one man, but it doesn't mean that much until you bring another name into it and they run against each other.
As a conservative, I am backing Bush in the war on terror, I am not happy over spending, border security, illegal immigration, and spending, but I am infinitely much happier with court appointees and other things Bush has done than what any liberal would do. So if they asked my opinion for their poll, it would depend on how the questions are framed, but bottom line, no way would I vote for Kerry or Gore if given another chance.
That's the thing. I get called for polls now and then and when asked that question re my satisfaction with the President's job performance, I usually say somewhat unsatisfactory for all the reasons Okie listed. That translates to DISAPPROVAL when the results are posted by the media, but would I vote for Bush again over any opponent like the ones the Democrats usually put up there? You bet I would.
The Conservative base is thoroughly ticked off right now. But the Democrats are going to have to give us somebody better I think to lure any Conservatives to their side.
We can hope that both the Congress and the President will start listening again.
When have we ever seen a Democrat say one thing and then actually stick to it?
Personally, I don't think the country has a thing to worry about in that the thought of "Future Speaker Pelosi" Et.Al. is going to bring a lot of people out of the wood work to keep the GOP in power. Just as it happened in 2004.
And don't forget Howard Dean. I predict he'll be one of the GOP's biggest assets.
SierraSong wrote:When have we ever seen a Democrat say one thing and then actually stick to it?
Personally, I don't think the country has a thing to worry about in that the thought of "Future Speaker Pelosi" Et.Al. is going to bring a lot of people out of the wood work to keep the GOP in power. Just as it happened in 2004.
And don't forget Howard Dean. I predict he'll be one of the GOP's biggest assets.
The best I can say is that the Democrats are definitely more blatant about saying one thing and then doing another as well as saying one thing to one constituency and then something entirely different to a different-minded constituency.
The GOP doesn't have a very good track record about talking Conservative during the campaign and then following through in practice, however. And I hope the Conservative base is letting them know how we feel about that in no uncertain terms.
Rush is pointing out today that somehow border security is labeled now as a conservative issue, and anyone advocating strict security and enforcing the laws are racist. I think they are dead wrong, and Washington and the press is totally out of touch. The politicians need to wake up and get this right or they are going to pay dearly at the polls.
I am personally tired of politicians using the accusation of racism as a tool in defending their stupid policies and politics instead of honestly debating the merits.
okie wrote:Rush is pointing out today that somehow border security is labeled now as a conservative issue, and anyone advocating strict security and enforcing the laws are racist. I think they are dead wrong, and Washington and the press is totally out of touch. The politicians need to wake up and get this right or they are going to pay dearly at the polls.
I am personally tired of politicians using the accusation of racism as a tool in defending their stupid policies and politics instead of honestly debating the merits.
Well you might as well hitch up and put up with it because I don't see any light at the end of this tunnel. The Senate is mostly just putting lipstick on the same old ineffective 1986 pig and trotting it out again with their bill, and the House bill is not even being discussed in the media anymore. The President is slowly giving in on some issues but is mostly backing the Senate version.
In the end we'll wind up with a policy that is unlikely to be one bit more effective than the previous failed policies have been. Since they aren't listening to the American people, all we can do is remind them that we are here by the votes we cast.
blueflame1 wrote: But there's a big difference between some of us who believe we're doing the right thing and moving forward and a group of people who want to pull out before the jobs is done.
And theres also a big difference among people that follow through with and stand by their decisions and the gutless wonders that won't even support what they voted for, namely a few politicians.
okie, Bushie is blaming the vast majority of Americans who disapprove of him for his failures. This is an interview the Failure in Chief will regret.
I wonder if those who smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that there is turmoil in the country will ever come to regret their attitude?
Foxfyre wrote:I wonder if those who smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that there is turmoil in the country will ever come to regret their attitude?
The first processions of those were already sighted - although those wimps still hide their faces ...
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I wonder if those who smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that there is turmoil in the country will ever come to regret their attitude?
The first processions of those were already sighted - although those wimps still hide their faces ...
Again, I miss whatever analogy you are making, Walter.
