When one clicks on the link you provided it exposes a mistruth in your post. Bush is actually at 42 percent as of the 6th. That makes him one point lower in approval than the Speaker.

But my real question is, why do you want Americans to hate one of our Democratic leaders when you don't want anyone to hate the Republican ones? I refuse to hate Bush, Cheney, or any of them. I just disagree with them. Why are you an advocate of hatred?

Can you not even hope for the best where Pelosi is concerned? Are you so prejudiced that you're resigned to her failure?

In the case of Bush, many liberals like myself made a conscious decision to give him a chance after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision gave him the presidency, even though he lost the popular vote by half a million. We gave him a chance, and lined up right behind him after 9/11. NCLB looked great, but then he didn't want to fund it. Then he started messing with the environmental regulations to make things more polluted even while calling it "Clear Water Act" and the like. But we still gave him a chance.

Is your hatred of Democrats so real and rabid that you can't even hope for the best where American leaders are concerned?

It's that hatred that will lead to the further decline of your far-right wing of the GOP.

PLC,

All great points. I would like to add on to your points by stating that blogs can be so picky with poll numbers. The only poll numbers that I trust are the aggregates from RealClearPolitics. It currently has Bush at 37% approval, with the Rasmussen number an outlier (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/). Thus, if Nancy's 43% is consistent with other polling data, she is actually more popular than Bush.

Gar Wood

45% is pretty good!

I'm actually shocked that so many people even know who Pelosi is, given the way most people arne't involved in politics.

For a real laugh, check out Newt's numbers from 1995.

Matt, you'd better hope no one actually clicks on the links you provided, reads them all the way through, and then thinks about them, as members of the fact-based community (I'm assuming) are wont to do. If they actually looked at the trajectory of Pelosi's favorability/unfavorability ratings between this month and last they might wonder what the heck you're talking about. I certainly do.

Then again, I realize that there's almost two years between now and the next election. Let's hope the trajectory doesn't stay the same. Otherwise the GOP is in serious trouble.

Maybe it's too soon, but sooner or later the leaders of the GOP are going to have to stop blaming the Dems and get both serious and real. The "party of personal accountability" will never gain much credence if all they do is blame the other guy for their foibles while at the same time fail to accept responsibility for same.

Deleted - insults blog writers

The actually interesting thing is that 20% are unsure if she's liberal...once we get it up to 75% knowing she's a far left fanatic, that approval rating will go down.

And as for why we treat her roughly: Chapter 1 is about Pelosi...we know all about her. You liberals are in for a mighty big disappointment.

Mark,
I think I will wait until Pelosi has been on the job for more than a week before I pass judgement on her. I perfer to judge people on what they do in their current job rather than their past records.

Casper,

That is something I find extraordinarily odd - and you're not the first I've heard it from: a talk radio host yesterday was saying the same thing.

I look at it like this: in choosing a babysitter, a parent is going to choose someone with good references and not hire the person who has a string of complaints about their performance...and yet, at least for Democrats, no bad past actions of any type are considered prohibitive in putting them into high position.

Finding out about Pelosi's questionable ethics wasn't at all hard: it is all there, and it starts right at the beginning of her political career and continues right into 2006 (still too early for anything in 2007 - at least too early for anything in 2007 to come to light). What you are asking is that a highly informed observer, me, completely ignore what she's done for the past 20 years....can't do it.

We're not going to spoil the book, so you'll have to wait for it to come out - but we have zero anonymous sources and every assertion we make is referenced to a known and respected source.

You're in for an unpleasant surprise.

Mark,
So tell me how you felt about people who blasted Bush as an exdrunk and a failed businessman before he became president. I gave him the same benefit of doubt that I give anyone moving into a new position.
Part of the reason I feel the way I do is because I'm a teacher. I've had students come into my class with reputations for being lazy, stupid, or behavior problems that ended up excelling because I gave them a chance.
Like I said, I'll wait until she's actually done something as Speaker before I pass judgement. Who knows, maybe she will surprise us both.

Casper,

Calling President Bush and "ex-drunk" was a bit over the top: he drank too much and too often, but there is no indication that he was an alchoholic. But even if he had been a full blown drunk, it was many years in the past and there were no indicators of a continuing problem - same thing with the failed business ventures; in the past, and no indicators that they were continuing, especially as when Bush ran for President, he was a fabulously successful governor of Texas.

The thing about Pelosi is not that she's had problems in the past, but that the problems she has are ongoing. As I said, we've got stuff on her from 2006 as well as 1986, and it all fits into the same pattern.

Mark,
I didn't mean that I thought he was an ex-drunk and I agree it was over the top. I was only relating one of many things I had heard said about him before he became president.
Sometimes people grow in to a job and sometimes they don't. Pelosi could turn out to be every bit as bad as you think.
Just out of curiosity, what would she have to do to prove herself as a good speaker?

Casper,

"Good Speaker" is a bit subjective - if she were to retain her majority in 2008, she'd be "good" in the sense that she threaded a very tight political needle. On the other hand, she would be called a bad Speaker if she lost her majority in 2008, even if she authored a whole bunch of really good laws for the people of the United States.

For her to be considered an honorable person by me she'd have to change her ways - she has many glaring faults: she's vindictive, petty, corrupt and corrupting...she's not a very nice person, and I know precisely why she was made Minority Leader, and that led her to the Speaker's chair. If she changes in a fundamental way, that would be great.

Typical. They adjust the President's numbers but not the Speaker's? Typical MSM bulls**t....

As usual, you really have to take what they put out at this site with a large chunk of rock salt.
Matt cites a Rassmussen poll that has Bush at 45, later corrected to 42. He apparently "missed" Rassmussen today which has Bush at 40 percent approval or a new CBS poll (acknowledged by Sen. Lindsey Graham today) which puts the Decider at 30 percent -- and support for the Iraq debacle at just 14 percent.
From a site that routinely disregards any polling that doesn't fit its narrative -- that's not too surprising. People need to check these folk's claims -- each and every time!
It was this kind of selective reporting (and belief system) that resulted in Mark Noonan's ludicrous predictions about the 2006 elections.
Come to think about it; why even try to clue them in? Let the ol' "bunker mentality" take a firm hold on them.

Anyone with any brains whatsoever knows that polls can be and are manipulated to say whatever the pollster wants them to say. A pollster can ask a question in such a way that both libs and conservatives will agree. A question like, "is Bush doing a good job" for instance can be answered negatively by a lib because they hate Bush, and no by a conservative because they might disagree with one of his policies like immigration reform.

I have, nor do I know anyone else who has ever been contacted by pollsters. No one in my family has ever been contacted, none of my friends, and to my knowledge none of my neighbors. I find it hard to believe that there are less than 4 out of 10 people who have a favorable view of Bush. I personally think that Nancy Pelosi is a dangerous moron, but I also find it hard to believe that even 42% of Americans know who she is, or actually really care.

I refuse to hate Bush, Cheney, or any of them. I just disagree with them.

How honorable of you to mask your hatred. I happen to disagree with Reid-tard, Piglosi, and most of the DemocRAT caucus in D.C. In addition, I also despise them. May God have mercy on their souls, and soon...