NEW Gallup: Bush's Soaring Approval More Sustained Than Any In Presidential History

GALLUP ^

[hawaiian]

"President Bush's job approval rating shows no sign of decline. The latest Gallup poll, conducted Nov. 8-11, measures the president’s approval rating at 87%. Bush’s job approval has remained at 86% or higher in seven polls conducted over two months. In the history of Gallup polling, no prior presidents have been able to sustain their high approval levels, with no apparent decline, this long." Full Story

[AlGone2001]

I really don't know wher you get this stuff. We were not, and I am not talking about Gore.

You really shot me down there, didn't you? I hope you have plenty of time, because I'm beginning to really enjoy this.

[gjenkins]

Running? You have a straw man set-up, and I am not him. Go ahead and knock it down. Judging by your screen name you certainly have a complex about it.

PS. Tracking the election and hoping for a Bush victory was what brought me to Free Republic. I am still in belief that Bush represents only a luke warm version of what the GOP should be or needs to be in order to stop our move towards socialism.

[AlGone2001]

I am still in belief that Bush represents only a luke warm version of what the GOP should be or needs to be in order to stop our move towards socialism.

And what is it about Gore's brand of socialism that doesn't seem to merit discussion? You like his version?

[gjenkins]

"This is about you having an attitude that Harry Browne is still a candidate. If you wanted an honest debate, you'd include Gore, but you've had many opportunities to do that, haven't you?"

I don't like Gore. I dislike Gore far more than I like Bush (and I do like Bush just a little bit). I am not talking about Harry Browne at all. Bye Bye.

[AlGone2001]

PS. Tracking the election and hoping for a Bush victory was what brought me to Free Republic.

Why does that not seem to line up with the fact that you tell us he wouldn't be here if he wasn't the son of a powerful man?

[AlGone2001]

Let me see if I understand your rules....

1. It's okay for you to go off-subject and declare that President Bush would not not have been elected had it not been for his father.

2. It's not okay for me to ask you why you did not attribute the same luxury to Gore?

Are those the rules by which you play?

[AlGone2001]

I don't like Gore. I dislike Gore far more than I like Bush (and I do like Bush just a little bit). I am not talking about Harry Browne at all. Bye Bye. Please don't go. So, it seems that you dislike Gore very much, but perhaps like President Bush only a little? Oh, and now that I've introduced Browne, I got close to home. You don't want to talk about Gore, since that pushes President Bush way to the right. You don't want that comparison, do you? I'll remember that. Thanks.

I thought that the libertarians were for more than a 2-party system? If so, let's discuss Gore's luck, too. Hmmm?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

even if they did take out Cheney the man, America the country will keep right on rolling down on them.

And if a nuke takes out Bush, Cheney, the entire Cabinet, and every member of Congress in one blow, what then LD.

[gjenkins]

"It's not okay for me to ask you why you did not attribute the same luxury to Gore?"

We were not talking about Gore. I would attribute the same luxury to Gore but we were not talking about Gore. Gore is irrelevant. Gore is a liberal democrat socialist loser. That fact doesn't make George Bush perfect or change his fortunate upbringing.

[AlGone2001]

I am calling on Dick Cheney to buck up and come stand on the firing line with all the postal workers and average citizens who take the shots he hides.

Exactly how are you doing that, courageous?

[AlGone2001]

We were not talking about Gore.

We weren't talking about Bush's family either. We were taklking about how he is more popular than others, to include Gore and ... let's say, Browne. You don't want to go by the same rules that you want the rest of us to follow. We weren't talking about JFK, either, but you drug him in. I can't do the same?

[NYCVirago]

Try to resist the urge to be funny if it means leading folks astray and only further encouraging them to believe I'm some sort of wacked out, Bush-hating conspiracy theorist. I'm sick of it.

I don't dislike you, Aske15 -- I thought you were doing a great thing with the firemen's funeral threads, for example -- but I do have a problem with you flinging charges against George H. W. Bush being behind Reagan's assassination attempt, and accusing the Bushes of being controlled by some shadowy forces.

[gjenkins]

"If so, let's discuss Gore's luck, too. Hmmm?"

Whatever for? He lost. Who Bush is and what he stands for is far more important at this moment in time.

[AlGone2001]

Whatever for? He lost. Who Bush is and what he stands for is far more important at this moment in time.

Your point was that President Bush won because he is a Bush. Why did Gore not win, being a Gore? You claimed that it was Bush's heritage that had him elected, but you refused to mention that Gore had the same heritage.

If it is more important to you to discuss what President Bush stands for, why did you have to preface it with his family luck? Hmmmm?

[gjenkins]

"We weren't talking about Bush's family either."

Oh! Yes we were. I was posting to Hugh Akston, because I disagreed with him that Bush was a self made politician who forsook his passion of baseball to enter politics. He was arguing with Askel5 about the roots of Bush and the Bush failies power ... and something about the Reagan assassination attempt.

[AlGone2001]

Oh! Yes we were. </I.

It was a joke about Reagan, and you took it to the max.

Care to follow the same rules and discuss your lack of applying the same characteristics to Gore? Or, do you still prefer the double-standard?

[AlGone2001]

No italics

[RightWhale]

Military Tribunals ...

. . .

Pity it will be with us in perpetuity.

---

Pity bin Laden; he's lost a lot of weight. When he is hanged he may kick for a while unless they let a volunteer pull on his legs.

[AlGone2001]

Tell us....

Why did Gore not win, since he is the son of a wealthy politician? Why? Isn't that why President Bush won? Does it not apply to Gore, as well? In fact, Gore had been a presidential candidate well before President Bush, and lost.

Why didhe lose? I thought rich boys from powerful political families always won. That is what you were saying, wasn't it?

[gjenkins]

"Then you agree with me that it is likely that Askel's theory, that he is a dunce who has just been moved as certain powers wish, is horsepucky?"

No matter how dim, smart, or clever he is, I think he is still controllable based on his commitment to pragmatic politics. If nothing else he is controllable by public opinion. He has certainly bought into the pragmatic requirements of ruling over a democracy, which is a suckers bet to those who believe in absolute rights and wrongs. IMHO