Bush prepares to take oath of office (Reuters bias alert)

Reuters ^ | Jan 20, 2005 | Steve Holland

[Mikmur]

Bush's approval rating is at 49 percent in the AP poll with 49 percent disapproving among all of those polled. His job approval is in the high 40s or low 50s in several other recent polls - as low as any job approval rating for a re-elected president at the start of the second term in more than 50 years. Presidents Reagan and Clinton had job approval ratings near six in 10 just before their inauguration for a second term, according to Gallup polls. Has their ever been a president who has been so unashamedly bashed in the press before. I would think if Clinton or even Reagan had been given such dishonorable treatment they would have had poor ratings as well. Did it ever occur to you that the press takes polls to make news. They report negatively on the prez, take polls and report on how well their negative reporting is working. There has normally been a honeymoon time for every president. Not for this one. The press is who is hotly contesting this president. They hate him because of his faith. They will stop at nothing to prevent his policies from being implemented. And lest we forget, Howard Fineman stated that the MSM is a political party. As such we cannot trust anything that comes from them. Remember the exit polls. We lost the election....untrue and so are most polls from the political MSM party.

[Freedumb]

Bush's approval rating is at 49 percent in the AP poll with 49 percent disapproving among all of those polled.

Gee, and we all know that polls don't lie (as in the exit polling last Nov). The fact is that Bush was re-elected with a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton.

[syriacus]

The rats felt he didn't win the 2000 election so when he tried to reach out they basically slapped back.

Exactly. Back in 2001, Gephardt and Daschle vowed to co-operate with Bush.

They didn't keep their vow and (co-incidentally?) they are representing the folks of Nowheresville now.

[i_dont_chat]

One man's spam is another man's roast beef.

[Terabitten]

Oh, you're right.

Bush can do no wrong.

The media is always evil, every time, everywhere.

Resistance is futile.

You will be assimilated.

[Terabitten]

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact. But why is it trumpeted so much, if not bias??

Thank you for one of the first sane responses I've seen on this thread, and thank you for being able to separate the two issues (the fact of Bush's low approval ratings vs. the overreporting of the same).

The overreporting *is* a valid issue, and should be addressed. However, if you look at the first few posts on this thread, they all acted as if the facts were suspect.

[Mikmur]

Perhaps you are a little bitter because you are tragically single. You need to go on with life.

[Terabitten]

Has their ever been a president who has been so unashamedly bashed in the press before.

Actually, yes, several times. Go read press reports about Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, or even FDR. Absolutely vile stuff.

Did it ever occur to you that the press takes polls to make news.

Yep, and it also occurred to me that if the President had 60% approval ratings, it would generally reflect as such, and this wouldn't be a story. The bias would be in their not reporting it, not in the facts of the story.

They hate him because of his faith.

No, they hate him because he's not a liberal.

[hleewilder]

The bottom line though, is that Bush won the election. He is the President of the United States for the next four years. Whether he won by one measly vote, it doesn't matter. He has a mandate. He doesn't need to reach out to the losers, because he won. He doesn't need to 'admit to mistakes' because he won. They lost. It doesn't matter by how much, okay? Get over it. Bush is the President, and it doesn't matter how much Europe, Canada, or the American Left dislike it, because he won. There, is it clear now?

[Terabitten]

Perhaps you are a little bitter because you are tragically single. You need to go on with life.

That's a thoughtful bit of analysis, on the evidence of three posts!

I'd recommend you re-read the FR posting guidelines, which prohibit personal attacks.

[Mikmur]

You sure are upset about something. BTW, don't think Bush can do no wrong. I have several issues I disagree with him on. I just think that a positive spin or a negative spin can be put on anything. It is always a negative spin when about a Repub and almost always a positive spin when about a Dem in the MSM. Howard Fineman, a lib, is the man who stated that the MSM was a political party, not me. He, being one of them, surely has a birdseye view of the bias that, according to you, is as unrealistic as a Star Wars fantasy. get a grip woman.

[Terabitten]

Whether he won by one measly vote, it doesn't matter. He has a mandate. He doesn't need to reach out to the losers, because he won.

This statement is so silly that I don't know where to start.

Ignoring the minority party is called dictatorship.

[i_dont_chat]

You Said:
"Oh, you're right. Bush can do no wrong. The media is always evil, every time, everywhere. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

You are not only tragically single, you are tragicaly eat up with the dumb ass. (my humble opinion)

[Terabitten]

LOL... That'd be Mr. Tragically Single :) There's even a picture on my profile. :)

And no, I'm not upset about anything, believe it or not. However, I believe that as conservatives, sometimes we see bias where there really isn't any, or at least not any more than normal. As a rule, being conservative means basing your opinions on facts, not conjecture or feelings or wishes (not that you have - just saying it as a general rule.)

The anti-conservative bias surely exists, and I don't deny it - no sane, thinking person could. However, it's not biased to report on facts, and the fact is that President Bush has low approval ratings right now. The bias is that the MSM tends to report proportionally more negative stories on conservatives than on liberals.

[Terabitten]

The fact is that Bush was re-elected with a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton.

Yes, he was, however, in the interests of fairness and honesty (neither of which liberals are known for), we must acknowledge that Clinton had an 8 point margin of victory over Dole, whereas Bush had a 2-3 point margin over Kerry.

[Terabitten]

You are not only tragically single, you are tragicaly eat up with the dumb *ss

Please refer to the FR posting guides, which prohibit profanity, peronal attacks, racism, and violence in posts. In one post, you've violated two of the four basic posting guidelines. It's beneath us as conservatives and as FReepers.