Gallup Poll - Bush job approval at 63%

[Silverhair]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031218.asp

"The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey was conducted Dec. 15-16, two days after the stunning announcement on Sunday that Hussein had finally been captured by U.S. troops. Bush's approval is now at 63%..."

"Bush now leads Dean among registered voters by 60% to 37%."

It is important to note that this poll was made before the Libyan news hit. Bush will almost certainly get a bounce out of that too, although probably only a couple of points.

And from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/survey/2003-12-22-econsurvey_x.htm

"The U.S. economy next year will grow at its fastest pace since the '90s boom and unemployment will fall, economists surveyed by USA TODAY say."

[caledesi]

1. This just make me sick.

:puke: Where are the WMDs? Isn't that why we attacked Iraq? 3 million jobs lost. Troops dying in Iraq eveyday. I am sorry, but I don't believe this poll. I sound like a Freeper, I know. Whenever they don't like "bad news," they blame the newspaper, magazine or the poll. Are people stupid?

[gpandas]

20. stupid people

Yes, the American people are very stupid.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libview]

39. The American people are very stupid!!

They are led around by the nose by this pResident.

[CMT]

2. Zogby has him at 54%

and so does Newsweek. Gallup has him higher than any other poll I've seen--as is usually the case.

[Silverhair]

6. Over several decades, I have always found gallup reliable.

Of course any one particular poll can have a statistical anomoly. Let's see what the next one says.

[pmbryant]

8. Gallup was not reliable at all in 2000

It would swing from Bush up 10 to Gore up 10 to Bush up 10 in the span of a week, a month before the election Totally ludicrous. It lost all credibility with me with that performance.

And these 'approval' ratings are meaningless in terms of electoral results anyway. The 're-elect' numbers are much more meaningful, but for some reason rarely ever get much coverage.

--Peter

[Imajika]

34. Doesn't Newsweek use the Zogby poll?

"Zogby has him at 54% and so does Newsweek."

I thought that was one and the same poll.

Zogby's numbers almost always show lower approval ratings because he polls completely differently and uses a totally different method. In Zogby polls a response of "Excellent" or "Good" equals approval of Bush, "Fair" and "Poor" equals disapproval.

All sides of the political spectrum tend to whine about Zogby polls because of this. The question often asked is, how can Zogby assume "Fair" is a negative.

I tend to think Zogby is somewhat more accurate than most polls, though often he totally blows it. If Gallup has Bush at 63% and Zogby has him at 54%, I'd get his real approval was closer to the Zogby number - perhaps at around 56%-57% approval.

Imajika

[CMT]

41. Newsweek uses a firm called

Princeton Survey Research.

[kentuck]

3. Is this suppposed to be our Christmas present.... ?

I'd rather have a block of coal...

[Silverhair]

5. At least coal could be useful. n/t

[9119495]

19. Stock in Coal? You Freeper!

Oh wait, you said a "block of coal." My appologies.

[Killarney]

4. Damnit!

[are_we_united_yet]

76. Love your parting line!

n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. Newsweek has him at 52% approval

[madfloridian]

9. Newsweek has him at 46% re-elect.

They are trying to pump him up by the terror alerts, and someday it will all backfire.

[phillybri]

10. Gallup is usually an outlier on the high side, Zogby on the low side....

Both are a little tough to put a lot of faith in...

[markses]

11. So are you happy?

Isn't it part of the DU rules to state an opinion on what you post in GD?

[Silverhair]

13. I sometimes like to put my opinion up after there are a lot of

comments. I do that sometimes because I want people to comment on the item itself instead of my opinion.

[Monte Carlo]

12. Big f'n deal. It WILL fade.

Just like it did after 9/11, just like it did after the Iraqi invasion. What's the problem?

[Frodo]

17. The "big deal" is that he keeps GETTING these little bounces.

Yes, they fade. But they have yet to "fade" anywhere into the "likely to lose re-election" range. And every time they get close he gets another little bounce.

[Silverhair]

22. Exactly. He hasn't gone below 50% yet. n/t

[gasperc]

14. somebody better not hold their breath

unemployment benefits expire this week

two soldiers died today from a huge roadside bomb

Kurds demanding Kirkuk, probably want payback for providing Saddam alive and with a photo op "US captures Saddam" oppurtunity.

[RebelOne]

25. And don't forget that we may lose overtime pay next year.

That might change a lot of Repubs' minds about Bush, especially when they are in the wallet.

