Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Polls Show Drop for Bush's Job Approval

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

Polls Show Drop for Bush's Job Approval

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's job approval slipped into the mid 40s in national polls released this week as he lost some support among men and other groups of core supporters.

Public approval for Bush slipped from 52 percent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll over the weekend to 45 percent in that same poll released Thursday. A CBS News poll released earlier in the week found Bush's approval slipping six points to 43 percent.

The Gallup poll found Bush losing support among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers while the CBS poll found a drop among men and Republicans.

The polls come after Congress and the president intervened in the case of Terri Schiavo, a 41-year-old woman whose feeding tube had been removed. The federal intervention was widely unpopular, even with conservatives and evangelicals.

But Bush's dip in the polls also comes at a time that gas prices have been on the rise and the president is involved in an uphill campaign for changes in Social Security.

The Gallup poll of 1,001 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and has a 4 percentage point margin of error.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

CNN-USA Today-Gallup ... A CBS News poll

Let's see...Liberal rag station, liberal rag newspaper, liberal rag pollster, followed by the biggest rag of all SeeBS. Post me a credible poll source and I'll pay attention. Or, we could always post their presidential election calls. Simple media misinformation trying to lead the masses using polling tactics.

Posted by: Joeychgo

A few others...........Same story

http://www.thecheers.org/article_1121_Only_45%25_of_Americans_support_Bush. html

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m...6bf684b53.html

http://www.thinkandask.com/2005/20050325poll.html

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pionee...l/11234256.htm

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...em&itemID=6497

Posted by: barry2952

Joey,

Posted by: MonsterMark

Before you get all giggly.

It is interesting to find this in the middle of the article. The DemoAsshats have pulled this stunt before.
"The poll also found an increased number of Democrats. In this survey, 37% said they were Democrats and 32% said they were Republicans. Last week, 32% said they were Democrats and 35% said they were Republicans."

So, if you really want to argue the numbers, based on the attempt to deceive the real results, one might be able to insinuate that BUSH's number are actually up based on the margin of error and the sampling error.

NOW I KNOW THE LIBERALS ARE LOSING ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUE BECAUSE THEY ARE ONCE AGAIN HAVING TO RESORT TO LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION BY THE USE OF FALSE POLLING DATA, HOPING THE UN-INFORMED AND UNDER-INFORMED ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER. THEY TRIED THE SAME AS THE 2004 ELECTION.

Too bad for the libbys, there are too many of us now willing to take to the Internet and speak the truth. BUSTED!

And for more of your viewing pleasure...
I seem to remember some other CNN/USAToday/Gallop Polls like this...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-defense_x.htm

Or CNN, yup, they don't spin things, do they?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220005

At least Rasmussen tries to get things right...if you are looking for accuracy.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
Saturday March 26, 2005--Forty-nine percent (49%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.
This is the first time since mid-February that the President's Approval rating has been below the 50% mark on consecutive days. It has been at 50% or 51% for most of February and March.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans give the President's performance their Approval along with 22% of Democrats and 38% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of American adults Strongly Approve of the President's job performance while 35% Strongly Disapprove.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

By E&P Staff

Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM

NEW YORK It's not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a "popular" leader or even a "very popular" one. Even some of his critics in the press refer to him this way. Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.

President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.

Presidents Truman and Johnson had finished out the terms of their predecessors, and then won election on their own for a second term.

Bush's current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.

More bad signs for the president: Gallup's survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the "state of the country" while 59% are "dissatisfied." One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it "only fair" or poor.

Gallup noted that more challenges lie ahead for Bush, including public doubts about his Social Security plan and Iraq policies.

Here are the approval ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup (all for March):

Truman, 1949: 57%.

Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.

Johnson, 1965: 69%.

Nixon, 1973: 57%.

Reagan, 1985: 56%.

Clinton, 1997: 59% .

Bush, 2005: 45% .

