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.
When I was poll watching in Jacksonville FL, I got the chance to speak to alot of voters who came out for GWB. There were a few issues why they were there:
1. WOT
2. Gay Marriage/Abortion
3. Judges.
If GWB were to actually come out in favor of the Gay Marriage amendment, it seems that it would help alot.
The former. And since PKM's post and ping was about the dynamic she describes, I was reponding to that.
But I think you knew that.
I see you're a member of the plaintiff's bar in New York. Tell me, who exactly legislated the bilingual laws there and who exactly argued before liberal elected and appointed courts to force bilingualism there and anywhere else? Who has sat back and not given a happy damn about this most of their lives? Feel free to answer or not, counselor, but your Bush-bashing is unwarranted and tiring. Perhaps you should indulge in a little legal malpractice to keep your skills sharpened.
So, if you are a true Reagan acolyte, then it was hunky dory for him to sign a full bore amnesty into law? Please, your blather about true conservatives smacks of smug, pretentious self delusion. No, I won't ping to you either. Might cause tachycardia. Wouldn't want that.
Plaintiff's bar???????????
I represent small businesses who can't paid from deadbeats. Most are plumbers, painters, electricians, carting, and roofing who get screwed by deadbeat GC's.
I have never had a PI case in my entire life and would not know what to do if I had to do one.
Geez.
Please, then, point out the spam on this thread.
I've seen him make public statements saying he does endorse the idea.
Maybe hijacking is a better word than spamming. As I stated db, I responded to a ping and agreed with PKM's observation that way too many of threads (immigration, ports...pick a topic) become taken over by easily recognizable Bush bashers and degenerate into....crap. That's what I'm referring to.
Even if it isn't that same exact wordage or graphics (sometimes it is) these people use from thread to thread, it's the same purpose and dynamic. In many cases the thread topic (immigration etc.) becomes secondary to their real purpose (attacking the President).
And week after week, issue after issue, it becomes a tiresome distraction to the thread and FR overall. I'm tired of it, apparently so are others. I can be unhappy with the Pres and congress about the illegal immigrant situation without using repetitive language that denigrates the office of POTUS or our own congress, hence our country
Probably more explanation that you wanted, or even needed. But there it is.
Amen. This should be engraved above every freedom loving Amricans computer.
Well, terminology does matter. I don't think the threads are being hijacked - instead, I think this represents the level of dissatisfaction over Bush's positions on illegal immigration.
I would venture that if you and PhiKapMom and others directed a bit of ire up at the Bush Admin, it might change things - because the Bush Admin needs to hear from all sectors of the GOP and realize that it is running grossly counter to the base on this issue, and that, since Bush will not be up for re-election again, they need to subvert their guest-worker agenda when necessary for the good of the GOP House members up for re-election this year.
I am not happy with the Bush Admin and the RINO senators like Specter and Graham and McCain at all. But I stand firmly behind the GOP House, and IMO that stand is about the future of the GOP - and I see Bush threatening such. So you need to make a decision here - do you continue to defend Bush here, who will never face re-election again, or do stand up and demand that he quit hurting the chances of the House GOP in the 2006 elections?
NPR ran with this story this morning, too. And it was 'Mr. Bush,' not President Bush. They were thrilled.
I'm staying and the bush bashers aren't winning any fans
Feel free to do so, Poop.
OUCH!
Grampa Dave, I was a car-carrying Bircher back in the early '60's and when I heard Ronaldus Magnis make his famous speech for Goldwater, I (as well as all the other Birchers I knew) immediately fell to our knees and thanked God for sending us such an outstanding statesman.
Our admiration has never faltered. RR was one of our greatest presidents, and is in the company of our most outstanding statesmen... ever. And all my old Bircher friends are in total agreement. Please don't lump us in with some of the present day yahoo's who call themselves far right.
Okay, Reagan Boy.
Psst Kelly -- why not include all of congress in your doom and gloom assessment as I understand they poll just as low.
Reagan never hit 34% ever!!!...he was at 43% in late 1982 when unemployment hit 10.9% and again in the fall of 1986 he was at about 45-46% before recovering into the mid 50s by summer 1987. He hit over 60% by Jan 1989.
Clinton was not at 41% during impeachment. He was at 35% in 1994 but during impeachment he was at about 60%
these guys are morons.
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.