The Comeback of President Bush

[Nascar_James]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169773,00.html


The Comeback of President Bush
Monday, September 19, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly

Mostly positive reviews for the president's speech last night, even from unfriendly sources. Mr. Bush delivered big money promises, hope, and some contrition. I thought the speech was well written.

About the only dissenting voice right after the speech was the always reliable Jesse Jackson.

JESSE JACKSON: We've simply put the focus on taxes for the wealthy and prosperity gospel in our churches, and the war in Iraq. And we've left the poor behind. And it took this disaster to make the president see to begin, to back into a war on poverty.

Well, Jackson's statement is flat out untrue. It's just false. It's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not in first place. Look at the standings, Reverend. It's right there in black and white.

As we demonstrated a few days ago, the Bush administration is spending far more on the poor than any other administration in history, much more than Bill Clinton did. If you want the stats, please read my column on billoreilly.com.

Jackson's propaganda, of course, rarely challenged by the press, generally let him say anything he wants to say. And he'll do anything to denigrate Mr. Bush.

For example, in a wider concern, the press, which is in it with Jackson, this is a note that a Reuters photographer shot a private note, written by President Bush to Condoleezza Rice at the U.N., the middle of the session earlier this week. The president needed a bathroom break and alerted the secretary to the situation.

Now Reuters, which leans left, released this picture, knowing full well it would be used to mock the president. And it was all over the world.

Now this is a small thing, but a big issue. It's the same thing with Jackson. They're going to bash Bush no matter what. He's never going to get a fair shake, ever.

Now the danger is that 300 million Americans are living in a country where objectivity and fair play have pretty much disappeared in the media. So how are we supposed to know the truth about events and people? The press is supposed to be our eyes and ears.

But increasingly, the media has turned into a nasty partisan group of ideologues. And if you disagree with them, you're going to get personally attacked. Reuters should be ashamed of itself.

Jackson, he's just going to say whatever he wants to say. But Reuters isn't ashamed of itself because along with fairness, shame has disappeared from the American newsroom. The breakdown of standards has arrived quickly, and I'm afraid, hate to say it, it's here to stay.

And that's “The Memo.”

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

A nice ad for "The Factor" today in the New York Post. It chronicles the fact that this broadcast has been No. 1 on cable news for more than 200 straight weeks.

Soon after the ad appeared, I got a call from Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum wondering asking if we stole their technique for the picture. I told them that was ridiculous.

Also, we have a brand new company providing clothes to me, your humble correspondent, Tallia Custom Clothiers. We have information about them posted on BillOReilly.com if you guys want to look sharp.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The Comeback of Presi

Shouldn't that be the *-dripping chin of President Bush?

EDITED for PG-13

 

[peapod]

You gots to be kidding..


To: National Desk, Media Reporter

Contact: Dennis Yedwab of Media Matters for America, 202-756-4143, DYedwab@mediamatters.org

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Media Matters for America today called for Bill O'Reilly to apologize for comments he made about the United Nations last week. O'Reilly said on his radio show, The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, "I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out. And I wouldn't have rescued them." After Media Matters first drew attention to the comments on Friday, United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth called for O'Reilly "to make and immediate and public apology."

Today, Media Matters called for O'Reilly to apologize and asked Westwood One, which syndicates O'Reilly's program nationally, whether it stood by his comments.

Following is the Media Matters call to action:

--

Dear Friends:

On his September 14 radio show, Bill O'Reilly said he wished that Hurricane Katrina had flooded the United Nations building in New York. O'Reilly then added, "And I wouldn't have rescued them." Each day, thousands of people from many different countries go to work at the United Nations headquarters on the east side on Manhattan. These people are working to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease, and reduce poverty. It is shameful that, in the wake of one of America's largest natural disasters, O'Reilly would wish death and hardship upon these innocent people.

