Drop in Bush's Approval Rating more Complex than Liberal Media will Let On

7-13-2003 | brianbaldwin

[Brian_Baldwin]

The phony liberal news wanted us to lose the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was true prior to and during both engagements, and the same liberal media supported both in propaganda and in spirit the Workers World Party gang of communists, anarchists and domestic and international Palestinian and Islamic terrorist groups of the “anti-war” (hate-America) street.

For the last many weeks the same phony liberal news, the worst of which I would say being the national ABC Radio News network and their regular, hourly and quarterly news update on all of their radio affiliates, engaged in constantly thumping the theme that all of the liberal media has been sounding on behalf of the Democratic Party - where are the weapons of mass destruction?

As if, what’s the point of the liberal news and Democratic Party? That Saddam Hussein and the socialist Baath Party be restored to power in Iraq, so that the hate America Islamic coalition can continue to have another powerful, dangerous, ally?

Late last week and over the weekend, a single quote about uranium from Africa in the State of the Union address, which was one item of the address of a multitude of concerns about Iraq and Saddam Hussein but was based on what appears to be bad intelligence, is being whipped up by the same phony liberal news media as some shocking scandal – absurd, and what’s the point? Again, their point that Saddam Hussein should be restored to power, and that the only regime change should be the Bush Administration? The same phony liberal news never mentions in their "news" that CIA Director George Tenet was a Clinton Administration hold-over in their reports on the “scandal” when Tenet is brought up as "sourcing" the information (to Bush) which originally came from the British. Many conservative talk hosts such as Michael Savage found Tenet questionable during the corrupt Clinton years and questioned his hold over (into the Bush Administration), Tenet a likely leftist mole of the Clinton crowd that weakened our security which led to 911. Right off, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Senator Richard Shelby R-ALA said CIA Director Tenet must be replaced, but the wishy-washy Bush Administration had only 50 votes in the Senate, then the Jumping Jim Jeffords switch, then Bob Graham of Florida became the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the conservatives were silenced, Shelby was told to shutup by Bush, Bush didn’t want to “rock the boat”.

Anyway, it’s all old news, and the whole uranium “scandal” is, as far as I’m concerned, mute, because for one the bulk of the American people really don’t care in my humble opinion about this non-scandalous “scandal”, any more than they really care about immediately finding huge caches of WMD. That is my gut feeling, my humble opinion, and as far as the “scandal”, the whole “falsehood” in this regard probably isn’t so “false” after all, the British sources continue to say it’s accurate, and the Bush administration said Sunday the president's statement in the State of the Union address about Iraq's seeking uranium was accurate and is supported by other British and U.S. information.

Now we are being told by the same phony liberal news that Bush’s approval rating dropped 17 points since April from 75 percent approval to 58 percent approval because Americans are upset about the “uranium scandal” and asking “where are the WMD’s?” – in other words, the same phony liberal news media is telling us they have been successful in undermining the war against Iraqi dictators, undermining our stance against the kill-America, kill-the-Jews Islamic coalition, a successful undermining thanks to the media’s propaganda campaign of “where’s the WMD?” and “uranium FALSEHOOD” (viz - Bush is a liar!) crusade on behalf of the America-hating Democratic Party. However, this conclusion is false in many premises.

The fact is, WMD and the “uranium scandal” do not explain the drop in approval, because Americans really do not care about these two in the same way the phony liberal media is telling us . . . Americans want the WMD to be found wherever it can be found, and support Bush in this effort – they do not share the phony liberal news and their hatred of America, they do not wish to see America fail in the war on terrorism like the liberal media and the Democratic Party wants to see simply because a regime change in Washington is of more importance in agenda to these leftists et all than the security of America. As far as the “uranium scandal”, Americans are already forgetting this “news cycle”.

No, this is all nonsense reasons for the drop in approval. Sure, they play into the picture, but in no way to the extent the liars in the media want us to believe.