[YNGW]

15. WOW!!!!

>"The U.S. economy next year will grow at its fastest pace since the '90s boom and unemployment will fall, economists surveyed by USA TODAY say."

That's where it hinges. People vote their wallets, currently 94% of the population is employed, and if things improve then the populace will vote to continue the same.

It's going to be a rough road to plow in 2004. I'll be interested to see how the primaries shape up.

[libview]

43. I hate to say this, but we need a tanking economy and

higher unemployment if we are going to stand a chance in "04"
The media has to start telling the truth and stop talking up the economy.

[head_banger]

54. Your 100% Right

We need bush to fail because bad news for bush IS GREAT NEWS FOR OUR PARTY! I hate to think about the familes that may suffer if too many jobs are lost.

[TruthIsAll]

95. Take THIS back to all your readers.

WE do not WANT to see any additional CHAOS than that which has already been caused by BushCo.

He has ALREADY failed miserably, whether or not jobs are created and whether or not the DOW goes back up to 11,000.

The damage has already been done, not only to our unemployed and seniors, but also our children who will have to contend for years to come with the financial, economic and environmental effects of this illegal, out-of-control, fascist regime.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Granite]

81. I certainly want the economy to improve

and I want people to do well. But this election is about much more than the economy and the war. It is about the general direction this country is taking. It is about the ideology of our courts, the quality of our environment, the level of support for our educational system, global human rights, the value of multinational institutions, the reclaiming of lost freedoms, the funding of true homeland security, the reproductive rights of women, religious freedom/tolerance, and so many other issues.

I understand that people generally vote their wallets. But we need to remind people that this election is ultimately about the path we are going to chart as a country. We need to articulate our issues in a way that resonates, and not be so willing to concede defeat in the face of an improving economy or the capture of another pawn in the war on terror. Of course, this is JMHO!

[DuluthDawg1]

108. You're actually wishing for a bad economy JUST so

our party can suceed? No offense, but you obviously haven't had the scare of layoffs, have you? I'm starting to worry about the zealot-like behavior of my fellow dems. We're turning into the fanaticism of the religious right!

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. they vote their wallets on the way in AND on the way out and we may be

stuck running someone who has promised to hit their wallets harder.

[area51]

55. "94% of the population is employed" ...

... If one believes the nos. given out by this administration. However, even if the 94% figure is true, how many of those people have suffered a cut in salary, had their healthcare bennies cut, or are "self-employed" and struggling to survive in a tanking economy, or are working several "McJobs" in order to try to keep a roof over their heads? All these people will probably be voting ABB to get rid of Shrub so that our economy may actually have a chance of improving. That's voting their wallets.

[YNGW]

57. Could be.

Time will tell.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Rather Questionable Result

There is literally no viable explanation for a bump this big from their prior report, and also, for such a divergence between the results of the other polling services. There is something strange in this data.

Also, the economists giving the rosy picture are mentioned by name and affiliation. Hmmm? Bought and paid for?

Also, "grow at its fastest pace since the 90's boom. . ." is actually damning with faint praise, is it not? Since the economy has been a dismal 30 month experience, isn't it likely that it will do better than this year? Of course it is! But, i still refute the mathematics that leads anyone to believe the economy is beginning to roil. It's not.
The Professor

[TruthIsAll]

99. It's all smoke and mirrors, a house of cards which will collapse.

Like when they claim unemployment grew in a given month by ONLY 395,000. That's under the magic 400,000, so it's great news. Really.

CNBC constantly shills the Bush economic "recovery". But they don't talk about exploding deficits, the sinking dollar vs. the rising Euro, Russia and China and Saudi Arabia probably going to the Euro currency, increased total unemployment, rising gold and energy prices, bankrupt states and municipalities, all-time record foreclosures and bankruptcies, small businesses dying, foreigners taking our jobs, full-time salaries and consultant compensation cut, interest rates inevitably going up (and you know what this means for the markets), Warren Buffet, Bill Gross and Soros all bearish.

This is good economic news? Like everything else from Bush, it's a PR gimmick, a series of lies, mistatements and... a form of looting, as that 2001 Economic Nobel prize winner wrote.

