Posted on 11/04/2005 10:18:16 AM PST by manwiththehands
That was his biggest mistake after the election. It's one thing to have political capitol, it's something else to brag about having it. That only emboldened his enemies on the left and made them more determined than ever to nail his butt with something. Not a smart thing to say after such a close and contentious election. I thought it was arrogant on 'W's part.
Thanks JBWBUBBA. This information needs to be put out there again and again and again. Conservative pundits don't even seem to get it as they hand wring over Bush's numbers all the while not noting how out of balance the party i.d. info. is in all these polls.
I don't mind him saying it so much. Frankly, I think Dubya has had so many missteops since being reelected, it's not even funny.
The large innauguration during a war was in poor taste. He would have gained points by saying, look, we're at war, get the bible out, get a tv camera in the White House, and lets just do it and go to a reception afterwards.
He has consistently come across as out of touch with the liabilities in Iraq. While we have a lot to be happy about, and there is a lot of good there that isn't being reported, he has pretty much stuck to the 2003 script of squinting, smiling incongruently, and talking about 'freedom.' That's fine, but clearly isn't cutting it in 2005.
A town in Ohio lost about 21 reservists in one very bad day in Iraq. The President should have gone down there - he didn't. He looked bad.
Lots of examples. It's very clear to me the president has an image problem, and its very clear to me that too many Freepers can't cope with this.
Utterly foolishness! - The very own polls you bow down to don't support you! - Because the closer to EVERY election the more tuned to REALITY do these polls become!(shall we say) - Meaning they start to "weight" their polls to reflect a more accurate (realistic) weighted average -
NEVER prior to a real election!! Would you see these polling places use the ridiculously DEM weighted averages we are seeing out the MSM - Because they would look completely foolish the next day after a REAL poll (election) took place.
The notion that you suspect more people are declaring themselves DEM's is utterly wrong - and you can't prove it! I can prove to you in the past 4 REAL elections the breakdown of voters has been trending more REPUBLICAN!
Sorry bud, reality and facts matter.
It is utterly ridiculous for you to suggest that CBS weighting DEM's at plus 52% + is at all accurate. It is not and they know it (that is the funny part).
The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate in 06 (thanks to GWB). Just watch.
Please take pity on us poor self-deluded dupes who are unable to see the reality which is so clear to the truly independent political thinkers like yourself.
Yep, I feel for them too.
Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
If you tell the 40% of the country that doesn't care "Bush sucks" 24-7, just how do you think they'll answer a poll question about him?
If you're a Republican and answer the phone and hear "Hi, I'm from CBS News...wanna take a poll?" After a few expletives and mentions about Mary Mapes-Dan Rather-forged docs-John Roberts (the reporter)-sloppy seconds, a good Pub will tell the caller just where he/she can shove that Pole!
The Pub percents SHOULD BE low. I'd never give CBSABCNBCCNN the time of day, even if they gave me a free sucker.
Oh, and the last time I checked, GWB isn't on the ballot in 2008.
One other thing...as we hear the constant b**ching from the Left side, I ask, "don't you think we should finish the war first?" I ask those fine folks in my tag line that real easy question all the time, and they don't answer.
I guess they only want the war finished as long as the enemy wins.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of dumb, uneducated, uninformed, brainwashed democrats say about Bush today. What counts is what unbiased historians say about Bush 50 years from now. I think these historians will speak very highly of Bush.
Why don't they just hire some first-rate writers and thinkers --
instead of providing these bogus polls to bolster their credibility and legitimacy?
These polls get a little old after a while -- when they have nothing else of substance to offer.
All we are asking, is one highly qualified writer-thinker from their gene cesspool.
Don't overstate my bowel movements. All I am saying is that the President and GOP have to be mindful of their poor showing lately.
I have consistently said that I think they will. But acknowledging there is a problem is an essential first step.
Good for me!
As low as Bush's numbers might be, I'll bet APs approvals are less than half of that.
I am pretty sure that I am still a member of the public. I approve of 78% of my President's agenda. I want the borders CLOSED. No visas for terrorist nations.No more money to the P.L.O. who the U.S. has already listed as a terrorist organization. No money to the U.N. until people like Kofee go to prison. Stop any and all trade with North Korea and Iran until they acquisce to our concerns. I want congress to allow any and all wind-powered energy plans to be considered, and not be blocked by teddy kennedy and john kerry. I would like to see a beautiful woman named Laura Bush to be my, and the first,female President Of The United States.
When reading all the nonsense about the President's current job approval ratings just remember the following:
IT'S THE PERSONAL APPROVAL RATING THAT COUNTS!
"While the President's job approval is upside down by net 10 points, the PERSONAL APPROVAL of George W Bush is still running 2 to 1 net positive. Whether voters approve or disapprove of the way George W Bush is handling his job as President, they were asked what their impression was of him as a person. Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters approve of President Bush personally, while thirty-one percent (31%) disapprove of him. There is also positive intensity to voters' response to this question. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters "strongly" approve of the president personally, while only twenty-four percent (24%) "strongly" disapprove of the President on a personal level. IT IS THIS LIKEABILITY FACTOR OF GEORGE W BUSH THAT PROVIDES THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS WITH A ROADMAP TO REBUILD THEIR SUPPORT AMONG THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE.
Ed Goeas
Torrance Battleground Poll 2006
10/25/05
I also encourage you to read the following:
THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY FADES INTO IT'S TWILIGHT
CQ Weekly October 17, 1987
. . . It was vintage Reagan: flinty-eyed, sure of his aces. The terse words evoked the "make my day" challenge he had once used to wither Democratic talk of tax increases.
But this time it boomeranged. BORK'S nomination quickly plunged toward a resounding and stunning defeat, and much of the commentary that followed had the pall of a post-mortem on Reagan's political career.
This was not just any lost cause. It had been Reagan's self-proclaimed "No. 1 domestic priority." And it had been a cause that most thought Reagan could have won -- and should have won.
The label of "lame duck" which some had tried to paste on Reagan just days after his landslide re-election in 1984, seemed at long last to stick. Reaganism . . . now clearly seems to be a spent force.
. . . "It's variable when lame-ducking begins," notes Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science at the University of Califronia at Berkeley. "With Reagan, you would have thought it would be later. But it began with Iran-contra."
Following revelations of arms sales to Iran . . . Reagan's Gallup Poll ratings took a 23-point nose dive. It was said to be the most precipitous decline in a president's approval rating since Gallup began asking questions.
. . . Democrats were quick to cite Reykjavik as evidence that Reagan was out of touch with, even uncomprehending of, the details of his administration.
That portrait was vividly reinforced by the Iran-contra revelations and even by the Bork episode, in which Reagan lost not only his confrontation with the Senate but his control of the situation. He stood by seeming helpless while a defeated Bork refused to withdraw, prolonging the embarrassment and delaying the choice of another nominee."
. . . Failing in the legislative branch, many social-agenda conservatives have come to see Reagan's choices for the judicial branch as their hope. After all, decisions from the bench -- particularly the Supreme Court -- have been their nemesis.
"The failure on this (Bork) nomination is very significant," says Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn. "This is where the President (was supposed to) deliver on the social agenda." . . . "
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . The more things change, the more they stay the same! And, oh yea, polls mean so much in determining a President's legacy -- NOT!!
Associated Press affiliates are falling like flies -- or haven't you heard the real news, behind all the smoke they're producing?
True, but Bush's approval ratings have to be accurately measured by unbiased internal polls and not by these rigged MSM polls.
True.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.