Posted by: MonsterMark

Bush is doing more and more good than any other President in history also.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

What kind of drugs are you taking? More and more good for who, corporate cronies?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Take a look around. The economy is BOOMING. Instead of whining, why don't you join in on the fun. Every shopping mall and parking lot is packed with people from dawn till dusk. GDP was up 3.4% last quarter and will be up over 4% this quarter, despite the gas prices. (Btw, remember when the left was whining how Bush had a secret deal with the Saudis to LOWER the price of oil right before the election so Bush could steal it again? Well, what happened to that theory? Oh, I know, they decided to RAISE the price so they could all get fat.)

The guy can't win for losing. Go figure.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Here's an example of the good your "Mr Sanctity of money, err ah, life" is doing:

George Bush On Mercury Pollution: Don’t Eat Tuna Fish

Professing a deep belief in the sanctity of life, particularly for the unborn, George Bush is callously indifferent about the toxic effects of mercury on human fetuses.
By Gerald Rellick

Mercury is an extremely toxic environmental pollutant that has entered our food system to an alarming extent. It is labeled a neurotoxin because it damages the nervous system, the brain and the spinal cord. Those at greatest risk are fetuses and young children because their nervous systems are still developing. They are many times more sensitive to mercury than adults. Overexposure to mercury may cause a child to be late in beginning to walk and talk, permanent damage to motor functions, and any number of lifelong learning problems.

While no one would ever call George Bush environment-friendly, one might have expected that his professed belief in the sanctity of life, particularly that of the unborn, would have made him more than just a bit concerned about the toxic effects of mercury on human fetuses. But not so. Earlier this year Bush proposed his Clear Skies legislation to revamp a range of environmental regulations. One effect would have been to ease mercury emission standards that were proposed by the Clinton administration EPA. Fortunately, the bill failed to get out of Senate committee, a Republican controlled committee. The same initiative failed during Bush’s first term. And it is not without some irony that Bush’s initiative would have overturned key provisions of the last and strictest amendment to the Clean Air Act, passed in 1990 under the first President Bush.

But this George Bush, acting with his typical pettiness, decided to ignore congress and ignore a public that has favored strong mercury pollution standards. Bush directed the EPA to review existing regulations under the current law to find some loophole that would, in effect, allow him to have his -- and industry’s -- way. And guess what? With the aid of some Bush appointees at the EPA, they succeeded in doing just that. At least for now anyway, but public outrage is building.

Some Background

Mercury is familiar to most of us as a heavy, silvery liquid metal, often called quicksilver. In its elemental form it is relatively harmless unless heated. Mercury vapor is extremely toxic, but this risk has long been known and very few people are ever at risk from this source of mercury. However, mercury is an impurity in fossil fuels, particularly coal, and is released into the atmosphere from combustion. Of the 150 tons of mercury released each year in the U.S., 48 tons, or about one-third, is from coal-fired electric power plants. Establishing much needed mercury emission standards and the means of attaining them for these sources are the issues now before the country.

Mercury is unique among air pollutants in that it must first be deposited in water sources to produce its maximal toxic effects. Bacteria in the sediment converts simple mercury to an organic form known as methylmercury which rapidly accumulates up the aquatic food chain in a process called bioaccumulation. This leads to progressively higher concentrations in larger predatory fish. Fish do not readily excrete methylmercury and it accumulates in their tissues over time. Among ocean fish, the highest methylmercury levels are found in shark, swordfish and tuna. More than 60,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with neurodevelopmental impairments due to their prenatal exposure to methylmercury. And the EPA estimates that as many as 15 percent of American women have methylmercury blood levels that pose a risk to their potential fetuses. This translates into about 600,000 at-risk babies born each year. Pregnant women are now advised by some health experts to avoid tuna altogether, which effectively puts tuna in the same category as smoking, drugs and alcohol. The following citation from the Natural Resources Defense Council summarizes the mechanism of human toxicity of methylmercury:

“Methylmercury halts cells’ division in the fetal brain by binding directly to chromosomes and interfering with their ability to make copies of themselves. It also interferes with the migration of brain cells, especially in the cerebellum, the control center for balance and muscle coordination. Fetuses receive higher doses than adults because methyl mercury is actively pumped across the placenta; studies consistently find higher levels of methylmercury in the blood of newborns than in blood samples drawn from their mothers.”

