Re: Bush approval rating slumps to all-time low

I know this if off topic, but I am curious why the media keeps hammering
this. He is not up for re-election. Could someone explain to me what poll
numbers have to do with the President now?

Thank you.
"Thrasher Remailer" <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote in message
news:YGXPMVRJ38671.4128819444@reece.net.au...
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/...oll/index.html
>
> (CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly
> less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his
> presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.
>
>

"Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y5tef.13875$w85.13649@trnddc02...

> I know this if off topic, but I am curious why the media keeps hammering
> this. He is not up for re-election. Could someone explain to me what poll
> numbers have to do with the President now?
>
> Thank you.

Nothing.

This clown in particular just likes to hide behind anonymous remailers as he
does all he can to make sure we lose the war against terrorism, and the War
in Iraq.

With help like this clown and the help of the leftist media, Bush approval
numbers, while low, are still higher than Clintons during his last term.

These people think they are going to make all Americans hate republicans so
much that everyone will vote for whatever turd the Democrats run in 2008.

Plus, they are priming the pump for Hillary in 2006.

Talk about stupid.

To clarify if the ratings between Clinton and W. Bush are actually as
bad as Scott says, here is the link.

CBS News | Poll: Approval Ratings Compared | November 2, 2005 22:00:08
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1005327.shtml


Scott wrote:
> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Y5tef.13875$w85.13649@trnddc02...
>
>
>>I know this if off topic, but I am curious why the media keeps hammering
>>this. He is not up for re-election. Could someone explain to me what poll
>>numbers have to do with the President now?
>>
>>Thank you.
>
>
> Nothing.
>
> This clown in particular just likes to hide behind anonymous remailers as he
> does all he can to make sure we lose the war against terrorism, and the War
> in Iraq.
>
> With help like this clown and the help of the leftist media, Bush approval
> numbers, while low, are still higher than Clintons during his last term.
>
> These people think they are going to make all Americans hate republicans so
> much that everyone will vote for whatever turd the Democrats run in 2008.
>
> Plus, they are priming the pump for Hillary in 2006.
>
> Talk about stupid.
>
>
>
>
>

"Stephen" <quashnsa@yahoo..com> wrote in message
news:0fuef.16817$q%.5054@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...

> To clarify if the ratings between Clinton and W. Bush are actually as
> bad as Scott says, here is the link.

This is *A* link, defintely not *the* link.

Depends upon who's poll you like, eh? And typical for you to quote from a
perfectly unbiased source like CBS.

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/1...cold-feet.html

Marshall Karp wrote:

> I know this if off topic, but I am curious why the media keeps hammering
> this. He is not up for re-election. Could someone explain to me what poll
> numbers have to do with the President now?
>
> Thank you.
> "Thrasher Remailer" <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote in message
> news:YGXPMVRJ38671.4128819444@reece.net.au...
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/...oll/index.html
>>
>>(CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly
>>less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his
>>presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.
>>
>>
>
>
>
the liberal media is hyping their baby doll Hiliary

You are correct, it is _A_ link and not _THE_ link. However, you
counter a link to a New source with a link to a blog? I am sure if I
wanted to find a blog that supports Pink Elephants control the media, I
could find one.

Why do you think the media is anti-conservative. I would say that the
media is ALWAYS held as the opposite of who ever is in office. When
Clinton was in office, the media was considered too conservative and
controled by the Republicans. While W. Bush is in office, the media is
said to be too liberal and controled by the Democrats. The truth is
somewhere in between.

Scott wrote:
> "Stephen" <quashnsa@yahoo..com> wrote in message
> news:0fuef.16817$q%.5054@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...
>
>
>>To clarify if the ratings between Clinton and W. Bush are actually as
>>bad as Scott says, here is the link.
>
>
> This is *A* link, defintely not *the* link.
>
> Depends upon who's poll you like, eh? And typical for you to quote from a
> perfectly unbiased source like CBS.
>

Stephen wrote:

> You are correct, it is _A_ link and not _THE_ link. However, you
> counter a link to a New source with a link to a blog? I am sure if I
> wanted to find a blog that supports Pink Elephants control the media, I
> could find one.
>
> Why do you think the media is anti-conservative. I would say that the
> media is ALWAYS held as the opposite of who ever is in office. When
> Clinton was in office, the media was considered too conservative and
> controled by the Republicans. While W. Bush is in office, the media is
> said to be too liberal and controled by the Democrats. The truth is
> somewhere in between.

Sure....
at
See R thergate for an example.
>
> Scott wrote:
>
>> "Stephen" <quashnsa@yahoo..com> wrote in message
>> news:0fuef.16817$q%.5054@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...
>>
>>
>>> To clarify if the ratings between Clinton and W. Bush are actually as
>>> bad as Scott says, here is the link.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is *A* link, defintely not *the* link.
>>
>> Depends upon who's poll you like, eh? And typical for you to quote from a
>> perfectly unbiased source like CBS.
>
> >


--
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

Marshall Karp wrote:
> I know this if off topic, but I am curious why the media keeps hammering
> this. He is not up for re-election. Could someone explain to me what poll
> numbers have to do with the President now?
>
> Thank you.


well, unlike what these morons would have you believe - a bad job score
for the sitting prez often (but not always by any means ) signifies that
his party May have a tough time in the mid term elections. You're right
to Shrub it has no meaning other than proof he's not BSing as many
people as before ( except a few loons and one drunken fool here), to the
republican party ( and those reps and senators up for reelection next
year ) it's a "Bad Omen".

"Stephen" <quashnsa@yahoo..com> wrote in message
news:ANuef.16825$q%.7959@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...
> You are correct, it is _A_ link and not _THE_ link. However, you
> counter a link to a New source with a link to a blog? I am sure if I
> wanted to find a blog that supports Pink Elephants control the media, I
> could find one.
>
> Why do you think the media is anti-conservative. I would say that the
> media is ALWAYS held as the opposite of who ever is in office. When

Good one! Or are you being serious?

> Clinton was in office, the media was considered too conservative and
> controled by the Republicans. While W. Bush is in office, the media is

No, that was only talk radio.

> said to be too liberal and controled by the Democrats. The truth is
> somewhere in between.

Dennis

<snip>

"Stephen" <quashnsa@yahoo..com> wrote in message
news:ANuef.16825$q%.7959@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...

> You are correct, it is _A_ link and not _THE_ link. However, you
> counter a link to a New source with a link to a blog?

It's not countering, has nothing to do with what I said or you said, I am
just sticking another boot into the liberal ribcage because I can.

Soon as you all clean your own house, then you can bitch and someone might
take you seriously.