Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 395

• 0%

  ameliog1 year, 4 months ago

  The number of kool-aid drinkers is shrinking.

  Reply

  64 Replies

  • 100%

    SantaM1 year, 4 months ago

    I don't know if the Democratic front-runners beating the Republican front-runners is indicitive of George Bush being a national disaster larger than those he's failed to prepare for (9/11, Katrina, Iraq) or if it is a sign that the Democrats have some good candidates, or at least substantial and appealing candidates (for different reasons) and the Republicans have a pretty sad bunch.

    Reply

    54 Replies

    • 100%

      SantaM1 year, 4 months ago

      The most appealing and front-running "conservative" candidate is Rudy Giuliani, and I don't know how the Republicans can put someone like him up. He is the manifestation of the attributes they have condemned in opponents for 20 years.

      He is an adulterer. He has a poor relationship with his family. He is a flip-flopper of the grandest kind. He has mafia ties. He is a North-Eastern elite. He is a social liberal. He will lie and pander to convince you that he is not a social liberal. AND He's had is A$S handed to him by Hilary Clinton once already!

      Here's what Rudy Giuliani has going for him: He is not a Democrat. And he will blame the Deomcrats for the terrorist attacks that happened in HIS city, under HIS watch.

      Good luck, Republicans. You better start researching the best way to steal this election, too, cause short of exhuming Reagan, you'er running out of options.

      Reply

      49 Replies

      • 100%

        SantaM1 year, 4 months ago

        HA! You're even trying to run Fred Thompson in the hope that someone will think you DID exhume Reagan!

        You guys are reaching!

        Reply

        46 Replies

        • 0%

          Dionys1 year, 4 months ago

          Fred Thompson's got some frightening views that make Bush look like a lib.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            injest1 year, 4 months ago

            Bush IS a lib.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Lurch1 year, 4 months ago

              GL with that.

              Reply
        • 0%

          m-simon1 year, 4 months ago

          Hilary has it sewed up.

          Bush Clinton Bush Clinton.

          Except for one minor detail.

          Congress is in lower esteem than Bush.

          Reply

          42 Replies

          • 0%

            deathray1 year, 4 months ago

            Show your stats and cite your sources.

            Reply

            15 Replies

            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

              MSIMON doesn't have any sources. Here are Bill Clinton's job approval rating numbers compared to GW Bush's. MSIMON is out of excuses.

              http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

              http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

              CLINTON:

              1/13-15/01: 66%

              12/7-10/00: 66%

              10/00: 60%

              9/00: 60%

              GW BUSH:

              Newsweek 5/2-3/07: 28%

              Quinnipiac RV 4/25 - 5/1/07: 35%

              Diageo/Hotline RV 4/26-30/07: 35%

              CBS/New York Times 4/20-24/07: 32%

              http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNe...

              End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings

              Bill Clinton: 65%

              Ronald Reagan: 64%

              Reply

              10 Replies

              • 0%

                BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago

                lol...I'd say his approval rating now is the issue...

                Ok, so, let's talk about sampling error, confidence intervals and SEMs. Explain your take on these in the polls that were cited.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  donald511 year, 4 months ago

                  Libs is just like simon... they hear it on Fox and accept it without any further validation... and then when put against the wall... they run! Like Ann Coulter... just pure BS artists!

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  Sabretooth1 year, 4 months ago

                  HaHa, that certainly shut him up Bravo, i am guessing he is madly researching to find out what the heck you are talking about right now.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  splitrch1 year, 4 months ago

                  So it's possible that Bush's approval ratings are actually lower than stated due to the nature of statistical error.

                  Reply
              • 0%

                ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

                LIBSSUCK:

                "Also funny to see you comparing Clinton's ratings to Bush's. At one time, Bush had a much higher approval rating - 71 percent - than Clinton ever did."

                The jury is in. You are clearly illiterate. According to the source I already posted, Clinton's highest job approval rating was 72% on 12/19/98--HIGHER THAN YOUR NUMBER FOR BUSH.

                http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

                Further, I highly doubt GW Bush's end-of-presidency job approval ratings will ever approach Clinton's 65%. In fact, most historians seem prepared to crown GW Bush as one of the worst presidents in our nation's history.

                http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNe...