The president of the United Nations Foundation, Timothy E. Wirth, has called for O'Reilly to withdraw his comments and make a public apology. We should contact Westwood One, which syndicates O'Reilly's radio show nationally, and add our voices to this call for an apology.

Take Action!

Contact Shane Coppola, the president and CEO of Westwood One. Ask Coppola if Westwood One stands by O'Reilly's death wish for those who work at the United Nations building in New York. Also ask what Westwood One will do in the future to ensure that controversial ideologues don't broadcast death wishes on the radio programs it distributes.

Shane Coppola: shane_capolla@westwoodone.com

This sort of hate speech does not belong on America's airwaves. It is wrong and un-American. Please take action today.

Sincerely,

David Brock

President and CEO

Media Matters for America

--

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Media Matters for America is the first organization to systematically monitor the media for conservative misinformation every day, in real time. For more information, visit http://www.mediamatters.org.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

 

[peapod]

Hey this bonehead should learn to shut his trap, especially when he does not have a fecking clue

by Dr. Brooks A. Mick
Bill O'Reilly's Fuel Cell Spin Zone
September 19, 2005 12:00 AM EST



I'm not an O'Reilly Premium Member, just an Official Pinhead Right Wing Extremist Loon, so I don't have access to the old column and newsletter archives.
However, I enjoy O'Reilly's Fox TV show and occasionally catch the Radio Factor on my way home from work. I recall that he has occasionally touted hydrogen fuel cells as the solution to our energy and pollution problems. I have written e-mails to O'Reilly asking him to explain where the hydrogen will come from, what energy source will be used to produce it, what efficiencies will result, and I have gotten no response unless you count his calling me a pinhead.

Even worse, he has said that we pinheads haven't bothered to supply any facts or logic in our debate with O'Reilly. This despite my sending him several links to various web sites and quoting articles from Popular Science, economics professors, and elsewhere. It is quite certain that the factual arguments have been advanced by us pinheads, while O'Reilly just blusters. His entire argument can be summed up as follows:

Big oil companies make big profits.
OPEC makes big profits.
Those profits are bigger than O'Reilly thinks reasonable.
SUVs use more gasoline than O'Reilly thinks reasonable.
Fuel cells use hydrogen and produce water vapor.

Taking this mixture of fact and opinion, O'Reilly concludes that we could have fuel cell automobiles right now. He implies that we don't because BIG OIL COMPANIES have plotted against fuel cells.

But here are some interesting facts if O'Reilly's man enough to come out from under his desk and read them.

Hydrogen does not exist in significant quantities running free and wild in nature. It is bound to other molecules. To get hydrogen from water, by electrolysis, would take 39.4 kilowatt-hours if power IF the process was 100% efficient. It is only 70% efficient, so that 56.3 kw-h would be needed. O'Reilly has never answered my question about where this energy would come from. We could burn more coal in power plants. But coal plants are only about 40% efficient, so that we would have to produce 140.8 kw-h of energy.

Then you take your kilogram of hydrogen, put in to your fuel cell, and you obtain, because such fuel cells are only about 70% efficient at best, 23.3 kw-h of power output.

In other words, you have used up 140.8 kw-h to produce only 23.3 kw-h. Not very efficient and reasonable. And that does not even take into consideration the energy expended to compress the hydrogen so you could get enough into your car to take you more than a few miles. Some companies are trying for 10,000 pounds of pressure, which would make quite a nice bomb if the valve mechanism ever was knocked loose in an auto accident. Figuring in the energy used up to compress or liquefy the hydrogen, the final power output is even less efficient than above, around 17.4 kw-h.

If one then extrapolates this to the US auto fleet statistics in 2000, the statistics show that one would have to produce twice as much energy by burning coal as one would get just from using the gasoline. Carbon emissions would be 2.7 times HIGHER from the coal burned to produce the hydrogen for the fuel cells which O'Reilly claims would LOWER emissions.

