So Bush’s numbers are dropping and dropping and dropping and are now around…what? Thirty percent approval? Something like that?
Here’s what I don’t get: Two years ago, when people voted for him…
WHAT THE HÊLL DID YOU THINK HE WAS GOING TO DO IF NOT CONTINUE TO SCREW THINGS UP?!?
I mean, honest to God. NOW nearly four out of five people are expressing disapproval? NOW?! What the bleeding hëll were you expecting two years ago when you pulled the lever or filled out the ballot for him? Did you think he was suddenly going to get smart? Did you think he was going to stop screwing the country up?
For crying out loud, I’m not the brightest penny in the box, and *I* knew things were just going to get worse. Anyone with a brain should have figured it out at the time. It took TWO MORE FRICKING YEARS for people to realize that, in the words of John Cleese as spoken by Jamie Lee Curtis, there are sheep that could outwit him? That there are dresses with higher IQs?
Jeez, people. A little forethought next time, okay? That’s all I’m asking.
PAD
• 
Freedom of Speech?
I posted a handful of comments at DailyKos.com which, given our differences in political views, clashed with the views of the Usual Suspects. I used no profanity or personal attacks on the posters. But, because I didn’t drink the DailyKos Purple Kool-Aid, I was banned from posting comments. Hmmmm, I thought that Liberals, I mean, Progressives, were supposed to be all about, gee, how should I put this…Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations and that only the hateful Reich-Wing Re-Thug-li-KKKans would ban someone from posting their ideas. Darn. I hate being wrong.
(It is because it had too many URLs attached and got caught in the filter not because of the topic-One of the Moderators)
Guess ignorance really is bliss.
Or paranoia really is misery.
All joshing aside, I don’t give much credence to those kinds of surveys. I could see where the celebration of victimhood that characterizes too much of leftist thought could be less than conducive to a sense of happiness though.
I’m just amazed that cat owners are as happy as dog owners.
Hmmmm, I thought that Liberals, I mean, Progressives, were supposed to be all about, gee, how should I put this…Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations and that only the hateful Reich-Wing Re-Thug-li-KKKans would ban someone from posting their ideas. Darn. I hate being wrong.
In fairness to the Dailykos gang, the site has never pretended to be a place for the free exchange of ideas. There are places to go for debates, kos is more for cheerleading and mutual support.
I mean, I think it’s cool that PAD allows people who disagree with him to be a part of the blog family but that’s not for everyone.
I’m just amazed that cat owners are as happy as dog owners.
I’ve always thought that cats were much keener judges of character. Look around — how many politicians have dogs? How many have cats? That’s not, in my view, a coincidence. Cats have a keen gift for “yes, you talk big, but what are you actually DOING to help me, you sod?” attitudes, and I find it refreshing.
Of course, I have three cats, so I may be a tad biased…
TWL
Of course, I have three cats, so I may be a tad biased…
Tim, here’s my dark secret…so do I. And I love ’em. But if they knew that they’d be totally impossible to be around.
I hate being wrong.
You must have a lot of hate then.
“Hmmmm, I thought that Liberals, I mean, Progressives, were supposed to be all about, gee, how should I put this…Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations and that only the hateful Reich-Wing Re-Thug-li-KKKans would ban someone from posting their ideas. Darn. I hate being wrong.”
I see. So while Conservatives wouldn’t hesitate to slam me if I insinuate they move in oppressive lockstep, you don’t hesitate to snipe at my beliefs–here on a forum where you ARE given free rein to speak–based on the actions of others who don’t share my philosophies about discourse. Even though I have freely acknowledged in the past that liberals can be just as aggressive in censorship as conservatives, and that it’s a sentiment I do not share.
I could, of course, try to impugn your philosophies by holding up the rantings of people who are even more extremist buffoons than you and say you’re just as bad. As soon as I find one, I’ll let you know. Could be a long search, though.
PAD
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 16, 2006 09:18 PM
Of course, I have three cats, so I may be a tad biased…
Tim, here’s my dark secret…so do I. And I love ’em. But if they knew that they’d be totally impossible to be around.
************************************
My girlfriend and I have two cats. They really are remarkable creatures. I mean, one of them went blind very suddenly about a month ago, and yet he adjusted to it almost immediately. He gets around amazingly well using his other senses and his memory of where things are. I hate to use such a cliched term, but he really is “handi-capable.”
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 16, 2006 09:07 PM
All joshing aside, I don’t give much credence to those kinds of surveys. I could see where the celebration of victimhood that characterizes too much of leftist thought could be less than conducive to a sense of happiness though.
