I still say people who give Bush an approval rating are the ones who should be deported instead of illegal aliens. They either don't keep up with the news or they have no standards.

How 'bout we get a national voter ID card implemented and start addressing the issue of voter fraud before we worry about something so innocuous as somehow holding people who answer (push) polls accountable?

anyone asked would "give Bush an approval rating". It would really be more of a question of whether it's a positive or negative one, wouldn't it?

How 'bout we get a national voter ID card implemented and start addressing the issue of voter fraud before we worry about something so innocuous as somehow holding people who answer (push) polls accountable?

In almost every poll, the American public constantly rates their disapproval of President Bush and the job he's done by a margin of two to one against. His popularity is currently in the low 30 's , percentage wise.

So please enlighten all of us foreigners as to how Americans "really think", since obviously these numbers (and reality) aren't sufficient proof for you as to what we are saying.

Like most liberals, you only look at 1/2 of the issue and stop when you find something that gives you a warm and fuzzy about your preconceived notions.

Actually, if you look at those numbers, it means 2/3rds of the country thinks he's not doing his job properly - which is what I was alluding to. Historically, he's even beaten Richard Nixon for job approval - no easy feat, I assure you.

What the public feels about Congress, or the weather, or the price of corn has little bearing on that fact.

Without the numbers to overturn a presidential veto, it's going to be rather hard to get anything done with a President that can either use signing statements or vetoes to stop anything they do.

As I've said before, this isn't just a one party thing. It's a general malaise based on years of mud slinging and loss of ground that's impacting on all voters across all parties. The voice of the common man, so far, has been silenced by those who are supposed to be representing them in both parties.

It means that 69% of those polled do not believe he is effective ... yet you think replacing him with someone who has an 18% approval rating is an improvement…
By the way, it also means 82% of those polled think the Democratic Congress is ineffective, in comparison, it means Bush is almost twice as good, or Congress is half as effective (depending on if you’re a ½ full or ½ empty kind of person….).

You disputed that the majority of your countrymen are anti-Bush, you were proven wrong, and now you are trying to change the parameters of the argument to make yourself right.

Sorry, nice try, but... you were wrong.

Clearly some people can't have their judgment clouded by facts; it would require them to be capable of cognizant thought.

... that is without the approval of Congress he can do almost nothing...

Why is it...to conservatives...there are no other ranges to the political spectrum besides "conservative" and "liberal?"

And why is it that people who label themselves as "conservative" consider only their point of view as being valid?

I've never understood why people can't have a rational political debate w/o name-calling and while respecting (although not agreeing w/) the points of view of other people?

Don't "conservatives" realize that name-calling and dismissing the views of other diminishes your own views?

I think you’ll find that you have reversed the roles of conservative and liberal, in fact, it’s been my experience that the vast majority of liberals on POF are rabid Bush haters, letting no opportunity to spin any topic to launch into another Bush bashing soirée. Take Monty’s attack on Bush for example…. Bush, while named in the title isn’t the topic of this thread, but rather than address the pointlessness of the approach to beating Bush in an election he isn’t running in, the “progressive” or “liberal” approach is to respond by Bush bashing, i.e.; justifying the pointless expenditure of millions of dollars to bash Bush during his last year in office… Perhaps you can explain how that translates into a positive Democratic message…..

And we have come full circle. Once again, you are forgetting/ignoring the fact that conservatives did the same thing when Clinton's presidency was nearing the end, except that the money they wasted was far greater.

In the OP I gave you the source that clearly identifies the objective, do you actually have a source for your beliefs or are you just another one of those "because I say so it has to be fact" kind of debaters that we've come to know on POF?

Either way, as I said when you brought it up on page one, I am against ALL negative campaigning, no matter what party or candidate it targets, or what party or candidate instigates it.

Do you have anything to offer towards the topic, or is sniping and flaming your sole intent?

Clearly some people can't have their judgment clouded by facts; it would require them to be capable of cognizant thought.

The ignorant launch into their Bush bashing campaign, the über ignorant think sending more of the most ineffectual party to Washington will somehow magically fix it.

What I find most humorous is the fact that 99% of the anti-Republican sentiment is from Canadians, not Americans.... could it be jealousy?

The source for my beliefs was in fairly much every news broadcast and every paper in the United States. Have you forgotten all the investigations into Clinton, the rumour mongering that he was a murderer, the impeachment hearings?

So you said, and yet, you keep blasting liberals for it, and ignoring that conservatives do it as well.

not a privately funded character assasination by the RNC