Posted on 11/11/2006 7:06:57 PM PST by screw boll
His ratings went down big time on Wednesday with us!
I have been very supportive of Bush, but his handling if Rumsfeld has really shaken my faith in him.
He flat out lied about keeping Rumsfeld. I find that hard to accept.
I no longer trust him to deal properly with Iraq. I hope he does, but he seems to be a different person at this point. His courting of the Dems is sickening.
I know, he has to be civil, but he is scaring me.
I pray that I am wrong.
Folks, the next two years is going to be either investigations and hearings all the time or the President is going to hand them the keys to the barn door and do pomp and circumstance for two years.
Someone reported this week (it may have been Rasmussen) that Pelosi's approval was 24%, the same as Hastert's.
31%?
it's really that high?
Wow, with only 31% popularity rate, it seems unlikely that he'll win the next Presidential election.
Heck, I bet he won't even run.
After this election, it is safe to disregard the Newsweek/Time/CNN/Fox polls. They wildly overestimated the Democrat margin of victory on the generic ballot.
Rasmussen/Pew/Mason-Dixon, on the other hand, cannot be ignored. They were close to being dead on in the races they covered.
If my memory serves me correct, 1986 was the year Reagan pushed through a huge tax reform package. There was no phasing in the reform and a lot of people were hurt financially. That didn't help...also, not only was Reagan was pounded terribly by the press, but Nancy was pounded almost daily. We didn't have a FOX news back then or internet to get the real news out and it was the MSM all the time that fed people's perceptions... all that said, I loved and cheered the man.
~LOL~ well, she certainly isn't phased by that lack of popularity, is she? Sadly less than 50% of the country even knows who she is.
We also didn't have GOP gerrymandered districts in 1986. Quite the opposite.
LOL! Did you think you would sneak that by?
Good point.
He is responding to 'the realities on the ground' . . . perhaps a few more people on this thread should have worked harder to re-elect a Republican majority -- in a brutal environment in Ohio (NOT related to President Bush or Iraq by the way) my grassroots team held our ground and got our Republican Congresswoman re-elected.
Again, after Reagan's losses in the 1986 mid-term, the ubercons turned on him as well -- Republicans just love eating their own. I, however, plan to battle the real ENEMY not our Commander in Chief!
He is responding to 'the realities on the ground' . . . perhaps a few more people on this thread should have worked harder to re-elect a Republican majority -- in a brutal environment in Ohio (NOT related to President Bush or Iraq by the way) my grassroots team held our ground and got our Republican Congresswoman re-elected.
Again, after Reagan's losses in the 1986 mid-term, the ubercons turned on him as well -- Republicans just love eating their own. I, however, plan to battle the real ENEMY not our Commander in Chief!
It was the conservative elites/intelligentsia that turned on Reagan . . . For example, William Buckley derided him as nothing more than "a speech reader in chief" because he (Buckley) felt that Reagan had 'gone soft' vis a vis the Soviet Union -- DEJA VU?!
Unless Republicans are willing to make the compromises necessary to allow us to win swing districts and formerly GOP-friendly areas in PA, NY, CA and New England, the GOP will be doomed to another 40 years in the wilderness.
I'm not battling our president. I am encouraging him to fight. He owes it to the troops.
This will never stop. To hell with their stacked polls.
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.