*****************************************
I am a “leftist,” but I, like you, am not fond of the “celebration of victimhood.” The elevation of victimhood comes from the extreme left, and I believe (but cannot prove, admittedly) that those extremists are a minority who make their numbers look bigger by being loud. And since the media loves noisy people, they’re the leftists that get the most press.
As I’ve gotten older, though, I’ve found myself adopting some conservative views. I guess my philosophy today would be best summed up as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Although even that’s a bit simplistic. I do believe our government is involved in regulating and/or subsidizing things where it has no business doing so. But I also remember when the savings and loan industry was deregulated; financial misconduct ensued and the S&L bailout cost taxpayers a bundle. So the issue of where the government should be involved and where it should not is, in my view, complicated.
Is there a word for me? “Libertarian?” “Moderate?” “Confused?” Don’t know and don’t care. I like to think of myself as an individual who chooses his views based on what seems reasonable, rather than what “side” I’m supposed to be on. I suspect that even though I still lean left and you seem to lean right, you choose your views in much the same way.
By the way, you mentioned in another thread that you teach 9th grade. Do you teach history, by any chance? You’re knowledge of past and current events makes me think you’d be a natural, but of course things are not always as they appear on the surface.
I had a the same history teacher for the 9th and 10th grade and he was fantastic. He would always remind us as we were taking notes that we needed to do more than memorize names and dates. He challenged us to ask, “So what?” In the process, I learned to see that history was not merely a litany of factoids but a “story” where what came before helped shape what is, and where what is shapes what is to be.
Ah, who am I kidding? I just plain talk to much. Wake up, Bill. I’m done blathering.
PAD, I don’t have time to read all the comments this second, I just want to say that that is the best rant ever! Congragulations. *bow*
So, Bush’s numbers are down. Meaning, if they are valid in any way, that many people that voted for him now think he’s doing a bad job.
I’m with PAD. I’ll go one further and say “so what?” Low numbers don’t mean you get fired. We can’t not elect him in the next election, so he’s sitting totally immune and insulated from any criticism. And while publically, many GOP members speak against him, they’ll probably act to protect him from a congressional censure, which is the very least action we can take against him.
To those that voted for him, but are not unhappey with his performance, I’d say something like “you guys elected him, you don’t really get to complain about what he does now,” except that people are dieing, our rights are eroding, the debt continues to climb, and every week, seemingly, things get worse.
I saw a study last week that claimed that stay-at-home moms were happier than feminists.
Oh, and as far as I’m concerned, cats are just unfinished violin strings. I’m a dog lover all the way and I’m much happier because of it. Cats are creepy little bûggërš and everytime I see one stare a me, I know he’s just imagining the day when I slip in the shower and break my neck so he can eat me. Why the hëll would I want such evil creature in my home? I’d rather have a pet that actually likes me.
Pat Buchanan is a cat owner. End of story.
And Bobb, the monkey’s low poll numbers don’t mean anything to his own election ambitions, but since the GOP in Congress are tied to him, it means we’re going to see a lot more of them distance themselves from him, (See: Dubai ports deal), much the way that congressional Democrats distanced themselves from Clinton in ’98. That also means that you can forget anymore bold proposals like privatizing social security. The monkey’s out of political capital.
“And Bobb, the monkey’s low poll numbers don’t mean anything to his own election ambitions, but since the GOP in Congress are tied to him, it means we’re going to see a lot more of them distance themselves from him, (See: Dubai ports deal), much the way that congressional Democrats distanced themselves from Clinton in ’98. That also means that you can forget anymore bold proposals like privatizing social security. The monkey’s out of political capital.”
Too true. The flip side of that is that they have 2 years to create that distance. The paranoid in me says Bush is intentionally tanking his numbers in order to allow the “new” Republicans to ride to the rescue. The Democrats seem pretty quiet on the “we’re better than Bush/GOP” front, leaving it wide open for the GOP to come in and replace the old regime with a new regime I’m just as likely to dislike.
I’m a cat person….although, with a 5 month old around, I’m less of a cat person than I was 6 months ago. I might be a puppy person now. Can you get dogs that stay puppies?
Posted by Den at March 17, 2006 02:55 PM
Cats are creepy little bûggërš and everytime I see one stare a me, I know he’s just imagining the day when I slip in the shower and break my neck so he can eat me.
***************************************
Yeah, and some people are scared to death of clowns. Everyone’s got their quirks, I guess.