[gpandas]

18. Bush's polls

We gotta face it, folks. Most Americans like to kick a little ass, as long as their ass isn't on the line, and if the victims are non-white, then all the better. Most Americans are not concerned that the USA has 5% of the worlds population and uses nearly half of the energy. Most Americans are willing to kill as many people as it takes so they can continue to load themselves into huge vehicles to ride the few blocks to the convenient store to buy cigarettess, candy bars, and lotto tickets. So most Americans support this brutal administration

[9119495]

21. Good thing Americans have no attention span

Hussein will be but a distant memory next year. Hell, bush may forget how to pronounce his name correctly. SH was actually caught too early to help the pres next year. Now, if he caught OBL...

[Silverhair]

24. The trial of SH will likely be in mid summer, and televised live. n/t

[9119495]

26. Should that happen, what if his relationship with Old bush

is dealt with? We can run ads with the photo of rummy and him shaking hands. We can talk about Cheney's recent dealings with him.

[Granite]

69. All Saddam, All the Time

Think Geraldo will be given his own show on Faux to cover this?? :puke:

[jackstraw45]

31. No, they'll "catch" Bin Laden next summer...just watch!

No, they'll "catch" Bin Laden next summer...he'll be slightly drugged and "found" somewhere...but it will be just in time for a nice bounce in the polls.

[sexybomber]

40. Ten bucks says that happens on my 21st birthday.

October 2, 2004. A month shy of the election. I'll put money on it.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

27. I am a centrist Democrat, and believe in common sense.

I don't want the Democratic party to repeat it performance of 72 & 84, which it seems like it is heading for. So many seem to want ideological purity above electability.

I am hostile to the tin foil hat brigade. Their silly theories make us look silly, and are giving the Reps ammunition.

I am against "misunderestimating" Bush. He who makes a habit of underestimating the opposition usually gets a rude awakening. I find it strange that some posters will, in the same post, accuse Bush of being so stupid that he can't pour sand out of a boot with the instructions on the heel, and then will accuse him of putting together and maintaining a plot of super Machivellian genius and of administrative genius in maintaining and excuting the plot. Which is he - idiot or genius? You can't have it both ways.

I am against sacrificing everything to hold to a position which - although right - is suicide. Translation: Gay marriage is a big time loser. The population just isn't ready yet. If we push it, we go down in flames - real big crash - make Carl very happy.

To point out stupidity on our own side is not defending Bush. It is rather like a Drill Seargent pointing out to a rookie where he is screwing up.

[Skittles]

29. No one thinks Bush plots ANYTHING

we all know he is handled by Dick and Rove. Do people "misunderestimate" Bush? No. Do they "misunderestimate" his digusting handlers? Absolutely. There is nothing too low down and dirty they won't do.

[markses]

30. Oh, OK, Drill Saaaaargeant

:eyes:

Or, is it like a veteran professor nudging gently a first-year college student?

Or, is it like the world's leading expert on wine lending friendly instruction to a wine novice?

Or, is it like a carpenter with 30 years experience guiding a new member of the carpenters union through a routine task?

Your analogies certainly speak to your modesty...When you give your opinion, it's something like Plato giving a helping hand to a kindergartener, yes? So lucky to have such a benevolent genius around, we are! :eyes:

[YNGW]

33. No Problem

And if we don't win in 2004, then you won't mind a series of "We told you so", so everything should work out fine.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YNGW]

52. Guess all you want.

It seems to be your forte'.

But more than one sees us walking down the same paths that cost us elections in the past. There's no reason to repeat history when we should know better.

And, if we lose in 2004, expect to be reminded as to why.

[markses]

63. Oh, I fully expect

you to invent whatever causal sequence makes your lips moist. If you'll kindly notice, I didn't say word one about whether Silverhair's election analysis was correct or not - despite your obvious predeliction for seeing enemies behind every tree. I merely noted the rank and absurd pomposity with which he delivered his message. But pomposity is better than downright petulance and prim faux self-satisfaction, so I even prefer his bullshit to yours, boss.

[adriennel]

62. excuse me

I was against attacking Iraq from the very beginning and received a lot of crap for it at the time.
I haven't ONCE said "I told you so" to someone who belittled me for being so anti-invasion. Why? Because it's childish. So, wait until next year so you can tell us all "we told you so". Of course, if Bush is elected, your whining will be the least of our problems. So stop reveling in the "I told you so" and do something positive in the here and now.

[YNGW]

64. I am doing something positive.

I've shared private PM's with dozens and dozens of people here at DU who are seeing the same things Silverhair has expressed in many of his postings, and I'm talking most of these people have 1000++++ posts. I and others are trying to shout a warning that we're speeding down the wrong track. And if it comes to "We told you so", it might wake up someone who can make a difference. Hopefully it won't come to that, but should we lose how many are going to be willing to stare the mistakes we made in the face and actually make changes and how many are going to rationalize and refuse to acknowledge the things many of us are trying to point out now? I'm seeing a lot of rationalizing and excuses already in the make, and if we lose and we continue to rationalize and make excuses, it's only going to get worse in the elections that follow. I think trying to right the train while it's sorta still hanging into the tracks is a good thing.