One could try getting the hydrogen from natural gas, but this process is only 30% efficient. No benefit there.

The other power sources, hydroelectric and wind and solar and nuclear and all else added in are not sufficient, either. We would have to build 15 times as many dams as we currently have, and we don't really have the sites to build them, and environmentalists oppose them anyway. Photovoltaic cells and other solar power have to be manufactured, and have to operate for 5 years just to break even in energy cost. And I don't think Nevada and parts of New Mexico and Texas are interested in being roofed over with solar collectors. And as for nuclear power plants, they would be feasible--if we could get the environmentalists to agree, but they will fight tooth and nail and congress will drag its thousand feet, and not much will come to fruition.


The data here comes from a paper by Donald Anthrop, Ph.D.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp90.pdf

To be sure, the Department of Energy attempts to refute some of this paper, mainly by setting up straw men, near as I can tell. They state that they are not pursing the technologies mentioned by Dr. Anthrop. Their statistics hypothesize about automobiles with much less power than those on the road today. Their technologies are not currently feasible as mass production methods of hydrogen production. In other words, Dr. Anthrop appears correct when he says that hydrogen fuel cells ARE NOT CURRENTLY TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE. Which is all that we pinheads have ever said about them to O'Reilly. I don't think anyone claimed that some as yet-undiscovered or unperfected technology won't make them feasible some day--at which point, we'll all have them!

So hey, O'Reilly! Come out from under your desk, stop blustering, and debate some facts. How about this?

 

[peapod]

Bill O’Reilly and the Consequences of not Understanding Poverty
by Anthony Wade


http://www.opednews.com

September 18, 2005

Bill O’Reilly has made a career of shouting into the wind. The author of “Who’s Looking Out For You” has long spun his propaganda under the guise of not spinning. Too often though we are left positively dizzy trying to keep up with his points, searching desperately for lucidity amongst the rancor. This past week however, the spin stopped long enough for us to get a clear glimpse into how he understands the wind into which he screams.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bill felt it appropriate to let the country know that the blame for the horrors that befell the poor, need to be placed…upon the poor. Actually, philosopher O’Reilly goes as far as to actually blame the very state of poverty, upon the poor, as it is an act of choice in his eyes. In his article, “Children Need to Learn the Consequences of Poverty”, O’Reilly starts off with some solid observations such as the fact that the government failed to protect those poor people, even though they had days advance warning and that they also failed to defend us against 911. Unfortunately for his readers, he then leaves those facts behind as he ventures into his thesis by saying that teachers need to ask children two important questions in relation to the fate that befell our fellow Americans down south.

1) Do you want to be poor?

2) Do you think that the government can protect you if you are poor?

Bill uses the latter question to dredge up the tired old republican talking points about how the government is inept; therefore it should be shot and left to bleed to death. He proceeded to regale us with stories about how the rich were able to simply turn on their ignitions to avoid the storm while the poor were left to the trappings of the Superdome. While this fact is true, Bill then takes the illogical leap to assume that because of this, the government cannot protect you if you are poor. Instead of holding local, state and federal governments responsible and demanding that they do protect the citizenry, he uses the tragedy to advocate for no government involvement. This apparently is the “if it is broke, don’t fix it” mentality. No mention about how Bush spent three days on vacation while people drowned. No mention of the outsourced levee project that led to the deaths of hundreds of Americans. No mention of how President Bush appointed a man he knew was lying on his resume and had no experience to head FEMA as a political payback appointment. Apparently to Mr. O’Reilly, once you establish that the government failed miserably, you quickly move on to blame the fact that people decided to be poor.

That leads us back to his first question; do you want to be poor? This disgusting question reveals that Bill is apparently so busy spinning in his no-spin zone, that he must have lost his sense of balance. Not to be deterred, he proceeds to actually defend this position by saying that the reason people are poor has to be of their own doing because they have the following available to everyone:

1) Compulsory free education.

2) Scholarships and aid galore for higher education.