My girlfriend and I have two cats. They really are remarkable creatures.
What I like best about them is that they become litter box trained in a very short amount of time. The ability to dispose of ones own feces is a trait I greatly admire in both man and beast.
Bill, the proper term for you is “thinking”. I’m a bit suspicious of anyone who is across the board liebral or conservative; makes me wonder if they just want to save the time it takes to actually think things though. Of course, it’s possible to end up solidly in one column or another, I suppose, but I have to respect someone who breaks with the stereotype, even if I don’t agree with the the particular position–Nat Hentoff’s pro-life views, for example.
By the way, you mentioned in another thread that you teach 9th grade. Do you teach history, by any chance? You’re knowledge of past and current events makes me think you’d be a natural, but of course things are not always as they appear on the surface.
No, I teach science, but I slip as much history into it as I can get away with. Wouldn’t a History Of Science class be GREAT? I’ve toyed with creating one and offering to teach it during my planning period, if they wouldn’t let me otherwise. I love history. For some reason, most of the kids here hate it and say it’s taught badly by most of the teachers. I don’t get it. How can you not make history entertaining? It’s full of dead people and sex.
I wonder if the State tests are more about names and dates than about the stories. That would be stupid but not surprising.
Bobb,
To those that voted for him, but are not unhappey with his performance, I’d say something like “you guys elected him, you don’t really get to complain about what he does now,” except that people are dieing, our rights are eroding, the debt continues to climb, and every week, seemingly, things get worse.
Even if those things aren’t happening it would be a mistake to claim that somehow people have lost the ability to complain. Says who?
I saw a study last week that claimed that stay-at-home moms were happier than feminists.
Some of my dearest friends are feminists but they would not be the very first people I would go to for a good cheer up session, at least not the radical ones. They tell jokes like “How many underpaid Latino children engaged in stoop labor did it atke to make that Grande Mocha Latte you’re sipping?” and when I say how many, they answer 7. I don’t get it.
Pat Buchanan is a cat owner. End of story.
Hitler had a dog! Ha! I see your Pat Buchanan and raise you one Hitler!
And cats like you just fine, so long as you feed them and pay attention to them whenever they demand it. In this way they prepare you for dating.
(All joking aside, I think that every boy should have a dog. Girls, it seems to me, have a better intrinsic concept of unconditional love. Boys need to experience it and, despite their sadly deficiant feces disposal skills, dogs are unmatched in the unconditional love department).
The paranoid in me says Bush is intentionally tanking his numbers in order to allow the “new” Republicans to ride to the rescue.
I would doubt it. With his reputation for being ultra-competitive, I don’t think he’d deliberately make himself look bad just to boost his party. And I’m sure the party faithful believes that a successful and popular administration is a better way to win the next presidential election.
My paranoid side tells me this: While the 22nd amendment limits a person to two terms as president, it has no limits on how many terms they many serve as vice-president. Ðìçk could still be running the government in 2009.
The Democrats seem pretty quiet on the “we’re better than Bush/GOP” front, leaving it wide open for the GOP to come in and replace the old regime with a new regime I’m just as likely to dislike.
I’d like to believe that they’re biding their time until they can unveil their new list of goals and their strategy on how to accomplish it, but then I remember that they’re the Democrats.
Can you get dogs that stay puppies?
The stumbling block is how to keep them small and cute, but eliminate teething at the same time.
Hitler was known to beat his dogs regularly, so I wouldn’t put him as a dog-lover. He probably wished he had a cat.
Yeah, and some people are scared to death of clowns. Everyone’s got their quirks, I guess.
I’m not afraid of cats, I just believe that they’re inherently evil creatures, right down to their tiny black hearts.
Cats are creepy little bûggërš
You say that like it’s a bad thing. 🙂
There’s an old saying (possibly Mark Twain, but I can’t recall) — “When a dog licks you, it is to demonstrate his affection. When a cat licks you, it is very probably to see how you taste.”
Pat Buchanan is a cat owner.
And Dubya is a dog owner.
Frankly (and I know you were semi-joking with this), Buchanan might almost support my point. Say what you like about Buchanan (and believe me, I’ve said plenty), he’s not even remotely hypocritical. He’s a frickin’ loon, but he’s a sincere one — and I honestly think cats pick up on hypocrisy more than anything.
Wouldn’t a History Of Science class be GREAT?
