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
• 
For all these crys of “Level the city so it never happens again”, you do realize there are several coastal city is at the same or greater risk than NOLA?
I believe the classic intelligence of the electorate quote is attributed to Adlai Stevenson;
After a speech, someone comes up to him and says “Mr. Stephenson, that was a wonderful speech. You’ll get the vote of every intelligent voter!” To which he replied, “That’s not enough, I need a majority.”
Posted by Joe McKendrick:
Our choices of leaders are more limited than in many other nations. We are locked into a two-party structure, baked in by single-member districts and an archiac presidential electoral vote system (not representative, but winner takes all, state by state). Ironically, when we go around the world promoting democracy, it’s for parliamentary-type systems — no one talks about setting up an Electoral College-type system.
Actually, the Electoral College is not automatically determined in a “winner takes all” system. The individual states have the right (I’d say “obligation”) to determine how they choose to apportion their electoral votes. Almost all states default to the “winner takes all” system as the easiest manner; however, both Maine and Nebraska rely on a “split” form, in which the candidate who wins the majority of the state vote receives only TWO (2) electoral votes automatically, with the remaining electors being determined by the candidate’s victory in each House district. To make that easier to understand, Candidate A receives 51% of either state’s total vote and Candidate B receives 49% of the total vote. Candidate A automatically wins just 2 electoral votes from that. The state has 3 House districts (as with Nebraska), in which Candidate A wins a slim majority in two districts and Candidate B wins a slightly larger majority in the third district; Candidate A receives 2 electoral votes from the district wins while Candidate B receives 1 electoral vote from his district wins. The final results: Candidate A, 4 electoral votes; Candidate B, 1 electoral vote. (The only significant problem with this system as it stands is that neither Maine nor Nebraska have a significant electoral vote tally, but a state like California, New York or even Texas or Florida could make a significant impact on a Presidential election.)
Also, in most states when you cast your vote for a Presidential candidate, you’re actually voting for a predetermined slate of electors (usually decided during state primary elections or selected by each state’s Democratic and Republican party leaders) who have “sworn” to support that particular candidate. This has not been entirely foolproof over the years as some electors have abstained (as with a DC elector in 2000) or cast a ballot for a completely different candidate (as in 1972, 1976, and 1988 when 1 elector during each election cast his ballot for a person who was not a Presidential candidate). Of course, these “disgruntled electors” weren’t sufficient to sway any of the elections. (Some states do have official laws which bar such electoral “misdoings”, but few actually make any effort to prosecute, leaving the matters to the parties which have more leeway to “discipline” party members who stray.)
I never voted Bush at all.
There’s a problem, and that is that too many focus on Democrat or Republican. Has it gone unnoticed that there are too many variables to try and section off people in this fifty/fifty duel off? Moderate this, radical that, never mind. If this is about the people, why is it that it’s the wealthiest now who run the two parties? As Bill Hicks said, “It’s the same guy holding up both puppets!”
Mark this date on your calendar — this is the date Peter finally lost it. 🙂
Quite frankly, the choices given in the last election weren’t the greatest, and Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership. He needs, however, to re-present that leadership. He needs to learn how to use some four letter words — like VETO. He needs to get a better press secretary, and talk more to the public about what’s going on himself (because every time he does, it always creates positive results.) He needs to tell people the Dubai deal is with an ally that is 1) training the Iraqis alongside the US and 2) letting us operate air bases in their country so 3) letting them write checks to longshoremen isn’t exactly letting them any closer to our secrets. If he’d get back to doing these things, I could get back to using my old tagline again:
Repeal 22. W 2008.
Nivek –
For all these crys of “Level the city so it never happens again”, you do realize there are several coastal city is at the same or greater risk than NOLA?
There is a great difference that you’re missing: New Orleans is BELOW sea level.
Cities flood, but the water has somewhere to go.
That isn’t the case with NO. When the water gets in NO, it either sits there or gets pumped out.
JosephW –
The individual states have the right (I’d say “obligation”) to determine how they choose to apportion their electoral votes.
We tried to change that here in Colorado in ’04 to something akin to what Maine & Nebraska are doing, but unfortunately failed.
Howard –
and Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership.
I get the feeling that your definition of leadership, and my definition, aren’t even in the same dictionary, much less same page. 🙂
Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership
BWAHHH – HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!
