The numbers still add up to a "D" minus.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mr. Bush is the worst president ever. By that measure we certainly live in "historic" times.

Wade

President Bush never represented "core conservative values". He is, was, and always will be a rich man's son born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He behaves like a kid who is used to getting his way.

His outstanding characteristics are a short attention span and stubbornness coupled with a frightening lack of knowledge. Hardly what one would want in a president, be he conservative or liberal.

I'll add that he seems dumb, and people who are willing to follow him pretty dumb, too.

Fifty-two percent of the people actually approve of the man. The other forty-eight percent are idiots anyway, and deserve to be the victims of the next 9/11...

Mark,

According to the page you linked to, 39 percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing and 59 percent disapprove. I doubt Bush could win an election with numbers like that although its irrelevant since he won't be running again. More than twice as many Americans strongly disapprove of Bush as strongly approve of him.

The Republicans' loss in November had nothing to do with straying from conservative principles. Conservative turnout in the election was very high for a midterm election. The reason the Republicans lost is because they lost the support of moderate independent voters. On most issues, Americans are not as conservative as you would like to think they are. On most issues, such as Social Security, healthcare, raising the minimum wage, the majority of Americans side with Democrats. The only reason the Republicans were successful in 2002 and 2004 is because Democrats have been traditionally weak on national security issues and national security was a major factor in those elections as a result of 9/11. The Republicans lost seats in Congress in 1998 and 2000 and probably would have continued to lose seats if we were not attacked on 9/11. Conservatives don't understand that the main reason the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 was mainly because of dissatisfaction with the Democrats, not because of any major change in political views between 1992 and 1994.

Brian,

An arguable point, but incorrect.

National security issues certainly played a role since 9/11, but it is when conservatives run as conservatives - and do conservative things - that we win. When we play down our conservatism, we lose - and that explains our losses in 1986, 1992, 1996, 1998 and 2006. Meanwhile, when we won in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004 we were running as conservatives with conservative programs.

Its also good to keep in mind that when Democrats do manage to win, its usually a squeeker...a few thousand votes the other way, and the GOP would have retained its Senate majority, for instance...meanwhile, we absolutely destroyed the Democrats in 1980, 1984, 1994, 2002 and 2004.

There is, you see, really no such thing as a moderate - there is no one out there who, say, wants his taxes cut and raised, who wants us to win and lose the war, who wants abortion legal and illegal. People, at last, come down on one side or the other - and, by and large, when people are given a choice between liberalism and conservatism, they come down on the side of conservatism.

That poll with GW at 39A%, it is a poll of all adults - meaning that nearly half of the respondents are people who don't vote, and who get 99% of their information from the television. Ill-informed couch potatos don't like President Bush because the box in front of their couch has told them not to...if it told them to love President Bush, they'd instantly do a 180. It is fortunate that these people don't vote.

The poll showing higher support for President Bush is a poll of likely voters - people who vote and very likely don't limit themselves to televised news. The poll of likely voters is far more useful in determining how things will go in politics - because the only polls the politicians pay attention to are polls of likely voters; they are only interested in what people who show up to vote think about them.

What the poll really shows is a reservoir of support for the President - not love and devotion to the President, but a level of support: he is, after all, our President. The far left hates him, but the other 80% of the American people don't. This shows that in a properly conducted campaign, President Bush can rally majority support behind him - all he needs is a bold program (and that seems like it will soon be forthcoming), and a little luck in Democrats shooting themselves in the foot...and that also seems forthcoming.

Mark,

Not every American has an absolute position on each issue, most don’t. For example, most Americans don’t want abortion to be legal in every situation or illegal in every situation but somewhere in between. Raising or lowering taxes is not an isolated issue. There are also the issues of whether Americans want government services cut or expanded and whether our government should run up more debt or less. On the war in Iraq, the issue is more whether most Americans think we can win rather than if Americans want us to win. There are many Americans that want us to win the war in Iraq but don’t think it’s possible.

