No bump for Bush?

[BHAMBARONS]

I thought Bush would receive a 5 or maybe a 10 point boost from the death of Zarqawi but his numbers still hold in the mid to upper 30's.

[minors]

I thought Bush would receive a 5 or maybe a 10 point boost from the death of Zarqawi but his numbers still hold in the mid to upper 30's.

 

 

That means nothing Republicans will still do well in November. Bush will receive a bump and get his numbers back into the 50's. It's liberals like you that make wonder if you guys were disappointed that we killed Zarqawi and are winning the war on terror because it hurts your party. You liberals care more about poll numbers than bringing these thugs to justice which is really sick.

[BHAMBARONS]

That means nothing Republicans will still do well in November. Bush will receive a bump and get his numbers back into the 50's. It's liberals like you that make wonder if you guys were disappointed that we killed Zarqawi and are winning the war on terror because it hurts your party. You liberals care more about poll numbers than bringing these thugs to justice which is really sick.

 

 

Wow what is with the personal attacks, I don't believe that I ever said anything like the things you are accusing me of in your massive incoherent rumbling. I never have used personal attacks on anybody on this board and would appreciate the same in return.

[whitesoxfan101]

Why would he get a bump in ratings? He's still a bad president and it took WAY too long to catch this guy, a guy by all accounts who was losing power and was sold out by his own "allies".

[minors]

Wow what is with the personal attacks, I don't believe that I ever said anything like the things you are accusing me of in your massive incoherent rumbling. I never have used personal attacks on anybody on this board and would appreciate the same in return.

 

 

I did not mean to single you out but there are some real left wingers on this board and some seem to care more about ratings than winning the war on terror.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Why would he get a bump in ratings? He's still a bad president and it took WAY too long to catch this guy, a guy by all accounts who was losing power and was sold out by his own "allies".

 

 

Catching a fugitive is one thing.....catching a fugitive who has a dedicated band of followers who will die to protect him is quite another.

[YASNY]

Why would he get a bump in ratings? He's still a bad president and it took WAY too long to catch this guy, a guy by all accounts who was losing power and was sold out by his own "allies".

 

Read ... and learn

[jasonxctf]

is the war on terror similar to the war on drugs? it sounds nice, but unfortunately it's an enemy that can never fully be defeated? just asking and interested in your responses.

[NorthSideSox72]

That means nothing Republicans will still do well in November. Bush will receive a bump and get his numbers back into the 50's. It's liberals like you that make wonder if you guys were disappointed that we killed Zarqawi and are winning the war on terror because it hurts your party. You liberals care more about poll numbers than bringing these thugs to justice which is really sick.

Dude. The guy just made a comment about his polling numbers. Is it really necessary to snap off like that? And do you think anyone will take your comments seriously when they are steeped in ridicule and insults?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

is the war on terror similar to the war on drugs? it sounds nice, but unfortunately it's an enemy that can never fully be defeated? just asking and interested in your responses.

 

 

The war on drugs could be won in months if the US had the balls to do what is necessary to win. Same goes for the war on terrorism.

[NorthSideSox72]

The war on drugs could be won in months if the US had the balls to do what is necessary to win. Same goes for the war on terrorism.

The war on drugs couldn't really be won, but it could go a lot better if they:

 

--Legalized marijuana, which is less dangerous in society than alcohol and tobacco anyway

--Regulated marijuana to generate revenue from taxes, thus covering enforcement of rules

--Take some of the umpteen million dollars that was spent in interdiction, enforcement, prevention of marijuana and put half of it into the same tasks for drugs that are actually dangerous to society

--Use the rest of the money to reduce the deficit

 

Edited June 11, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The way on drugs couldn't really be won, but it could go a lot better if they:

 

--Legalized marijuana, which is less dangerous in society than alcohol and tobacco anyway

--Regulated marijuana to generate revenue from taxes, thus covering enforcement of rules

--Take some of the umpteen million dollars that was spent in interdiction, enforcement, prevention of marijuana and put half of it into the same tasks for drugs that are actually dangerous to society

--Use the rest of the money to reduce the deficit

 

 

 

My ideas were a lot more forceful and stringent.

 

Decriminalizing illicit narcotics is the wrong answer. What should be done, and Ive talked about this before, is for simple possession of a small amount of weed the offender should be fined. If you're caught selling or with larger quantities only then should there be prison.

 

As for the harder stuff like the coke, heroin and such, the answer lies at the source. What should be done is all known coca fields should be burned, napalm is a good way to carry that out, and the homes of drug barons should be flattened, preferably with them and their families inside. Back here at home, anyone caught selling cocaine or other hard narcotics should be executed and fed to the fish.

 

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who make money selling poison to our children.

