posted on August 3, 2005 06:18:40 PM new
A new Gallup Poll finds a drop in George W. Bush's job approval rating, which currently stands at 44% after being at 49% in two earlier polls this month. The current rating is the lowest of the Bush presidency. Bush's favorable rating has also hit a new low, as just 48% of Americans rate him favorably, which is the first time that percentage has dropped below 50%. Ratings of national satisfaction and the economy, on the other hand, have remained generally steady. Even before the drop in Bush's ratings, Gallup Polls were showing evidence that the public was becoming more favorable to the Democratic Party.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 3, 2005 07:08:03 PM new
The Dems' obsession
The Democrats and the Old Media are getting as much mileage as they can out of President Bush's reportedly low approval ratings. But the smart money says they ought to be more concerned about their own problems.
While they preoccupy themselves with trashing President Bush and obstructing his agenda, he remains undeterred and presses forward. While they brag at their success in blocking Social Security and other reforms, he amasses legislative victories, including CAFTA, bankruptcy and class-action.
While they anxiously pant in anticipation of his inevitable irrelevance, they further secure their own irrelevance. Indeed, while they prepare to gloat over his "imminent" lame-duck status when he will have little political capital left to spend, he is busy spending his political capital as if it springs from an unlimited reservoir.
Consider his congressional arm-twisting on CAFTA, his persistence on Social Security reform despite the obvious short-term political downsides, his recess appointment of John Bolton and his unflinching commitment to the burgeoning Iraqi republic.
Ah, yes, Iraq. This is where it gets interesting. The Dems think it's the Republican's Achilles' heel, but it may well be theirs. For the Democratic Party and the press, all roads lead to Iraq. To them, President Bush's "duplicitous" scheme to drag us into war there subsumes every other issue.
So complete is their obsession they apparently don't see the need to develop an agenda of their own. They have no plan on Social Security, which they labeled a crisis as recently as Bill Clinton's presidency. They have no coherent tax policy -- other than to oppose Bush's plan. They don't even have a clue about Iraq -- whether we should stay or leave and how we should accomplish either non-goal.
When discussing Iraq, they talk nostalgically about Vietnam, the Mother of all Quagmires, fervently hoping Iraq will end up being just as bad and the vast quicksand that finally drowns the Bush presidency and GOP dominance.
But again, the profound irony is that while they see Iraq as Bush's quagmire, it has become their own. Just as their self-made myths about Republicans stealing the election in 2000 drove them to a Norman Bates-esque frenzy, their delusional "Bush-lied" ravings have driven them to a blinding monomania.
If you doubt their collective neurosis, do a Nexis search and you'll discover their ingenuity at tying every issue -- John Bolton, Social Security, Wilson/Plame, Judge Roberts -- to Iraq. To them, almost everything the administration does is either to compensate for or divert attention from Iraq.
Columnist Arianna Huffington seems upset that even some of her fellow libs are not in sufficient lockstep on the antiwar message. In a column she takes to task jailed New York Times reporter Judy Miller for virtually conspiring with the Bush administration to exaggerate the case for Iraqi WMD in order to support his decision to attack Iraq.
According to Huffington, the real scandal behind Wilson/Plame is not even Karl Rove. No, it's the reprobates who sent us to war against Iraq. She quotes approvingly from flaming lib NYT columnist Frank Rich. "The real culprit," writes Rich, "is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped up grounds … That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war."
Amy Goodman, host of "Democracy Now," is even more hysterical. On MSNBC's "Hardball," she said Sen. Frist's decision to buck President Bush on embryonic stem cells was all about Iraq, which understandably left guest John Fund rolling his eyes in disbelief.
Goodman said, "I really do think this is much more connected to Iraq than Sen. Frist having a change of heart … Because, I think, right now the Republicans are trying to separate themselves at this point of this lame-duck presidency from the Bush administration's views on Iraq."
The Minneapolis Star Tribune and others have opposed John Bolton's U.N. ambassadorship not just because he was a meanie, but because he "sought to intimidate intelligence analysts who objected to conclusions about Iraq's WMD." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid obviously agrees, saying in a floor statement, "you can see why we believe it is no small matter for us to learn whether Mr. Bolton was a party to other efforts to hype intelligence."
The Palm Beach Post asks, "Is [the president's] concentration on Social Security meant to divert attention from real crises in this country, such as … the mess in Iraq?"
