Posted on 04/20/2006 11:02:34 AM PDT by Grendel9
NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.
Opinions are sharply divided on whether Rumsfeld should resign as secretary of defense. In addition, views on the economy are glum; most Americans rate the current economy negatively, and twice as many say it feels like the economy is getting worse rather than better. These are just some of the findings of the latest FOX News national poll.
President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new low of 33 percent approve, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. A year ago this time, 47 percent approved and two years ago 50 percent approved (April 2004).
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A fundamental split is taking place in our understanding of what it means to be conservative. As a fiscal conservative I am for free trade, balanced budgets and low taxes. I favor accelerated immigration to support a growing economy. I know it is complex but I favor both open borders and better security. I know we are clever enough to do both. I loath increased government meddling in our business and personal affairs. I have come to realize that I have no idea what social conservatives really want.
Then why didn't Ronald Reagan propose a wall.
Oh I forgot, he was actually intellectually honest, unlike some of his psuedo followers on FR, when he stated "Mr. Grobachev tear down this wall" and was the originator of NAFTA.
"A fundamental split is taking place in our understanding of what it means to be conservative."
I think it has always been an uneasy alliance between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives.
Put me down with the fiscal conservatives.
I've always thought that some of the wishes of the social conservatives directly clash with the "smaller, less intrusive government" wishes of the fiscal conservatives.
Probably makes me a Country Club Republican.
Uh no, you DUmmie trolls do the baiting yourselves.
The problem wasn't that bad at the time. His failure to propose it does not prove opposition to the idea. For all we know, he considered it but did not propose it.
"Tear down this wall" is about liberating a population, not about throwing down a nation's defenses. Support for NAFTA does not equate to support for unfettered immigration.
"JMO, you are a different side of the same communist coin.
Ala hitler/stalin."
AHHH. That's better Dane. More like the old Dane I used to know. More imaginative.
While I agree with what I believe to be your bottom line (negative MSM coverage as a causation), I'm not sure I agree that one must assume a (presumably single) common influence is at work. There may be more than one that cause a bias in a common, here negative, direction, but for different reasons.
Some might be influenced by gasoline and / or diesel prices. Others, such as in my area of the country, by spikes in property insurance. Still others by increases in the costs of medical care. And yet others influenced by downward pressures in wages in their occupational group by an overwhelming influx of illegal alien workers, such as drywallers. In short, I believe that multiple causes are as credible an explanation as is a single cause. More probably, we are both correct - it is all of the above.
Uh then why did Ronald Reagan propose NAFTA?
Today I broke my usual policy of not feeding the few Mexico-merger trolls hopping about on FR. Fun for a bit, but ultimately not worth the time.
Support of NAFTA has nothing to do with support for unfettered illegal immigration. You've made no connection between them.
You seem to think NAFTA means unfettered shipment of whatever they want, whenever they want, into the US. Not so.
Right.
I'm honored. I guess I am threat to your little, but very loud clique(kinda of akin to the cheerleader cliques in high school every one has dealt with).
Reagan had a vision of unfettered borders between the US, Canada, and Mexico, and not walls.
Thems the facts. I'll stick with Reagan's vision rather than the buchanans' or tancredo's.
When was the last time we saw Bush holding an American flag?
Yesterday I had a conversation with the plant manager of a small manufacturing firm in Tyler, Texas.
FYI, Tyler's population is about 90,000 and as of Feb. 2006, the unemployment rate is 4.5%. (Full employment, right?)
The plant manager was of the opinion the job market must be brutal. A couple of weeks ago, he placed a small ad for clerical help. Answering phones, typing etc. $6-$8 an hour, no benefits. He said over four days they had in excess of 200 calls and walk-ins applying for that position.
He was very uneasy about the situation.
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.