3) Affirmative action.

4) Job Training

5) GED opportunities.

6) Military training.

7) Options all over the place.

I am unsure if Bill is actually arguing that forcing our children to attend school is somehow an evil socialist plot, but looking past that, there is little on this list that actually prevents poverty and some that are simply misrepresented. First of all, there are not “scholarships and aid galore” in this country today. The truth is that financial aid increases promised by this president have never been delivered while his polices have led to increases in the community college systems fees and tuition rates. Most “aid” packages are no longer in the forms of grants, but are in the form of loans, which by the time the student graduates, they can be ensured to be an indentured servant to their debt for quite some time. If the student drops out, then the loans are all called in. GED opportunities lead to high school diplomas, certainly not a ticket out of poverty alone. Most job training opportunities have also been sliced under this administration to underwrite their wars and those that remain are for mostly unskilled types of positions, which often do not lead the way out of poverty. About the only item listed here that I would wager Bill would like to push would be the military training option, which too often is all that is there for inner-city kids. It is always the poor kids that go off to die for wars started by the rich kids.

Perhaps the most telling quote of this article is in his summation, “The government can force your parents to send you to school but can’t force you to learn. If you do not develop a marketable skill, chances are you will be poor and powerless.” Once again looking past his apparent disdain for compulsory education, this quote clearly indicates that Bill O’Reilly simply does not get it. His assumptions are all put upon the kids and parents, and absolves the system of all culpability. This “pull yourselves up by the bootstraps” mentality flies in the face of the harsh realities facing the people that actually live in poverty. The truth is that it is not an issue of will; it is an issue of opportunity. The opportunities that exist in the neighborhoods of Long Island, where Bill grew up, are simply not the opportunities that exist in the poorer neighborhoods. I spent some time in poor high schools. The children are routinely not challenged, or taught. Sure one or two may escape, but the republican right will have you believe that EVERY child in poverty can magically escape by simply “working hard.” The ugly inference buried in the sweet-sounding rhetoric is that if you are born into poverty, well it is just your own fault if you stay there. It says nothing about the education system in poorer areas. It says nothing about the drug problems in poorer neighborhoods. Nothing about the fact that in a lot of these cases, the parents themselves are uneducated.

The real offense in this article is not his profane references to “poverty pimps” and his demonization of people on the left, who believe there should be basic services from the government to the most vulnerable in society. It instead is this notion that in this unprecedented tragedy, it is the victims who need to accept the blame. Not the man who ignored this tragedy for several days and refused to accept that anything went wrong for a week. I will be the first to say there are certainly people who coast through life and do not take advantage of what opportunities are there for them but to take that small fraction and apply a broad brush stroke to everyone who is poor, is simply wrong. It is simply insulting.

Hurricane Katrina was a horrible natural disaster. The breaching of the levees however, and the abysmal efforts from all levels of government in its aftermath, has many culprits. Bush, Chertoff, Brown, Nagin and many others share that culpabaility. So do the companies that decided it was not cost effective to sustain the levees for a category five hurricane. I draw the line however at blaming the poor people who got trapped simply because they are poor. Maybe if Bill would stop spinning so fast, he would realize that he is shouting into a wind of his own making this time.

Poverty has many root causes and there are many possibilities for how to break that cycle. The notion that will power is the way out is fanciful and ignorant to the core of the poverty problem. This is what happens when someone talks about poverty in an abstract, philosophical way because they have nothing experiential to draw from. I tried to find the link to this article on Bill’s website, but it was in his “premium member” section. For a mere fifty bucks I could have access to this premium section for a whole year. If only I could have taken advantage of the affirmative action and job training opportunities I had when I was younger, maybe I could have afforded it. Oh well, at least I won’t drown in his hypocrisy.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Media Matters for America is the first organization to systematically monitor the media for conservative misinformation every day, in real time. For more information, visit http://www.mediamatters.org.

