Read an article in the Spokesman Review this morning from the Associated Press. Bush's approval ratings are slipping more now with Independants, than before.His approval ratings are down on both his handling of Iraq and the economy. If he plans on being re-elected next year (God forbid) he is going to need this group of voters.

It only makes sense that he would be slipping with the Independants. When Ross Perot started the party origionally, it was based on a theme of elliminating the national debt and creating a strong economy. Bush has failed to do either. In fact he has increased the debt.

I think once a Dem has been chosen, the Independants might see a better alternative to Bush in accomplishing these goals.

[ January 18, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

I was just watching Headline News and I saw a story concerning a poll that indicated Bush received high marks for his handling of foreign policy but not for the economy. They indicated 39% of people surveyed were not happy about his handling of the economy. I had to scratch my head on that one, doesn't that mean that 61% DO approve of his handling of the economy? It amazes me how the networks show these poll results but present them in a way that favors the Democrats and/or Liberals. It is in the network's best interest to have a close election. That would mean better ratings and more ad revenue in their pockets, so its no surprise the network's will try to attack Bush every chance they get. You can't take polling data at face value; its not always right. Keep in mind the election in 2000 when the networks kept declaring different winners in Florida throughout the night. All of that was supposed to be based on exit polling that they later admitted was flawed.

could it be that not all of the 61% indicated they were happy with his performance? How many indicated "no comment"? and perhaps the negative aspect vis-a-vis Bush was stressed because this number (even if it is 61% approval) indicates a dip in the numbers from a much previously much higher approval rating?

Great points! That's what I'm talking about; the media is not telling the whole story, only the part that benefits them the most.

Well, where is the original link? That way we could judge the article for ourselves rather than making blanket judgments about the media being "liberal," which is spurious.

Here's one such link, from the admittedly liberal Guardian UK:
Guardian UK: W's support slipping among independents

BTW, did anyone see the 1/11/04 C-SPAN broadcast of the NY TIMES public discussion on media bias that featured conservatives Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, and liberals Al Franken and Eric Alterman? It actually was engaging and fair, and the NY TIMES itself didn't emerge unscathed from some pointed criticism. Still, Alterman in particular made sure to provide evidence of his challenges to the idea of "liberal" bias, which the conservatives really couldn't do, though they too made some great points. (And Laura Ingraham, though I dislike her politics, is a hell of a lot sharper than Coulter).

[ January 18, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

A Doorknob is sharper than Coulter.!!