A recent poll shows Bush's approval having dropped from 31% to 26% now, and Cheney's dropping from 21% to 18%.
It's crazy to think that a two term President and Vice-President could be at 26% and 18% in the polls. Even unpopular national leaders tend to hover in the low 40% range. It's almost impossible to get 80% of the country to agree on anything in a poll, but after 8 years of the Bush/Cheney debacle the public is pretty together on this one. I guess George Bush really was a uniter. Heck, even if you add their approval numbers together, you still get a pretty unpopular politician.
Cheney's diminishing popularity I kind of get. Since the election he has been all over the airwaves slamming the new administration, claiming we are more likely to get attacked, and attacking Obama's economic policies. After leaving the nation in a historical economic ruin following his 8 years, that last one makes Dick Cheney an early runner for the 2009 "pure balls" award. It's almost as if someone told him "there is no way you can get less popular than 21% approval" and he took that guy up on the dare.
Bush, on the other hand, kind of surprised me. People generally liked him as a person, they just despised his policies, record, and Presidency. I figured once he was out of office and unable to do any more damage to the country, the dislike would subside and he would creep up in popularity. Further, he was classy and supportive during the transition, and has refused to bash Obama - unlike some Vice-Presidents of his I can think of. Yet he dropped 5%. Which is not easy when you are already hovering at 31% - somewhere around the approval rating Americans tend to give Somali pirates. The only thing I can figure is people watched Obama for 100 days and thought "Oh yeah, that's what having a good President was like".
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Texas leaving the country?
Last week, Governor Perry hinted that Texas just may succeed from the United States if Obama continues to pass policies that the conservative state doesn't agree with. The consensus is that Perry doesn't really want to leave the Union, so much as he is posturing politically, trying to shore up his support with the right wing for a likely primary battle with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. But this begs the question - why is the right wing so excited by talk of succession? I thought these were the guys who love America? The guys who never miss a chance to wave the flag and talk about what patriots they are? But now, just three months after having lost one election, suddenly they can't leave America soon enough? As First Read put it, "Imagine the outcries of patriotism (or lack thereof) if Massachusetts or New York hinted at secession during the Bush years."
Indeed, Texas Republicans are pretty split on the issue, with 48% thinking it would be better to stick with America, and 48% thinking the state would be better off if it were independent. And this isn't a state that has been somehow frozen out of political power, they just had the U.S. President for 8 years! As Kos asks, "Since you've spent the last eight years saying "America, love it or leave it", is that an admission that you don't love America? Because we liberals - We loved it and stayed, even when your idiot of a president was trashing the place."
Fivethirtyeight.com takes an interesting look at the political ramifications of Texas leaving. Basically, the Republicans would lose 2 Senators, a bunch of House seats, and George Bush wouldn't have become President in 2000 (or it would have taken some real magic by the Supreme Court). To highlight what a bad candidate John Kerry was, Kerry would have still lost in 2004 even if Texas's electoral votes are removed. I'm pretty sure Kerry would have found a way to lose even if the whole election was just California, Vermont and D.C.
But all this talk about Presidents and succession misses the truly important point. With Texas out of the Union, there is no way Mack Brown's public whining in 2004 would have jumped the University of Texas mysteriously ahead of Cal in the final BCS poll, and Cal would have finally made a Rose Bowl. Not that I'm still bitter or anything.
Indeed, Texas Republicans are pretty split on the issue, with 48% thinking it would be better to stick with America, and 48% thinking the state would be better off if it were independent. And this isn't a state that has been somehow frozen out of political power, they just had the U.S. President for 8 years! As Kos asks, "Since you've spent the last eight years saying "America, love it or leave it", is that an admission that you don't love America? Because we liberals - We loved it and stayed, even when your idiot of a president was trashing the place."
Fivethirtyeight.com takes an interesting look at the political ramifications of Texas leaving. Basically, the Republicans would lose 2 Senators, a bunch of House seats, and George Bush wouldn't have become President in 2000 (or it would have taken some real magic by the Supreme Court). To highlight what a bad candidate John Kerry was, Kerry would have still lost in 2004 even if Texas's electoral votes are removed. I'm pretty sure Kerry would have found a way to lose even if the whole election was just California, Vermont and D.C.
But all this talk about Presidents and succession misses the truly important point. With Texas out of the Union, there is no way Mack Brown's public whining in 2004 would have jumped the University of Texas mysteriously ahead of Cal in the final BCS poll, and Cal would have finally made a Rose Bowl. Not that I'm still bitter or anything.
Labels:
George Bush,
John Kerry,
Kay Baily Hutchinson,
Mack Brown,
Rick Perry
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Pretty much sums it up
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)