Was that when he was declaring “you’re either with us or you’re against us”?
Of course, I suppose it was leadership when he told the Iraqi insurgents to “BRING IT ON!”. And they did.
Mission accomplished.
While I agree that it does sound funny, the fact is, Kerry could not even present fumbling sense of leadership Bush was presenting. Kerry came off as a guy stabbing in the dark-not nuanced and complex (even though I knew folks who bought into that…
Really though, was it the democrat’s idea of a joke to send a guy who was a c student at Yale to call another guy who got c’s at Yale dumb?
I don’t know who they’re polling but everyone I know who voted for Bush would still vote the same way. (Good, Bad or Indifferent.)
Are these the same guys who were in charge of the exit polls on election day? hmmmmm
Really though, was it the democrat’s idea of a joke to send a guy who was a c student at Yale to call another guy who got c’s at Yale dumb?
Did Kerry ever actually call him dumb? Lots of his supporters did, to be sure — and still do, for that matter — but I’m not sure Kerry was ever that forthright.
(Which is part of why he lost, IMO. Someone who had the balls to actually say “this guy’s a moron and here’s the list of ways we know” would have gotten, at the very least, a lot more people crediting him for making bold statements.)
TWL
I don’t know who they’re polling but everyone I know who voted for Bush would still vote the same way. (Good, Bad or Indifferent.)
Are these the same guys who were in charge of the exit polls on election day? hmmmmm
Presidential approval ratings have nothing to do with whether or not you’d vote for that person, necessarily. If I were polled right now I’d give a disapproval rating to Bush. Doesn’t mean I think Kerry would have been better. I don’t find the current approval ratings hard to believe at all.
(Which is part of why he lost, IMO. Someone who had the balls to actually say “this guy’s a moron and here’s the list of ways we know” would have gotten, at the very least, a lot more people crediting him for making bold statements.)
The danger, or course, is that once one says something like that one must forever live in fear of any slip up, mispronunciation, error of fact, whatever, because you will be (justly) CRUCIFIED for it. There’s nothing Americans like better than seeing arrogance taken down a peg or two. frankly, I don’t think Kerry has the intellectual chops to take the chance.
The danger, or course, is that once one says something like that one must forever live in fear of any slip up, mispronunciation, error of fact, whatever, because you will be (justly) CRUCIFIED for it.
Depends on the reasons given. If the reason given is an inability to speak English, then you’re absolutely right. If there’s evidence presented in favor of a basic inability to think, I’d like to think (optimistically) that said criticism would allow greater latitude for error.
An inability to re-examine positions is a lack of intellectual ability, IMO — and that’s something far bigger than making the occasional mistake.
Now, it’s possible that you’re right, and that the great voting public is entirely too daft to see the difference. Thus, our current bread-and-circuses media.
frankly, I don’t think Kerry has the intellectual chops to take the chance.
He certainly didn’t have the will to take the chance. Or much of any chance.
TWL
“Quite frankly, the choices given in the last election weren’t the greatest, and Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership.”
Remember the end of “Animal House?” There’s this sequence where one of the guys hip-checks the leader of a marching band out of the way, grabs the baton, and proceeds to lead the band. He deviates from the parade route and the marching band follows him. He heads down a blind alley, leaves the baton there, and quickly makes his way out of the alley. Meantime the marching band, having followed his leadership, has a massive pile up in the dead end alley and winds up collapsed on itself, unable to get out.
I used to think that was funny…
…until Bush’s leadership.
PAD
I used to think that was funny…
…until Bush’s leadership.
You know, that would make for a GREAT edited video on the net.
I’m surprised nobody’s done it already. (And I’d love to find out somebody has done it already.)
Oh, and here’s a shocker: Isaac Hayes apparently thinks all religions are created equal… except for his religion of choice, scientology.
I would’ve voted for Daffy Duck over Bush in the last election because I knew that the current disaster unfolding in Iraq was inevitable and I saw no reason to reward his incompetence with another term.
Unfortunately, Kerry practically ran with the slogan “wouldn’t you rather have Daffy Duck than Bush?” with nothing else going for him. That wasn’t enough for many other voters.
So much for the “last throes”.