Oh, hëll yeah. I’ve toyed with the idea of creating one as well — and a colleague of mine at my last school, when creating the astronomy elective, made the prerequisite a particular history course rather than anything in the sciences.
If I move away from teaching physics, history of science is a strong possibility. (By the same token, if I ever leave teaching, science journalism is a very high-interest zone for me.)
TWL
Oh you’d be great at that. But it’d be a real loss to the teaching profession. Finding good physics teachers is well nigh impossible here. If teh one we have ever leaves they might make me teach it and I will almost certainly have to kill myself.
Oh you’d be great at that. But it’d be a real loss to the teaching profession.
Thanks — it would, of course, be nicer if more of my students agreed with that from week to week. 🙂
It’s also sort of a question of “do I want to reach a large number of people, or a small number of people really well?” If the former, then science writing (or textbook writing) would be the way to go; if the latter, then teaching (we hope) makes more sense.
This is all pretty much hypothetical in the short term anyway, as I just got my contract for next year. 🙂
TWL
90 mins. to new Who and counting…
But Peter! Think of the children!
Didn’t read any of the other comments.
Maybe next time you Democrats will actually nominate somebody worth a crap.
I mean … John F’N Kerry? Seriously?
Maybe next time you Democrats will actually nominate somebody worth a crap.
I mean … John F’N Kerry? Seriously?
Maybe next time you Democrats will actually nominate somebody worth a crap.
I mean … John F’N Kerry? Seriously?
Posted by Josh “Starving Writer” Lothridge at March 18, 2006 09:55 PM
Maybe next time you Democrats will actually nominate somebody worth a crap.
I mean … John F’N Kerry? Seriously?
*******************************************
Yes, but there were plenty of Republicans who would have made better candidates than George W. Bush. John McCain is but one example that comes to mind.
In fact, even though I am a Democrat, I would have strongly considered voting for McCain. Unlike a lot of putative conservatives, I believe McCain actually cares about the principles of conservatism. And while I tend to lean to the left, I am in agreement with some conservative ideas.
I certainly don’t consider W. to be a true conservative. Running up the deficit, and unnecessarily invading a foreign nation don’t strike me as matching conservative ideals.
Moreover, I don’t think W. would have won in 2000 if his opponent hadn’t been carrying the baggage of the troubled Clinton presidency. Or if the country hadn’t been so dámņëd complacent about everything at the time.
And I don’t think W. has ever lived up to the mythology surrounding him. For instance, the refrain that “with W. you know what you’re getting because he doesn’t flip-flop” just doesn’t square with reality. W. made some promises about the environment before he took office, and then reversed himself when he took office. Worse, he had Christie Whitman fall on her sword for him, rather than facing the heat himself. And the justification for the Iraq war has been somewhat chameleon-like. It went from WMD’s to the flowering of democracy. W. only admitted his mistakes when his poll numbers forced his hand.
How about the refrain “he’s got the qualities of a strong leader?” A strong leader wouldn’t have continued reading to children upon learning that a second plane had hit the world trade center. It may seem nit-picky to you; after all, W.’s delay of a few minutes probably didn’t make a heck of a lot of difference given the chaos on that day. But when you’re a leader, your actions have symbolic value. W. failed in that regard.
Also, he should have gotten back to Washington, D.C. more swiftly after the 9/11 attacks. Was W. in danger? Certainly. But JFK refused to leave D.C. during the Cuban missile crisis, even though the Capitol was certainly first on the list of the Soviet’s targets.
And Iraq has been one tactical blunder after another. For instance, as our troops swept through Iraq during the initial invasion, they failed to secure many arms depots. That’s because W. failed to commit enough troops to secure our rear flanks as our troops swept through Iraq towards Bagdad. Securing the rear is really the most basic of military tactics. But W. refused to heed the counsel of experienced military leaders, and now we’re paying the price for it.
And Katrina? W. failed to assign a member of his own staff to oversee the disaster response, as any good president would have done. That blunder helped contribute to the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to designate Katrina an “incident of national significance” — a designation required to mobilize federal forces — until 36 hours after Katrina made landfall.
Would Kerry have made a better president? I really don’t know. He certainly ran a crappy and uninspiring campaign. His message regarding Iraq was garbled at best. But really, neither party has distinguished itself in the last eight years. It may feel good to point the finger and say “you Democrats suck,” but it doesn’t accomplish much.
