Not only that, but today the WaPo described Bush as 'courageous'.
Are they on crack or something?
I don't know; can a crack(pot) be on crack?
Sierra Song-Not only is Bush now in the low forties(41-Rasmussen) the momentum is upward.
I would not be surprised to see his Job Approval Rating at 48 or 49 by November.
I would be very surprised if it went beyond 42.
I'll call you on that Mr. Imposter. As soon as it hits 43, I will let you know.
Please do; in the mean time, I'll keep reminding you that Bush's rating has fallen to one of the lowest in US history.
Most Americans tire of this war. Killing Zarquawi is a short-term gain for Bush.
"Stay the course" is not a plan, and the continued killings of innocents and the increased cost of our troops both killed and injured and the two billion cost every week will be poll-killer for Bush.
Come November, more Americans will realize that killing Zarqawi didn't solve anything.
I am very much afraid, Mr. Imposter, that you have not caught up on your reading.
You say "Bush's rating has fallen to one of the lowest in US History"
You are in error!
Bush Job Approval Rating --41
Truman-Feb, 1952-----------22
Johnson 1968-----------------35
Nixon Aug. 1974--------------24
Ford Mar. 1975----------------37
Carter June 1979-------------28
Reagan Jan. 1983-------------35
Bush I July 1992------------29
Clinton June 1993-------------37
Your claim, Mr. Imposter, that "Bush's rating has fallen to one of the lowest in US History is true only if 41 is lower than 22, 35, 24, 37, 28,35, 29, 37.
I really think you should check your sources, Mr. Imposter!
And Mr. Imposter, I must remind you that the smartest woman in the world, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, has just reminded us all that the US cannot cut and run from Iraq.
You do know that she will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, Don't you?
BernardR wrote:I am very much afraid, Mr. Imposter, that you have not caught up on your reading.
You say "Bush's rating has fallen to one of the lowest in US History"
You are in error!
Bush Job Approval Rating --41
Truman-Feb, 1952-----------22
Johnson 1968-----------------35
Nixon Aug. 1974--------------24
Ford Mar. 1975----------------37
Carter June 1979-------------28
Reagan Jan. 1983-------------35
Bush I July 1992------------29
Clinton June 1993-------------37
Your claim, Mr. Imposter, that "Bush's rating has fallen to one of the lowest in US History is true only if 41 is lower than 22, 35, 24, 37, 28,35, 29, 37.
I really think you should check your sources, Mr. Imposter!
Get your head out of your ass, Bernie.
ci said "one of the lowest"...and he is right on the mark.
Quote:May 11, 2006, 9:12 pm
Bush Dips Into the 20s
President Bush's job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an "excellent or pretty good" job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%.
Roughly one-quarter of U.S. adults say "things in the country are going in the right direction," while 69% say "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." This has been the trend since January, when 33% said the nation was heading in the right direction. Iraq remains a key concern for the general public, as 28% of Americans said they consider Iraq to be one of the top two most important issues the government should address, up from 23% in April. The immigration debate also prompted 16% of Americans to consider it a top issue, down from 19% last month, but still sharply higher from 4% in March.
Yeah, he has a minor spike up right now...but his ratings are still "one of the lowest."
And that smarmy crap you tried to peddle: "Your claim, Mr. Imposter, that "Bush's rating has fallen to one of the lowest in US History is true only if 41 is lower than 22, 35, 24, 37, 28,35, 29, 37"...
...is simply flat-out wrong!
The rating can be higher than several of those numbers...which you haven't really documented...and still be ONE OF THE LOWEST.
English is not a second language with you, is it????
No, Mr. Imposter. It is not a second language but I must point out to you that we are talking about numbers.
Again, You said that "Bush's ratings have fallen to ONE of the LOWEST in US History.
I gave you figures that you didn't dispute that EIGHT(8) OF THE LAST ELEVEN PRESIDENTS HAD JOB APPROVAL RATINGS LOWER THAN G.W. BUSH.