You said:

“Its also good to keep in mind that when Democrats do manage to win, its usually a squeeker...a few thousand votes the other way, and the GOP would have retained its Senate majority, for instance...meanwhile, we absolutely destroyed the Democrats in 1980, 1984, 1994, 2002 and 2004.”

The Senate race wasn’t a squeeker if you go by the number of seats that were up for election. The Democrats had to win big just to regain the majority since only one third of the Senate Seats were up for election and the Democrats were down by five seats.

Ill-informed couch potatos don't like President Bush because the box in front of their couch has told them not to...if it told them to love President Bush, they'd instantly do a 180. It is fortunate that these people don't vote.

This is the demographic the DemocRAT Party targets, Mark. That's one of the reasons they won this time. Here in MD, Gov-Elect Fartin O'Smelly won, despite his gross incompetence running Baltimore, because he won the vote of the single women, 2 to 1. And why did most of them vote for him? Because he was better looking! Gee, just like JFK in 1960.

And look out, folks--O'Smelly has higher aspirations. I predict he'll be running for the WH in '16. The "Boy Mayor" would be another Slick Willie...

O'Malley would be just like Bill Clinton?! (Gasp!) Not another 8 years of peace, prosperity, and compenet leadership, no! I can't take it!

And Reefer, you think that Bush opponents deserve to be the victims of the next 9/11? That is DISGUSTING!! You need to go see a shrink - this is seriously problematic.

The GOP lost the elections for the same reason the US is losing the political war in Iraq despite having the most effective military on Terra: flawed intelligence.

Mr Noonan,

Have you been in a hotel watching television or listened to something other than talk radio in the last 20 years? America is a nation of liberal thinkers. There is a vein of traditionalism that has always waxed nostalgic for a time when the majority has a greater control over the quotidian lives of minorities and women, but alas sir those days are gone. America is no longer a nation that exists in a world that can be held hostage by divisiveness. Conservatives have held the rein of power for six years almost unfettered and they have failed and the American people have voted to give oversight a chance. There was no liberal agenda at work when al Qaeda attacked the United States they did so out of their love of violence and their view this was the only way they could show a materialist monolith like the USA that the sole issue that need be solved to bring the Middle Eats to peace is the Israeli-Palestinian issue. So say Baker and Hamilton, and so say I.

Bush is at 30 percent at Newsweek.

My question is this...

How does Mark get all of those 30 percent to post here?

I thought the way to annoy a lefty was to try and get him or her to define their positions on important subjects of the day and to not be distracted by insults hatred and bile.

O'Malley would be just like Bill Clinton?! (Gasp!) Not another 8 years of peace, prosperity, and compenet leadership, no! I can't take it!

Well, Moderate, if you ignore:

A stock market bubble overinflated by hype, without any underlying increase in corporate profits,

Transfer of technology to a nuclear-armed Communist country, enabling their missiles to hit anywhere in the U.S.,

Numerous violations of the campaign finance laws, including contributions by people who are not citizens, some of whom are citizens of said nuclear-armed Communist country,

Record high trade deficits, especially with said nuclear-armed Communist country,

Terrorist attacks by jihadis on the WTC, Khobar Towers, two embassies in Africa, and the U.S.S. Cole, with virtually no American response outside of criminal prosecutions and a few poorly-aimed cruise missiles,

Government agents being unable to arrest religious extremists, who end up burnt to death along with innocent children,

The wrongful obtention by the incoming president's staff of FBI files relating to people employed by the outgoing administration,

Summary firing and malicious prosecution of government employees so the new president can get "his people" into those jobs,

IRS auditing of people and organizations who criticize the president,

And a unilateral war, without U.N. approval, against an enemy that never threatened us,

Then those 8 years of Clinton sure look good, don't they?

By the way, that last one about the war is not a mix-up. I'm not talking about Iraq, but about Serbia.

Gee, that's a winning slogan

"George W. Bush...80% of Americans don't despise him."

too bad 50% of Americans do truly despise him. For example, had he stayed home in Missouri, Jim Talent would probably have held on to win. But he showed up for a campaign appearance, much to Mr. Talent's chagrin, and he lost.