Clinton and Bush on Mercury

In the waning days of the Clinton administration the EPA concluded that federal law required it to treat mercury as a toxic pollutant (as opposed to simply hazardous), putting it in the same category as lead and asbestos. Specifically, the Clean Air Act of 1990 mandates that toxic pollutants be controlled to emissions achievable by the “Maximum Achievable Control Technologies” (MACT). Consistent with this law the Clinton EPA proposed reducing mercury emissions from electric-power utilities by 90% by the end of 2007, a reduction from the current 48 tons per year to 5 tons per year.

While there has been some criticism recently from right-wing groups about the timing of this move, it is difficult to argue that the Clinton people had anything but the country’s best interests in mind. After all, mercury destroys children. And in December 2001, the Bush EPA basically agreed with these strict emission standards. According to a report by the Presbyterian Church of the United States, “The [Bush] EPA informed the electric power industry that they believed that the MACT standard would result in a 90 percent reduction in mercury from power plants…[and] this reduction was to occur at each plant and no trading of emissions between plants was to be permitted.”

But sometime between then and January 2004 the Bush administration changed its mind, which in itself is not necessarily bad. As part of its Clear Skies legislation package, it proposed scaling back these strict standards because they were not deemed to be cost effective and imposed too great a burden on industry. But for the second time in Bush’s presidency, the legislation failed in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Bush EPA Steps In

As George Bush has shown so often in the past, when he fails to get his way he gets nasty. His mantra has always been, “You can get more with a gun and a smile than with just a smile.” So, failing in Congress, Bush turned to his EPA to see what could be done by federal mandate. Again, there is nothing wrong with employing federal power, so long as it stays within the law.

In short, the Bush EPA came up with a much more leisurely pace for mercury reduction. It proposed reducing mercury emissions to 34 tons per year by 2010 and to 15 tons by 2018. The latter value represents a 70% reduction in mercury over approximately the next 13 years. Recall that the Clinton proposal, which was basically accepted by the Bush EPA in December 2001, would have reduced emissions by 90% in just four years. This is an enormous difference. It would allow an additional 500 tons of mercury to be dumped into the atmosphere by 2018.

How did the Bush EPA arrive at these values?

It has been reported by some sources that the EPA decided to reclassify mercury as a nontoxic pollutant, putting it in the same category as sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. This would have allowed it to be treated under the “cap-and-trade” option for these pollutants. Cap-and-trade is essentially a market-based approach that allows companies that do better than their pollution allowances to sell pollution “credits” to companies that fail to meet requirements. The latter companies can therefore “pay to pollute.” This approach has worked well for hazardous (but non-toxic) gaseous pollutants, essentially because the national cap they place on these emissions is relevant and effective for airborne pollutants that are distributed “globally,” that is, over extremely large distances.

But this isn’t exactly what the Bush EPA did. They recognized that there was no denying the MACT requirement for mercury within the provisions of the Clean Air Act. It is a toxic pollutant and must be so regulated: “[The law] requires that, as a minimum, a MACT standard cannot be less stringent than the average emission reductions achieved by the top performing 12 percent of units in a category (e.g., all coal-burning utilities).” These are the words from a report from the EPA Inspector General in response to a Senate request to investigate EPA’s methodology in reaching their recommended emission levels. But as the IG Report also makes clear, “EPA has wide latitude in the types of emissions data used to determine the MACT floor, including the discretion to select a reasonable method to estimate emissions achieved, and to address variability to account for the most adverse operating conditions reasonably foreseeable.” It is within the context of this EPA “flexibility” that the matter begins to turn ugly.

First, EPA concluded that the mercury emission data from the top 12 percent of performing units was not adequate for their analysis, and so added an “increased number of emission points…to calculate the MACT limits.” This had the effect of raising the average value of the emission levels. More significantly, the EPA rejected the idea of employing the best available control technology. According to the EPA IG report:

“Unlike many previous MACT standards, the proposed…standard would not require the installation of a specific control technology since no mercury-specific control technology had been installed in utilities. EPA determined that emerging mercury-specific technologies were not yet commercially available for the utility industry.”

While it is true that mercury-specific technologies had not yet been installed by any utility, such technologies exist. They include particulate scrubbers, activated carbon injectors, and methods of catalytic conversion.