These guys look like a prime candidate for one of O'Reilly's inane rants...he will always attack those who would stand up to his brand of bullshit...he's a pathetic loser, and I hope his days on the air are coming to a close...

 

[peapod]

O'Reilly Over the Edge
September 17, 2005 12:00 AM EST



Clicking through the radio dial on a drive through Virginia the other day, I had the occasion to listen to Bill O'Reilly posturing as a political independent who takes on the left and right.
He said he had come under attack by a "right-wing" website because he wouldn't interview Ed Klein, the author of The Truth About Hillary. I presume he's referring to Accuracy in Media. We have done extensive reporting on the coverage of the Klein book and have found it strange that O'Reilly has joined with the liberal media in suppressing discussion of the serious charges in the book. O'Reilly claims it constitutes a "personal attack" on Senator Clinton when the book is an examination of her character. We headlined our AIM Report on the matter, "Character Counts for Hillary Clinton." It counts for O'Reilly, too. If he wants to debate it, give me a call.

Ironically, as noted by NewsMax, O'Reilly has commented on his show about how the Times "is out to destroy" author Ed Klein. At that point, O'Reilly had counted eight negative articles about the Klein book. Yet he refuses to give Klein any air time to discuss his book or the attacks on him. O'Reilly has devoted many stories to the Natalee Holloway case in Aruba, raising all kinds of questions about possible suspects in the case, but he can't bring himself to interview a respected journalist who has researched the truth about Senator Clinton. This doesn't make much sense, unless you conclude that O'Reilly doesn't want to engage in "personal attacks" because he is so vulnerable to them. The sexual harassment charges lodged by a former associate were a big embarrassment for him. He settled those charges with a big pay-out before they went to court.

It's also strange that O'Reilly has been attacking the New Hampshire Union Leader, the most conservative newspaper in the state, for its stand on passing a new law protecting children from child molesters and killers. On his show O'Reilly said the newspaper had "opposed" the law and he called the newspaper "cowards" for "declining" to appear on his program. Union Leader editorial writer Drew Cline said O'Reilly "deliberately misrepresented" the newspaper's position on the issue. He could not appear on that particular program because of a prior commitment.

As reported by the paper itself, Cline said that "I personally told his producer that we do not oppose the law and we did not oppose stiffer penalties for child sex offenders. I also said one reason we weren't prepared to endorse the law as is, is that we might favor longer mandatory sentencing for child sex offenders. He had the information and didn't give it to his viewers, so he could set up a straw man and knock it down. I guess that kind of bullying makes him feel good about himself, but it's terrible journalism. It's not journalism at all."

This is important to remember: Contrary to what O'Reilly said, Cline said that the paper is questioning whether the law might be too lenient, not too harsh!

The paper ran an editorial entitled, "Oh, really, O'Reilly? Blustering Bill misstates our position."

The paper said, "Our position on the Lunsford Act was perfectly clear. It is, simply, that the attorney general should study it before anyone decides that this specific law is the one New Hampshire should adopt. O'Reilly took that position and twisted it into something wholly unrecognizable, as a baboon would demolish a lump of Play-Doh."

Eventually, New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid appeared on the O'Reilly show. But O'Reilly engaged in a temper tantrum, frequently interrupting McQuaid and not permitting him a chance to make his points. Finally, O'Reilly had to apologize for getting overheated.

McQuaid ended up calling O'Reilly a "tinhorn," a term O'Reilly said he was unfamiliar with. It means a petty braggart who pretends to be rich and important. O'Reilly is rich and thinks he's important.

In another embarrassment, the Fox News Channel has apologized for airing an interview with John Loftus, a commentator for Fox News, who described a grocery store owner in California named Iyad K. Hilal as a terrorist and gave his home address on the air. The Los Angeles Times reported that his family, including a wife and three children, were "plunged into an unsettling routine of drivers shouting profanities, stopping to photograph their house and--most recently--spray-painting a slogan on their property."