This is like the people who question the intelligence of the "Bush Knew" crowd and their desire to run a campaign on this issue. It has nothing to do with asking questions, but everything to do about making unsubstantiated allegations when they have yet to produce indisputable documented evidence to back up their beliefs. Do you know how many "Woodward and Bernstein's" are out there who, if they thought there was sufficient evidence, would love to bring down a presidency? Yet, no one is even making an concerted effort. I wonder why? Ask the theorists and they'll tell you the writers are afraid of the "powers that be" or they're part of the plot. There's always an excuse.

I appreciate what Silverhair said, I feel sorry for those on here who are so narrow-minded as to think that since he's pointing out problems in our party direction that somehow he is the enemy's camp, and I hope he continues to do what he believes to be the right thing.

[Skittles]

66. yeah well for me

the jury is still out. As for your belief that there are dozens of people wanting to bring down the presidency - please - this is not 1974. Have you noticed the press conferences? Our so-called journalists are afraid to ask the most basic questions and never follow up on the constant lies they are told.

I too am sick of the pompous posts.

[YNGW]

71. Reply

>As for your belief that there are dozens of people wanting to bring down the presidency - please - this is not 1974.

I didn't say that. I said that if someone thought the opportunity was there, a'la "Woodward and Bernstein", they would jump at the opportunity to make a name for themselves. In 1974, there wasn't as much of a buzz for Nixon's head as there is now for Bush's, yet no "All The President's Men" sequel to show for it.

And being confident in what you know to be the truth is not "pompus". It may be upsetting to some people who are never quite sure of themselves to actually let the other foot hit the floor, but I intend to continue to speak in a strong manner when the circumstance warrants without apologies.

[adriennel]

72. again, with the prophesizing

"I and others are trying to shout a warning that we're speeding down the wrong track."

I won't comment on what the "right" track might be because I don't have 1000+ posts and therefore am less qualified to comment on what should be done to get Bush out in 2004.

Not sure what the relevance of the bulk of your post is, other than to defend Silverhair.

PS - narrow-minded is the definition of a citizen who believes it is appropriate to marginalize a segment of the population in order to achieve their own goals. this is not "pointing out problems in our party direction", ie let's drop the gay union issue so we can win the election, this is promoting a blantantly discriminatory, anti-democratic agenda.

[YNGW]

75. Reply

Silverhair doesn't need my defense.

Your number of postings is irrelevant. So you don't have 1000, neither do I, but I believe some people at DU would have us go down the wrong track, though I'm confident they don't see it that way.

Fortunately on some matters, the larger populace of fellow Democrats are not willing to follow the paths I'm seeing vocalized here. With other issues, they seem to be more willing. It's some of the other issues that I am concerned about, and I'm not the only one.

I disagree with your PS section. What our party does to define itself and what it doesn't do (the platform) is very important in how we will be viewed by the general public. If something like the gay union issue is costing us the votes of people who otherwise agree with us on the economy, there is a trade-off to be considered. Politics is compromise, it always has been, and it's not changing anytime soon. Sometimes things have to be shelved or tucked away into a corner until such time that we have the power to present it. Several of us believe that we are losing elections because we've chosen to allow special interests (some of which are opposed to each other) to take over the driver's seat of the party rather than the party controlling the special interests and telling them how things will proceed. In other words, some of the special interests are causing the party to be marginalized, and by marginalizing the party, they are marginalizing themselves. That's a legitimate observation.

[Silverhair]

85. Sometimes life gives you bad choices.

Please truthfully, and with objectivety, not with blind hopeful emotion, answer this question, while remembering the following facts:

Question: Can the Democratic Party win while advocating gay marriage?

Remember that all polls show about 65% of voters oppose gay marriage. Among blacks the opposition is about 80%. Latinos are almost all Roman Catholic and the church is completely against gay marriage. It also goes against the Latino idea of machismo. Almost all support for gay marriage is concentrated on the left. Not to many in the center and almost none on the right support it.

37 states have DOMAs. Even Bill Clinton signed a federal DOMA because he was afraid to veto it.