In any event, using this modified approach, and after many iterations of their analyses, EPA settled on 34 ton per year as its MACT level. According to the IG report, EPA officials concluded that this “was the lowest level of mercury emissions [EPA] could reasonably expect this industry to achieve by 2010.”

The Cap-and-Trade, Multi-pollutant Program

Emission controls now in place for sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen also help reduce mercury emissions, although not nearly as effectively as the mercury-specific technologies. As part of the failed Clear Skies legislation, EPA had proposed including mercury in the same category as these pollutants. This would have allowed it to be controlled by the cap-and-trade, multi-pollutant program. Mercury reduction achieved in this manner is referred to as a co-benefit.

Now, it just so happens that EPA’s cap-and-trade, co-benefit analysis, performed as part of Clear Skies, also arrived at a mercury emission level of 34 tons per year. Since cap-and-trade and MACT yielded the exact same results, what else could our poor EPA officials do but go with cap-and-trade? And they were able to argue that they had employed a valid MACT approach and were, therefore, in compliance with federal law. But does anyone believe this was a coincidence -- that two independent analyses of completely different approaches to mercury emission control would arrive at the same value? Certainly not the EPA’s Inspector General. The IG report concludes:

“Evidence indicates that EPA senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a MACT standard for mercury that would result in national emissions of 34 tons
annually, instead of basing the standard on an unbiased calculation of what the top performing units were achieving in practice…[and further,] EPA documents and an analysis of the process used to compute the MACT floor support EPA staff’s statements that the MACT floor computations were developed to produce the desired [and pre-determined] national emissions of 34 tons per year.”

So, once again we see science policy – in this case science that affects the public health – become not merely subordinated, but deceptively manipulated, to satisfy corporate interests that are coincident with the Bush political ideology. One wonders if we have all become so numbed by the ceaseless deception and misrepresentations of this immoral administration that we just turn away from such matters now, either in total frustration or utter disgust.

Perhaps not. After the EPA announced it was accepting comments on its proposal to reduce mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, they received over 680,000 responses — breaking all previous EPA rule comment records. Pennsylvania was the first state to announce it was challenging the EPA ruling in federal court. Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty had particularly harsh and personal words for George Bush: “The President speaks of a 'culture of life.' But his policy fails terribly to protect life from this neurotoxin. We hope that he will direct EPA to act in keeping with his stated commitment to life." And just this week, nine more states that also have large numbers of coal-fired plants, or are downwind of such plants -- and whose citizens are at the greatest risk from mercury -- followed suit.

Recall George Bush’s now infamous midnight flight to Washington to sign the bill that allowed the federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter. So much for his and the Republican Party’s commitment to states’ rights. It would be a sweet irony indeed if states’ rights became George Bush’s Waterloo. Here in California there is optimism that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will see his “Terminator” mission and do the right thing on mercury pollution. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer started the ball rolling: "These rules do much more than violate federal law. They ignore science, suppress evidence and make the health of women and children a lower priority than the financial health of industry. Our states and our people cannot afford to let them stand."

Let the fight begin.

Gerald S. Rellick, PhD, worked in the defense sector of the aerospace industry. He now teaches in the California Community College system. To send Jerry your comments, send an email to info@interventionmag.com.

Posted by: barry2952

Bryan,

Look at Michigan's economy. 7.5% unemployment. The worst economy in 25 years. Please explain how Bush's policies have helped US manufacturing.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Oh I see. Now everybody can blame Detroit's crappy cars on Bush too. Manufacturing is going overseas. No stopping it unless you plan on convincing 100 million Americans to stop shopping at Walmart once a week. People are demonstrating with their checkbooks that they don't care where the product is made, as long as they can buy it for the lowest price. What are your shopping habits? How much more are you willing to pay for an identical product just because it is made in the USA? That's where it has to start. People need to be willing to pay more for US goods but nobody is willing to do that. Solve that problem and you bring manufacturing back to the US shores.

Posted by: Pepsi2185

whatever happened to import taxes. People bought the cheapest things they could find in 1970 too, but at least we had a more self supporting economic structure in place. By saying

"Manufacturing is going overseas. No stopping it unless you plan on convincing 100 million Americans to stop shopping at Walmart once a week."

