Bush's numbers are low because: - Most Americans believe that Iraq is a disaster, that it was a mistake, that it's been horribly mismanaged and that we were all lied to in order that Bush would get the support he needed for the war. - Gas prices are through the roof and most Americans believe Bush is cozy with big oil and that he's doing nothing to rectify the situation. - Most Americans believe they are worse off than they were six years ago and that the country is heading in the wrong direction. - Most Americans believe that Bush does not share their values or their issues. They also don't think he's particularly honest. - Traditional conservatives believe that Bush is not one of them. That's a partial list, of course. But the gist is that Bush's numbers are low because most Americans believe he has done a very bad job as president and mainstream conservatives - who might have been willing to stand by him otherwise - do not believe he is one of them. The only reason anyone is still supporting him is because there are some voters who value anti-gay bigotry over issues like war, the economy, health care, etc. Judging from the other thread Will Bill, I'm guessing that when you say you are a member of Bush's base you refer to the religious right. There is a difference between that base and "conservatives." Bush's numbers are down with conservatives but not with the religious right. Why would they be? In the last few months his boldest moves have been to once again push a gay marriage amendment and to veto stem cell research. He made those moves because the religious right (read: you) are the only voters he still has a chance of appealling to. Yes, those moves alienate mainstream conservatives, but so what? He was going to lose them anyway. As for you and the rest of the fundies, what more do you want? Should he start arresting gay people? Killing them? What?
Charlie Cook Predicts Massive November Win For Dems With fewer than 100 days left before the Nov. 7 election, certain assumptions can now be made, contingent upon the absence of a cataclysmic event. First, the political climate will be extremely hostile to Republican candidates. Second, while Republicans benefited from turnout in 2002 and 2004, this time voter turnout will benefit Democratic candidates. And third, the advantages that the GOP usually has in national party spending will be significantly less than normal. In terms of the political climate, the facts are clear. All of the traditional diagnostic indicators in major national polls taken in the past 10 days show numbers consistent with an electoral rout. In the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll, conducted last Friday through Sunday among 809 registered voters, only 27 percent said the country was headed in the right direction and 63 percent said it was off on the wrong track. In polling for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, conducted July 21-24 and for CBS and the New York Times, taken July 21-25, the right direction numbers were 27 and 28 percent, respectively, while wrong track results were 60 and 66 percent respectively. These numbers are about the same as they were at this point in 1994 and going into Election Day that year. http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/005094.html
Why? Israel is in both party's pockets. Most politicos have about the same opinion; Israel is our ally.
My concern is the "its always the other guy's fault" syndrome. Consistently when asked, people always think Congress sucks but their congressman is good. So people can think the country is going in the wrong direction all they want, but unless that translates to their opinion about their own congressman, the effect can be relatively muted. I'd be curious to see the results of a new poll asking those two questions.
I seriously dont know why people keep on blaming the oil companies for th high gas prices, if you consider that it costs us anywhere from 60 to 140 million dollars to drill well(with no garentee that it will produce) and over 60% of the the charge for gas goes to taxs, and not even adding the cost of trasportation, refining, depth imaging, blah blah blah, oil companies only make 3 to 6 cents on a gallon of gas.
Oil companies, rightfully or not, are perceived to have driven the Bush energy policies. This is due to the fact that they were in the room with Cheney on the various task forces that drove policies, while counter-influences (conservationists, etc) were not. When you combine those policies with record profits for oil companies and close relationships between Bush people and said oil companies, and the history of lobbying combined with corruption, I don't think its hard to see why people make that connection.
LOL...arguing about oil with Batman Jones? Let me teach you a lesson - Batman Jones doesn't actually know what he's talking about. Oil companies are the object of the liberal hatred du jour, so he throws **** at them until something sticks. Batman is driven by blind political hatred towards anything and anybody he perceives as Republican friendly. Don't waste your time arguing with him.
Why not? Casey is from a popular political family, ahead in the polls, and famously pro-life, which is beneficial politically even if it doesn't particularly endear him to me.
Besides which, your numbers make no sense. When gas prices go from $2 to $3, the costs for the driller do not change. So if they were making $0.06 per gallon at $2, they would be making about $0.50 per gallon at $3 - or, a profit increase of nearly 1000%. Of course, your numbers aren't right, but gas prices rising certainly help the big oil companies, as their costs aren't changing.