The examples are endless, but suffice it to say that if Democrats don't wean themselves off their Iraq-only diet soon, even Hillary won't be able to pull their chestnuts out of the fire by 2008.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 3, 2005 07:20:23 PM new
Boy is that the truth, bear. They are the party with no solutions....just complains, whining and blaming. And they think that's going to get them elected.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 3, 2005 07:27:40 PM new
Didn't work in Ohio (again) did it Linda?
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 3, 2005 07:34:04 PM new
Sure didn't. So...we'll just let them stay happily focused on their 'poll' results....while we watch the republicans WIN the elections.
posted on August 3, 2005 07:57:55 PM new
What we Democrats need is a candidate with some charisma. If they nominate Hilary, in 2008, we will be doomed again. Although I personally admire her and think she would be capable to hold the position of President, she lacks the warmth and charisma to get elected, imo...like Kerry, couldn't reach the people because of his cold stand offish manner and Gore was the same way.. we need a candidate who the people can warm up to...
posted on August 4, 2005 06:59:45 AM newThe Democrats and the Old Media are getting as much mileage as they can out of President Bush's reportedly low approval ratings. But the smart money says they ought to be more concerned about their own problems.
Then how do you explain why all the neocons on this board are so concerned with Hillary and whether or not she will be running for office in 2008? It would appear to me that the Republicans should be more concerned who their parties candidate should be.
While they preoccupy themselves with trashing President Bush and obstructing his agenda, he remains undeterred and presses forward. While they brag at their success in blocking Social Security and other reforms, he amasses legislative victories, including CAFTA, bankruptcy and class-action.
You are forgetting that fellow Republicans are going against Bush in his larger initiatives - You know all the ones Bush bragged about during the elections. What happened to all the political capital he supposedly had? I guess control over all the branches of government is not enough for Bush to get his way.
Once again Bear's sockpuppet speaks right after him.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 4, 2005 07:52:48 AM new
maggie - I don't see it 'because' of a lack of charisma on the part of either kerry or gore. And I certainly don't see in charisma in President Bush.
Imo, it's because gore kept 're-inventing himself' and kerry was 'flip-flopping' all over the issues.
----------------------
[i]Then how do you explain why all the neocons on this board are so concerned with Hillary and whether or not she will be running for office in 2008[i]?
It's a misjudgement on your part. A false impression you've picked up from somewhere. A defect in your comprehension abilities.
I haven't seen ONE rightie here even mention they're concerned about her. I've even said I think it would guarantee another LOSS for the dems....and maggie appears to agree with that. [though, it appears for different reasons].
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 4, 2005 08:47:35 AM new
::What we Democrats need is a candidate with some charisma. If they nominate Hilary, in 2008, we will be doomed again. Although I personally admire her and think she would be capable to hold the position of President, she lacks the warmth and charisma to get elected, imo...like Kerry, couldn't reach the people because of his cold stand offish manner and Gore was the same way.. we need a candidate who the people can warm up to...::
I'm going to disagree with you Mags. I think the reason that Kerry did not win was not because he lacked warmth and charisma but because he didn't actually seem to be "for" anything. Kerry spent to much time saying that he wasn't Bush and wouldn't do what Bush did and not enough time saying who he was and what he would do. Hilary is a strong outspoken woman and I think that is not a problem she is going to have. Besides she does not have to be warm and wuzzy. The people that vote for warm and fuzzy will be won by her oh so charismatic husband campaigning for her.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on August 4, 2005 11:03:12 AM newIt's a misjudgement on your part. A false impression you've picked up from somewhere. A defect in your comprehension abilities.
I don't think so. Not when certain people seem to be so concerned about what Hillary has been doing since Novemeber. What her issues are etc... Somebody her seems to be posting an awful lot of articles about what Hillary has been doing. I think my comprehension abilities are quiet fine Linda.
Certain people here have spent more time worrying about what Hillary has been doing than what certain Republican Presidential want-a-bees have been doing. In fact there has been a Republican presidential want-a-bee that has been taking a more conservative position in hopes to win voters. In fact it is the same thing you accuse Hillary of doing but yet no neocon here has discussed it. But it doesn't surprise me.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 4, 2005 12:22:08 PM new
Again I will say, logan, that it ONLY shows your own personal LACK of ability to actually form your opinions on things people SAY....not on how you wrongly interpret them.
