Why the Polls are Low for President Bush

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27265242.shtml ^ | Apr 24, 2006 | Lee Ellis

[ncountylee]

"Bush polls have fallen to a new low," shout the newspaper headlines or the news anchors on television. "President Bush and Congress have reached their lowest numbers yet," they continue, trying to speculate whether this is caused by the high gasoline prices, the current economy, or the war in Iraq.

This is strange since there is good news, mostly hidden by the media, about all three.

1. Recently, the U.S. Energy Department announced the results of a land survey: "We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

snip

2. Our economy is at its best today with unemployment at its lowest in decades and with three million new jobs added!

snip

3. We are winning the war in Iraq and, as I write this, Jawad al-Maliki, an experienced political operator and advocate for Iraq's Shiite Muslims, has won the approval

snip

Anti-Bush information also pours into our homes from the news on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and even Fox News. The latter says that it is fair and balanced, implying that it gives you news from both the left and right political wings. But if TV news is to be balanced, should we not have at least one TV network that tells us only the truth about our country without two commentators spinning in two different directions? Don't we get enough opinion, generally slanted to the Left, from all the other networks?

snip

Polls always reflect not what people think but rather how they react to the news they see and hear every day beamed or tossed into their homes by both television and print.

[EternalVigilance]

It's true, in any case.

Good night.

[Garry Boldwater]

FYI...the vast majority of the whole, of the price of gasoline, is the local and state and FEDERAL taxes.

The high taxes on gasoline, as the politicians slam their podium with their fists in anger over how the big bad oil companies, is beyond hypocritical. It is hilarious.

It proves the old adage that if you tell a big enough lie almost everyone will believe you.

[Howlin]

So, you're the only man in America that would turn down the opportunity to work with Karl Rove in the White House.

Right.

[nopardons]

It also proves that most people will swallow anything as whole clothe; especially when class warfare is added to the message.

[nopardons]

Horsefeathers!

If Rove had offered you a job, even one to sweep floors, you would have posted it about that, without end, for the past six years! This is the first time that delusion has been posted to FR and you know it!

[ColdSteelTalon]

Because I am paying 3 bucks for a gallon of gas that probably costs 40 cents to produce. And the Bush family is into big oil

[Garry Boldwater]

His postions on immigration have not changed one iota since he ran on 2000.

Think back, right before 9/11 it was a virtual certainty that his policies were about to be enacted by Congress.

I want the borders sealed too, but I gave up that hope when POTUS didn't seal them on 9/12, which was the most golden of opportunities. Nobody, save for the ACLU and La Raza would have dared to complain.

Fair enough. Bush has always been soft on immigration that is for sure. But the only problem with that logic is that he also said no nation building in his admin. OK.

Well Iraq looks a helluv a lot like nation building to me. I completely support him on that front and think he is and did do the right thing with regard to Iraq. But why the change? Because 9/11 changed his world view. OK. How the hell did 9/11 not change his world view in regard to border security and easy access to our country?

It don't get it.

If we have any kind of terrorist attack and any of those terrorists or weapons are shown to come across either border, Bush and the Republicans are done in regard to securing our nation in the eyes of most of the public. Why risk that, because we need strawberry pickers?

[EternalVigilance]

Listen. Without the NRA, the GOP could not win another election.

I came on here tonight and saw you and your fellow harpies ragging on one of the hardest-working, best NRA guys in America. I've stayed in his home. He and his awesomely wonderful wife took me to dinner. They're not only among the nicest people you'd ever want to meet, they are truly self-sacrificing patriotic Americans.

If you think that driving people like that from the Republican Party, or from FR for that matter, is a good idea, you just keep it right up.

Just don't be surprised when some folks get a bit angry at you.

[EternalVigilance]

Hey, you discovered the exclamation point!

[Coldwater Creek]

If there was a thread on the flavor's of ice cream the second post would say close the boarder and put a fence around it.

[nopardons]

No, actually the Bush family hasn't been in the oil business in decades.

But thanks for coming over from DU, to post all of that.

[nopardons]

Are you at all aware of the fact that a whole LOT of Islamonazi terrorists came here on planes and quite a few came here via our BORDER WITH CANADA?

[nopardons]

Long ago, before you were born! :-)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[okiecon]

You can't please all the people all the time, or really even any of the time. Bush would do good to learn this. He is going to lose the Republican party the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and maybe some other western states, perhaps a few southern ones as well.

[Texas Mom]

And one of the reasons he's 'failing' is because for six years you and your ilk have been on his A$$ 24/7 about every little thing you don't agree with.

You go girl..

You got that right.

[okiecon]

Perot gave us Clinton.

[Coldwater Creek]

Bush is not running again!!

[okiecon]

BS, total BS. The reason he is failing are:

1. Bad PR

2. Too Much Spending

3. Pandering to Illegals

4. Not Calling the Media's BS

5. Medicare Entitlement

[Naptowne]

All you can do is take an excerpt from my sentence out of context. My post was an obvious attempt to get you to reflect on why you are a Republican. I was attempting to see if your opinions were guided by any principle. I would like you to explain in what ways a McCain or Guiliani appointed Supreme Court would differ from one appointed by John Kerry. I am not saying it wouldn't be different, but I want your input since you think a Republican is automatically good for your specific beliefs, supposing you have any specific beliefs other than thinking Republicans should be voted for regardless of their positions on issues.

[Coldwater Creek]

Stupid voters is what got us Clinton.