krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 01:28:04 AM new
Unlike uaru'smonth old poll so proudly presented here the other day, this one, done after the decision of Senator Jeffords to abandon the Republican party in utter dismay over the unfullfilled promises of dumbya shows that bush's ratings are on a decline.
In the poll carried out just after this
decision was announced on Thursday,
53% of Americans said they had doubts
and reservations about whether or not Mr
Bush was a leader they could trust.
The survey of more than 1,000 Americans
also revealed a worrying lack of support
for some of the president's favourite policy
initiatives. Only 38% approved of his plans
to deal with the country's energy
problems, for example.
Under plans drawn up by Vice-President
Dick Cheney, the US is to encourage
more fuel supplies from controversial
sources such as nuclear energy and fossil
fuel. Mr Jeffords, who represents Vermont,
joined the Senate in the mid-1960s on a
pro-environment platform.
After supporting the Bush candidacy
during last year's campaign, Mr Jeffords
was horrified by the apparent volte-face on
several key policy initiatives, including
energy and special needs education.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,497613,00.html
|
gravid
|
posted on May 29, 2001 02:53:47 AM new
I wondered why you used the report in a United Kingdom source of this poll instead of linking to the original article at CNN/Time.
After reading both I see that the second hand report only mentions the NEGATIVE results of the poll and avoids the few positive views the public still held of Bush. Not only is that not honest to cherry pick the negative parts out it is not neccesary because the poll is damning enough in it's original form.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/25/cnn.poll.bush/index.html
[ edited by gravid on May 29, 2001 02:57 AM ]
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 04:09:32 AM new
I hope you don't like it. I go to the brits often for a less biased viewpoint than is generally obtainable in US sources. What makes you so sure that your chosen source has not embellished their version of the report of the poll? Just because you want it not to have?
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 04:12:03 AM new
Bush's ratings are higher on the economy, taxes, and world affairs (although only about half say he is doing a good job in each of those areas), and 52 percent approve of how he is handling his job overall. About half favor the tax cut now before Congress, but a plurality disapprove of Bush's energy plan announced last week.
Right now, only 43 percent say they are likely to vote for Bush if he runs for re-election in 2004; while half say they are unlikely to vote for him. Before Democrats start celebrating, it's worth pointing out that Bill Clinton had similar numbers at this point in his first term, and went on to a comfortable victory in 1996.
Bush also has some advantages Clinton did not have in May of 1993. Most Americans thought that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to important problems in 1993 -- today the public is split over Bush.
Only 31 percent said that Clinton was a leader they could trust in May of 1993, while 45 percent say that about Bush today.
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 04:18:27 AM new
Do all republicans miss Bill Clinton so much that he must come into every political comment? Clinton is gone--get over it and talk about the here and now.
Who owns CNN? Try to guess.
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 04:35:23 AM new
So if what I had posted had shown that Clinton's numbers were better than Bush's when he first started out, it would have been okay? If they had been you would be crowing about how Clinton had done so much better.
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 05:02:17 AM new
Look around and see. I don't crow about Clinton. He's history. Happens that he'll probably go down in history as one of the three most effective presidents that the country has had, but right now he's not the point. The point is that we've got a mess on our hands and it's called dubya.
|
gravid
|
posted on May 29, 2001 05:10:57 AM new
unbiased?
The CNN report had all the questions asked reported in their article - it was their own poll. The British version just quoted a few of the results that got a negative response from the public.
Sorry but reporting only the worst of a poll is not unbiased.
I have a brother-in-law who is an expert at this game of telling a little bit of the truth instead of the whole picture and it is just as effective as a full blow lie for hiding the truth. It makes me know not to believe a thing he says as representing an accurate picture. So I recognize the tactic.
I think you are too smart to do this by mistake so I have to add you to that list of people who will mislead me if it serves your cause to tell me less than the full story.
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 05:11:03 AM new
The truth shall set you free.
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 05:25:24 AM new
So saith AOL/Time Warner, courtesy of Ted Turner, one of the world's grand republican back room boys.
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 05:28:08 AM new
Gravid,
Are you adressing me, or the Guardian? If you are addressing me, please desist, and do realize that since you pay me nothing I owe you exactly that in return.
From the direct link to the subject poll provided above:
Is Bush a leader you can trust?
Yes 45%
Yes 53
I can see from that why some may find it preferable..
[ edited by krs on May 29, 2001 06:18 AM ]
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:09:20 AM new
Considering that only 31% felt they could trust Clinton, I hardly find the poll all that exciting. Obviously, you do.
|
Borillar
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:21:34 AM new
Ted Turner, rabid conservative, owns CNN. During the election, when Gore would do something positive, there was little air time about it compared to the favorable treatment given to Dubya. While CNN tries better than FoxNews to be unbiased, they couldn't help hiding thier happy-dance everytime Dubya did something that they liked. CNN's polls were so suspect, that they eventually had to run them against 5 or 6 other national polls to convince their viewers that they had reformed in the last few weeks before the presidential election. When reporting those results, if it's 62% said they hate Bush, CNN would report in light voice tones that Bush had a 38% favorable rating. Such a slant ... from the conservative media.