Remember: Politics is about WINNING. It is not about a bunch of losers sitting around in a coffeehouse consouling each other on "having the high moral ground", even though they lost.

Losers don't pass legislation of any kind. Losers aren't in office. Losers don't have the power. Losers are LOSERS.

[rumguy]

86. Pukes lose cultural wars...

end of story...it is the pukes who are dragging this out into the public's view, trying to amend the constitution...

All that is happening now is that some states are wrestling with the issue..bottom line...pukes only support state's rights when they agree..

fuck em!

[adriennel]

111. thanks rumguy

I agree :-)

[adriennel]

110. off to the coffeehouse I go

thanks for the life lesson. it's about as helpful as "life's not fair".

If indeed you are concerned about Dems not being LOSERS in 04, you're probably going to want to reach out to Independents. I am not a party member but have always voted Dem because their platform most closely matches mine. However, I do not agree with the promotion of an exclusionary agenda or an election tactic that I feel is undemocratic. (the former being the current "let's forget about gay civil rights for now" situation, the latter being 2000 when Dems were trying to persuade Greens to switch their vote so Gore could win.)

Honestly, I can't tell if Dems even care about the Independent vote. We're not asking for special treatment, we are hoping for a non-homogenous party, one different from the Republicans.

guess I still have some ideology laying around. but I like it so I'll keep it for now. don't worry, I won't be posting any of it on DU.

[gpandas]

32. an interesting post, but

just how much of truth and honesty and beliefs, do you recommend we sacrifice on the altar of getting elected? Perhaps DU should be shut down because 'joe sixpack' might be offended and vote for Bush. Then we could set up a website teaching lying and hypocrisy. Hell yeah, then we probably would be elected.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[West Coast Democrat]

45. I Second That!

I don't think DU has to welcome Bush supporters of any kind, even if they claim to be "Centrist Democrats."

[Minstrel Boy]

74. "idiot or genius?"

"I find it strange that some posters will, in the same post, accuse Bush of being so stupid that he can't pour sand out of a boot with the instructions on the heel, and then will accuse him of putting together and maintaining a plot of super Machivellian genius and of administrative genius in maintaining and excuting the plot. Which is he - idiot or genius? You can't have it both ways."

You can't have it both ways either, Silverhair.

I have never read the suggestion, here or anywhere, that Bush was the architect of 9/11. On the contrary, he's almost universally regarded as the suit, the hollow man, the front. To say Bush knew is hardly saying Bush knows all. He's nobody's evil genius. Though that's a convenient strawman with which you can ridicule a growing body of evidence and an interpretation held by many here and elsewhere whom you hold in contempt.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

46. I have previously posted support for Clark. n/t

[West Coast Democrat]

53. So. What does that prove?

You only make Clark supporters look bad.

[Lars39]

28. Polls can be easily rigged and data skewed.

I'm not buying the numbers, but you can sure bet Bushco did.

[dawn]

61. Very true. I used to take customer surveys at my last job.

Management would encourage me to skew the data to favor certain statements all the time.

If you look hard enough, the data can be skewed in our favor. That's what they'd tell me to do. Scary.

[West Coast Democrat]

37. Sure, but Gallup also predicted Bush would win by 13% in 2000

this was in a poll released 10 days before the election. Two days before the election, they had Bush up by 5%. I don't think Gallup is at all reliable, but Republicans are sure to push the poll that gives them the highest numbers.

[MadMike]

42. I don't know what people see in this clown.........

[Malva Zebrina]

47. Ladies and gentlemen

you are witnessing an absolutely brilliant propagandist government. They, as much as I would like to say not, have mastered the propaganda and do have the bully pulpit through a coup--and no one challenged it--and they also bully the media. This is, indeed, fascism, but no one seems to care.:shrug: That is what the Bush ministry of propaganda, capitalizes upon. The apathy of the average dull witted, Walmart participant.

He and Rove and the rest, think it is sooooo easy to fool the people--

and he is right. :cry:

The only thing that is going to remove him from office, and remove his lying, treasonous chimpanzee face from the scene,(as well as his frumpy, subservient dumb and fat assed wife) is a revolution of the people, half of whom really cannot be relied upon because they are drugged out on the monetary rewards of capitalism.

He is a snot faced, absolutely ignorant and dumb adolescent boob.

He is a tragedy this country has had to endure ever since he stopped the counting of the votes in Florida and had his buddies on the Supreme Court, in an unprecidented move, appoint HIM to the presidency.

