2% ...

[U2DMfan]

what bothers me is Bush's approval rating is in the toilet less than a year after his re-election. I could see buying something and not knowing what you are getting. Not the case, here.

I could see voting for the man and standing by his principles. I don't get the dumbasses who voted for him (presumably), or at least supported him and now are waking up to find out he's incompetent.

I have more admiration for those who stand by Bush consistently than those who bash him now and yet supported him in Nov 2004.

As someone else said on the first page, these polls don't mean shit. The only poll that mattered is a done deal.

 

[sue4u2]

.
I have more admiration for those who stand by Bush consistently than those who bash him now and yet supported him in Nov 2004.

What???
People can't change their minds based on performance and even insight?
Those who stand by him consistently, no matter what he does, are far worse than those who have gained insight..

 

[deep]

what bothers me is Bush's approval rating is in the toilet less than a year after his re-election.

he should be impeached

 

[odowdpa]

thats the thing, you wonder why Bush won, because Dems can't get their act together. they just spit whatever nonsense comes to their brains. prime example, your boy Dean. Gather some responses that look like you spent some time on them and maybe you'll win one in the next three elections. spitting fire doesn't come off as a good look....fyi.

McCain and Rudy will win the next election...mark my words.

 

[BonosSaint]

I could seemyself voting for McCain for President, but if Rudy's on the ticket, I'll vote elsewhere.

By the way, anything good you have to say about Democrats, odowdpa? Or do you want a one way street? I answered your question.

 

[odowdpa]

I think Dems have their hearts in the right place. They want peace in the world, they are good people. Pretty much 80% of my good friends are Dems, so I hear thier opinions all of the time. I highly respect their opinions, it just gets under my skin when respect is not given both ways.

I agree with a lot of things they say, but ideas differ when we try and figure out how we are going to solve these problems. Remember, these issues we are dealing with now came before Bush i.e. when they tried taking down the Towers in '93 during the Clinton era. It just makes my skin crawl when I hear Bush created these problems.

Hearing all of this negativity takes a toll on me because if we worked together, things would get done a whole lot smoother. Bashing him is not going to make the problem go away. Even yesterday, as I was coming out of the subway, there was this worn-down woman handing out a slip of paper saying "Bush is bad." He is going to be the president for the next couple of years whether you like it or not. Calling him "bad" isn't accomplishing anything.

My only point in this thread is that bashing him isn't helping the issues.

 

[anitram]

My only point in this thread is that bashing him isn't helping the issues.

Why is it bashing?

People who happen to believe he is the worst president of their lifetime have their reasons.

If you were a gay man and you were not allowed to marry your partner of 20 years nor receive access to his health care benefits, do you not have a right to speak out about this, which may be the most important issue to you? How the hell are you supposed to "help" the issues when you have absolutely no recourse with a Republican controlled WH, Senate, Congress, judiciary and the various church leaders they are currently in bed with to prevent equal rights for you?

Let's all just sit back and not complain at all.

Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever seen. Condoleezza Rice is a pretty pony princess.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure we've framed any issues from the news report.

Are the statistics reliable?

Are the statistics a reflection of policies that target African Americans (by race)?

Are the statistics a broader reflection of economic policies?

Are the statistics a reflection of other political agendas?

There are plenty of things we could discuss.

 

[BonosSaint]

Thank you. I appreciate your response. And I agree that bashing him doesn't help the issues. But sometimes it is fun sport that I participate in very occasionally.

 

[odowdpa]

I'm not saying don't complain at all, but do so in a way where both sides can work together. If you come off ranting and raving, then your opinion will go by the wayside.

 

[BonosSaint]

I try not to rant and rave (although I think there is occasional blood spilled when my father and I argue--most times we scrupulously avoid anything political --how about those (insert
favorite sports team)?

I suspect that the country is divided so vehemently that either side won't give an inch because the other side pounces on it as capitulation. I'd like a moderate in for a while so maybe all this bitterness will cool off for a while.

There's always been divisiveness. I don't know that it's ever been this dividing. You know, at first I was pleased when the Republicans took over the House in '94, because I thought the Democrats took their base for granted. But from my perspective,
it seemed most of their energies were spent trying to bring Clinton down however they could do it. And I lost respect and I lost interest in the Republican party as any national party I could ever vote for unless a maverick got the nomination. (I often voted Republican locally because we are such a corrupt little area, but the Republicans are turning out just as bad.)

 

[trevster2k]

Well, I think you can blame Bush for changing the world's opinion of America immediately after 9/11 from "we're with you and we support you" to " your president is an idiot".

 

[Dismantled]

Well, I think you can blame Bush for changing the world's opinion of America immediately after 9/11 from "we're with you and we support you" to " your president is an idiot".

because we care what Canada thinks....







JK

 

[Judah]

Re: reply

Judah......are you still out there? Do we need to send out a search team into the web to help find you?

**wheeze, pant, pant** Found one!...uh, kinda...it's the July 2005 Center for Media and Public Affairs report on how positive/negative media outlets have been to George.

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/05.07.11.100.Days.pdf

Under major findings, it says:

"67 per cent of President Bush's (media) evaluations were negative during the first 100 days of his second term, an improvement over the 71 percent negative evaluations he received four years ago..."

See? It's getting better for him.

Plus, "his coverage fell from 619 stories in 2001 to 250 stories in 2005, a decline of 40 percent."

Seriously though, I think you can safely say that a healthy majority of the media reports out there on George are negative, so when Irvine or someone else here at Interference points out a news report, there's a high chance it'll be negative. It's just reflective of the media. Plus, I believe it's probably gotten worse since July 2005, what with Rove, Frist, Delay, Hurricane Katrina, & Supreme Court Justice issues all getting major negative coverage in the press. Check out this bit of (some would say) nastiness about Dubya's physical tics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101577_pf.html

Unfair? Probably. But it points to increasingly less reverence from the press for the Supreme Commander; and maybe overcompensation for the guilt they feel regarding not being hard-hitting enough on the WMD issue (prior to Iraq invasion), as subsequently evidenced last year by some media outlets' (including NYT) public apologies of them "not questioning the government enough" prior to the Iraq invasion.

So, it's not Irvine bashing George, but the question then becomes is the media unfairly bashing the President or just covering the most important issues and news that just happen to show the current administration in a negative light?