Blah. blah, blah.
Same old same, give up the ghost because you beleive phony polls and the MSM and blame the White House, while you sit back and do nothing but complain.
Memo to self, throw you outta of the foxhole, because as bullits are flying all around you'll be there doing nothing but complaining.
BTW, say hi to hillary at the DNC basement.
I agree...wimpy, wimpy. wimpy. They let the Dems undermine the war 24/7 for two years now. It started with a trickle and has grown to a tidal wave. Calling them traitors from the git-go would have nipped it in the bud. Every hour in Iraq is more dangerous for troops due to the bunker mentality.
Same with the Plame affair.
An unanswered charge is treated as true.
His enemies can make the wildest charges and he allows them to take and keep the high ground.
That's a losing position.
Bush simply should boldly and repeatedly state, "We will get to the bottom of the delay in getting help to those at the Superdome. We will find out exactly who should have evacuated and fed the poor of New Orleans who were trapped by the flood with no escape."
The Democrats would start running for the tall grass. They would never allow full congressional hearings to expose the blood on their own hands.
I'm not sure what to place primary importance on in your response. I guess what is really important to establish first is that there is no "we" when it comes to polls.
I don't tout polls. Ever. I was a major critic of polling during the election. I was told I was choosing not to deal with reality when I stated I believed they were either a) rigged b) not properly gauging the public attitude. I was right, they were wrong, as it turns out.
The only polls that were accurate were RASS, Maxon Dixon, Battleground and FOX was lower by two points but the margin of victory was the same. If a poll is not one of these I will not even grant they have credibility, nor can anyone reasonably make the case I should take polls that were horribly wrong election day as being better a few months later. It doesn't work that way.
Second, when I DO highlight a poll not among the named, I do so with vocal acknowlegment I still think they are flawed, but that if his numbers are good in flawed polls, they are even better in reality. This is the case I make with ABC and Gallop's latest polls. I tout them because I believe they tried to get bad numbers, and they couldn't.
Third, What polls is he getting whacked on? We're only seen three He did well in the flawed gallop and ABC polls. Do you mean the third, PEW? If so, that one admitted they oversampled blacks! They admitted it was a push poll. So, again, where's the evidence.
As to your last, you can stand by your statements on communications from the W.H. I never addressed that point to begin with.
We shall see. Polls have a way of dipping between elections and coming back in election years. "Some" said he was unreelectable in 2003.