As usual--he does not win a thing--he simply takes it with threats and bullying--under the god. LOL

He has destroyed truth and beauty, imo because he is too stupid to know otherwise.


He should be impeached for his lack of competency==everything that comes out of his filthy, chimp mouth is a lie. Where are those who are brave enough to call him on his most egregious lying and his staged photo ops? This country has deteriorated--I am not proud of it any longer. I am grieving for this country. It has turned blood red in both it's oceans.

It has become a Neanderthal barbaric uncaring and selfish state where the accumulation of money is admired more than truth and more than the hatred of the lie used to murder innocent human beings.

[head_banger]

58. Could not have expressed that better!

Brought a tear to my eye. Sad but how true!

[gpandas]

60. you are right, Marriane

and i don,t think the greed and lust for treasures will ever end, in this supposedly Christian nation

[buycitgo]

78. same here.....from the heart.....from the soul

the one thing in which these indescribables who've stolen our country are clearly lacking.

I'd like to say that it will be their downfall, but, as with Hitler, it may take years and years to undo the damage already done on EVERY conceivable count.

Environment

judiciary

economy

foreign relations

ability to fight terror

structural, permanent loss of jobs

ever-increasing gap betwee rich/poor

degradation of infrastructure

energy policy

name ONE thing that this junta has done to the benefit of our society.

[Terwilliger]

48. 52% of Americans believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11 attacks

so...how much of that 63% is contained there?

My best guess on you, Silverhair, is that you in no way wish to challenge the media bullshit and right-wing lies, and, instead, simply surrender and then figure out how Dems can be the better Republicans.

[wanderingbear]

56. I dont Beleave Gallup..

Its a conservitive organization.

[GreenPartyVoter]

59. It won't last

Enough people vote with their wallets, just think how many moths will be flying out of them come next November.

[Woodstock]

65. I give up - all Bush does is give money to corporations

the corporations in turn take away jobs, plunder resources, pollute, and milk the people dry

yet the morans ask for more, more, more!

they WANT to give their hard earned money to corporations, they WANT their kids to get sick, they WANT to hand their savings over to con men and stand in breadlines at age 65

Rush, you win, O'Reilly, you win, all you greedy evil ####'s win because the people are too damned lazy to open their eyes and actually read a bill or two (because then they'd know the truth)

the country is in serious danger in terms of finances, terrorism, health of citizens, civil liberties of citizens - it's never been this bad, and it keeps getting worse with every bill these greedy ####'s pass

their propaganda machine is just too pervasive for us to penetrate, particularly when their targets are so very willing to believe the lies

sorry everyone, I know this is negative city, but I looked at pollingreport.com, and it's not just the Gallup poll - if finding a guy in a rat hole who was never a threat to us after thousands dead and billions spent is enough to bounce him so high in such a short time vs. the Democrat, then that's nothing compared to the trick they will play next fall

[Military Brat]

67. I will never give up, never, never, never

We made the mistake of caving in to pressure when Gore conceded the win to bush. We made the mistake of believing bush would hold to his campaign platform that he was a moderate. We cannot afford any more mistakes. The earth cannot afford it. Our children, and their children, cannot afford it.

We need a message. My message is: We cannot afford 4 more years of bush.

As for polls, they don't mean squat. I move forward with my agenda, and pay no mind to bush's ratings.

Edited for clarity

[Silverhair]

68. Gore caved? When? The SCOTUS ruled. End of game.

All steps after that are illegal.

[rumguy]

82. What are you talking about?

There's plenty more that could have been done. He could have personally highlighted the blatant partisanship of the SCOTUS. The pukes had plans to challenge if Gore won the electoral and Bush the popular, which was considered more likely than what actually happened.

The Dems rolled over and allowed an unethical usurpation of power...thanks for having such a fighting spirit..

[Silverhair]

83. What more could have been done? SCOTUS is the end of the

line. They get the last word. So you stand around a scream that it was a partisan decision. It seems that I remember that was done. didn't do any good. When SCOTUS speaks, it is the end of the game.

[rumguy]

84. No - it is the legal end of the line

but not the end of the line for the hearts and minds of the American people, which Gore won...

Dems should have been more vociferous about what had happened. Scalia's son worked for the law firm that argued the case! Thomas's wife was on the transition team...most Americans are not aware of this direct evidence of, well what basically amounts to a form of TREASON, IMO...

Believe me, if the tables had been turned, the PUKES would have been squealing like STUCK PIGS...which is what they are anyways, regardless...