Maybe PAD intuited the results of the Pew Research Center poll of March 8-12 (courtesy of the Syracuse Post-Standard) – 33% approval rating (vs. 50% in Jan 2005). It does show Bush still pretty high among Republicans (73%, vs. 89% in 1/05), and still pretty strong among the Bush voters who inspired this thread – 68%, down from 92% – bringing me back to my comment about the number of stupid people again … 😉 (Thanks for the quotes regarding that, BTW, people; torn on whether to be bolstered or depressed by them … 🙂 ) (Interestingly, approval among “white Evangelicals”, the other specifically broken-down group, was found to have dropped from 72% to 54%.)
The poll also asked “Which one word is the best description of President Bush?”
February 2005 Top Responses: honest, good, integrity, arrogant
March 2006: incompetent, good, idiot, liar
Honestly, I’m surprised that more of the 2005 weren’t negative; but, maybe the problem really has been that it (somehow) took a lot of people until NOW to realize that Bush just hasn’t been a very good president.
PAD said: “Jeez, people. A little forethought next time, okay? That’s all I’m asking.”
A lot of forethought is why we’re saying President Bush instead of President Kerry.
Thank goodness.
If people really paid a lot of attention to approval ratings, then comic books that are critically acclaimed wouldn’t get cancelled would they?
Posted by NovaFan at March 20, 2006 10:45 PM
A lot of forethought is why we’re saying President Bush instead of President Kerry.
Thank goodness.
******************************************
I’ve acknowledged my doubts about John Kerry’s ability to lead this country. But any objective observer would have to conclude that we’re losing the war in Iraq right now. Iran is going nuclear. Katrina was a textbook example of mismanagement. The federal deficit is ballooning.
The Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress, so it’s hard to pin the blame for this mess on anyone else. At the same time the Democrats have been opportunistic at best, preying on W.’s weaknesses without offering an true vision for getting out of this mess.
Sorry, but no one on either side of the political aisle has cause to be smug right now.
Thank you, Dipshit Dubya Bush.
Now we’ve got North Korea claiming that they can make a preemptive strike on the US, and they say they have the ability to do so.
Sorry, but no one on either side of the political aisle has cause to be smug right now.
I would have to agree with that assessment. I still think the 2000 election was Gore’s to lose. People’s perception of the economy was still strong and we had a relative period of peace. Of course, we now know that both cases were just the calm before the storm, but that’s hindsight. Gore should have been able to campaign, “I’ll keep the good times coming but w/o the Clinton moral baggage,” but he blew if with his pseudo-populist rhetoric.
And we can whine about Florida all day, but if Gore had managed to carry his home state of Tennessee, that would have been moot.
Bush was also vulnerable in 2004 (as evidenced by the razor-thin his popular vote margin), but Kerry failed to capitalize on that either.
Den, I agree with most of your post but was Bush’s popular vote margin really “razor-thin”? He won by what, 3 million votes? You could make a better argument that the electoral vote was essentially close, even though Bush won 286-251. Had Ohio flipped Kerry would have squeaked by.
3 million votes may seem like a lot, but with a total of 122,000,000 votes cast, it comes down to Bush winning the percentage of the popular vote 50.73% vs. Kerry’s 48.37% (source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf). That’s a margin of victory of less than 2%. Not all that impressive considering the America people’s historical reluctance to not switch teams during wartime.
Incidentally, Nader won less than 0.4% of the popular vote and that was the largest showing of any of the third party candidates, so his impact on the election was virtually negligible.
Oh, and in the end, Kerry only had 250 electoral votes because one of Minnesota’s electors cast a vote for Dean. But yeah, had he flipped Ohio, he would be president now, but that wasn’t going to happen. The margin there wasn’t as close as Florida’s was in 2000.
Considering also that he lost Colordado by only 100,000 votes, Florida by 400,000, Iowa by 10,000 and so on, there were a lot of areas that had he done just a little better, 2004 would have had a different outcome. But it’s all moot. Kerry ran on strategy that was basically, “I’m not George W. Bush” (loved that Daily Show fake campaign ad), and that wasn’t enough for many voters. People want a reason to vote FOR a candidate, not to vote AGAINST their opponent.
I keep hearing that Kerry had something like 13 million left in the bank on election day. Obviously hindsight is easy but might not a 13 million dollar ad buy in Ohio in the last week been a smart move? Why would you want to have ANY money left? (Unless you were sure you would lose and wanted to save it for the next fight.)
I don’t know. Maybe he thought he didn’t need to spend it. On the other hand, it took John Glenn something like ten years to pay off the campaign debts from his short-lived presidential campaign, so maybe Kerry was just being overly cautious.