Good read, thanks!!!!
I'd like to see that poll done.
Not an online poll, but an official "scientific" poll.
The results would be revealing.
Were they wrong when they voted for him, or are they only wrong when they disagree with the author? I'll bet when the polls agree with the author, he's got a few hackneyed cliches about the "wisdom of the American people ready to go."
People today tend to live in the present and forget about the long haul. Solutions to some of our problems require the long haul approach.
It's the border, stupid. New York City is getting ready to pass legislation allowing illegals to vote in municipal elections. San Francisco is getting ready to do the same i some municipal elections. Any conservative who isn't behind the wall, opposes amnesty, and opposes guest workers simply doesn't understand what is at stake here.
No matter how low the President's poll numbers go, that of congress' will always be lower.
Hallelujah
By leaving out unpleasant details Don Surbur has actually justified the nation's displeasure with President Bush.
First he calls US a nation of "ingrates". It's Bush who is the "ingrate".
Surber's first order of business is to shoot down the misconception that "people don't vote for principle, they vote for whoever will give them the most 'pork'" while also illustrating that giving money back to us in and of itself doesn't make us "happy". Bush can't buy my vote or my support any more than he can buy the support of voters in Marin county.
And then he proceeds to illustrate why Bush blew it big time with Katrina. Bush rewarded the corrupt and irresponsible governments in NOLA and LA by giving them billions of our money and then put the blame on his FEMA director by firing him.
CODE BLUE!
Eisenhower did not end the Korean War Stalin and Mao did.
--Come to think of it, the five most affluent states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland and New York — all voted for Kerry.
When I was married I saw some of the seedy underbelly of the wealthy and it changed my perspective on America for a time. Luckily I always knew Churchill was right when he said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. I did become more cynical though. I'm happier now as a simple middle class working stiff with no connections to the grubby little dealings of the rich.
While Bush has been quite poor about communicating his message, and he has made mistakes, I think its important to recognize 2 basic facts here...
1) Most polls that are discussed on TV are done by liberal outlets, such as CNN, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc... The majority of their consistent viewers are liberal and this skews their polling results.
2) Frankly, when it comes to politics, economics and world affairs, most of the american public is flatly clueless (Note: the same applies in Europe). I see this all the time at work... people just don't keep up with the news, they know almost nothing about economics and they couldn't find Iraq on a map of the middle east. Most of them can't even name the 3 branches of US government, and I am surrounded at the office by people with university degrees. When these people go on rants about Bush its pretty easy to shut them up.
The more polling "news" I read, the better I understand why Hannibal Lecter ate the census taker who tried to quantify him.
Ver good read
Bush's "loss of popularity" doesn't translate into support for Democrats. Democrats hate him because, well, he's not a Democrat. Those percentages haven't changed (other than the fact that Dems continue to bleed Christians). Republicans are mad at him because he's too nice to Democrats. Some are disappointed because he has, in effect, enacted the DNC's program. Sometimes as a ploy, sometimes out of conviction; thats who he is.
Republicans who are mad at him for not being Republican enough skews the polls, and the chatterers are eating it up. But they should not take any false hope from it; more-conservative-than-thou Repubs aren't going to be crossing over to pull the lever for Clinton II.
One of Bush and Rove's ambitions was to begin the process of peeling Hispanic and Black American voters away from the Democratic Party.
You will never get a majority of either, but in a 50-50 electorate, you only need a few to permanently tip the political balance of power.
The fact that he was able to claim 40% of hispanic votes in some areas was huge, considering that usually Repubs could count on no more than 20 or 25%. He did this primarily with happy talk, just speaking respectfully about hispanics.
The Democrats see this, and have gone spastic over it. That is what is behind the marches and the general craziness in Congress right now. They have to reverse the trend, they have to paint Repubs as the "anti-hispanic" party. They are doing what they always do, which is to play ethnic politics, race politics. Its the only game they know.
If they succeed, they can regain the White House for a generation. Its hard to beat ethnic politics with color-blind politics, but thats what we're up against.
The idea of America as a racist country is a Democratic Party meme, their survival as a political party depends on it. The US admits, legally, with full permanent residency, 200,000 Mexicans every year. Not once, in all of the press hysteria about the issue will you hear that number. It is more important to convince hispanic voters that they are a victim class, in need of DNC protection.
That was one of the most uplifting articles that I have read in ever so long. Prospective is everything. Thanks!
Bush is his own worst enemy when it comes to poll numbers. He's under some delusion that he can persuade Democrats to join him. The only persuasion I'm interested in is their defeat. Bush doesn't get it.