One of their debates showed me that Kerry was going to lose.. because he wouldn’t throw the elbow. (A West Wing reference)
He had two chances that I remembered.. Bush went with the flip flop thing again.. why not say “I am the only one who is scared that I have to keep explaining to the President of the United States the difference between flip flopping and sticking to your principles?”
Bush made a flippant comment about abortion after Kerry plainly explained his beliefs. Kerry could have easily responded with “Yes, ladies and gentlemen and especially ladies thats what another 4 years will be .. your lives made fun of, joked about, and smugly written off … the next 4 years could easily see at least one vacancy on the Supreme Court … the next 4 years could decide the next 30 in the areas of civil rights, privacy, and equality. Four more years? Forget it.
Thats what I would have done.
Until later
John
Given the choice, I’d still vote for Daffy Duck (or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or…) over George W. Bush today.
It’s bleepin’ simple, folks — when the airplane has three engines on fire and is doing a bionic nosedive towards terra firma, the first thing you do is get the stupid monkey away from the cockpit and put someone — anyone — competent in charge. Quibbling over Daffy vs. Kerry vs. Gore distracts from the fact that the monkey is still in the cockpit, and the ground isn’t getting any farther away…
And kudos to PAD for getting right to the point in his traditional two-fisted style, instead of dinking around with polite euphemisms. Wish I’d thought of that.
–R.J.
But that was the problem…we were not GIVEN a competent person…we were given John Kerry. He didn’t appear to know how to fly the plane either.
30 percent?! PAD, where are you getting your figures? Are you thinking of polls such as last month’s CBS poll that had Bush at 34 percent? Read the fine print in these polls sometime. You’ll find that Republicans are routinely undersampled; in the case of the CBS poll, 409 unweighted and 381 weighted Democrats versus 272 unweighted and 289 weighted Republicans.
Also, you might want to go back and look at the approval ratings for some of our highly regarded previous Presidents at their lowest ebb, particularly Reagan and Truman. I think you’ll find that these things don’t mean a whole lot, either in the short or long run.
-Dave O’Connell
30 percent?! PAD, where are you getting your figures? Are you thinking of polls such as last month’s CBS poll that had Bush at 34 percent? Read the fine print in these polls sometime. You’ll find that Republicans are routinely undersampled; in the case of the CBS poll, 409 unweighted and 381 weighted Democrats versus 272 unweighted and 289 weighted Republicans.
Also, you might want to go back and look at the approval ratings for some of our highly regarded previous Presidents at their lowest ebb, particularly Reagan and Truman. I think you’ll find that these things don’t mean a whole lot, either in the short or long run.
-Dave O’Connell
30 percent?! PAD, where are you getting your figures? Are you thinking of polls such as last month’s CBS poll that had Bush at 34 percent? Read the fine print in these polls sometime. You’ll find that Republicans are routinely undersampled; in the case of the CBS poll, 409 unweighted and 381 weighted Democrats versus 272 unweighted and 289 weighted Republicans.
Also, you might want to go back and look at the approval ratings for some of our highly regarded previous Presidents at their lowest ebb, particularly Reagan and Truman. I think you’ll find that these things don’t mean a whole lot, either in the short or long run.
-Dave O’Connell
You’ll find that Republicans are routinely undersampled;
You’ll also find that Republicans will say anything they can to get people to believe that the truth isn’t in front of their eyes.
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.
But that was the problem…we were not GIVEN a competent person…we were given John Kerry. He didn’t appear to know how to fly the plane either.
Kerry was an unfortunate choice and reflects one of the severe weaknesses of the Dems. For the 40 years, they’ve yearned for the second coming of Kennedy. But Kennedy’s strength was that he had buckets of charisma, while you could combine both Kerry and Dukakis and not have enough charisma to fill a thimble. For their own good, the Dems should impose a moratorium on nominating anyone from Massachusetts for the foreseeable future.
The GOP has a similar problem in that they’re yearning for the second coming of Reagan. Many thought the monkey was it, but more and more Republicans seem to be disenchanted with that notion. I think that’s unfair. If there’s one thing the monkey has down cold, it’s the runaway deficit spending of the Reagan era.
Maybe it’s just that, when the Gipper ordered the invasion of a weak third world country, it got down over the weekend.