A Fox spokesman said, "John Loftus has been reprimanded for his careless error, and we sincerely apologize to the family."

Loftus said, "I'm terribly sorry about that. I had no idea. That was the best information we had at the time."

O'Reilly should act just as quickly to correct his comments about the Union Leader. Then he should interview Ed Klein on the air.

 

[peapod]

Well he seems to be nascar's hero...no surprises there :roll: :roll:

 

[Nascar_James]

he's a pathetic loser, and I hope his days on the air are coming to a close...

A nice ad for "The Factor" today in the New York Post. It chronicles the fact that this broadcast has been No. 1 on cable news for more than 200 straight weeks.

 

[Nascar_James]

Well he seems to be nascar's hero...no surprises there :roll: :roll:

Yup. Bill O'Reilly simply tells it like it is. That is why he hosts "The No Spin Zone". That is also why his show has been no. 1 on cable news for over 200 straight weeks. No mystery there.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

he's a pathetic loser, and I hope his days on the air are coming to a close...

A nice ad for "The Factor" today in the New York Post. It chronicles the fact that this broadcast has been No. 1 on cable news for more than 200 straight weeks.

He's an entertainer...nothing more...and the people he entertains are pathetic losers with 3 week old popcorn kernels lodged in the waistband of their boxers...

Here's another popular entertainer...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Well he seems to be nascar's hero...no surprises there :roll: :roll:

Yup. Bill O'Reilly simply tells it like it is. That is why he hosts "The No Spin Zone". That is also why his show has been no. 1 on cable news for over 200 straight weeks. No mystery there.

:roll: :dontknow: :sad1:

each to his /her own. >>>>>

 

[yballa09]

I don't know why so many of you take such offense to O'reilly. He's just an old cranky man who says what's on his mind, and knows that millions of poeple hate him, and that is why they watch his show. He is like the Don Cherry of the United States: a loud mouth, often politically incorrect popular national figure. I read his books, and I find them interesting. Sure he gets to make things look good from his point of view because he is loud and often gets the last shot in the conversation, but he knows that, tells you that and lets you decide for yourself. The only funny thing I find about him is how he doesn't consider himself a conservative. Sure he tries to show he gets hatemail from both sides, and because of his minor liberal views I'm sure he does, but I bet the liberal hate mail comes a lot more than the conservative hate mail does. Some people need to stop taking what he says so literally. An old, attention-demanding man like him is obviously going to go over the top (like what he said about the UN), because he knows his ratings will soar and people will spend more attention to him (as we are now).

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I don't know why so many of you take such offense to O'reilly. He's just an old cranky man who says what's on his mind, and knows that millions of poeple hate him, and that is why they watch his show. He is like the Don Cherry of the United States: a loud mouth, often politically incorrect popular national figure. I read his books, and I find them interesting. Sure he gets to make things look good from his point of view because he is loud and often gets the last shot in the conversation, but he knows that, tells you that and lets you decide for yourself. The only funny thing I find about him is how he doesn't consider himself a conservative. Sure he tries to show he gets hatemail from both sides, and because of his minor liberal views I'm sure he does, but I bet the liberal hate mail comes a lot more than the conservative hate mail does. Some people need to stop taking what he says so literally. An old, attention-demanding man like him is obviously going to go over the top (like what he said about the UN), because he knows his ratings will soar and people will spend more attention to him (as we are now).

The problem with that line of thinking is that many, like Nascar_James, take what is said on FOX News to be news, and whatever O'Reilly says to be gospel...so when he makes death wishes against the UN or casts aspersions at poor people for not helping themselves, then others will emulate his stupidity...and then it becomes a big feckin' problem...

All FOX programming should have a disclaimer that whatever is said in their broadcasts will likely be bunk...

 

[gopher]

Bush "Comeback"???