And Missouri is a conservative state.

What this tells me is that it is okay if not good for the American people to force the GOP to clean house of those without conservative principles (including corruption) If such is true, then it is even more imperative that conservatives dump their own when they misbehave –unless of course they’re not considered to be American people

This is such an educational blog. For example, I had to come here to read these words of wisdom: "...al Qaeda attacked the United States they did so out of their love of violence and their view this was the only way they could show a materialist monolith like the USA that the sole issue that need be solved to bring the Middle Eats to peace is the Israeli-Palestinian issue."

So Cavalor seems to be explaining that if we, the United States, were not so "materialist" or possibly such a "monolith" al Queda would not have had to attack us. Hmmm. How would you suggest we become less of a "monolith", Cal? Split up into several small countries? Or just become very very weak? Woudl groveling help? Cowering? And how does being "materialistic" make us deserving of being slaughtered?

You sound like a Ward Churchill clone, Cal---though you did stop just short of describing those buthchered at their desks as "little Eichmmanns". How generous of you---but maybe you just overlooked that.

Who gets to be the definer, Cal? Who gets to say what is and what is not "materialistic"? Sounds awfully judgmental, Cal. Not tolerant at all, Cal. Not very liberal, if you get my drift.

Do you have a book we can consult, Cal? Some guidance so we know how many pairs of shoes we can have, for example, before we pass from the Perfection of Calvorishsness into gross materialism? Is this a rigid boundary, or does it kind of float, maybe depending on what YOU feel like owning this week?

Funny how in all the weeks and months since 9/11, no one has had the brilliant insight to explain to us that the real reason for the attack was an effort to get across the message that "...the sole issue that need be solved to bring the Middle Eats to peace is the Israeli-Palestinian issue."

So why didn't they bomb Israel? Or Palestine?

And why didn't Osama bother to mention this in any of his rants on the videos he sent out?

Have you shared your 'special' insight with any of the radical Muslims, Cal? You know, the ones who think they want to kill us because we are infidels? You really ought to get in touch with them, Cal, and set them straight. Those silly old Muslims thinking they are fighting a holy war so Islam can rule the world, they really need a genius like you to explain that they really are trying to convey a desire for world peace through slaughtering people in New York to draw attention to the need to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I'm sure they would appreciate it. It's apparently gone right over their heads.

Sorry, folks, but I ain't buying it. I am sick and tired of being told that we DESERVED to be attacked. And I am sicker and tireder of being told that somehow it always comes back to the Jews.

Cal's brand of rhetoric is particularly disgusting. We get the psuedo-politcal kooks here, the ones who are riddled with hatred and anger and who have found acceptance of it in places like Air America and an outlet for it in pretending it is based on political philosophy. But we also get, every now and then, a real nasty example of the worst of the worst, a Blame America Firster, an anti-Semite, and a general jerk.

Ol' Cal tries to disguise his true nature behind a lot of gobbledygook, such as "There is a vein of traditionalism that has always waxed nostalgic for a time when the majority has a greater control over the quotidian lives of minorities and women..." and "America is no longer a nation that exists in a world that can be held hostage by divisiveness." ????? Gibberish. Probably gleaned from some Ward Churchill-like "professor" who can hold sway over mindless adolescents by spouting endless nonsense in an authoritative manner, but utter meaningless garbage. But to make a quick descent from garbage to simple crap, we have "....the American people have voted to give oversight a chance."

??????????????????????????/

OVERSIGHT A CHANCE??? What a load of crap. What oversight? How is having Dems run Congress "oversight"? This "oversight" mantra has sucked in a lot of the mindless, who think it sounds kinda good, somehow, but this is the first time I have seen it presented in such a pompous smug self-congratulatory load of blather.

I find the post to be representative of a sleazy psuedo-intellecutal bigotry that is profoundly disturbing. You may get A's in your wildly radically Liberal classes, Cal, but behind all the prolix pontificating you are a nasty piece of work.