In American culture, the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" - and that is why the pukes have been so successful LYING AND DECEIVING to the American populace...

A populace, whose hearts and minds Gore TOUCHED AN ULTIMETALY WON....

THE SCOTUS WAS NOT THE END OF THE LINE, IT WAS THE BEGGINING OF THE END OF LINE OF UNETHICAL PUKE RULE!!

to bad it was not taken advantage of, if something like that happens again in 2004, things will be different...we won't take it anymore!

Fuck em!

[Silverhair]

88. Let's go back to your initial statement. "Gore caved." I defended

Gore, noting (And you have agreed.) that the SCOTUS decision was the end of the legal line. There was no further legal appeal. Vote counting stopped and the vote totals were frozen with a Bush "win". End of legal line. Game over. What can be done then? Bush gets to take the oath of office.

You can hold all the parades and demonstrations that you want to and it would not change the SCOTUS decision. And remember, the election was extremely close. To a close approximation it was 50/50. The half of the nation that voted for Bush was happy with the decison. And to this day, over 50% (By all the polls) support Bush.

So what concrete line of action are you suggesting that Gore should have done after the SCOTUS decision. Advocate a violent revolution? You may not realize it, but that is what you are talking about if you are saying that the legal system should not be obeyed.

[rumguy]

89. A brutally false dichotomy

You paint the issue as the only thing was to do nothing (which is what happened) and advocate violent revolution..

That is ridiculous. What could have happened was that the Supreme Court's BLATANT conflicts of interest could have been presented to the American people, by either Gore or establishment Dems, who instead chose to do little.

If the reverse had happened, on puke hate radio, to this fucking day, they would still be squealing LIKE THE STUCK PIGS THEY ARE!

We could have done it an educated measured way, not the puke way...

Instead as it stands now, most Americans are unware of what happened, or at best, only dimly aware, of the blatant conflicts of interest...

[Silverhair]

90. And what would any of that have accomplished?

Real world answers please. I don't think you realize that the SCOTUS is the end of the line. Anything done after that has no legal standing. NO LEGAL STANDING AT ALL. Please explain how you could have actually, in the real world, legally stopped Bush from taking the oath of office.

[rumguy]

91. Huh? What about the real world Silverhair?

You like to say the election was statistically close, and that those that voted for Bushshit were happy. Well what about the hearts and the minds and the souls of the MAJORITY that voted for Gore. And, yes, it was a majority, a clear majority...and when you throw in the Green votes that were definetaly against Bush, it is an even clearer MAJORITY...

After the fiasco of the SCOTUS ruling, Gore went underground, and the Democrats in Washington tried to make peace, Daschle and Gephardt and other spineless Dems said little.

Part of what happened was our lack of a media machine to rival the pukes. Well the tables are starting to turn, and if that crap happens again the people will hear about the BLATANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD.

Hear this, and hear it well...Scalia's son worked for the law firm that argued Bush's case. Justice Thomas's wife worked for the transition team. They were not only ideologically in favor of Bush (the phony) winning, they were BEING PAID BY THE PUKES!!! Money...real money..unfortuntetaly most Americans don't know this sordid fact cuz the Dems didn't speak up loudly enough, at least not established Dems...

Fuck 'em, and the lying deceit that is the corrupt puke party...

[Silverhair]

92. You still haven't answered my question.

How would any of that have stopped Bush from taking the oath of office? Once SCOTUS ruled, there was no higher court to go to. How would you have stopped Bush from taking the oath of office?

[rumguy]

97. Ah..you are missing the forest for the trees, completely!

Better aim again. You completely bypass all my excellent points to point out the OBVIOUS fact that yes, legally, there was little that could be done to stop Bush from taking the oath of office, yet still the truth was denied the american people.

But the foundations could have exposed as the rotten, corrupt, and BLATANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. A CLEAR MAJORITY of Americans did not want Bush (the cowardly phony) in office.

The corruption, the fakery, the lies, and the conflicts of interst of the SCOTUS could have been presented to American people, unfortunetaly, they were not.

Even my mom, a good dem in a red state, was recently surprised when I told here about Scalia's son working for the CORRUPT CORPORATE POLITICAL CRONYISTIC law firm that represented Bush (the POS phony). And she also had no idea that Justice Thomas's wife was on the transition team. BOTH GETTING MONEY FROM THE CORRUPT HANDS OF TREASONOUS NEOCONS!!!

If only the truth could out....