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:26:04 AM new
Much like The Gaurdian you twist the poll to fit your own agenda.
I think this is funny. I go to the brits often for a less biased viewpoint than is generally obtainable in US sources. Hmmm....they are both using the same source, one just chooses to report only the negative aspects.
|
Borillar
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:38:15 AM new
Actually, the Brits do often give a clearer view of the American pulse than the conservative media does in America. Just because they focus on the negatives does not invalidate their findings, since the negative findings was their storyline. You can bet that if CNN found a 52% favorable job rating for Bush, it actually translates to about 33%. When Clinton was president, a 33% favoarable rating usually translated to a 52% favoarable rating. Conservatives stuffed ballot boxes in the last election and the CNN polls are often suspect as having too conservative a slant. It's best to go out looking abroad for some less biased opinions at times.
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:41:17 AM new
A less biased opinion when both used the same poll? Get real.
Since when is most of the major news outlets conservative? As far as Ted Turner, I can't stand the man, I don't care if he is a Democrat or Republican.
|
HJW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:42:09 AM new
Bush misleads and manipulates the
American Press.
The Guardian is a good unbiased news source!
It is interesting also that after several months of misleading the press, they too, are losing confidence in him. Conservative--even right-wing--initiatives are being presented to the press in moderate,
even liberal, packaging.
You can read here, how the press has been manipulated.
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/060401/lizza060401.html
Helen
|
HJW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 07:57:09 AM new
Even the Washington Post was duped into a story reporting the Bush
planed tax cut plan's "deepest reductions" went to the "working poor and middle class.
Now, with the facts available, we know that this is nonsense. We know that it is overwhelmingly skewed toward the rich.
But the Bush regime got the media to buy that story.
Helen
|
gravid
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:12:05 AM new
krs - If I don't PAY you anything I am not owed anything????
I was expressing my honest opinions - no one has paid me to express a certain view. If you are employeed by the people you support you should disclose that.
It is fun to try to persuade others to your view and read the interchange of ideas in these threads, but I am sure I could not write a big enough check to have your agreement.
Now that it is clear it is a matter of pay I WILL desist commenting on krs threads.
|
Borillar
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:15:33 AM new
>>CLAP!<< >>CLAP!<< Thank you, Helen for that link! I get so tired of hearing about the "liberal media" slant when they report conservatives/republican wrongdoings; while at the same time, the media does a happy-dance everytime Bush screws Americans in some new way.
Ted Turner owns Time Magazine, CNN, ABC, and a bunch of other media, including radio and almost every newspaper in the country! Ted hates "liberals" and "progressives" and has publically blasted them in more than one speech at conservative gatherings. His foam-at-the-mouth rhetoric pushed CNN so far to the right during the Clinton scandal that many Americas have yet to tune back into his news station.
"The Liberal Media" -- what a crock of #$%^!
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:18:52 AM new
Someone misses, even with bolding, that the straight CNN report of their own poll reports :
Is Bush a leader you can trust?
Yes 45%
Yes 53
Both answers are yes? Lets not froth at the mouth so heavily that it fogs our vision of these spectacular little tricks of conservative reportage, shall we. Now decide which yes you prefer. LoL!
|
HJW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:21:12 AM new
Borillar  and LoL, Krs!
Helen
[ edited by HJW on May 29, 2001 08:28 AM ]
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:34:17 AM new
And someone else is so busy frothing at the mouth over an article from the UK that reports the same poll results as CNN that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
Are you for real? You are so thrilled that The Gaurdian is validating you that you do not even see they are using the same results as CNN.
Obviously a typo, I am sure his approval rating is around 40%.
You compare your wonderful Clinton to Bush, but we are not allowed to point out that his approval rating was much lower than Bush's in his first days in office?
|
krs
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:44:16 AM new
Are you addressing me?
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:49:41 AM new
I would never do such a thing as directly address a poster.
|
HJW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:49:59 AM new
You say to me?,
"Frothing at the Mouth???"
"Are You For Real"
Helen
|
SaraAW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:50:53 AM new
Hi folks,
Let's get back on topic please.
Thanks,
Sara
[email protected]
|
HJW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:51:36 AM new
That may be the only good decision that you have made today, hcross.
Helen
|
hcross
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:54:57 AM new
hjw, I am hardly concerned with what you think, and no I was not addressing you, when I am I will be sure to let you know, so there is no confusion.
|
HJW
|
posted on May 29, 2001 08:58:27 AM new
hcross
Although I would like to answer your question, maintaining proper
decorum is important here, unlike some of the filthy threads that
you may visit on the web. Generally, using such terms as "frothing at
the mouth and "are you for real" are not considered appropriate here.
Therefore, I will remain silent. That is sometimes the best answer for
a question such a yours.
Helen
[ edited by HJW on May 29, 2001 09:06 AM ]
|