                By the way, I started publishing peer-reviewed journals as an undergraduate. I finished both a bachelor's and a master's in 4 years with a combined BS/MS degree. With each word you type, you further reveal just how ignorant you are. Crawl back to your safety school with your no-name degree.

                Pathetic.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  trnscndr1 year, 4 months ago

                  Let's not forget, even while the congress led by terribly unpopular Newt Gingrich, was voting impeachment proceedings, Clinton was enjoying a standing ovation at his speech to the UN the same day, an unprecedented event.

                  Clinton at his LOWEST point could have been elected King of the world.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  dunkirk1 year, 4 months ago

                  And in the background the sound of Lib going

                  .

                  .

                  "Douuuuh"

                  .

                  .

                  reverberates loudly around Momma's basement.

                  Reply
              • 0%

                SantaM1 year, 4 months ago

                Bush had a job approval rating of over 90 percent after 9/11. you're an idiot. which means he has dropped OVER 60 percent. biggest drop in approval ever.

                Reply
              • 0%

                Dave591 year, 4 months ago

                I take exception with people like you Libs suck. You attempt to make comments look like one thing or the other.

                You state that Bush had a "much higher approval rating-71 percent-than Clinton ever did. Which Clinton?

                Just what time line are you talking about. Because as I see it Bill Clinton has been out of office for about seven years. Just what does the approval rating of a former president have to do with the current situation?

                It appears you are comparing two things that have very little to do with each other.

                What I am looking at is the fact that George W. Bush has the lowest approval rating of his administration. I cannot see where this has anything to do with either of the Clinton's.

                Bush through his own actions has caused this to be the case. He has picked poor associates and staff members.

                I really don't think this has any thing to do with Bill or Hillary Clinton.

                You are as errant, and ignorant, as those you accuse of being ignorant.

                Reply
              • 0%

                ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

                REAGANWASRIGHT:

                "Bush's approval ratings were above 90 percent at one time. Why don't you mention that since you want to compare his to Clinton's?"

                Because I used LIBSSUCK's own numbers to counter his argument. If LIBSSUCK searched for the wrong numbers, then that makes him doubly imbecilic.

                http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

                Furthermore, it's laughable you would attempt to defend Bush's approval numbers with the graph above, as it only further emphasizes how his failed policies have squandered not just international goodwill following 9/11, but the American public's overwhelming support and patriotism following 9/11.

                I'm not interested in where Bush WAS (the 90% approval rating following 9/11 was undeserved in my opinion), but where he is now. And where he stands now is this: Bush's approval ratings have fallen more than any other president in our nation's history. Bush is on the verge of being named one of our nation's worst presidents.

                Afraid of the truth?

                Reply

            • catstevensComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

              • 0%

                deathray1 year, 4 months ago

                Um, what?

                Reply
              • 0%

                not2needy1 year, 4 months ago

                EGAD!

                Reply

            • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
          • 100%

            ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

            MSIMON:

            "Congress is in lower esteem than Bush."

            You're right...Voters were even more dissatisfied with the 109th Do-Nothing, Republican-controlled Congress than with Bush. It's no wonder Republicans were evicted from BOTH the House and the Senate last November, despite Republican attempts to gerrymander districts (a la Tom Delay) to protect Republican incumbents.

            http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

            Now that the Democrats have taken control of the 110th Congress, however, Congress job approval ratings are beginning to climb slowly, while Bush's remains constant and some polls indicate his numbers are slipping even further.

            http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm

            04/01/07

            "In general, are you happy or unhappy that the Democratic Party won control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in the November 2006 congressional elections?" 55% happy, only 29% unhappy

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago

              so, you are saying that nearly twice as many people are happy that the Dems won control of Congress than are unhappy?

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

              LIBSSUCK:

              "The average approval rating for congress is 38 percent"

              But what approval rating did the 110th Congress inherit from the 109th Do-Nothing, Republican-controlled Congress? USA Today measured the 109th's approval at 29% in 2005, meaning Congress' approval rating has jumped nearly 10% points.

              http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10...