A much more compelling issue is the continual, terrorist, attacks upon our troops stationed in Iraq, each day more reports of more American casualties. This concern can have a two-fold reaction: 1) kill those Baathist bastards as fast as possible and setup local Iraqis in power who will help see this about, or 2) high-tail it out of Iraq and let the Baathist bastards retake power in Iraq because we can’t afford to have several hundred American soldiers as casualties.

I believer that number 1 is how many Americans actually feel about the issue, not number 2 as the phony liberal news wants us to believe. I think that Americans understand that number 2 means telling the Islamic world that we are weak, and please come and blow up some more buildings in the United States as soon as possible.

58 percent approval, that is pretty good approval rating. And, we are being fed a bunch a crap from the liberal media. And, I believe there are more factoids involved in this drop in approval rating, factoids that the phony liberal media would never acknowledge in any of their fake “reporting”:

1 – continual American causalities in Iraq, is a factor
2 – another factor but being ignored by the media is that many conservatives are turning on Bush, disappointed in Bush, angry at Bush, regarding his domestic policies, government spending, applauding outrageous Supreme Court rulings, his continual support of the agenda of the Mexican government and the whole illegal aliens issue, the lack of spine by Republicans regarding border issues and immigration, etc..

I believe this conservative reaction is, in part and to a much larger degree than the phony liberal media would let on, an explanation for the drop in Bush’s approval rating.

Bush has been running around in Africa, spewing rhetoric about American blame for slavery, throwing money around, etc., and it appears he is just trying to cater the “African-American” vote. Just as he has failed to win the Hispanic vote nationally from the Democrats, this will even more dramatically fail. This recent tour is just one example of what Bush, and some Republicans, simply “can’t get”, can’t understand. Selling out the conservative principles will, in the end, do nothing really to gain votes, and there WILL be many conservatives who will turn on them and this will cost them. The “Big Tent” loses elections, doesn’t win them.

Bush also assumes that even if conservatives become more angry, they won’t turn on him regarding Iraq issues.

He is wrong in that.

O’Reilly just mentioned on one of his latest radios shows that if Bush lied or purposely misled regarding WMD etc., that he will call for Bush’s impeachment. Savage said that “if in fact, and we don’t know if it is fact yet”, Bush “cooked the books” regarding these intelligence matters, that this is a “bigger lie” in consequence than “Clinton lying about sex”, and would be a valid reason for a possible impeachment. I’ve heard spokespersons from National Review say the same.

So, Bush better not count on conservatives being the sheeple that he wants them to be on this issue – many conservatives are already angry at Bush and Republicans in general, example the recent columns in National Review which question the Bush liberal tilt and question if Republicans are really conservatives at all anymore. I can list many more examples.

In regards to Savage, and some of the recent events in which some Bushies cheered his firing at MSNBC, yes, Savage has been a voice that has questioned Bush and his policies – it is amazing, in regards to the “uranium” issue, Savage has in fact been supportive of the President in the sense of communicating the phony agenda of the liberal media in this regard. But in regards to Savage, in no way count his voice out, his does, and will continue, to effect conservative politics. Savage never contended his "freedom of speech" was taken from him - he said political correctness will led to censorship (it will), but he said it was a policy issue, policy influenced by pressure groups from the homosexual and Gay lobby, GLAD and NAMBLA (this is a fact). I was amazed, but actually not surprised, to see some wimpy types on FOX early this morning talking about the Savage firing, one lady called Michael Savage up on making “racist remarks” and that he was an “anti-Semite”. I almost laughed at the ignorance of this wimpy fool women, in that there is no bigger voice I can think of in the media who regularly communicates the horrors of the holocaust, the continued dangers to Jews by neo-Nazi’s and Islamic Fascists of today, who gives regular support to Israeli cause, and who is a Jew by birth himself. Another wimp on the same FOX report, a so-called conservative, said Savage claimed his "free speech" was taken from him, which he never claimed, the same so-called conservative couldn't spell out the organization GLAD correctly, and then used the term “hate talk” in regards to Savage. A pathetic wimp, in that each flag has a language and it is language that often clarifies which flag you fly. This wimp, who should be wearing check-pants, called it hate talk. The fact of the matter is, hate talk is political-speak of the Left for a mandate of censorship on all conservative dialog in the public medium. The same wimpy fool on FOX who said this, will be the same wimpy fool who will be the next one who will be told what he or she said is hate talk and is not allowed – this fool doesn’t understand the enemy and doesn’t understand that he is next.

