George Milhous Bush?

MND ^ | January 23, 2007 | Doug Powers

[Nasty McPhilthy]

The headlines are abuzz today with the latest polls that seem to show George W. Bush with the lowest approval ratings going into a State of the Union speech since Richard Milhous Nixon in 1974.

Keeping in mind that a poll, based how it forms its questions, can acheive almost any desired result, for the sake of argument let’s take the poll results as accurate.

The crux of what is bound to be a continuing comparison between the approval numbers of the two men isn’t accidental. First, those molding Nixon together with Bush are attempting to create a synonymous relationship between the words “Nixon,” “Bush” and “crook.” Secondly, it gets you invited on morning television news shows.

Expect the comparisons to continue for the foreseeable future, at least until Bush’s ratings drop even further and end up hovering around “genital warts” on the approval meter, at which point the mainstream media will switch from “Nixon” to “Caligula.”

There are similarities in the two men. For example, both Nixon and Bush had and have people lobbying to not let them build their libraries on the premises. Duke for Nixon, and SMU for Bush.

Both men presided over “unpopular wars,” though history has yet to judge Bush’s “war on terror” even some have already performed a bit of Sunday afternoon quarterbacking before the game is even over.

Both men’s wives, Pat and Laura, were teachers. Nixon had the “V” sign (I almost said “peace sign” but Dick would have rolled over in his grave at the hippie reference) and Bush has the “Longhorn” sign.

As we’re all aware, both Nixon and Bush have made big news for various wiretapping ventures as well.

If this is all about why Bush’s approval numbers are so low, I suspect that a great deal of it has nothing to do with being a “crook,” a “liar,” or anything else. Bush’s failing is that he’s abandoned his base. Democrats aren’t going to give approval to a Republican, but when Republicans won’t either, the approval ratings take so many dives that they can only be recovered by Robert Ballard.

The media was obviously dying to get the words “Nixon” and “Bush” in the same headline going into the State of the Union speech, and they succeeded wildly — with a lot of help from Bush. But if Bush takes the bait tonight and tries to distance himself from the comparison by saying ”but I am not a crook,” I’m outta there.

[Lee E. Tallent]

I am stil so glad the people voted in our President George Bush. He still was so much, and still is, the best of choices of both parties. All of the left (all democrats in the last primaries) tolally ignored 9/11 as if it had never happened, and they still do. They still remain silent to all the attacks on our embassies, military bases, ships etc. as if it had never happened. I believe they will do worse if they get in office.

[Huck]

It's even easier now. Well, depends what you mean. For the most part, my political support consists of my vote. Other than that, I babble here from time to time, but that's just for fun and amounts to nothing. So from my perspective, I've done my part already and now just spectate.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

This is not all that surprising.

The RNC haven't rcvd funds from me since 2004.

I too, voted for Bush (twice) because having an Al Gore or John Kerry as president scared the living crap out of me. Come next November...I'll be pulling the lever for whoever the pubs put up against Hillary.

I'd guess, that for the most part, the low approval ratings have to do with a combination of media/polling bias plus the pub voter dissatifaction of having a "lesser than 2 evils candidate" (which we'll have again in '08 BTW).

What the country needs is a pro-American, small government, conservative 3rd party...but how many years of democrat control would one have to suffer through in order to have one? Thats a problem.

[Brilliant]

As far as I can tell, the only things he's done since he was elected that are conservative are 1) cut taxes, 2) veto embrionic stem cell funding, and 3) appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Now it looks like he's about to backtrack on 1). And he never would have appointed Alito, but for the conservative revolt after his Harriet Meyers appointment.

That's not enough for me.

[penowa]

"This was the first time I had been asked for suggestions and advice as a republican."

Did it also ask you to stuff a check in there with your suggestions? It's an old favorite of Republican fund raising as far back as I can remember. Don't think that anything but your check will survive the circular file. The RNC cares nothing for what any of its registered voters think, but they would like for you to think they do.

[brydic1]

NO money offered and from the tenor of my response, they know that they will not get any.

[frogjerk]

She has a stellar 31% approval rating.

Shhhhh....we can't have the great unwashed knowing this tidbit...

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"I hope, and believe, Bush is stronger than that but I'd like to see some proof in his SOTU speech tonight."

Six freaking years into his Presidency and you are STILL waiting to see some proof? UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE!!!!

[OESY]

I admit that I was disturbed by Bush's recent cave on NSA surveillance when I thought the smarter way to go was to have a national debate since he had firm public support.

And, yes, I suppose it is UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE on my part to have expected the president to use his veto pen more often to curb excessive discretionary spending.

Let's not get into the immigration issues and biometric identification.

Maybe it's just a personal quirk that never bothered you, but I was upset by McCain-Feingold curbs on political speech and its developing manifestations. I thought that neither Congress, nor the president in collaboration, should abridge free speech. My suggestion to the White House was to veto the "reform" bill and to do so dramatically while standing in the Norman Rockwell Museum in front of the Four Freedoms paintings.