              PollingReport measured the 109th Republican Congressional approval rating at 21% in December 2006, which means in 4 months the Democrat-led 110th Congress has already risen by 17% points. In fact, a quick look at these numbers shows that the Democratic 110th Congress' approval ratings have been rising steadily since the lows recorded by the Republican-controlled 109th. Even someone as obtuse as you can see this.

              http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

              You continue to be an apologist for a failed administration. The public spoke clearly last November--they are tired of having neocons in power.

              Reply
            • 0%

              gamahuche1 year, 4 months ago

              Either you can't count or you screwed up your quote.

              Peasant.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                gamahuche1 year, 4 months ago

                sorry yb! I badded you.

                Was aiming somewhere else but I guess my trigger-finger was shaky..

                Reply
              • 0%

                donald511 year, 4 months ago

                Libs can't count and screwed up the quotes as far as interpreting them correctly and relative to the low numbers for the former Repug Congress!

                Reply
          • 0%

            BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago

            exactly how does the average approval rating for Congress generalize to any individual Congressman or woman?

            You have SEMs, measures of skewness, kurtosis, sd, etc. to show that the best estimate of any individual Congressman's approval rating is the Mean? You have evidence that it's not a bimodal distribution with the Dems way above the Republicans? You want to throw around comments about sampling error above...ok, let's have a discussion of statistics...:)

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

              This ought to be good. Let's see if LIBSSUCK has the courage to respond, or will he run and hide like the chicken-hawk LIBBSUCK is.

              Reply
            • 0%

              BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago

              There are 9 failure points in conducting a survey. Sampling error is the first one. Each of them must be performed at a .95 level of confidence or accuracy or your results will be worse than flipping a coin. If you treat a survey like a machine reliability problem you have to be precise at each step in order for the machine/survey to give you accurate results. It's like calculating the reliability of an automobile and it is a "multiple cutoff" model. It is true, the ignition switch is the first step and it has to work or the car doesn't start. However, the battery also has to be charged, AND the gear shift has to work AND the fuel injection system has to work AND the transmission has to work, etc.

              Ok, I agree...lets start out talking about sampling error. it only takes about 1500 people properly sampled to have a sampling error of about /- 3% as I recall, or close enough...

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago

                Let's talk about statistics, because sampling error is included in the domain of statistics...at least it was included in the index of every stats book I've used...lol. jeez. Talk about an unnecessary distraction...

                Ok, start pulling out the sample sizes on all these surveys and we'll see how accurate they really are...assuming the sampling plan was valid...that multiple cutoff thing again.

                Reply
          • 0%

            ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 4 months ago

            Whut's Up Libs? Been gone for awhile. I come back and see the same old,tired,boring, Newsweek stuff. Funny. I didn't know that The President could run again. I thought it was only 2 terms. Has this changed while I've been away?

            Sounds to me as if there is still no Dem agenda for '08. Same old attack The President at every turn strategy. Folks,...case you haven't realized, The President is not running in '08. I want an agenda. I want issues other than "Get out of Iraq." I do believe that there is a glaring lack of leadership on the part of The Dems at the moment.

            p.s. GO FRED THOMPSON!!!!!

            Reply

            8 Replies

            • 0%

              PeterAP1 year, 4 months ago

              As opposed to the Reps? Where is the leadership between Giuliani, McCain, and Romney? They have no idea where they should be even be dancing right now. Yeah, Bush is not running in 2008 but politics doesn't reside in a compartment and the Reps know that. They turned the 2000 election into some referendum on the "morality" of the Clinton White House. Now, the Dems try to turn 2008 into a repudiation of the failure of Bush.

              The Dems don't have the focus they should because right now it is still all about Iraq and they are still not sure where to move it. They need to hit on the other misery....an economy that seems to only work for the rich, a failed foreign policy, health care, the miserable joke that is an energy policy, etc.

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

              ONEMEMPHISDUDE:

              "Folks,...case you haven't realized, The President is not running in '08. p.s. GO FRED THOMPSON!"

              In case you haven't realized, Fred Thompson isn't officially running yet in '08 either. What a hypocrite.

              ONEMEMPHISDUDE:

              "I want issues other than 'Get out of Iraq.'"