[minors]

Dude. The guy just made a comment about his polling numbers. Is it really necessary to snap off like that? And do you think anyone will take your comments seriously when they are steeped in ridicule and insults?

 

 

Your right I should tone it down a little but it just seems to me that liberals are disappointed that we got this guy because it is a victory for President Bush and might hurt there poll numbers. Wars should not be about poll numbers and that is why I snapped.

[Heads22]

Wars on nouns are tough.

 

I thought BHam had a legit point. You might expect at least a small bump in the polls, but no.

[Gregory Pratt]

Wars on nouns are tough.

 

I thought BHam had a legit point. You might expect at least a small bump in the polls, but no.

 

Yeah, I'd expect that, too.

 

But, politically, I think Bush is at a stage where the American public has stopped listening. If Bush wants to regain standing, he'd do well to stay out of partisan politics this November. This is the same situation that Clinton was in, in 1994. The American public furious, his message drowned out by poor polls, and his advisors telling him that it would be best to let the Democrats stand alone. Instead he came out, campaigned, and became an albatross -- not just in spirit but reality, as he was out there actively engaging the Republicans.

 

If the GOP wants some success this year -- and by all means, they're bound to lose some seats in both Houses, so they're looking to minimize damage -- they'd do well to back away from Bush and ask him to stay in the White House. Otherwise, he's looking at a world of hurt for now and for the rest of his Presidency.

 

Of course, having a Democratic Congress with a Speaker Pelosi might be the best thing to ever happen to Bush, much like Newt Gingrich was a gift to Clinton.

 

Oh politics!

[Balta1701]

Wars on nouns are tough.

 

I thought BHam had a legit point. You might expect at least a small bump in the polls, but no.

Most Polls take at least 3 days to be fully completed, if you want to run for 1000+ people and actually get a reasonable margin of error. This thread shouldn't have appeared until the middle of next week.

[WilliamTell]

Most Polls take at least 3 days to be fully completed, if you want to run for 1000+ people and actually get a reasonable margin of error. This thread shouldn't have appeared until the middle of next week.

 

True that, but even then I don't see a huge boost. Maybe a 3% boost tops, who knows.

[Cerbaho-WG]

My ideas were a lot more forceful and stringent.

 

Decriminalizing illicit narcotics is the wrong answer. What should be done, and Ive talked about this before, is for simple possession of a small amount of weed the offender should be fined. If you're caught selling or with larger quantities only then should there be prison.

 

As for the harder stuff like the coke, heroin and such, the answer lies at the source. What should be done is all known coca fields should be burned, napalm is a good way to carry that out, and the homes of drug barons should be flattened, preferably with them and their families inside. Back here at home, anyone caught selling cocaine or other hard narcotics should be executed and fed to the fish.

 

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who make money selling poison to our children.

 

You do realize that this theory, like many of yours, is overly simplistic? I don't want to waste time trying to say how asinine I think it is, but do you honestly think the world would go along with such American dick wagging? Don't tell me that other counrties should accept this, start thinking in real terms and try to imagine the responses after you start napalming coca fields in Bolivia.

[KipWellsFan]

CBS: 33%

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/12/...in1703346.shtml

Edited June 13, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[Cknolls]

When You Can't Say Something Nice ... You Might Be A Pollster

Over at Real Clear Politics, I checked out their aggregation of President Bush's Job Approval polls. You know, how so many people are smirking that it sure doesn't look like President George W. Bush will win a third consecutive term?

 

Anyway, I noticed something. Twelve different polls released Job Approval numbers sometime in May, which ended going on half a month ago. Of those twelve, only three have done a poll in June. Of those three, one shows the same numbers as in May, but the other two are higher in June than in May, one significantly so.

 

That means nine major polls were happy to trumpet the news when they could post low numbers, but have not mentioned them since. Gee, I wonder why that is so?

[YASNY]

When You Can't Say Something Nice ... You Might Be A Pollster

Over at Real Clear Politics, I checked out their aggregation of President Bush's Job Approval polls. You know, how so many people are smirking that it sure doesn't look like President George W. Bush will win a third consecutive term?

 

Anyway, I noticed something. Twelve different polls released Job Approval numbers sometime in May, which ended going on half a month ago. Of those twelve, only three have done a poll in June. Of those three, one shows the same numbers as in May, but the other two are higher in June than in May, one significantly so.

 

That means nine major polls were happy to trumpet the news when they could post low numbers, but have not mentioned them since. Gee, I wonder why that is so?

 

June is not over yet?

[Rex Kickass]

That's what I'm thinking. Usually these monthly polls are aggregate polls over several weeks. In about two weeks, you'll start to hear about Bush's Zarqawi bounce.

[jasonxctf]

that evil liberal media, always out to get the President.