{"id":233,"date":"2006-04-25T08:43:12","date_gmt":"2006-04-25T15:43:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/?p=233"},"modified":"2006-04-25T08:43:12","modified_gmt":"2006-04-25T15:43:12","slug":"bushs-approval-ratings-slide-to-new-low","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/2006\/04\/25\/bushs-approval-ratings-slide-to-new-low\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Bush&#8217;s approval ratings slide to new low&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name=\"004246\"><\/a>I saw this headline, in connection with a CNN poll showing Bush&#8217;s approval rating at&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>32 percent.<\/p>\n<p>The basic problem with that headline is&#8230; it&#8217;s the headline for every goddamned report for Bush&#8217;s approval rating since, seemingly forever.  The next poll might be another &#8220;record low&#8221; and it might be 33 percent &#8212; the uptick from this particular &#8220;record low&#8221;, but that means only that it will be the record low for &#8212; say &#8212; the CBS News poll.<\/p>\n<p>As these things go, the last time I was shocked enough to comment strictly on Bush&#8217;s latest poll ratings, CBS had him at 34 percent.  I contemplated on things that I can buy at Fred Meyer for the price of Bush&#8217;s Poll ratings.  For his new poll ratings, I can now buy&#8230; Bumpkis.  Just Bumpkis.  Shortly after that 34 percent approval rating was released, some right wing commentators (Hannity, Limbaugh) complained that the polls were liberally biased&#8230; too many Democrats sampled.  There were indeed more &#8220;Democrats&#8221; polled than in the past, but that is because the basic problem with these polls is that there is a noticable swing of people willing to identify themselves with a party when the head of the party is embarrassing.  I don&#8217;t really know how they work the numbers, but I assume they have some sort of scientific formula they can crounch into the &#8220;margin of error&#8221;.  At any rate, CBS released a new poll with the samplings more to Limbaugh and Hannity&#8217;s likings (or more like deference, as they&#8217;d probably just as soon figure that 75 percent of the nation are Republican).  Bush&#8217;s approval ratings than shot up to that oh-so-astronomical high of 36 percent &#8212; or something like that.  I&#8217;m sure Limbaugh and Hannity were pleased with that.<\/p>\n<p>Bush has not been above 50 percent in the polls for over a year.  I stare at the situation, just kind of trying to take various vantage points.  Is there a precedent for something like this in American history?  This Presidency is just becoming sort of Insane.<\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/images\/0895260026\/ref=dp_image_0\/104-9162100-9604752?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;n=283155&amp;s=books\"><\/p>\n<p>I note this book from some schmuck named Hugh Hewitt.  Really, not worth reading (and I say that while noting that there is a deluge of anti-Bush books that are not worth reading as well.)  But then again, with a comment like <i>Warning: this is the book the Democrats don&#8217;t want you to read.<\/i> attached to the book, I go with a little reverse psychology.<\/p>\n<p>I bring this up because our &#8220;How we are going to achieve a Permanent Republican Majority&#8221; (with Bush as a bench-mark&#8230; yes, we&#8217;re going to establish a Permanent Republican Majority with Mr. 32%) popped up one of the chattering class cable talk blathering shows.  (It popped up when I checked his book in &#8220;Electronic Library&#8221; in transcript form.)  He was more sanguine and a bit &#8220;Woo &#8211; Hoop!&#8221; than befitting a man with a published book that &#8220;The Democrats don&#8217;t want you to read.&#8221;  It seems that the premise of his book is in free-fall right now.  The one thing he offered on Bush&#8217;s behalf was that Bush should focus on the &#8220;Trust-worthiness&#8221; issue, because that is, as polls show, his strength.  When pointed out that on that issue, Bush is still pretty far below 50 percent, he shrugged and said, &#8220;It&#8217;s still his strength&#8221;, and went on with a partisan explanation on what to focus on to bring those numbers up&#8230; and I suppose I can kind of get behind someone who believes such a thing even when it&#8217;s an unpopular belief, because if you have any political allegiance and principle you will find yourself behind a politically unpopular politician at some point.<\/p>\n<p>But, really.  32 percent.  Each &#8220;record low&#8221; seems to be about one point less than the previous lowest poll, which means we&#8217;re three polls away from tossing Bush into the 20s.<\/p>\n<p>That just doesn&#8217;t seem possible.  Despite that line about 2-termers tending to end up with less-than-glamourous second terms (which I contend, largely by way of being contrarian is a bit of a myth: Clinton&#8217;s second term wasn&#8217;t bad; Reagan&#8217;s presidential legacy, in my mind, was rescued by his &#8220;Reagan and Gorbachev Show&#8221;&#8230; Granted, Clinton was impeached &#8212; with approval ratings that kept rising as the Impeachment ensured, and Reagan got away with extra-constitutional crap, but nonetheless, Reagan got away with his constitutional crap because of his inherent presidential strength having to do with his fine Acting, and there&#8217;s something to be said for that, and nobody cared one wit about Clinton&#8217;s extra-marital affair and thus his Impeachment goes down to one giant &#8220;Meh&#8221; with the American public). And yet&#8230; here we are.<\/p>\n<p>Reportedly, Bush has hunched with some advisers and come up with a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/magazine\/article\/0,9171,1186555,00.html\">&#8220;Comeback Strategy&#8221;<\/a>.  One point in the strategy is to &#8220;Brag more&#8221;.  Which is a joke, of course.  Even when Bush was more popular (back when he was in the more sane-seeming mid 40 range, for example), the phrase &#8220;Arrogant&#8221; was attached to him.  But I don&#8217;t think this Presidency is particularly capable of changing courses anyway, so why not more of the same?<\/p>\n<p>At any rate, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.merlehaggard.com\/\">When You&#8217;ve lost Merle Haggard, you&#8217;ve lost America<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I saw this headline, in connection with a CNN poll showing Bush&#8217;s approval rating at&#8230; 32 percent. The basic problem with that headline is&#8230; it&#8217;s the headline for every goddamned report for Bush&#8217;s approval rating since, seemingly forever. The next poll might be another &#8220;record low&#8221; and it might be 33 percent &#8212; the uptick [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}