The “Uptick”

7:12 pm EST December 2nd, 2005 | News | 12 Comments

The most Bush-friendly poll around, Fox’s Opinion Dynamics, shows Bush moving up… to 42% approval. And his improvement was largely among Republicans…

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

12 Responses to “The “Uptick””

  1. elrod says:
    December 3, 2005 at 2:12 am

    Of course, the Fox report neglects to discuss the real reason Bush’s numbers ticked up to 42% – gas prices have come down. Note that pre- and post-speech numbers changed by only 3 points, but the overall number shifted by 6. The reason is that gas prices have fallen considerably since the last poll. There is no better indicator of Presidential approval than the inverse of gas prices.

  2. Frank_D says:
    December 3, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    And if this were the Clinton administration, you wouldn’t need to go to the gas station to find out that gas prices were down. Ted Koppel would open “Night Line” live in front of a gas station.

    LOWER GAS PRICES, would scream the New York Times

    Clinton on Leno: Thang ya, thang ya verah much!

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    December 3, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    The lower gas prices have been all over the media. Your claims of liberal bias are just laughable.

  4. Bill L. says:
    December 3, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    Putting aside that such flagrant manipulation of gas prices was less prominent during the Clinton years, it takes a real stretch of the imagination to think that any fluctuation in prices, up or down, wouldn’t be greeted with a GOP sponsored “independent” investigation. We are talking about the crowd that tried to investigate what amounted to postage abuse and sank, what, 70 million into trying to convict Clinton of being involved in a shady land deal he actually LOST money on.

    The second the holiday season is over gas prices will climb again. Bank on it. I’m betting on a temporary drop to stimulate consumer confidence, encourage increased travel, and boost Pimp Daddy Bush’s sagging poll numbers.

  5. Frank_D says:
    December 3, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    You jumped on Google too quickly, Oliver. Some of those “headlines” said “Gasoline prices continue to rise”, “not as high as expected”. One says, “Fill up fast!”

    Try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/ajfy8 {New York Times}

    http://search.cnn.com/pages/search.jsp?query=gas%20prices

    http://tinyurl.com/8mwsr {ABC News}

    You can shout it to the housetops, but let’s face it, whatever Clinton wanted the spin to be, that’s what it was.

    Oh, and look what I found:

    http://www.quarterly-report.com/energy/gas_prices.html

  6. southpaw says:
    December 3, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    Why want Bush cut taxes drastically for everyone, not just the rich. That would stimulate the economy. Cut my taxes by $800 a month and I could afford 2 new cars every year or I could have money to invest in stocks or bonds. Gas could go to $5 a gallon and I would not complain. GM and Ford would not have to fire thousands of workers. They would have to hire thousands of workers to keep up with the demand.

  7. Zappa says:
    December 3, 2005 at 7:12 pm

    Who would pay for the war if we cut taxes for more then the Uber-Rich? Silly Libs…

  8. Oliver Willis says:
    December 3, 2005 at 11:12 pm

    whatever Clinton wanted the spin to be, that s what it was
    You mean like how the media ignored all the GOP-created “scandals” about him and his family? Oh, wait…

  9. elrod says:
    December 4, 2005 at 1:12 am

    Frank,
    I love the quaint references in the article you cite. $30 a barrel too high? Gas prices average at $1.50 a gallon? George W. Bush demanding Clinton leverage the Saudis to lower oil prices? Man, that’s too rich.

  10. Frank_D says:
    December 4, 2005 at 6:12 am

    Maybe it indicates that the President doesn’t control the price of oil, but, oh well…

  11. ian says:
    December 4, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    I wonder how liberal you have to be to think that there is no liberal bias in a media. Certainly a “moderate liberal” wouldn’t think it.

  12. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 6, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    Maybe it indicates that the President doesn t control the price of oil,

    Careful, Frank. That comment implies that Dear Leader was um, wrong about something.

    Can’t be disputing the commander-in-chief in a time of war, doncha know?