Newsweek’s latest poll puts President Bush at a 28% approval rating, the lowest rating of any president since the lowest point of Jimmy Carter’s presidency in 1979. (This is the second poll to put him at 28%.) For reference, Nixon was at 24% the day that he resigned. He’s left Republicans in a stunningly bad position for the 2008 elections. They’re certain to lose even more seats in the House, and it’s going to be an uphill battle to retain the presidency.
This is just like Nixon, without the smart Republicans. There is no independent critical-mass within the Republican party that can stand behind a Goldwater as he walks into the Whitehouse and tells Bush it is time to leave.
Which lead Newt Gingrich, leader of the Whiny Republicans, on Face the Nation, to say yesterday:
The Republicans have to say, this is not what we want to debate. It’s not in Baghdad, it’s not in Katrina, it’s not at Walter Reed, it’s not with the U.S. attorneys, but I have a better plan for a better solution that fits your values more than a Senator Clinton or a Senator Edwards or a Senator Obama.
Well good luck with that Republicans! Because, after 7 years of Republican executive, and 12 years of Republican legislation, America has a pretty good view of your “plan”. And Goldwater is dead.
Posted by Bubby on 7 May 2007 @ 9am
The liberal rehabilitation of dead conservatives like Goldwater and Reagan is my second favorite aspect of Bush Derangement Syndrom. However, its best feature continues to be the delusional belief that a liberal senator, almost 50 years after JFK, can win the presidency. Boats against the current.
Posted by Judge Smails on 7 May 2007 @ 10am
The liberal rehabilitation of dead conservatives like Goldwater and Reagan is my second favorite aspect of Bush Derangement Syndrom.
And where does pointing out President Carter’s similarly dismal rankings figure in this this disorder? Is any historical comparison within any topic off-limits if the main character is deceased, or does this pertain only to presidential approval ratings?
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 May 2007 @ 10am
It’s not off limits. I simply find it amusing that in their thirst to villify the president liberals are willing to use formerly hated figures as a cudgel with which to bash him. Of course, it helps that they’re dead and unable to defend in their own words the object of derision.
Posted by Judge Smails on 7 May 2007 @ 11am
If my goal was to vilify the president, I can’t see that comparing him to President Carter would be a particularly good technique. Carter is, for the record, alive and well, and if he has any interest in defending President Bush, I’m not aware of it. I provide these updated numbers to demonstrate that, in fact, I do not need to vilify him; he’s doing quite a decent job of that on his own.
And, FWIW, I do believe that the last thing President Bush could use right now is a little cover from Richard Milhous Nixon. :)
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 May 2007 @ 11am
JS: Maybe you just have to live long enough to understand that compared to the current Republican chieftons; 1) Nixon was a liberal, and 2)Goldwater was nobody’s nancy.
“Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world.” Barry Goldwater
Within five years this will be George W. Bush’s fate. No Republican will gain the presidency without dismissing the legacy of Bush.
Posted by Bubby on 7 May 2007 @ 1pm
I actually used some of these statistics in my AP US History exam today – thanks!
Posted by Michael Strickland on 11 May 2007 @ 3pm
Waldo Jaquith (JAY-kwith) is a website developer and political pundit who lives in the vicinity of Charlottesville, VA, USA. more »
This is how I roll.
© Waldo Jaquith. Powered by WordPress using the DePo Skinny Theme.
8 Comments