Just How Bad Are Bush’s Poll Numbers?

Eric Boehlert for Media Matters:

Here then, is some much-needed historical perspective to put Bush’s standing in context:

  • According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, he was suffering the worst job-approval ratings of his presidency — 58 percent.
  • In 1968, when the war in Vietnam was claiming hundreds of U.S. casualties each week, President Lyndon Johnson was considered so unpopular that he didn’t even run for re-election. Johnson’s average Gallup approval rating for that year was 43 percent.
  • When Reagan’s second term was rocked by the Iran-Contra scandal, his ratings plummeted, all the way down to 43 percent.
  • This year, according to the Gallup numbers, Bush has averaged an approval rating of 37 percent.

Bush’s dismal ratings put him well within range of the country’s recent failed presidencies, like the one of his father, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. That’s the historical company Bush keeps, although you’d never know that from journalists who refuse to connect the dots and refuse to treat Bush’s second term as the failure that a majority of Americans say it is.

Fox News Stages Attack on Pres. Clinton — But Big Dog Attacks Back

Clinton Shows Liberals How to Take on Fox News: Come Loaded for Bear and Be Prepared for Ambush

Pres. Bill Clinton agreed to be interviewed on Fox News to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative. But when the cameras started rolling, all Fox’s Chris Wallace wanted to discuss were accusations by rightwingers that the Clinton Administration let Osama bin Laden escape during the 1990s, as depicted in ABC’s “Path to 9/11.”

But Pres. Clinton would have none of it and he fired back at Wallace in a way that rightwing bullies rarely see from liberals. Crooks & Liars has the transcript and the video. Read the whole thing but here are a few choice excerpts:

[…]

Did Osama Die Like a Martian?

If it’s true that Osama bin Laden died of a “waterborne illness” last month, as is looking fairly credible, I can’t help but think of the ending to War of the Worlds. Remember how humans weren’t saved from the Martians by firepower or strategy, but by disease microbes?

If Osama is dead, and not by anything Bush and his minions can claim credit for, then what next?

In another moment I had scrambled up the earthen rampart and stood upon its crest, and the interior of the redoubt was below me. A mighty space it was, with gigantic machines here and there within it, huge mounds of material and strange shelter places. And scattered about it, some in their overturned war-machines, some in the now rigid handling-machines, and a dozen of them stark and silent and laid in a row, were the Martians — DEAD! — slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared; slain as the red weed was being slain; slain, after all man’s devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.

For so it had come about, as indeed I and many men might have foreseen had not terror and disaster blinded our minds.

Gives me goosebumps, or makes me laugh bitterly, or both. If Osama is dead, and not by anything Bush and his minions can claim credit for, then what next?

We’ve been playing Whack-a-Mole for five years now, as the Bush administration identifies an endless stream of second-in-commands. We are usually introduced to them as they are captured or killed, but in a few weeks or months, new ones with similar names replace them. And none of it brings us any closer to some kind of ending in this fight.

So if bin Laden is dead, has in fact been dead for awhile now, then why are still at it? All along, we have accepted the Bush-given view that if we just kill all the “evil-doers,” especially the leaders, the problem’s solved. Could it be maybe, just maybe, the solution was never extermination? As George Lakoff and Evan Frisch pointed out in a brilliant Buzzflash guest contribution, declaring war on terror[ists] was a dumb strategy.

To Osama bin Laden, the moral was simple: American power can be used against America itself. This moral has defined the post 9/11 world: the more America uses military force in the Middle East, the more damage is done to America and Americans.

The more Americans kill and terrorize Muslims, the more we recruit Muslims to become terrorists and fight against us.

The war in Iraq was over in 2003 when the US forces defeated Saddam’s army. Then the American occupation began…

If bin Laden is dead, I can’t wait to hear what our new goal is morphed into by the folks who are profiting from all this carnage. But rest assured, a new one there will be. The question is, will we keep accepting it?

New Site Enables You to Make Sure You Are Registered to Vote

Make it count: What with all the elections shenanigans the last couple of times around (remember, I live in Florida, where Katherine Harris annointed George Bush King of the World in 2000), it’s probably not a bad idea to make sure you’re still on the voter rolls and your name is spelled correctly (oh, and your face matches your photo ID). There’s a new site that enables you to check your voter registration status here.

Okay, it’s run by Democrats, but if you check your history, it was Democratic votes that didn’t get counted in the last two elections, not Repugs.

For the sake of democracy, check it out.

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Universal Healthcare

Governor says, “a society is judged by how well we treat our most helpless,” on the same day he vetoes healthcare coverage for California’s poorest

This morning as I was scanning Buzzflash as I saw the headline, “Schwarzenegger denies all Californians the right to universal health insurance,” with a link to an article in the Washington Post:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a universal health care bill Friday, saying it would create a “vast new bureaucracy.”

The bill would have provided every California resident with health insurance through a program administered by a new entity, the California Health Insurance Agency…

The bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat, said the bill would do what the governor said he wanted while saving health care consumers and doctors money. She suggested his real agenda was to leave health care in the hands of private insurance companies.

This surprised me because I even earlier this morning I had read the dead-tree version of the Los Angeles Times, and there was nothing about this veto. We could reasonably expect this story to appear in the local paper. For starters, Sen. Kuehl represents a huge chunk of Los Angeles’ Westside.

I checked the Times online and found a story about laws the governor signed yesterday but not a peep about the universal healtchare bill. The online Times had a quote from the governor about a foster care bill he signed that is ironic in light of the bill he vetoed that would have guaranteed doctor’s care to poor people in California:

Saying that “a society is judged by how well we treat our most helpless,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday signed eight bills aimed at making California a better parent to roughly 75,000 foster children.

He also signed a bill that makes it a crime to leave a pet in a hot car.

The Times reported on September 6 that the universal healthcare bill was dead on arrival. The governor had announced before the bill was passed that he planned to veto it .