              You mean like:

              1) raising the minimum wage (filibustered by Republican congressmen)

              2) boosting funding for Walter Reed (vetoed by Bush)

              3) boosting funding for armor and weaponry (vetoed by Bush)

              4) balancing the federal budget with pay-as-you-go legislation (being stalled by Republican congressmen)

              5) passing immigration reform which includes work visas (voted down by Republican congressmen in the 109th Congress)

              Funny how I didn't hear your outrage demanding that you "wanted issues" when the Republican-led 109th Do-Nothing Congress met for a mere 71 days in 2006, yet voted to raise their salaries for all their "hard work."

              What a hypocrite.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                SubZero1 year, 4 months ago

                I really can't wait till his approval rating is Zero.. then there won't be any darn republicans.. yeah...

                OMG

                1) Raising minimum wage helps no one.. including those who live on Min. wage, you , me and the economy. Look it up and investigate. In Ohio they raised Min. wage and grant a living wage increase .. even if the cost of living is 1% they can still get up to a 10% raise.. boy that seems logical.

                2) They are closing the facility. This was decided a long time ago. But since Dems love to throw money away .. why not boost funding.

                3)GW has raised military pay, defense spending, which includes the armor and weaponry. He vetoed a bill that contained BS that should not be in a military budget.

                4) I agree we should get spending under control, but if you have watched the numbers the budget deficit is coming down. Projected at 150B, down from 210B from last year, which was down from the year before

                5) Amnesty is not a solution it is a problem. Put the Fence up.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

                  SUBZERO:

                  "1) Raising minimum wage helps no one.. "

                  Raising the minimum wage enjoyed BIPARTISAN support. It was filibustered by Republicans only in the last minute when they tried to add a rider to the bill making tax cuts permanent for the richest 1% . Tax breaks for this group helps no one. Raising Congressional salaries helps no one. Unchecked CEO bonuses helps no one.

                  "2) They are closing the facility."

                  The bill mentioned Walter Reed, but was meant to fund improved health care for veterans everywhere--something the Republican congress neglected to do and something for which the Bush admin has ALREADY apologized for.

                  3)GW has raised military pay

                  Actually, the Republican Congress voted down increased spending for armor, not once but TWICE, in 2003.

                  4) we should get spending under control

                  Clinton's government operated with a surplus squandered by the Bush admin

                  5) Amnesty is not a solution

                  Work visas were supported by BOTH Bush and McCain.

                  Reply
              • 0%

                ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 4 months ago

                Please resist the temptation to respond to my posts. I will only engage in dialogue with parties that display at least an attempt at civility. Name calling, (i.e."hypocrite") is a weak attempt at debate by a party unsure of how better to make a point.

                I bid you...good day.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ybdogsct1 year, 3 months ago

                  Then, please resist the temptation to post absurd arguments unsupported by nonpartisan, official document-based evidence. There is no civility in your attack of the Democratic party, particularly following the egregious offenses of your own Republican party.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              Searchbeam1 year, 4 months ago

              ONEMEMPHIS,

              PPS: GO HOME, FRED THOMPSON!

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 4 months ago

                Whut up Search???

                At least your opinion is civil. Watch out for Fred. You have been warned!

                Reply
          • 0%

            Lurch1 year, 4 months ago

            >Newsweek is a liberal rag read by liberals.

            The truth is a well-known liberal conspiracy.

            Reply
          • 0%

            gamahuche1 year, 4 months ago

            "how useless polls truly are in the real world."

            Do you really, seriously believe that you have some connection to the "real" world?

            Everything you write seems like futher proof that you're locked up on a funny farm or have been kidnapped by aliens.

            Reply
          • 0%

            mcgrievysr1 year, 4 months ago

            Suckslibs---You still can't accept what you're seeing. W cost the Republicans the midterms and he will cost them the presidential election in 2008. Suck on that.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              not2needy1 year, 4 months ago

              I loved that comment, i must use it sometime in the future. LMAO!!

              Reply
          • 0%

            Dave591 year, 4 months ago

            I'm going to say that your call on Newsweek is probably wrong. This sort of follows because much of what you say is foolish tripe that is geared to entertain Neo-Cons like your self.

            What I find interesting is the fact that no matter what poll one looks at the numbers seem to be with in the margin of error for each of these polls. It doesn't seem to matter who conducted it.

            Unlike yourself Libssuck...these media outlets actually have some integrity. Crap even Faux-News isn't stupid enough to fake this one.

