Bush Approval Rating
In response to a comment from Derek about approval ratings, I wanted to clarify the issue of Bush's approval rating. Here is a chart of Bush's ratings while he was president:
Here is what I notice: Bush's approval ratings were in steep decline almost from the day he took office. Then, in the patriotic fervor which followed the 9-11 attacks they shot up to 90%. They immediately resumed their steep decline, only taking a significant upward turn twice, when we attacked Iraq and when Saddam was caught. Otherwise, every day more Americans saw through the propaganda and realized what a miserable President he was, until he ended up hated by everyone except the impervious-to-reality wingnut fringe.
And no one was conducting a national campaign of lies and smears against him like you guys are doing with Obama. Sure, we were hard on him, but it's because he very nearly ruined the country. The right is doing everything it can to destroy Obama, for cheap partisan political reasons, and is willing to tell any falsehood to get back into power.
Here is what I notice: Bush's approval ratings were in steep decline almost from the day he took office. Then, in the patriotic fervor which followed the 9-11 attacks they shot up to 90%. They immediately resumed their steep decline, only taking a significant upward turn twice, when we attacked Iraq and when Saddam was caught. Otherwise, every day more Americans saw through the propaganda and realized what a miserable President he was, until he ended up hated by everyone except the impervious-to-reality wingnut fringe.
And no one was conducting a national campaign of lies and smears against him like you guys are doing with Obama. Sure, we were hard on him, but it's because he very nearly ruined the country. The right is doing everything it can to destroy Obama, for cheap partisan political reasons, and is willing to tell any falsehood to get back into power.
Comments
It sure as hell wasn't about our nation's security, which is the only reason that counts.
"Bush lied."
He did, almost every time he opened his mouth.
"Katrina is somehow Bush's fault."
The pathetic national response to Katrina was certainly attributable to Bush replacing Clinton's professionals at FEMA with partisan hacks.
"he very nearly ruined the country."
Wake up, Derek. That's what your conservative supply side economic mumbo-jumbo produced.
You can say we are lying about Bush. There's only one problem. We're not.
From your comments about "passing bills without voting on it" and "passing bills without reading them" it would appear that you have no idea how the legislative process works. Apart from the obvious fact that the president DOESN'T PASS BILLS and DOESN'T VOTE FOR ANYTHING, the "passing bills without voting on it" you're referring to hasn't happened at all in this congress, and has only been proposed recently as a way to expedite the voting process. It's been done plenty of times (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf)and if a majority in the House were opposed to the Senate bill passing then they'd still be able to vote against it.
I also don't understand this obsession with "not reading bills". Anyone who considers this to be a legitimate argument against either the current president or Congress has a fundamental misconception of how the government works. Congress passes a lot of legislation every year, and even more bills get written that never become law. The bills can be thousands of pages long. If you expect that Congress to only pass bills that have been read personally by every member of Congress and the President of the United States the entire government would shut down. Thankfully, our legislators each have a staff of people whose job it is to read through the bills.
As far as justification for Obama's low approval rating I would look no further than unemployment numbers.
And for the record, Bush most certainly lied. All politicians lie, of course, but Bush cited cooked intelligence that he knew to be false in the State of the Union address as justification for an unnecessary war that cost thousands of lives. There's no getting around that.
"See, if you say people are lying about Obama then I can just as easily say you are lying about Bush."
Yes it is easy to say, but it's pretty hard to back it up.
And if you want to put birthers and truthers in the same boat I'm completely in favor of that. It's not hard to find liberals who recognize the truthers as certifiable nutcases, but I've had a pretty hard time finding conservatives willing to say the same about the birthers.
No, Derek, they were malignant, treasonous lies.
"What else would you expect when the government forces banks to make bad loans. "Oh look at all these poor people who can't have homes because they can't get loans! I know! We can just force/coerce banks into giving them loans!" < that is that ruined us. They can't get a loan in the first place for a reason."
That is also a malignant lie, as you well know.
Derek, everything you have to say is a contentious lie. Here's the thing: I know who Dale is, and I care more about him as a reader than I do about you. He's now at least the third person who has told me that they tune out as soon as you post a comment. I don't have that many readers, and I can't afford to squander the good ones. I've warned you time and time again. Now, I have to stand by my real friends. Don't come back. Live in your ugly little deluded world, but don't bother us with your bullshit any more.
That sounds like a famous dictator who killed lots of people in the 1930s and 40s.
Shattering their fantasy land views must drive them crazy. Reality can do that to people.
Hey Derek. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
http://thinkingmeat.net/2009/06/23/derek-foley-faux-christian-actual-liar