Posted on 06/07/2004 10:49:15 PM PDT by RWR8189
This is the first release from Gallup with a trial heat that they only showed registered voters...
Gallup Ping
FReepmail me if you want to be on or off the list.
ping
Kerry leads by 50-44% among likely voters.
Glad to see Nader on the move.
Thanks, I see that now.
Strangest thing about this poll is that Bush does best with "national adults" and worst amongst "likely voters"
Time is running out for Bush to break out.
The only reason I think of why John F*ckin' is ahead is cause he's marketing himself as a realist Republican in foreign policy to the American people. Its a testament to how much the debate in this country has shifted rightwards that he's taking a position in national security credited with the realist school in the Republican Party. President Bush as you know sounds like a Wilsonian Democrat on the need to spread American values to protect America's long term interests abroad. Whether that's going to continue to be the case into the fall remains to be seen.
BTW-I really have using the term "Reagan Bump" but over the last few days there have been so many pundits making parallels between Reagan and Dubya.
Perhaps it is better than making a parallel between Dubya and his dad or even One Term Carter but it still bugs me that in this time that we are here to honor Reagan that some see this as an opportunity to Advance the Bush Campaign.
Reagan was Better than that.
Bush is Better than that.
America is Better than that.
To a lot of people it looks the President wants to lose. Given the campaign he's been running, I would not be surprised if the American people granted him what they think he wants.
I am not ready to hit the Panic Button but I might want to take it out of the drawer, dust it off and make sure it works.
And gas prices going down.
Surely this will give Bush a bump in the near future?
and what people might these be?
Only if the campaign breaks the good news embargo. Fox news ain't gonna cut it.
In 1992 is dad campaigned like he wanted to lose. As long as I live I will never forget watching CSPAN on Election Day 1992 at around 2:00 P.M. Central Time. They showed President Bush going to Oshman's Sporting Goods in Houston and buying a fishing real.
The message was loud and Clear. "I just got my butt kicked by an Arkansas HillBilly and now I'm going fishing."
I knew it was over then and it was still five hours before the polls closed on the east coast.
Job approval is up to 49%
Was Roosevelt a good president?
Condoleeza Rice said in a newspaper interview last week that President Bush will some day rank in leadership history alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?
If Roosevelt is George W. Bush's model for leadership, his first term begins to make sense.
Roosevelt led the nation through World War II and certainly contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – for which we should all be thankful.
However, Roosevelt also arguably presided over the creation of more unconstitutional domestic action by the federal government than any of his modern predecessors. As such, he remains the hero of modern-day socialists and an icon for today's Democratic Party extremists.
Is that what Bush wants to be remembered for?
If so, he must give himself extremely high marks. Yes, he has ably led the nation in the war on terrorism. But his administration has also given us unprecedented domestic spending increases.
Perhaps Rice and Bush should also be reminded that while Churchill provided great leadership of the United Kingdom in World War II, he was quickly turned out of office at the war's conclusion.
My guess is Bush will be turned out of office long before American achieves a victory in the war on terrorism. So, perhaps there is some validity to that comparison as well.
Notice that Rice did not compare Bush to a more recent popular Republican, two-term president – Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she understood that such a comparison would be laughable to too many Americans – especially those Bush still hopes to win over before Election Day.
"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.
I would agree. But I would not agree that Bush has met the challenge.
He came into office with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate. He saw that control strengthened in mid-term elections in 2002. Yet he governed like a Democrat – expanding spending for the Department of Education and other agencies the GOP once swore to eliminate.
"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better – historic change for the better," said Rice.
Roosevelt and Truman understood the challenges of communism? Who does she think gave us Alger Hiss? And who does she think sold Chiang Kai-Shek down the Yangtze River?
Until I read this interview, I had an extraordinary amount of respect for Rice's intellectual achievements and her understanding of history. No longer. But it gets worse.
It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed he did – one of the foreign policy tragedies of his administration. In fact, he has retreated from that position recently, suggesting there was no longer any rush to create a Palestinian state. And why should we want to create a new Middle East state that was founded on terrorism? Why should we support a state whose official policy is "no Jews allowed"? Why should we want to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Does Rice really believe all she said in this interview? Or is she just being a good political soldier? It's hard to know for sure.
But now I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.
Without the right goals, there can be no successful Presidency. Why the absence of any comparison to Ronald Reagan? We will see the verdict the American people will render in November.
Well Joe Farah is not my idea of an astute political analyst but I do agree that Bush seems to have left campaign mode. If he is going to claim the Reagan mantle he needs to get "bigger". He has to draw Kerry out more so the contrast can be made. Kerry is trying to win this by being the stealth candidate. If Rove can't do it I hope someone is in the bull pen warming up.
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.