            I call you a fool. FOMF

            Reply
          • 0%

            quackpot1 year, 4 months ago

            Congress' poles are low as a result of the REPUBLICAN side of the aisle. If the opinion poles are sudivided according to congressional party, the results are: (lowest to highest): Republican congress---Bush---Democratic congress.

            Reply
          • 0%

            trnscndr1 year, 4 months ago

            M, You have a very poor understanding of plurality. In the end, there will be 2. It takes a majority to be elected. The fear in the Clinton camp is that any two of the non-leaders combined, will destroy her for the nom. She has a problem with her negs, though she currently wins in a horse race. Bottom line, it is NOT a horse race, it is an elimination championship, she does not look good right now. All insiders know this.

            Reply
      • 0%

        jaern1 year, 4 months ago

        Speaking of adulterers, I heard that Ole Newt Gingrich is planning on throwing his hat in the ring too. Heheh

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Searchbeam1 year, 4 months ago

          If these Republican losers - Giuliani, Gingrich among other cheaters, cannot keep their vow of fidelity and honor in a marriage, what makes anyone to think that they can be trusted in the White House? We have one liar, cheater and loser in the White House right now, and look what a disaster he has been!

          It is time to become smart and follow the rule "You can fool me once, shame on you. You fool me twice, whatever..."-GWB in one of his smarter comment! LOL!

          Before Bush becomes history, let us do the right thing:

          Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!

          Peace and Blessings!

          Reply
    • 0%

      vandee1 year, 4 months ago

      I love this quote: "Bush being a national disaster larger than those he's failed to prepare for (9/11, Katrina, Iraq)"

      That could not be more true. I never understood why, in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election and tooting his own horn about 9/11 and how great the Republicans are at "protecting America" that someone on the Democrat side didn't stand up and say "do I need to remind the American voters of who was IN the White House when 9/11 happened?"

      If Bush and his army of idiots are so damn good at "protecting" us all, then why did they let 9/11 happen in the first place?

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        lycase1 year, 4 months ago

        bush was barely in office when 9/11 happened u idiot if u want to place blame for that then blame clinton

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          Searchbeam1 year, 4 months ago

          lycase,

          In case you are looking for an idiot, look in the mirror!

          There were plenty of pieces of information and warnings about the impending 9/11 attack, but this guy was sleeping at the wheel and taking his long vacations on his Texas ranch. Like he was when the Katrina disaster hit. It took him 2 days to know and understand the magnitude of the disaster. And then what did he do? Heaped praise on the architect of the man-made disaster that followed: incompetent handling of FEMA response!

          "You are doing one heck of a job, Brownie!"

          Go see yourself in the mirror again.

          In case you want more validity, read George Tenet's (Director of CIA at that time)book that came out just last week!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            yajeed1 year, 4 months ago

            That is exactly correct, Bush has a tendency to wait & see until a major disaster will happen. The Americans were blinded when Bush was re-elected. Likewise, Bush is still ignoring the too many US soldiers dying innocently because of the stupid wars. I do not know how Bush could still sleep despite of the increasing number of war fatalities. He does not care, because he is not sparing his own life, the other several life. I think he may be a trigger happy guy to see the soldiers to die in an alarming increasing number of thousands, similar to the Hitler's mentality. Why, inorder to continue making money in the war for the infrastruction construction projects.

            Now, Bush still waiting the price of gasoline to skyrocket with no intention to put a stop on this matter. Why, because his partner has long history of vesting in the oil industry.

            Same with the devaluation of American dollars in Europe, since he took over the office.

            Wake up Bush before its too late!

            Reply
  • 100%

    wallyone1 year, 4 months ago

    until his popularity hits 10% some americans are still demonstrating their inability to think clearly and rationally.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 100%

      m-simon1 year, 4 months ago

      Bush is the stupidest evil genius since Clinton.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

        Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. In terms of raw intellect, there is NO comparison between B Clinton and GW Bush.

        Reply
      • 0%

        kedirian1 year, 4 months ago

        At least, Bill Clinton was one President who could get it up - and those "Good, Christian" Republicans haven't been the same since!