As for what a Kerry administration would have been doing different, that’s hard to predict. In 2004, the damage had already been done. The monkey had already dived head first into the quagmire without any plan as to how he’d get us out. Unilaterally pulling out wasn’t a viable option then and still isn’t now. Maybe Kerry would have listened to advisers with actual combat experience, which in itself would have been a radical departure from the sycophantic chickenhawks the monkey surrounds himself with.
Easier to predict is how the conservatives would have reacted to a Kerry administration. By now, Fox “News” would begin every segment with a “Iraqi Civil” in huge graphics and ominous drum beatings. Meanwhile, the GOP would be holding congressional hearings on how Kerry had managed to “lose” the peaceful Arab utopia that Bush had bequeathed him. Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration.
But not by much.
In response to these two posts:
You’ll also find that Republicans will say anything they can to get people to believe that the truth isn’t in front of their eyes.
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.
First of all, let’s throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they’re the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle—you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.
Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:
Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83
Another source I found has Carter’s low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.’s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman’s low was 23(!) and Clinton’s was 37.
All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?
As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:
What got us thinking about this is a fascinating op-ed piece by one of Bush’s most influential supporters. On OpinionJournal.com, conservative activist Grover Norquist, the Americans for Tax Reform president who is close to the administration, argues that Bush’s sky-high poll numbers are – get this – a bad thing.
That is thinking outside the usual box. Let’s take a closer look:
“President Bush’s approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.
“Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .
“Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president’s high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer
Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:
In a July 2001 interview with National Review Online, Bush pollster Matthew Dowd explained the president’s job-approval ratings, which at that time were in the mid-50 percent range. “We’re not in an era where a president can get a 70 percent job-approval rating,” Dowd said confidently. Then he added a quick afterthought: “absent a major crisis.”
Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president’s ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush’s job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.
At the same time, the president’s job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.
The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president’s job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.
If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president’s job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp
If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I’d probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the “around 30 percent” (“around 40 percent” would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it’s some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven’t* heard of the “second-term blues” before?), well let’s just say I’m glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.
-Dave O’Connell
In response to these two posts:
You’ll also find that Republicans will say anything they can to get people to believe that the truth isn’t in front of their eyes.
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.
First of all, let’s throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they’re the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle—you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.
Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:
Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83
Another source I found has Carter’s low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.’s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman’s low was 23(!) and Clinton’s was 37.
All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?
As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:
What got us thinking about this is a fascinating op-ed piece by one of Bush’s most influential supporters. On OpinionJournal.com, conservative activist Grover Norquist, the Americans for Tax Reform president who is close to the administration, argues that Bush’s sky-high poll numbers are – get this – a bad thing.
That is thinking outside the usual box. Let’s take a closer look:
“President Bush’s approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.
“Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .
“Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president’s high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer
Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:
In a July 2001 interview with National Review Online, Bush pollster Matthew Dowd explained the president’s job-approval ratings, which at that time were in the mid-50 percent range. “We’re not in an era where a president can get a 70 percent job-approval rating,” Dowd said confidently. Then he added a quick afterthought: “absent a major crisis.”
Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president’s ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush’s job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.
At the same time, the president’s job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.
The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president’s job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.
If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president’s job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp
If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I’d probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the “around 30 percent” (“around 40 percent” would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it’s some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven’t* heard of the “second-term blues” before?), well let’s just say I’m glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.
-Dave O’Connell
In response to these two posts:
You’ll also find that Republicans will say anything they can to get people to believe that the truth isn’t in front of their eyes.
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.
First of all, let’s throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they’re the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle—you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.
Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:
Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83
Another source I found has Carter’s low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.’s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman’s low was 23(!) and Clinton’s was 37.
All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?
As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:
What got us thinking about this is a fascinating op-ed piece by one of Bush’s most influential supporters. On OpinionJournal.com, conservative activist Grover Norquist, the Americans for Tax Reform president who is close to the administration, argues that Bush’s sky-high poll numbers are – get this – a bad thing.
That is thinking outside the usual box. Let’s take a closer look:
“President Bush’s approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.
“Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .
“Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president’s high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer
Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:
In a July 2001 interview with National Review Online, Bush pollster Matthew Dowd explained the president’s job-approval ratings, which at that time were in the mid-50 percent range. “We’re not in an era where a president can get a 70 percent job-approval rating,” Dowd said confidently. Then he added a quick afterthought: “absent a major crisis.”
Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president’s ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush’s job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.
At the same time, the president’s job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.
The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president’s job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.
If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president’s job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp
If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I’d probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the “around 30 percent” (“around 40 percent” would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it’s some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven’t* heard of the “second-term blues” before?), well let’s just say I’m glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.
-Dave O’Connell
Not sure why the italics came out all screwy on that last post, so let’s try it again without them. Should be more readable this way.
***
In response to these two posts:
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.>>
First of all, let’s throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they’re the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle—you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.
Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:
Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83
Another source I found has Carter’s low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.’s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman’s low was 23(!) and Clinton’s was 37.
All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?
As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:
That is thinking outside the usual box. Let’s take a closer look:
“President Bush’s approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.
“Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .
“Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president’s high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.”>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer
Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:
Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president’s ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush’s job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.
At the same time, the president’s job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.
The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president’s job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.
If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president’s job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
>>
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp
If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I’d probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the “around 30 percent” (“around 40 percent” would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it’s some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven’t* heard of the “second-term blues” before?), well let’s just say I’m glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.
-Dave O’Connell
Not sure why the italics came out all screwy on that last post, so let’s try it again without them. Should be more readable this way.
***
In response to these two posts:
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.>>
First of all, let’s throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they’re the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle—you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.
Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:
Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83
Another source I found has Carter’s low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.’s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman’s low was 23(!) and Clinton’s was 37.
All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?
As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:
That is thinking outside the usual box. Let’s take a closer look:
“President Bush’s approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.
“Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .
“Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president’s high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.”>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer
Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:
Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president’s ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush’s job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.
At the same time, the president’s job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.
The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president’s job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.
If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president’s job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
>>
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp
If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I’d probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the “around 30 percent” (“around 40 percent” would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it’s some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven’t* heard of the “second-term blues” before?), well let’s just say I’m glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.
-Dave O’Connell
Not sure why the italics came out all screwy on that last post, so let’s try it again without them. Should be more readable this way.
***
In response to these two posts:
You’ll also see that they’ll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there’s a bias in the media against them.
They need to face facts: Bush’s poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ÃSS.
That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.
Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush’s approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.
According to others:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%
All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I’m sure all of them, including one from Fox “News” are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.>>
First of all, let’s throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they’re the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle—you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.
Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:
Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83
Another source I found has Carter’s low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.’s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman’s low was 23(!) and Clinton’s was 37.
All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?
As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:
That is thinking outside the usual box. Let’s take a closer look:
“President Bush’s approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.
“Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .
“Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president’s high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.”>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer
Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:
Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president’s ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush’s job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.
At the same time, the president’s job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.
The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president’s job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.
If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president’s job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
>>
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp
If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I’d probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the “around 30 percent” (“around 40 percent” would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it’s some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven’t* heard of the “second-term blues” before?), well let’s just say I’m glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.
-Dave O’Connell
So now we’ve gone from Bush’s low approval rating is a fabrication of the evil liberal CBS news conspiracy to it’s not a big deal.
Spin, Dave! Spin!
Tell you what, Dave. If those of us who generally agree with Peter agree that he slightly overstated the case in referring to Bush’s numbers, will you agree in turn that those numbers are legitimately on the “not at all good” range for any president regardless of party?
TWL
just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush
just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush
Ford (sensible people): “Run for you life! Make for the hill!”
Arthur (not-sensible people): “What, the rather nice one with all the daffodils?”
If Kerry had won the election, the douche-bag right-wing crap-aganda whørëš like Limbaugh and Hannity would be blaming the current situation on Kerrys ‘lack of leadership’ or some other GOP fairy tale.
The only good thing about Bush winning in ’04 is that now he is taking the blame for his own fûçk-ûpš.
Worst.
President.
EVER.
omnidragon wrote: just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
Didn’t Nostrodomus warn us about brothers leading a great “empire”? ::shudders::
Alright, now I don’t need to watch the scary movie I rented. I’m freaked out enough!
just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush
We would have to pray to no woman with media-savy parents falls into a PVS, because that would bring the country to a screeching halt.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 11, 2006 06:57 PM
None of the above was not an option.