[Silverhair]

98. OK, you have admitted that Bush could not have been stopped

from taking office. Now in what sense did Gore cave?

[rumguy]

100. Wrong, so wrong! His lies about the election could have been exposed

To bad you don't read my posts. I put a lot of effort into writing them...it's sad that you, as a Dem, seem to lack vision and imagination!

[Silverhair]

106. I think the Dems have been hollering about the 2000 election

non stop ever since the SCOTUS decision. You have still to explain how "Gore caved".

[rumguy]

107. thanks for addressing my points...not

The conflicts of interest of the SCOTUS have not been properly exposed. You say we've been hollerin' about it? Here in DU, yes...some passing shots by our presidential candidate...but there should have been a systematic effort right after the SCOTUS decision to show the blatant CONFLICTS OF INTEREST of certain key justices.

And Gore could have done that...that's how I think he caved...and Dem leaders could have done that...

That's what didn't happen - and that's why most voters don't know about Scalia's son working for the firm that handled Bush's case, or Thomas's wife working on the transition team

THEY WERE GETTING PAID BY THE PUKES WHILE THE CASE WAS FOUGHT! THEIR FAMILIES WERE GETTING ENRICHED! AND NOT ONLY THAT, IF BUSH WON THEY STOOD TO GAIN EVEN MORE MONEY AND POWER!!!!

ha ha! thanks for not addressing my points

[Woodstock]

70. You're right, but today is tough for me after all the hard work campaignin

Particularly since some smug Bush loving fools overheard me talking to a couple of Dems about Clear Channel controlling the airwaves, etc.

What makes their smugness laughable is that whenever I bring up a bill that Republicans passed or a policy of Bush's, they are COMPLETELY CLUELESS ABOUT IT - they don't even have the slightest idea of what is happening in the real world. Honestly, they simply don't know anything Rush doesn't tell them.

I keep thinking about The Matrix today for some reason...

[indepat]

73. The American people will be getting the government they deserve!

[buycitgo]

79. jesus.......stop scaring me like that!

the seventy percent of the public that believes in GHOSTS?

same ones who believe Saddam was flying one of those planes that hit the towers, no doubt

[Davis_X_Machina]

80. The gov't we deserve?

If BushCo is the government I deserve, how come I don't remember raping any nuns?

I mean, it would have to have been pretty bad, right?

[K-W]

93. The unfortunate thing is that in this country

the people still have the power to control thier government, they just allow the government to control them.

[Blade]

87. Yay! Bush's numbers are up because...

he captured a world leader that shouldn't have been captured.

Ok Mr. pResident, where are the WMDs that you blamed Saddam for having? Where is Osama Bin Laden, the very man who attacked the US on 9/11? What a piece of trash Bush is. I hate that man.

[wanderingbear]

94. Gayup Poll: Bush approval rating 00%

[rumguy]

101. what does that mean? if anything?

[wanderingbear]

103. Explaining it would ruin the joke.

[rumguy]

104. Please explain

If you dare! ha ha

[rumguy]

105. still waiting for some semblance of an answer...

where did ya wander off to? ha ha

[adriennel]

112. I find it very amusing

thanks wanderingbear! ;-)

[Silverhair]

96. OK, here's my thoughts on this.

Eleven months is a long time and a lot can happen. Yet, for the entire time of his presidency Bush has never dipped below 50% approval ratings. And that is with some really angry intense Bush bashing that has been going on non-stop ever since he took office. (With the exception of a short time after 9-11.)

That means that we aren't going to win the election just by bashing Bush. He has been drawing a lot of aces. The American people just aren't going to rise up in an angry tide and wash him away in a flood of Democratic votes. It just ain't gonna happen.

If we are going to win this one, we are going to have to play smart, not angry. We are going to have to offer the public some things that they want, and don't try to force on them things that they don't want.

[rumguy]

102. tell that to the wedge issue Pukes!

[NicRic]

109. How can this be ?

Iam constantly hearing from repugs that voted for bush in 2000 ,that say no way will they vote for him again ! Plus the fact that he has done such a terrible job in every aspect of this pResidency ! I mean,the bush supporters act like he did a heros job after 9/11 .The truth is any U.S. Presiedent would have be looked upon as doing well in that situation .If people would look at how secretive this white house is ,then they should realize they are hidding things from us ! I sadly agree that the dumbing down of the American voter has worked so far ,and its very very frustrating to those of us that take the time to investigate , and know just how corrupt this pResident and his gang are ! God help us all !