That said, I do recall that Nixon brought us wage & price controls, gas shortages, federal affirmative action, EPA, OHSA, national 55 mph speed limits, entitlement COLAs without commensurate funding, and several weak judicial nominees--whomever and whatever liberals insisted upon.

Were these forerunners of the failed Harriet Myers nomination--when Bush had a historic opportunity to change in a lasting way the complexion of the Supreme Court? His appointments of Roberts and Alito were outstanding.

On many matters, by way of understatment, I defer to the president who has more information than I have. But I would have stuck with Don Rumsfeld rather insert someone that had far less experience and confronted a steep learning curve on a vital matter. In my book, Rumsfeld had earned his spurs, no matter what you or the Dems might think.

Unfortunately, as we know, appeasement of the Democrats did not buy Nixon political peace or longevity in office. Such is the price of making Faustian bargains at the expense of the nationla good.

So, I hope (Nixonian) history won't repeat itself tonight. My sense is that it probably won't happen because Bush has been both courageous and decisive as a wartime leader. Just color me concerned, not in any way as apathetic as yourself.


.

[SmoothTalker]

"How clever how you too join the pull Bush down crowd. "

It isn't the job of the Republican base to march in lock step unquestioningly behind everything Republican elected officials do. They aren't entitled to support and affection no matter what they accomplish. They have to earn it every step of the way through action which is a fact far too few elected officials seem to grasp.

[SmoothTalker]

"What the country needs is a pro-American, small government, conservative 3rd party.."

'Specially the second part. The most disappointing thing about Republican control of Congress and the White House was the utter lack of fiscal discipline. I would say they spent like drunken sailors on shore leave but sailors spend their own money so it would be an insult to sailors.

[brydic1]

I am very worried about the near future.

The socialist left both domestic and worldwide have neither respect nor fear of Bush and his administration. The Islamic terrorist insult and kill our troops without without any resolve on our part to stop the killing. The terrorist believe him to be totally incapable of any real resolve to combat them within this nation or otherwise.

The conservatives have awoken to the realization that he is not and never has been a conservative although we are tarred with his record. They realize that he has betrayed the conservative cause and will see a great deal more betrayal in the foreseeable future.

I believe that we will see efforts to victimize Americans worldwide. American interests and investments will be expropriated, our tourists will be assaulted, former allies will run from us and the American people will begin to doubt their future. Conservative values will plummet as liberals will proclaim them to be a total failure because Bush is regarded by all but real conservatives as a conservative operating as a conservative. Conservative apologists for Bush are largely to blame for this impression.

I wish I could see some ray of hope but I do not. We need a George Washington to save us and sadly there is nothing like him or Ronald Reagan on the horizon.

[Liberty Valance]

Great Freepin' post rhombus.

[Plains Drifter]

Re 36 I couldn't have said it better then you just did. Further it seems that our choices for conservative candidates are severely limited. In this coming election who stands out in anybody's mind as a conservative candidate to vote for?

[SmoothTalker]

"Further it seems that our choices for conservative candidates are severely limited. In this coming election who stands out in anybody's mind as a conservative candidate to vote for?"

Newt is the closest thing to a viable conservative candidate and that is a scary thought. I don't see a great conservative champion with widespread appeal waiting in the wings.

[word_warrior_bob]

I thought this was going to be about the Simpsons, oh well, moving on.

[Hardastarboard]

I've often thought we should stop playing "prevent defense" in Iraq and take the show on the road.

And you, my friend, are RIGHT!!!

[Plains Drifter]

You are right on the money!!!!

[ClancyJ]

The name the Great Generation has been given to those who are now in their 80's - because of all they did, because of their value systems and because of the people they developed into.

How fully expected that someone would challenge that designation and instead say it belonged to a country full of selfish spoiled brats without the character, without even the knowledge of what it was that made that generation great.

You show how young you are because you cannot understand what was great about them.

This is not a military only designation - but it is the honoring of a time when men cherished honor, honesty, love of country, and they developed into men and women who should be prime examples for all of us.

They were beautiful for who they were, how they thought, in other words - examples for all of us.

Just go talk to some of those men who fought in that war, look at what they did with their families, look at the work ethnic, the honor system. You might learn something.

Of course there are great men in our military - but their cohorts at home who are the selfish spoiled brats who expect everything given to them, who see nothing wrong with quitting a battle, who willfully run down a U.S. President instead of uniting to fight this war, who continually whine are not going to develop into a great generation.

A designation has to be earned and this generation is working really hard to gain the "ME FIRST GENERATION".

[ClancyJ]

Well, great, then you are getting Hillary. Be happy.

Let me know when you find someone that has each and every one of the conservative traits you expect and that you will support as President.