That's incorrect. Gasoline prices (important to differentiate them from what you call "gas prices" - usually that means natgas) and drilling services costs are positively correlated. Not on a one to one basis, but there is definite positive correlation. When crude prices are high, there's more drilling activity, which creates high demand for drilling services. That increases the costs for the driller.
actually I will give bigtexxx a little credit on this one and call it a truce. driller's costs do go up, when the demand for oil goes up the demand for everything an oil company uses goes. prices for drills go up etc. when bigtexxx first point that out to me, I wasn't sure, so I looked at some publicly traded oil companies and their net profit margins have remained consistent. furthermore, at my job I work with some suppliers to driller, for instance one company we sell to supplies living quarters for remote drills. they have been making a killing just like the oil companies. that's why the houston economy does so well when oil prices are high. not just the price of oil goes up, the price of everything and its logical because the higher prices go, the more oil companies drill, therefore the more equipment they buy which drives the prices of that equipment up.
Oil companies are not only the object of liberal hate, they are the object of American hate -- as are Bush and his quagmire of a war. Americans resent the president's energy policy which was hashed out in secret with oil executives and they resent the resulting high prices at the pump. In your support of Bush and his war and his energy policy you demonstrate yourself to be on the extreme fringe of American politics. Enjoy the election. I know I will.
However wrong-headed that notion may be, I think you're right in judging the public's opinion. I partly agree with that notion, but again you're right about the public opinion. Nonsensical environmental embargos on drilling aren't helping, but Bush's silence on the issue only serves to strengthen this opinion. Neither of these are verifiably true. I think that his politcal mediocrity has caused his base to lose heart. Remember, the last decade of elections has shown that the country is pretty much split on their values. I'm raising my hand right now. I think we agree more than we disagree: however, in the interest of keeping D & D civil, would you mind not being so hateful in your description of my positions? I don't call pro-abortion people baby-murderers. Why would you assume I would be for the persectution of gays? You know nothing about me, except that I am a Christian. Your criticism of me is that I'm basically a hate-monger, yet you are the one being hateful. Would you like to arrest Christians? Kill them?
your not taking into account that oil is getting harder to find 10 years hell even 5 years ago we could find oil generally in shallow ground, now that those supplies have gone down, we have to look in deeper depth, both on land in places like canada and libya, to deepwater offshore.
In the long run, that's certainly true. But oil isn't suddenly harder to find than it was 3, 4, or 12 months ago, and that's when we've seen the dramatic rise in price. Most of it the result of fear and uncertainty, rather than a sudden difficulty to find oil. But defintely, over the long-haul, we'll see prices rise and costs for drillers increase. But keep in mind also, when you see (1) rising prices and (2) exxon settings records for highest quarterly profits in the history of the world, people will make the connection that exxon benefits from rising prices, right or wrong.
Cool. Both are verifiably true as they are pollable opinions and they have been verified by poll after poll. You're in good company. First off, nobody is "pro-abortion." Some people, including myself, are pro-reproductive rights, but that is not the same thing and the distinction is important. But if you feel that abortion is murder and that fetuses are babies, I have no problem with you calling women who get abortions and doctors who perform them "baby-murderers." Meanwhile, I am sorry but I will continue to characterize those who seek to deny gays and lesbians equal rights and equal protection under the law bigots. I would have done the same thing if I'd been alive during the height of the Civil Rights movement. I will not use polite language to discuss a thing that I regard to be hateful, intolerant and bigoted. This is the new Civil Rights movement and I intend to call it like I see it. The marriage amendment is bigotry. "Don't ask, don't tell" is bigotry (thanks, Clinton!). Preventing gays from adopting children or being hired for a job (any job) or renting or buying a home is bigotry. I will not softsell that kind of stuff to be polite to bigots. I didn't directly call you a bigot by the way, because I don't know if you are one. I do know that the positions of the religious right with regard to gay issues are plain as day bigotry and I do know that you back the idea that the Bible prescribes such bigotry. I don't consider all Christians to be anti-gay bigots by a long shot. I do consider most Christian denominations to be officially bigoted toward gays and lesbians but I know that many, many thoughtful Christians break with their churches on this issue. Not enough, but many. Within our lifetimes I am confident that will become the majority position (with everyone, including Christians) and not the anomaly. My read on your position on gay rights is that as a Christian you are against equal rights for gays and you think that they are wrong for being who they are. If that is a correct read, I'm sorry but I do think you're a bigot. If it isn't, then I really do apologize for getting you wrong.