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          donald511 year, 4 months ago

          ..could you see Dubya running that international seminar like Bill Clinton did last year? An impossibility... like his foreign policy, more guaranteed failure! Heck, Dubya wouldn't even talk officially (behind closed doors too) to the Congress without Cheney holding his hand!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 60%

            Searchbeam1 year, 4 months ago

            My question is:

            When are the rats going to jump from the sinking ship?

            Reply
  • 0%

    teepeebiking1 year, 4 months ago

    It's about time America. This bull ****** has to stop. You fools voted in a man who claimed God wanted him to be president and you got what you deserved. Lets wake up and think before we vote again.

    Reply
  • 0%

    teepeebiking1 year, 4 months ago

    It still boggles the mind to believe that 28% of Americans are STUPID enough to support this lunatic, but, hey, look at Nazi germany.

    Reply
  • 0%

    antiwar1 year, 4 months ago

    to:Ameliog Yes you are right, and after reading all the comments in this forum, I have ascertained that yours is the most intelligent. I'm serious.

    Reply
• 100%

  GoldRush1 year, 4 months ago

  An opinion poll from Newsweek about George Bush is like asking democrats who they thought won the national 2000 election in Florida. It will start from a biased construct, continue with a biased methodology and conclude with the wrong results. And like the truth of both issues, the dems will remain angry.

  Reply

  20 Replies

  • 0%

    SantaM1 year, 4 months ago

    What are you talking about? I read polls like this and wonder who the Hell are these 28 percent? Then idiots like you open their mouths.

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago

      Last poll taken 33% of those polled believe that Iraq attacked mainland US... that is where the 28% come from!!!

      Reply

      12 Replies

      • 100%

        m-simon1 year, 4 months ago

        What is the breakdown of the responses?

        How many Ds took the poll? How many Rs?

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 100%

          mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago

          Which poll? If mine, who in the hell cares. There is no party alliance for stupidity

          Reply
        • 0%

          BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago

          lol...random sample of US Citizens, stratified random sample...? If it was a random sample with a small sampling error then a higher number of Dems might be because more people are claiming a Democrat affiliation as a consequence of Bush. It wouldn't necessarily mean the sample was biased. It would be nice to know more about the sampling on these things.

          Reply
        • 0%

          teepeebiking1 year, 4 months ago

          And how many don't give a rat's ass about "D or R" and are just fed up with utter stupidity???

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago

            Everyone except that 33%

            Reply
        • 0%

          donald511 year, 4 months ago

          How about that 2003 PIPA poll that found that 80% of Faux Fox Facts viewers held misperceptions of reality? It continues... the lies of Fox and Dubya'a PR machine... to the continued demise of America!

          Reply
      • 0%

        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 4 months ago

        can you put all the blame on the believers?

        I mean they were told 'Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda' and 'Saddam meets with Al Qaeda'etc. by Bush, Cheney, Powell etc, and heard 'terrorists' and 'Al Qaeda' mentioned over and over and over again in the same breath as Iraq and Saddam.

        It's like a case of Stockholm syndrome:

        they were held captive by misinformation and have fallen in love with the lie and remain loyal to it

        I wonder about all the pro-Bush administration posters that used to be on here that have disappeared.

        Are they somewhere else, some other site, still repeating the lies they were told years ago?

        I posted this many times before, but Carl Rove was speaking at Mount Union College in Alliance Ohio less than a month ago,and a heckler yelled out, 'Whose idea was it to start a pre-emptive war?

        Rove yelled back, 'Osama Bin Laden's!'

        This was local news here and I doubt it appeared nationally, but think about that, after all we've learned, that Rove would still be saying that

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago

          What happened to the Saudias that were flying the planes?

          Why Didn't the believers think that Saudi Arabia was also involved?

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 4 months ago

            they believed what they were told.

            they were betrayed by their own trust

            this administration also has to answer for contributing to the further erosion of commonplace trust, a necessary component to a functioning society.

            uniter

            lies don't unite

            at least not for long

            there is also a psychological component, called by Fromm, 'the authoritarian personality', which looks to outside agencies they consider more powerful, wiser, etc. than themselves, and defers to 'those that know better'

            who knows? I certainly can understand not wanting to believe I was lied into supporting unnecessary war resulting in human catastrophe and suffering and death of such epic proportion.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Tyron1 year, 4 months ago

              Who can unite this country, and how do they prepose to do it?