As for how it’s impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse…It’s not that hard if you use your imagination.
*****************************************
Once again I find myself in sharp disagreement with you and still admiring your reasoning skills. Ðámņ you, Bill Mulligan!
There are indeed risks in every roll of the dice. But I voted for John Kerry exactly because I thought he was an unknown quantity.
During W.’s first term, as he began pushing us towards an unnecessary and dangerous war with Iraq, I realized he wasn’t merely incompetent, but was also dangerous. I believe recent events support that assertion. For example, W.’s decision to remove Saddam from power meant removing the force that was holding in check factions that aren’t real good at getting along. W.’s failure to provide for adequate post-war security allowed those factions to start running amok. Iraq is now on the brink of a bloody civil war that could further destabilize an already shaky region of the world.
John Kerry, on the other hand, represented to me a chance, however slight, of steering our country away from the dangerous path W. has taken. Perhaps Kerry would have handled our involvement in Iraq more skillfully, perhaps not.
Certainly, Kerry’s campaign didn’t fill me with confidence, but people can grow into the presidency. Bill Clinton had a rocky start during his first term until he found his chops. He bounced back, and handily won a second term. Had he not fooled around with Monica, I think he would’ve been riding high when he left office.
Would Kerry have similarly grown into office? I don’t know. Kerry lacks Cliton’s communicative skills, to be sure. But I was certain W. was leading us down a path far to dangerous to trod. So I rolled the dice on Kerry.
Unfortunately, Kerry çráppëd out. So we’ll never know what would have happened.
Bill, I don’t find that to be an unresonable opinion. I’m not by nature much a gambler so I’d be reluctant to take a chance on someone as a president but I can easily see where someone else would.
A good clue to how well Kerry would have done will be in whether or not he can buck the odds and become a contender in 2008. It would require a degree of political skill I haven’t seen from him but he may surprise us. It wouldn’t be the first time a tough loss made someone shape up and improve.
I’m not big on sticking with “the devil you known” as a political philosophy. The monkey had proven that he was incompetent in handling the Iraq situation and has done nothing since the 2004 election to counter that image. Kerry might has been better, worse, or the same, but keeping the monkey at the controls virtually guarranteed that we’d be right where we are now with Iraq “on the verge” of a civil war.
>
Isn’t that one of the signs of the apocalypse…?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 15, 2006 08:54 AM
Bill, I don’t find that to be an unresonable opinion.
*****************************
GRRRRRRRRR!!!!
If you don’t stop being so dámņëd civil I’ll… I’ll…!
Crap. I got nothing.
Never mind.
Posted by: Den at March 15, 2006 09:06 AM
The monkey had proven that he was incompetent in handling the Iraq situation and has done nothing since the 2004 election to counter that image.
***************************************
Dude, monkeys are the coolest animals! You can dress them up in people-clothes and train them to walk around and do people stuff, and then, with perfect comedic timing, you can have them throw a tantrum and give people raspberries and jump all over the place and have crap-fights. There is no animal that is more entertaining than a monkey.
So please don’t disparage monkeys by wrongly identifying our sitting president as one of them.
Steve said:
“Worst.
President.
EVER.”
I hope you are right, America still has few years left in her, so I hope the next president or two before Amerika turns into a Fascist Theocracy don’t prove you wrong….
Bill, if all the monkey-in-chief had done was fall off his Segway and fling his feces at the press, I’d find him endlessly entertaining, but the monkey had to go and make a mess in Iraq, so I don’t find him entertaining anymore.
Posted by Den at March 15, 2006 09:58 AM
Bill, if all the monkey-in-chief had done was fall off his Segway and fling his feces at the press, I’d find him endlessly entertaining, but the monkey had to go and make a mess in Iraq, so I don’t find him entertaining anymore.
************************************
Well, that was my point. I was trying to say that George W. Bush rates below monkeys in my book. Far below.
But I guess if I have to explain the joke, it wasn’t very good.
Survey: Republicans Happier Than Democrats
Guess ignorance really is bliss.
Here’s one thing that’s not being blamed on Der ChimpenReichsFuhrer, Bu$Hitler:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/russian_blames_global_warming_on_1908_tunguska_event_10205.html