Posted on 02/06/2007 8:34:24 AM PST by jamese777
Well, I guess the answer to that is obvious. If Bush wants to exit his Presidency with a high approval rating, he has no choice but to go out and rape somebody ;-)
That's the way these pollsters get the negative results they want. It's not enough that people like the job Bush is doing with the economy and terrorism, they have to drag it through Iraq and immigration. Meanwhile, more people know the final score of Sunday's Super Bowl than know who the Secretary of State is.
Polls are a survey of uneducated and uninformed unwashed people.
A 32% popular President gets to decide the troop surge, not a bunch of cowardly legislators who can't think of anything better than to pass a resolution of protest like they are some Lefty city council.
That's actually not fair to Lefty city councils. They would have had the vote by now. The Senate can't even agree to debate, so they are reduced to talking about when they can talk about it, while the President runs the war.
In other words, a 32% GWB STILL has more real power and authority than a 64% popular scandal-fighting Clinton OR Queen Nancy and Dingy Harry.
I'm going to be perfectly frank and honest when I say I would like to see his ratings higher than this. Let's pray they go up soon. I don't want the GOP to see him as a political skunk.
Interestingly enough, the latest Rasmussen poll has Bush's rating at 44%.
The media thinks that his low rating on Immigration means that we need to give instant citizenship to all illegal immigrants and tell them to vote Democrat. Bush only wants to give amnesty, which doesn't go far enough for the Rats. The Rats want to turn them into a Democratic voting bloc.
That's old fashion. After 45 yrs of public scrools, as RUSH calls them & GW with Teddy giving them more money to defeat conservatism the American minds have no concept of conservatism.
Then lead & Secure The Border. How's that for a start?
You're right, sad to say. Bush never got over his 'new tone' naivete. He kept trying to cozy up to the 'Rats and they kicked him in the teeth every time he did and all along he kept p*ssing away support from his base as though it was bought and paid for and had nowhere else to go.
If Americans aren't bright enough to vote for small government, I'm beginning to think they deserve the big government they do vote for.
a Fox News poll is your idea of authoritative?
Its a Gallup Poll. And no, no single national public opinion poll is my idea of authoritative. The polls held the first tuesday of November are authoritative.
I agree with all that, but I'm talking about the War on Terror. Bush has pretty much abandoned it and is actively seeking to suppress it. Consider the actions taken by Iran to kill our troops in Iraq. Now ask yourself: which regime's actions justify us *most* in declaring war: the mullahs' or Saddam's?
"Polls are a survey of uneducated and uninformed unwashed people."
Who can vote if they choose to.
Well, clinton was the consumate machiavellian. Let's just say that he rewarded his friends, and punished them when he no longer had use for them.
But he did completely hose out the government and replace everyone with people loyal to him. And he did pass around the gravy and the parties. And he did punish anyone who crossed him.
Two people who might illustrate this ended up dead in Fort Marcy Park and Yugoslavia. They prospered while they did his bidding, and they were killed when they tried to turn against him.
If a newspaper reporter attacked clinton, clinton saw to it that he was fired from his job.
I'm not suggesting that Bush should have crossed all of those lines, but he certainly could have started out by cleaning out his enemies from the administration and putting in friends. And he could have punished leakers and traitors in the press instead of rewarding them with more interviews and press cards.
Yes, it's true that clinton turned on his friends, but it depends on the definition of friend. For clinton, a friend is someone is useful, and he's no longer a friend when he's no longer useful. As I say, I'm not recommending that, but maybe at least a LITTLE sense of how to reward and punish in politics would have been helpful.
Thanks for clarifying.
I agree that President Bush, like his father, overdoes the "reaching out to your political enemies" bit. It doens't work because it isn't reciprocated. And yes, he should have removed the stench of Clinton from the government where possible.
Reagan wasn't that ruthless either, but there was no need to remove Carter's influence because the man was such an incompetent disaster as President that he couldn't even poison the well for Reagan effectively.
Guess that would depend upon which demorat you want to win the 2008 election. I short friend it hurt the party.
Ditto!
The illegal immigration issue had driven some conservative totally unhinged. President Bush is the first President to work on resolving this problem since Eisenhower, and yet he is being attacked like he is the enemy by some conservatives.
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.