Blaming someone other than leadership, and then becoming complacent to the mediocre careers available. You do as your told i suppose.

Posted by: J 2 THE A

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Bush is doing more and more good than any other President in history also.

I think that people also forget that the bush family has deep ties with the oil companies and he is also getting richer every day from the oil prices, it also helps to win elections when you buy them. J

Posted by: MrWilson

Doesnt matter, hes in for the next four years.

Posted by: barry2952

Once again Bryan, you have failed to answer my question. What has Bush done to help manufacturing in this country?

Posted by: MonsterMark

First, to answer the question we need to look at the facts and take the emotion out of it.

Economic Reality…

Fact: The US economy has grown around 4% per quarter throughout all of 2004.

Fact: Manufacturing is growing at a rate of 5.8% now.

Fact: Interest Rates and Inflation remain well below historical levels.

Cost Disadvantages…

The US remains well behind other leading industrial nations in total manufacturing costs. Everyday we have to overcome a 20-25% cost disadvantage. Where are we non-competitive in these costs?

Health care costs: Let the libs push for national heathcare and we’ll bankrupt our country.
Energy costs: We are using more and making less. Bad trend Bush is trying to change.
Regulatory costs: You own a business. Government needs to get out of our underwear. EPA, OSHA, you name it.
Taxes and more taxes: Bigger government = bigger taxes. Tax the rich and give to the poor. Bad policy. We need to have policies to allow everybody to share in the American dream and produce value, not rely on the government for assistance. The great society created by FDR did nothing more than create an entitlement monster and create a whole sub-class of its citizens that have become dependant on entitlements.
Litigation: Against the Democrats are stopping tort reform. Like Bush said in the State of the Union: We need to pass Tort Reform and we need to do it NOW!.
Manufacturing is forever a part of the global market game. Goods can and will be made wherever costs are lowest. Whenever we look at developing a new product one of the 1st questions we have to ask ourselves is "How and where can we get the best quality ALONG with the best price?". Usually that answer is: Overseas.

Democrats are anti-business. Manufacturing produces over 60% of our exports and most of our R&D is directed towards manufacturing issues. Vote Republican and legislation will be enacted that supports and encourages business and manufacturing, not punish it.

Reduce these costs and you are well on the way to solving the manufacturing inequality in terms of costs in this country. The tax cuts Bush implement need to become permanent. Supply side economics works. It is the only program that does.

Face it: The public school system has failed us. There are so many jobs out there and nobody ‘qualified’ to fill them. We need to start educating based on market requirements and stopping teaching our kids how to put on a condom correctly. Our priorities are misplaced.

Lets fix the 5 issues outlined above and manufacturing will take care of itself.

President Bush has been out front on every one of these issues. Democrats interfere at every opportunity. Tell your Congressman to support Bush’s Pro-Business agenda. Let’s face it. You can’t win a marathon with a 100 pond backpack (government) on your shoulders.

I would be more than happy to discuss Bush's pro-business agenda and what Bush specifically is doing in terms of legislation to assist manufacturing. One thing at a time though.

You need to answer these questions and why people support liberals, the very people that are destroying America's manufacturing base, piece by piece.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I supose Fox is credible?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Not if you're a leftie.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Not if you're a leftie.

So only right wing propaganda is correct!! or only media with a right wing lean is credible?

Or media is only credible when is agrees with your opinion?

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

So only right wing propaganda is correct!! or only media with a right wing lean is credible?

Or media is only credible when is agrees with your opinion?

I don't think that's fair. He quoted Rasmussen above. Do you consider them to be right wing propaganda?

I for one am always dubious of polls. We all should be. If you take them at face value, you are gullible. And that's a fact.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

So only right wing propaganda is correct!! or only media with a right wing lean is credible?

Or media is only credible when is agrees with your opinion?

Yes, Yes, and Yes. In that order.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

He quoted Rasmussen above.

Yep. They have been dead on the last couple of years. Mr. Rasmussen cares more about being right than being politically correct.

Posted by: dertyclown

best President ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok not really, but you know what im saying