Posted on 03/02/2006 5:04:03 PM PST by jmc1969
Americans, by a greater than 3 to 1 margin, oppose the proposed deal that would allow a state-owned Arab firm to assume control of operations at several U.S. ports, a Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The takeover, undergoing a 45-day review by administration officials, faced broad opposition — substantial majorities of Democrats and independents, along with a solid plurality of Republicans said they do not want the agreement to proceed.
Buffeted by resistance to the port transaction and discontent over the turmoil in Iraq, President Bush's approval rating fell to 38%, the lowest level recorded for him in the poll. His disapproval rating rose to 58%.
And in a trend that could affect turnout in the November midterm elections, Bush confronts what might be called an intensity gap: the percentage of Americans who said they strongly disapprove of his performance on a wide range of issues greatly exceeded the share who strongly approve.
The Times/Bloomberg Poll, supervised by Times Poll director Susan Pinkus, surveyed 1,273 adults nationwide. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Support for Bush has slipped since a Times/Bloomberg poll in January, when 43% said they approved of his performance while 54% disapproved.
Debbie Davis, a Republican in Middleport, Ohio, who responded to the new poll, remains positive on Bush. "He does a good job," the sales representative said. "He has just been put in tough situations."
Also contributing to the fall in Bush's approval ratings was a slight increase in the number of poll respondents who identified themselves as Democrats.
"Party identification is a dynamic variable that changes with the popularity of the party in control," said Pinkus. "The proportion of people who identified with the Republican Party was higher when Bush had more positive approval ratings."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It probably doesn't help that Michael Savage is referring to him as "seditious vermin."
Liberals are masters of deception and seduction.
Our daughter-in-law's father just participated in a phone poll and he had 2 choices...Extremely satisfied with the war in Iraq, or dissatisfied with the war - Extremely approve with Pres. Bush, or disapprove, Etc!
JIM GERAGHTY [in Turkey] thinks that post-tipping-point politics are going to be ugly, and agrees with me that the Bush Administration's limp response to the Cartoon Wars is part of the reason:
...
Welcome to Post-Tipping Point politics. There is no upside to doing the right thing – which is to emphasize, as one blogger put it, that there is a difference between Dubai and Damascus. There is tremendous political upside to doing the wrong thing, boldly declaring, “I don’t care what the Muslim world thinks, I’m not allowing any Arab country running ports here in America! I don’t care how much President Bush claims these guys are our allies, I don’t trust them, and I’m not going to hand them the keys to the vital entries to our country!”
And more and more, I think Glenn Reynolds had it right; the entire Tipping Point phenomenon can be summed up as action and reaction. The Bush Administration’s reaction to the cartoon riots was comparably milquetoast. The violence and threats committed over the cartoons shocked, frightened and really, really angered Americans. They want somebody to smack the Muslim world back onto its heels and set them straight: “It doesn’t matter how offensive a cartoon is, you’re not allowed to riot, burn down embassies and kill people over it.”
http://instapundit.com/archives/028930.php
On a TOTALLY different subject, I wonder why the LA Slimes stock , subscriptions and advertising are all in the tank? Their approval ratings seem very low.
Polls of this nature are simply a way of measuring how much of the public the MSM has fooled on a given issue.
If I'm not mistaken, I think Rasmussen polls electronically.
Based on distortions and ignorance! Sad.
And when the public finally realizes how much it has been fooled ( Uo With InerNet News!!), there will be no one to pay for the polls themselves! ( Tank MSM, Tank) .......
But this quote from the article says it all:
Quote:"Also contributing to the fall in Bush's approval ratings was a slight increase in the number of poll respondents who identified themselves as Democrats."Unquote
The polls are all about CREATING Democrats from propaganda.
The MSM creates stupidity with knee jerk emotionalism, one person at a time.
I did the poll and by the end of it, I even identified nyself as a Dimocrat???
Sorry, not even close!
BTW , no television in my house and no MSM media either because one yank on the emotional chain too many and down came the Sat dish and its mount has become the better part of a bird feeder.
Translation: "Party identification is a dynamic variable that changes with the knee jerk emotional portrayal of the issue not based on fact,of the party in control....
Pinkus is simply measuring the effect of MSM propaganda.
Bush uses a management style of strong delegation of authority, backed by loyalty.
When a CEO does this, it requires smart, political savvy subordinate managers.
With Katrina and with the Ports this combination has hurt him, primarily because Bush's subordinates have served him poorly, in execution/decision making and politics.
