You seem to confuse what "people" think with what the liberal "media" thinks. That's part of the disconnect, the problem. Are we supposed to take our lead from what the liberal London (or French), or U.S. media "think"?
Yeah we are supposed to care what the world "thinks". You know why? Because we trade with the entire world, something Dumbya clearly does not understand. And the US as only one nation with a few hundred people in the world, is vulnerable to what the ROW "thinks" on other issues, not just economic (envirnomental, etc).
Regarding,
Poll says Bush holding own against challengers
And this is good? We are in the primary. There is no democratic candidate and Bush is neck and neck with at least 2 candidates in the polls. The time magazine article has Bush's negative rating at 42%.
CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Nov. 18-19, 2003. N=1,330 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.7.
.
"If George W. Bush runs for reelection, how likely are you to vote for him: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?"
Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely Not Sure
11/03 32 15 10 38 5
7/03 33 17 10 36 4
5/03 38 18 8 33 3
Thats 32% very likely to vote for Bush vs. 38% very unlikely. More people hate him than love him, to put it in simple terms.
So what does this mean? To an intelligent individual it means that Bush is too extreme for half the country. He does not have a mandate for what he is doing. Most thoughful leaders would revise their strategy accordingly. The USA did not vote for the Neocon agenda, after all GWB did not even win the popular vote. I don't think too many folks voted for the massive corporate looting that is the hallmark of the Bush administration, or for the wars that this man has started on no grounds. Maybe he should think about that. |