Name me ONE rightie who has stated their concern about hillary winning. Just ONE.
Why you see her being discussed, slow-mo, is because it's IN THE NEWS, discussed almost on a daily basis. We're discussing CURRENT news/politics that's being discussed all over the whole USA.
Get with it logan....pay attention to what all the MSM is discussing....and you TOO will see hillary's campaign starting for the 2008 election. ....well....maybe....maybe not. You seem very willing to over look a lot of things....and have a willingness to state things that others are worried about....when they haven't EVER expressed that concern.
Like....it's all in YOUR own mind....not based in fact.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 4, 2005 12:25 PM ]
posted on August 4, 2005 12:42:48 PM new
'And I certainly don't see in charisma in President Bush.'
I agree with this statement.
Now, President Clinton, he had it but that's all he had. I am beginning to think that the Democrats really just want a Presidential candidate that has charisma. You know like a baffle 'em with bullsh** kind a guy. They don't care if he's good for the country or not as long as he has a personality they can admire. Martin Sheen would probably suit them just fine but alas he's not running.
posted on August 4, 2005 01:46:13 PM new
I am surprised that you said you don't find President Bush Charismatic, Linda. I don't either, but I also didn't find that Kerry or Gore had any charisma either.
While President Clinton oozed charisma from every pore..
I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think that charisma plays a large roll in getting the votes. Especially with the dumb ass population who will vote for their Movie stars and second rate movie stars at that..or on good looks alone..
Psychologically, people are influenced by a charismatic personality and yes even good looks.
Ideally we could find a candidate with brains, confidence, and charisma.. the whole package... but not since President Clinton has that happened.
Hilary has the smarts, the back bone and as Fenix added the charisma in her first man..
Unfortunately, I think it isn't the right time for her to run. America hasn't evolved quite enough to accept a woman as president..
posted on August 4, 2005 01:56:30 PM new
I'd vote for Sheen... but then I would have also voted for Alda who played the Republican candidate. Problem was that he had way to much of a common sense approach to be a Republican
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on August 4, 2005 02:00:13 PM new
Mags - If you look at the last two elections, it's been more of "vote against" than "vote for" for so who knows. Dems are not going to vote fora republican just because the dem is a woman. The question is the moderates and if the republicans decide to go with a super conservative they are going turn the moderates off. For some reason they (republicans) seem to want to ignore that the american publica is not oh so keen on the current state of affairs.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
edited because my fingers paid no attention to my brain during the original post...
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 4, 2005 04:05 PM ]
posted on August 4, 2005 02:14:29 PM newName me ONE rightie who has stated their concern about hillary winning. Just ONE.
Now please Linda where did I point out she was going to win. I dont believe I said that nor did I say any other "RIGHTIE" said it.
Why dont you take your own advice :that it ONLY shows your own personal LACK of ability to actually form your opinions on things people SAY
You seem very willing to over look a lot of things....and have a willingness to state things that others are worried about....when they haven't EVER expressed that concern.
I guess now you are trying to censor what people say on this board. Since when it is a crime to say what I think. You would fit in well in a dictatorship.
Well, you can see it your way. But since the November election people have talked about Hillary and here possible run. Since then the right has said that she doesn't stand a chance of winning. The right has talked more about what Hillary may or may not do. She has not even decided if she is going to run. To me this shows that their is some concern from those on the right. They are more concerned about what Hillary and others in the Democratic party are doing than they are concerned about people in their own party. To me this shows those on the right are concerned. You can disagree all you want. Frankly my dear, I don't give a dam* what you think.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 4, 2005 02:57:57 PM new
maggie - I don't know why you'd be surprised....it's a fact...he doesn't. I've always believed I'm a very honest person and will admit things when I believe them to be true. I'm NOT as I'm accusedd of being....a follower...sheep....etc.
BUT I do admire his many other character strengths....like steadfastness, saying what he means - not changing his mind with the current polls, being a man of God, overcoming his alcohol problems, being a man willing to take on challenges, having a positive outlook on many of life's issues, his persistance/perseverance and staying power to keep pushing forward no matter the odds. How he chooses people to be his support/advisors....and will stick with them no matter what the dems throw their way. And many other things too.
But in this last election....I think it was proof that the majority of people did want him to remain in office while this country was at war. Democrats's don't generally have a history of being strong in the eyes of the voters when it comes to national defense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 4, 2005 03:02 PM ]