Foxfyre wrote:I wonder if those who smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that there is turmoil in the country will ever come to regret their attitude?
Speaking for myself, I don't smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that the country is in turmoil, in fact it makes me sad and disillusioned more than anything thinking that we have two more years of this administration. Also some of the policies that he has put in place might just stay there or take a long time to change or we might just elect another person with administration just like Bush or worse. He has succeeded in getting those judges to the bench and they are there for life baring some unforeseen event. I imagine that is going to effect decisions for a long time to come. There is nothing to rejoice about there in my book.
As for the poll numbers, maybe I am getting cynical but the American people seem to be fickle and easily swayed by events and a successful spin strategy. It's a long shot but slightly possible that the administration might turn things around. If they do, my views will remain the same with no regrets or shame.
While there is always room for honest differences of opinion, those judges on the bench is one area where I give the President very good marks. I hope that if there is another vacancy on the SCOTUS soon, it will be on his watch. We don't need more social engineering judges.
I give the President very high marks for a great economy. He didn't do it all, of course, but it has happened on his watch and his economic policies have been a contributing factor.
But there are some who obviously enjoy anything that makes the President look bad and who are unwilling to see anything that he has done as good. I think that's sad.
Foxfyre wrote: We don't need more social engineering judges.
I know, I know, you surely did mean that as it sounds on the other side of the big pond: keep the churches and religion out. (Here, 'social engineering' is somethimg predominantly related to churches and their organisations.)
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote: We don't need more social engineering judges.
I know, I know, you surely did mean that as it sounds on the other side of the big pond: keep the churches and religion out. (Here, 'social engineering' is somethimg predominantly related to churches and their organisations.)
No, it means something much more than that here.
Foxfyre wrote:I wonder if those who smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that there is turmoil in the country will ever come to regret their attitude?
Maybe, but my bet would be that most of the regretting will be by those who sheepishly went along with the president's Orwellian rhetoric, the most prominent examples of which include "I'm a uniter, not a divider", "we found the weapons of mass destruction", and "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." Admittedly, though, I haven't heard a comparable remark by him on immigration, which presumably is progress of sorts.
Conservative judges are every bit as "social engineering" as liberal judges, they just judge in conservative ways rather than liberal ways.
As for the economy, I don't know maybe I am just left out of the loop, but from what I can tell, we are not just enjoying a robust economy because of high gas prices, high health care and rising cost of products coupled with low wages in comparison to the cost of living. My husband works 40 hours a week at his regular job then he works until the late hours and weekends and holidays at his side job. My two kids both work while trying to finish up their education. Even with all that money coming it is still hard to make it from one week to the next because of all those problems I just listed.
Maybe you experience something different but a lot of people that I know are having just as hard of a time.
Personally I resent the implication that I because I disagree with basically every single aspect of the Bush administration with the exception of maybe the immigration situation (depends how he eventually comes out on that) that I just want the president to look bad. I would have disagreed with the administration even without them giving such good reasons to turn against them because my whole ideology is different.
Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I wonder if those who smugly rejoice that the President has difficulties or that there is turmoil in the country will ever come to regret their attitude?
Maybe, but my bet would be that most of the regretting will be by those who sheepishly went along with the president's Orwellian rhetoric, the most prominent examples of which include "I'm a uniter, not a divider", "we found the weapons of mass destruction", and "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." Admittedly, though, I haven't heard a comparable remark by him on immigration, which presumably is progress of sorts.
You may see them as sheep. But most of those 'sheep' don't take snippets out of context and trot them out as doctrine as do many who find it politically satisfying to do so. So I wonder who is 'sheepishly' slave to rhetoric? Those who flaunt and believe out-of-context distortions? Or those who look at the words within the whole and then decide to agree or disagree with them?
And who is more slave to ideology? Those who base their opinions and allegiance based on whether they personally like or dislike somebody? Or those who base their opinions and allegiance on higher principles than mere popularity?
Quote:I give the President very high marks for a great economy.
Which one would that be? Because it sure isn't America.
Cycloptichorn