You may, his further decline in ratings:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-19-bush-poll_x.htm


President sinking in ratings
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans' views of President Bush and his leadership have soured in the wake of dismay over the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, the course of the Iraq war and the future of the economy.

President Bush's approval rating for handling the hurricane dipped after his adress to the nation.
By J. Scott Applewhite, AP

Bush's rating for handling each of those issues dropped to his lowest yet in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Assessments of his personal qualities also fell: For the first time, a majority says he isn't a strong and decisive leader. (Related: Poll results)

Bush's overall approval rating is 40%, equaling a previous low. His disapproval is 58%, a new high.

"Bush stands at a precipice," says Carroll Doherty of the non--——partisan Pew Research Center. "He's lost ground among independents. He seems to be starting to lose ground among his own party. And he lost the Democrats a long time ago."

By a record 66%-31%, independents disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan says the president "knows a leader must govern based on what he believes is right, not based on polls." Bush is "working to address the priorities that Americans are most concerned about," he says.

Of the poll's respondents, 30% identified themselves as Republicans, 33% as independents and 36% as Democrats.

The survey shows signs of friction between the two most pressing concerns on Bush's agenda: the Iraq war and Katrina recovery.

A 54% majority says the best way for the government to pay for hurricane relief is by cutting spending for the war. Just 6% support spending cuts in domestic programs, as Bush has suggested.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled, 63%, say some or all of the U.S. troops in Iraq should be withdrawn. A record-high 59% say it was a mistake to invade.

Bush's standing declined even though Americans by 45%-27% approve of the proposals he unveiled in a nationally televised address Thursday to deal with Katrina. Seven in 10 express confidence the administration can assist victims.

But assessments of Bush on the hurricane dipped after the speech: 56% say he has taken steps to help victims mostly for political reasons, not because he cares about them.

By more than 4-to-1, Americans want an independent panel — not Congress — to investigate the government's response to Katrina.



***********************************************************************************


It is utterly amazing how the right wingers continue to put a "positive" spin on every bit of bad news that Bush :twisted: creates.

Simply amazing.

 

[jjw1965]

Bush approval rating at 40 percent
Majority disapprove of the handling of Katrina, Iraq

Mommy didn't dress him right- note the buttons on shirt!

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Well he seems to be nascar's hero...no surprises there :roll: :roll:

Yup. Bill O'Reilly simply tells it like it is. That is why he hosts "The No Spin Zone". That is also why his show has been no. 1 on cable news for over 200 straight weeks. No mystery there.

Howard Stern has been #1 in New York City, the #1 radio market in the United States, for more than 10 straight years.

Now that's entertainment baby!!

 

[iluvpoutine]

The problem with that line of thinking is that many, like Nascar_James, take what is said on FOX News to be news, and whatever O'Reilly says to be gospel...so when he makes death wishes against the UN or casts aspersions at poor people for not helping themselves, then others will emulate his stupidity...and then it becomes a big feckin' problem...
...

so true! Check out some American discussion Forums - they're all preachin' the same views! 8O

 

[Gonda]

The guru, through telepathy has told me about the creator of this thread
What you are about to discover is a creature not of this world. It is a creature that is shrouded in mystery, and shadowed by a history of terror. I give you, the Kelet.

 

[Nascar_James]

Well he seems to be nascar's hero...no surprises there :roll: :roll:

Yup. Bill O'Reilly simply tells it like it is. That is why he hosts "The No Spin Zone". That is also why his show has been no. 1 on cable news for over 200 straight weeks. No mystery there.

Howard Stern has been #1 in New York City, the #1 radio market in the United States, for more than 10 straight years.

Now that's entertainment baby!!

True. His show is good for a few laughs. I do ammit that I tune in to the E! channel occassionally to watch his show. However, comparing Howard Stern with Bill O'Reilly is equivalent to comparing apples with oranges. One is a serious news coverage, the other is a bunch of hogwash.