I mention Savage in context of this, not because his firing should be the spotlight of concern for conservatives at this time, he is just one voice. There is another reason to mention this. I believe this fool on FOX, in his comments about this conservative talk show host (who he kept referring to as “far right-wing” and “hate talk”) is another of those who will sell out all of conservative principles in the name of Bush’s re-election. But, the point is, if this sell out continues by Bush operatives, Bush will NOT be re-elected, and his approval ratings will continue to drop. It will be conservatives who will take Bush down if this continues.

If some so-called conservatives take on the rhetoric of the left, take on the language of political correctness, as was demonstrated in this FOX report, they become enablers of those in the left who are truly the repressive Commissars of hate. Conservatives are not allowed to have hate, to be angry. In fact, what I see is not hate from conservatives, but anger. And not only is there nothing wrong with anger, in the face of the culture wars and assault upon free society by the liberal left, without this anger, without it America, morality, and what we call conservative principles, is going to be defeated and sent to the gas chambers if you will. The left knows that, and thus the compelling need to straightjacket conservative power by means of words (e.g. “hate talk”) which become "legal-leez" to effect the outlawing of conservative discourse entirely.

Using Michael Savage as again the example, he invented the term “compassionate conservative”. The Bush campaign then stole this from Savage, and then took it seriously – too much compassion, not enough conservative. If this continues, Bush’s approval will drop to 50 percent or less, it will be conservatives who will play a large role in ensuring this. They will not only be angry, they will be more angry, and you must be angry to see the all-pervading spirit of truth face to face, you must be able to love some of the meanest of your own creation as oneself – in fact, this is what happens, and thus "boogie men" such as Savage, appear on the scene. They will not go away, because one who aspires devotion to truth often must also become angry, or one should not aspire for truth, or for that matter any field of life. In some ways, it takes courage to be angry. The left wants to take away our courage – it is easy to be “nice”, to “compromise”, to “go along”. I can say without the slightest hesitation, it takes courage to be angry, and that anger threatens your privacy and brings spotlight upon oneself, and in that sense anger is also a form of humility, you are going to face personal attack, slander. You are going to face all of this when you are brave enough to be angry.

Those who say politics, which is required in the culture wars, has nothing to do with anger, do not know what politics means. If you seriously are concerned about the culture wars which threaten your children, then you must become angry – things can become ugly, in fact the enemy may even try to imprison you and this is not just mentioned as a quip. The language of political correctness is not simply a political expression, it is a means of law, law which will imprison you.

Bush’s approval ratings are starting to fall. You can expect that as there are more angry conservatives, his approval ratings will fall even more.

[Radix]

Bush’s approval ratings are starting to fall. You can expect that as there are more angry conservatives, his approval ratings will fall even more.

Bush is definitely pissing off conservatives. I believe that this White House is banking on the fact that Rebublicans and conservatives will not allow a repeat of 1992, when Perot caused the elder Bush to lose. I personally voted for Perot as a protest against that President Bush.

I despised Clinton from day one, but I would still vote for Perot if I could do it over again. That President lied about his campaign no new taxes pledge, period. He lost my vote on the day that he broke that promise and raised my taxes. This current President is taking a serious gamble with his base.

Despite this, conservatives will not likely repeat the mistake of 1992. It is however frustrating to watch W moving the party leftward in order to insure his re-election next year. I do not think that he has to do it, but he has access to data that I am not privy to.

The fact remains that I do not vote to re-elect politicians, nevertheless, W has my vote next year. I simply cannot contribute to the act of allowing another Democrat to ever hold that presidential office again.

[Support Free Republic]

Keep Free Republic Rockin' 'Round The Clock!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!