I watched Deputies to Cabinet officers testify before a House committee. There was way too much they didn't know about, hadn't taken time to learn, seemed insensitive too (politically) etc.
Savage is a riot... when I want absolutely out-of-control UNHINGED RIGHT there is no place better.
I always laugh when Bush is called 'right wing extremist' but the nuts in various stories... they must have never listened to Savage.
MATTHEWS: Great to have you here. You're an expert.Rob Scavone is the executive vice president, general counsel at P&O Ports, North America, which presently runs the ports the Dubai Ports World is seeking to operate. Mr. Scavone, will remain in his job when Dubai Ports World acquires P&O Ports, North America. He's here to discuss port security only.
Help me out here. This is a question we keep asking on the show. When a container moves from another port to one of the American ports, one of the six American ports, who is responsible for making sure nothing dangerous is carried in those containers?
ROB SCAVONE, P&O PORTS EXECUTIVE: That would first be the shipper who owns the cargo, followed by the vessel operator, the container carrier, then the customs or governmental authorities in the port where the vessel is loaded, some of whom allow U.S. customs authorities to screen and inspect cargo there. And finally, by customs and border protection in the U.S. Coast Guard when the vessel arrives in the United States.
The information on the contents of the container, the manifest information that the vessel operator has, is sent electronically to customs officials in the United States before the vessel is loaded, but that information, people may be surprised to learn, is not given to us. Customs knows what's in the boxes. The vessel operator knows what's in the boxes, but we are not advised what's in the boxes.
MATTHEWS: What I'm trying to get at if something were dangerous to come into the country, a container of nerve gas for example, who would the terrorists have to bribe or deal with to get past? If you wanted to put a container of nerve gas aboard one of these containers, who would you have to get past to get that done or have a good chance of that getting through?
SCAVONE: You've highlighted the main issue that we do try to address and our government tries to address, which is the point of origin of the container, and that is where our security efforts have primarily been focused.
MATTHEWS: But whatever the answer is to that question, it doesn't relate to what happens once the container reaches the ground in the United States and certainly has nothing to do with who owns that particular terminal operator.
MATTHEWS: Well, the terminal operator, in other words, in this case, Dubai Ports World, and you as one of their assets, your company, P&O, would you check what was in the container, or does it simply go to the address who it's addressed to and they get to open it?
SCAVONE: No, we follow the instructions of customs. They tell us what containers they want to inspect, among those that they haven't inspected before the vessel was loaded. We give the containers physically to them. That, by the way, is done by our longshoremen. Nobody moves, touches or even counts a box unless he's a longshoreman.
Customs takes it, they do whatever they want to do with it, whether it's non-intrusive inspection with x-rays or radiation detection or whether it's physically opening the box and restuffing it. Then they give it back to us. Nothing leaves any one of our terminals until Customs and Border Protection allows us to release it to the cargo owner.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me put it this way. If something dangerous comes into the United States and explodes on Broadway or somewhere else, and we find it came in, in one of the containers, who would we got to find out how it happened?
SCAVONE: You would start with customs, because they would have all the information about vessel loading and contents and whatnot, and then you would trace back through the vessel carrier to the point of origin and their customers. Highly unlikely the terminal operator in the United States would have anything to add to that equation.
MATTHEWS: So he wouldn't—your company would not feel a duty to start sniffing around these containers and opening them up because why? Why wouldn't you do that?
SCAVONE: It's not our property. The containers are sealed before they are dispatched from the foreign country, and one of the whole principles of containerization is that that seal remains on until it's received by the cargo owner in the United States.
was this the times/bloomberg poll referred to in the article?
(i have a feeling it wasn't.)
the poll you were called about sounds more like one that was commissioned by a partisan group.
(
this web page has the actual questions asked in the times poll. the wording is not good, but the question asked is inaccurate in ways that could cut in both directions: it mentions "6 ports" when it should say "terminals at 6 ports", but it also says something like "a company from the united arab emirates" when it should say "a company owned by the government of dubai".
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf
We also want the borders shut down and the Congress say's so what. But they listen on this and move faster then ever.
I fought in WWII in 43-45. My wife and I are staunch conservatives and I believe that both our borders (Mexico and Canada should be better monitored) and this deal with Dubai smacks with something that just doesn't seem right. While I have no problem with a reputable foreign firm, I do think this process needs to be better ferreted by our government. I am apprehensive about Islamic fundamentalists somehow using this to gain better access via our ports. Again don't want to sound protectionist, but I just don't trust the Arabs
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.