              You have to stop going to moveon.org and reading Salon. A war of 'human catastrophe and suffering and death of' epic proportions? Although many people have died in this war, lets all live in the real world. You do not have to go back to many years to see mass carnage.

              As for being lied to; I am still looking to see where and to whom. So far according to the Baker Report and Joe Wilson's book, the only lie was by Joe Wilson.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 4 months ago

                I have never visited either of those sites, and if Salon isn't a site, I don't know what it is. Sounds like a fashion mag.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Tyron1 year, 4 months ago

                  Matbe it should be. But, again, who do you think can unite this country?

                  Reply
    • 0%

      Tyron1 year, 4 months ago

      Do you reality believe that a president should act or even be influanced by polls?

      Relax, this is not worth getting a stroke over.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        SantaM1 year, 4 months ago

        of course he should. he's elected by a poll you idiot.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Tyron1 year, 4 months ago

          The president is not elected by a poll or even by individual citizens.

          I can see that you just want to scream at the world. So if it makes you happy than go on; scream.

          Your belief that a president should govern by polls means that each time he has to act we need to vote? Do you realy want this?

          Reply
  • 100%

    NoWayMan1 year, 4 months ago

    and the cons didn't think it could get any worse.

    this new "all-time low" is like saying the worst baseball team in history just got even worse.

    time to get real GoldRush.

    28% approval. wow.

    and you still think you have a leg to stand on? is every poll that doesn't go your way (which is every poll these days) starting from a biased construct?

    thats some serious denial.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      tjerryo421 year, 4 months ago

      The really pathetic thing is, I don't see the approval rates going down below, say, 25%. There are just that many "true believer" Neo-con and Theo-con pod people in American society.

      Reply
  • 0%

    Sabretooth1 year, 4 months ago

    Good thinking gold, do not be disturbed by a few facts, blind ideology will get you through these tough times, all 28% of you. Think positive, a little more creative cheating in 2008 and you are good to go.

    Reply
• 0%

  sideways1 year, 4 months ago

  Story says, "Perhaps that explains why Republican candidates, participating in their first major debate this week, mentioned Bush's name only once, but Ronald Reagan's 19 times."

  'nuff said.

  peace~

  Reply

  12 Replies

  • 0%

    gamahuche1 year, 4 months ago

    Yes an extremely telling fact. I was going to quote it too.

    I can't remember the last time when the incumbent President's potential successors so completely left him out of the frame.

    I imagine that they're all begging him not to give them his endorsement!

    Talk about the kiss of death

    Reply

    11 Replies

    • 0%

      m-simon1 year, 4 months ago

      And in the D debate how many mentioned Bill Clinton?

      Not counting Mrs. Clinton?

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 100%

        ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

        Republicans only WISH they could exploit Clinton's lasting popularity. While GW Bush's job approval rating sits at 28%, Clinton enjoyed approval ratings of 55-65% EVEN THROUGH the Lewinsky scandal.

        http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/...

        Support for the way President Clinton handles his official duties remained strong in the latest opinion poll taken Sunday, and an increasing number of Americans now say that Congress should take no further action on the report by Independent Counsel Ken Starr...Clinton's job approval rating was 64%."

        At Clinton's worst moment, twice the public still approved of his job performance as today approve of GW Bush's.

        http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNe...

        END-OF-PRESIDENCY APPROVAL RATINGS:

        Bill Clinton 65%

        Ronald Reagan 64%

        GW Bush's current rating 28%

        Pathetic.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 100%

          ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago

          Here are Bill Clinton's job approval rating numbers compared to GW Bush's. Read 'em and weep.

          http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

          http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            NoWayMan1 year, 4 months ago

            yep. even while clinton was being impeached, his approval rating never went below 50% in any poll.

            proof that america knew the cons were on a partisan witch hunt from the start. a $50 million waste of time and resources.

            Reply
      • 100%

        gamahuche1 year, 4 months ago

        And why NOT count Mrs Clinton??

        She probably has more bones to pick with him than you do.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Lurch1 year, 4 months ago

          The Mrs already said she would use him on diplomatic issues.

          Reply
      • 0%