Posted on 04/12/2006 5:06:55 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
April 12, 2006
On a light news day, why not run a generic piece on President Bush's low poll numbers and his assertedly bleak prospects for reviving them? That was apparently the thinking at the Today show this morning.
Today themed the segment "Can Bush Save Presidency?", and NBC White House reporter Kelly O'Donnell seemed to answer the question in the negative, kicking things off with this gloomy assessment:
"For President Bush, low poll numbers have not just been a dip or temporary rough patch but appear now to be a sustained pattern that is different than his predecessors of both parties who went through their own tough times." She continued: "His . . presidency appears to have a chronic case of the below-40 percent blues."
After David Gergen was shown suggesting that "presidents have sometimes broken out of slumps when they've had big, bold initiatives and unexpected victories - that often shake things up" O'Donnell reappeared to dump cold water on the notion that W could have any such luck:
"Looking back, some second-term presidents have been able to rebound. President Reagan's approval fell to 34 percent with the arms-for-hostages scandal. Pres. Clinton hit 41 percent around impeachment. But both bounced back up to the 60s as they left office. Analysts say the prospects for Mr. Bush are not as good because of the weight of ongoing events: Iraq, gas prices, the CIA leak case and hurricane response."
Gergen popped back up to pessimistically proclaim: "After a while those negative feelings really do congeal, they crystallize, they become firm and then it's very hard to break out."
O'Donnell: "political observers claim big speeches and staff changes won't turn things around and suggest the president may have to wait to seize on any good news."
Commentator Stu Rothenberg then observed: "If there is something he can brag about he needs to quickly then be able to go to the American public and make his case and drive home the point. But for now he simply doesn't have much ammunition at his disposal."
Count on Today and its MSM cohorts to do their best to keep things that way.
As to immigration ...Ronald Reagan patron saint of the right and my personal favorite President signed the legislation that has given us this mess...
(I still respect him in spite of it)
Well, you've joined the wrong web site; this web site is supporting Republicans in 2006 and 2008.
Don't believe me?
Here's what the OWNER of this site said:
Well, there is the Republican party with some conservative members and some not so conservative and then there's the evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat Party. I'd rather have a conservative Republican in office, but I'll take a not so conservative Republican over any evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat any day of the week. And I might express my unhappiness with some of his policies but I think I've learned my lesson about irreversibly trashing the Republican office holder or the Republican base or the party itself (at least not too much trashing). As they say, the alternative is unthinkable.
Superb post, PKM! You are a voice of reason in these contentious times. I too have noticed the gleeful "bashers", and try to ignore them in favor of the thoughtful posters, even if the latter sometimes disagree with my positions. I understand that free speech is robust, often offensive, but their freedom to spout hate doesn't mean I have to buy into that kind of lowness.
I am a self-proclaimed Bushbot who loves this President dearly; he inspires me in a way that no other President has: to do and be better. He was dealt an awful hand, and he has triumphed over overwhelming odds. I would rather keep faith in him (and the common sense of the number of people who do think for themselves) than the awful, antique media. Thank heavens for places like FR! But you're right, the freedom of FR means that it also plays host to some corrosively destructive agents and leftist plants. Right now, "they" are stirring the pot on illegal immigration in a (pathetic) attempt to have us turn on ourselves in a frenzy of emotion instead of the cool logic the situation needs.
Thanks for saying what needed to be said, and thanks for finding the courage to do so.
Oh, I'm sorry; did you think because I talked about you that I actually wanted to hear what your opinion on anything was?
Well, then, let me be perfectly clear: I've read a lot of your posts; you add nothing to this site except negativism and doom and gloom.
And I think you like it. Go away.
Maybe its local. Where I live, English is fast becoming a second language. It has gotten way worse over the past few years. I come in to contact with way too many of these proposed new "guests" to think its a good thing to give them amensty.
The closer one is to these issues, the more its is frustrating to hear utter garbage from our "leaders."
Many Freepers don't have such strong views on this because they are not as close to the "action" so to say. However, once it arrives on their doorstep they will think a little differently about this.
"Big Bush supporter"........yeah, right.
These people actually think we're dumb.
Subtle as a sledge hammer.
ROFL!!
I see you're really no better then the other FReepers running around FR posing as conservatives. Take me off your pinglist(s) and don't ever ping me to any post of yours again. Thank you.
Coop is Howlin taking lessons from you..
How to win over new converts 101?
But why repeat the same mistake twice?
You are not serious, are you?
You don't really think these people can be "won over," do you?
I don't think she takes anything from anyone. :-)
no!!!
not the Ping lists!!! Now I getting worried....
Typically, you give no response, just diversion.
Oh, why? If she keeps you on here ping list, you can put on your "I'm A Better Conservative Than You Are" hat and rush to the thread and be your usual Holier-Than-Thou sanctimonious self.
Why would I respond to somebody who has absolutely nothing to offer as comment other than a rant that you probably have stored on as a macro?
I think he is talking about **CREDIBILITY!**. It takes a long time to build it... and it also takes time to lose it, but once you lose it... when people no longer trust your judgement, it can not be gotten back that easily.
BULLoney! This is getting tiresome listening to historic revisionism from you know nothings.
First off, Reagan didn't support open borders. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that gave 2.6 million illegals amnesty. It specified tough employer sanctions, prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law was enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time amnesty deal. Instead, the Feds lack of enforcement led to a ongoing series of liberal immigration policies under Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, that has led to the 10-15 million illegals we have living in the US today. With 3-5 milion entering the US illegally since Dubya became POTUS.
Howlin I am funning you..
There is so little rationality on the immigration debate, that I have for all practical purposes turned off all news sources. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm sick of watching people getting whipped into a frenzy once again.
The only broadcast people I listen to anymore are Tony Snow and Brit Hume.
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.