But here's the kicker:A total of 71% of Americans say they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.
Among all Americans, 25% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 27% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 70% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 23% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.
This is the highest level of disapproval and lowest level of approval for the Bush presidency recorded in monthly surveys by the American Research Group.I wonder how much lower this will go.
12 comments:
I wonder how much lower this will go.
Not much lower IMNSHO. The people who still support Bush are the kernel of the cadre of the hard core. These folks would not be persuaded that Dubya is imperfect if he signed a mutual-protection pact with Asmodeios. [Insert Dick Cheney joke here.]
For example, consider the attitude of some of our trolls. Do you suppose they would ever respond "disapprove"?
I don't know why you care so much about the polls. Do you think anyone in this administration gives a shit about these polls. I guarantee you they just sit back and laugh their asses off on these polls. You have all these people disapproving of Bush and still these spineless democrats do nothing. They complain about the war but still fund it. They're still afraid. All the media has to do is say you don't support the troops and they run away with their tail between their legs.
"I wonder how much lower this will go."
Allow me to answer that:
It will go as low as the odds you daring to talk about the liberal Democrats wanting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine; something you're still to chicken to talk about because you know damn well what the Fairness Doctrine is all about, hence your silence about it in the first place.
Any questions?
Braden Parker;
Now I know you're just kidding us. I mean AG Alberto "The Perjurer" Gonzales made it through his entire perjured testimony today without one mention of the fairness doctrine.
Why aren't YOU complaining about that? YOU must be afraid to talk about how AG Gonzales refuses to discuss the Fairness Doctrine infront of the Senate Judiciary Committee!
I think you're afraid because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want AG Gonzales to be remain silent, you need AG Gonzales to remain silent about the Fairness Doctrine!
Any questions?
Actually, Master Lie, I do have a question. Would you mind clarifying something for me?
If I want to average 50 miles per hour driving from here to Cleveland, and I drive 25 miles per hour for half the journey, how fast do I have to drive the rest of the way?
Here's another one: What do male horny toads do when they can't find a female?
One more. If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make fog horns out of?
These are all vexing issues for me, and if you could clear them up, I would be indebted.
Wait, I just thought of another. If Dayvoe and I are the "chickens," how come you keep running away every time I offer you a wager?
About the only thing you could offer Shitrock is the confirmation that you're a moonbat. But that's ok.
Oh, and I don't recall bringing your name up in my last comment in terms of calling David DeAngelo a chicken. Only your liberal arrogance such as yours would make such an assumption to think that I was speaking about you. And yet, you don't even run this blog, but then again, you somehow think you do anyway.
Now, that's funny.
Now, that's funny.
But strangely, no one is laughing. Odd.
Now about those bets you keep cravenly running away from...
Thanks for playing the role of cannon fodder for us, Master Lie. And keep coming back. We love you. We really do.
Mr Schmuck;
This is Anon 10:21. Please notice that BRADEN PARKER has so far refused to discuss how AG Gonzales is absolutely silent about the Fairness Doctrine - especially infront of the Senate Committee.
He must be scared to bring it up, knowing how foolish it'll make him look.
In fact BRADEN PARKER is scared to bring up ANY aspect of Alberto "The Perjurer" Gonzales' testimony.
Why do you think that is?
In fact BRADEN PARKER is scared to bring up ANY aspect of Alberto "The Perjurer" Gonzales' testimony. Why do you think that is?
Anonymous, I am very disappointed in you. It is very cruel of you to bring this up. As you must certainly know, Master Lie is both deaf and blind. These physical disabilities, when combined with his pre-adolescent acne, make it very difficult for him to stay in touch with current events. We should praise him for even knowing about the Fairness Doctrine.
As for the doctrine itself, it was based on the concept that since broadcast licencees are using a tightly limited public resource essentially for free, they have a moral duty and a statutory obligation to present all sides of controversial topics. Pretty radical, huh? It wouldn't stifle Wingnuts' ability to lie at will; it would merely require radio and TV stations to give the other side a chance to inform Rush's poor, uninformed, deluded listeners as to what the actual facts are. Note that it never did and never would apply to newspapers, books, satellite radio, pamphlets, the internet, or restroom walls. It would limit free speech to approximately the same extent that Wicca limits Christianity in the US.
Still, the Fairness Doctrine is no longer needed. When the Fairness Doctrine was instituted, there were relatively few mass media, so it was important to insure that everybody got a chance to have his say. Now there are all the new technologies, and opinions are like assholes in that -- not only does everyone have one but -- some of us (note that I did NOT use Master Lie's name here) insist on putting it on public display.
Nobody cares much about the Fairness Doctrine these days except those on the extreme fringe of the uttermost right wing, and they care about it only to whip up indignation among fools and to use as a stick to beat people who actually think that fairness is a good thing.
BTW, Anonymous, ya doesn't has ta call me Mister. Ya can call me Schmuck or ya can call me Shitrock or ya can call me Rocky or ya can call me SS. Ya can call me John or ya can call me JS. But ya doesn't has ta call me Mister.
And you can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay...
Anon 10:21
Afraid of the Fairness Doctrine? Us?
No, I'd think that's you and your ilk, Braden. I actually deigned to listen to Michael Savage a couple nights ago, and he spent a bit of time railing against said Doctrine. The reason he gave that it shouldn't ever exist again? Not that it's a bad law, not that it would infringe upon someone's free speech, whomever that might theoretically be, no, oh no.
He was upset about it simply because he knew full well it would put him out of a job, and said so in so many words.
Boo fuckin' hoo, as far as I'm concerned. Of course he'd be the first to go, because the radio networks would likely strive to keep the conservatives who might actually bother to make a point sometime during their shows, lest the durn lib'ruls run over them roughshod.
Post a Comment