So, is he one of the lowest? No, there are eight presidents out of eleven who had lower ratings than he has at this time.
BernardR wrote:No, Mr. Imposter. It is not a second language but I must point out to you that we are talking about numbers.
Well since it is not a second language...I must point out that you quoted me...and I am not Mr. Imposter. Egad, what a dipshyt!
Quote:
Again, You said that "Bush's ratings have fallen to ONE of the LOWEST in US History.
I gave you figures that you didn't dispute that EIGHT(8) OF THE LAST ELEVEN PRESIDENTS HAD JOB APPROVAL RATINGS LOWER THAN G.W. BUSH.
So, is he one of the lowest? No, there are eight presidents out of eleven who had lower ratings than he has at this time.
One of the lowest in history!!!!!!!
So you would have to give the low point of all the presidents...not just the last 11...if you want to go through with this silly, amateruish nonsense....of comparing Bush's ratings with the other historical presidents. (Don't bother to look...you aren't gonna find ratings much further back.)
And since you are comparing the moron in chief's ratings with the LOWEST POINTS in those other president's ratings...don't you think it would be more honest and more ethical to use the LOWEST POINT in Bush's ratings?
You do understand "honest and ethical"...do you not??????
1. Popularity has nothing to do with how well a person does their job, nor whether the person is honorable and virtuous. "Best" and "worst" are purely subjective judgements.
2. In politics the only poll that counts is the ballot box. In lame duck administrations, popularity counts even less.
3. Polling numbers are ephemera. One moment they may soar and in the next plummet. If you want to play this silly numbers game, then you need a much more sophisticated model. Some comparison factors: Polling methodologies and who took the poll, time in office, significant domestic and foreign events, the range of poll results, the mode/median and average of all polls taken and the standard deviation of results, and probably a half dozen more variables that would crop up if we were to attempt a proper analysis. This would be an exercise in futility because at the end the results would still be virtually meaningless, and would only apply to less than a quarter of all U.S. Presidents.
4. Presidential popularity polls are a recent innovation, so records only exist for about a quarter of all Presidents. Presidents Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Taft, Ben. Harrison, Arthur, Hays, Grant, A. Johnson, Lincoln, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren,and Quincy Adams, all had periods where they were extremely unpopular. Even those Presidents whose popularity noted for their continuous popularity were well-liked by everyone, not even Washington himself.
Now, all of you who are playing this little game are bright reasonably well-educated folks. You all know the foolishness of trying to get any meaningful conclusions about how "good' or "bad" a President was from comparing poll numbers. This is, it seems to me is just a grown0up version of, "my Daddy's tougher than your Daddy".
Whats remarkable, well a little bit, is that this thread has endured so long with so little substance.
You're criticizing others on this thread for posting much about nothing, and you have added exactly what to the conversation? Nothing that hasn't been said before.
Pull some stuffing out of that shirt, there.
Yep, I'm certain that a lot of folks regard me as a "stuffed shirt". Thats sort of like the polls, and has nothing to do with anything other than my personal lack of light reparte or warm humor. Style over substance?
Asherman wrote:Yep, I'm certain that a lot of folks regard me as a "stuffed shirt". Thats sort of like the polls, and has nothing to do with anything other than my personal lack of light reparte or warm humor. Style over substance?
I was actually questioning what substance you thought you had contributed, and pointing out the irony in what you were saying.
(I know what substance
I think you contributed.)
I wish my shirt was stuffed with half the stuff Asherman's is...
You can take the same hormones. See your doc.
Drew,
Now that you have that off your chest, what exactly in my post don't you agree with, and why?
Disagree with? Nothing. This comment:
Asherman wrote:Whats remarkable, well a little bit, is that this thread has endured so long with so little substance.
annoyed me because of the whole "Asherman dances up and insults the thread participants" tone.
And it struck me as gloriously ironic, considering that you did not provide a whit of new "substance."
You no doubt disagree, which is fine. Carry on.
So you don't like my style. I think I can live with that.
