They love him in Utah!
Our beloved King George is now above 50% in a grand total of 4 states. Or as Mary Melhman would say: "That's terrific, that's twice as many as 2!"
[ August 18, 2006, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
Full Version: Bush ratings, state-by-state
I am guessing that my states 34% approval is mostly from E. Washington...which is sadly far to red as far as I am concerned, but there is some hope, and according to the latest tracking poll, one of my Representatives from the 5th Congressional District-Cathy McMorris®, is polling less than a 50% approval rating, and there is an upstart Dem. who happens to be extremely bright, articulate, intelligent, a Farmer, and a Scientist, who is starting to make some noise. Peter Goldmark is his name.
Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming love our Imperious President. Our Imperious President is arguably (firmly, in my opinion) the worst president in American history. Thus, the logical conclusion is that Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming love the worst president in the history of America. Interesting, don't you think?
QUOTE
UCLAfan:
Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming love our Imperious President. Our Imperious President is arguably (firmly, in my opinion) the worst president in American history. Thus, the logical conclusion is that Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming love the worst president in the history of America. Interesting, don't you think?
Hey! Dont short-change King George, he's also at 51% in Oklahoma!Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming love our Imperious President. Our Imperious President is arguably (firmly, in my opinion) the worst president in American history. Thus, the logical conclusion is that Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming love the worst president in the history of America. Interesting, don't you think?
The question is: Why do 46 states hate America?
If it wasn't for OC, I'd bet that he'd be much lower in CA.
Several months ago I posted a link to this same survey, and W's approval rating in Utah rating had fallen to about 51%, so it's on the rise there.
Unsurprisingly the lowest ratings of all are in the blue states on both coasts, except for Illinois and Michigan, and that Rhode Island has the lowest rating for Bushie, even below Vermont, New York State, and Massachusetts.
BUT, the fact that Bush's ratings are SO low in Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and below 50% in every southern state (including Texas) really bodes badly for the GOP. I don't think his ratings were this uniformly bad in so many states, especially in the South, at the same period in 2004.
[ August 18, 2006, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Unsurprisingly the lowest ratings of all are in the blue states on both coasts, except for Illinois and Michigan, and that Rhode Island has the lowest rating for Bushie, even below Vermont, New York State, and Massachusetts.
BUT, the fact that Bush's ratings are SO low in Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and below 50% in every southern state (including Texas) really bodes badly for the GOP. I don't think his ratings were this uniformly bad in so many states, especially in the South, at the same period in 2004.
[ August 18, 2006, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Too bad they didn't include the District of Columbia in this one. That would have made Rhode Island look like they loved Bush...
He got 10% of the vote in 2004, so it's easily in the single digits now.
He got 10% of the vote in 2004, so it's easily in the single digits now.
This thread seems as good as any to post this story, which attempts to put an objective component into determining which of several Presidents seen as medicre takes the oft-seen, if inaccurate, title of The Worst President Ever. From this list, for the title of Worst President So Far - "Ever" being presumptuous - Warren G. Harding gets my vote, although I'd write-in Jimmy "Pussy" Carter if that were an option.
Grasping at straws to defend our Imperious President, are we gmg?!...Where's Thomas Paine when we need him?! 
gmg, that story left out Jimmy Carter for the simple reason that he is NOT the worst president in American history. Granted, he may well have been the worst president in the last 30 years if America hadn't encountered an Imperious President named George W. Bush. Given what we know today, many would doubtlessly have changed their minds about John Kerry in '04 or Al Gore in 2000. No one takes that title of "Worst President in American History" lightly, which is why our Imperious President is under serious consideration for it.
The one president whom I would consider one of the worst of any time would be Herbert Hoover. If the worst economy of the 20th century doesn't qualify you for worst president ever, I don't know what would.
The one president whom I would consider one of the worst of any time would be Herbert Hoover. If the worst economy of the 20th century doesn't qualify you for worst president ever, I don't know what would.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
This thread seems as good as any to post this story, which attempts to put an objective component into determining which of several Presidents seen as medicre takes the oft-seen, if inaccurate, title of The Worst President Ever.
The author, Gene Weingarten, is a humorist for the Washington Post. I would suggest he is not attempting an objective comparison of worst presidents, but presenting a comparison based in humor - i.e. isn't it funny that quotes about historically bad Presidents sound like ones currently used to describe the current President.This thread seems as good as any to post this story, which attempts to put an objective component into determining which of several Presidents seen as medicre takes the oft-seen, if inaccurate, title of The Worst President Ever.
I enjoy some of Gene Weingarten's columns. Here are a few you might enjoy:
Gene Weingarten discovered (or at least was his first editor) Dave Barry at the Miami Herald.
The decision about GWB's rankings amongst the previous presidents doesn't rest with us - at least, not yet. It won't be for fifty or a hundred years until history has been "set", as it were, at which point historians will make their decision. I most likely won't be around, but my hunch is that history will look back favorably on W...and very UNfavorably on Clinton.
LXN
LXN
Exactly, jsieds & Lex. And shame on you for misstating my post, SCTrojan! As I mentioned when we met up here in SD, most of my postings don't go towards defending President Bush as much as they do towards puncturing the hubris of those who do nothing BUT attack him. And I forgot about Hoover, but he still pales in comparison to that embarrassing wimp Carter, whose strongest act of will-power was keeping the US out of the Moscow Olympics.
QUOTE
SCTrojan:
Grasping at straws to defend our Imperious President, are we gmg?!...Where's Thomas Paine when we need him?!
If he were alive today, he'd be a card-carrying member of The Federalist Society! Grasping at straws to defend our Imperious President, are we gmg?!...Where's Thomas Paine when we need him?!
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Actually if he were alive today he'd be scratching at the inside of his coffin trying to get out... wink
QUOTE
SCTrojan:
Grasping at straws to defend our Imperious President, are we gmg?!...Where's Thomas Paine when we need him?!
If he were alive today, he'd be a card-carrying member of The Federalist Society! Grasping at straws to defend our Imperious President, are we gmg?!...Where's Thomas Paine when we need him?!
Not on his life, especially given how Federalists like Alito can't wait to roll over for the current despot-in-chief.
As for Jimmy Carter, one would be delusional not to wonder whether George H. W. Bush were not equally as bad OR whether Nixon's criminal actions outstripped his diplomatic triumphs.
One issue we should always keep in mind is that George W. Bush has governed for almost his entire TWO terms with his party in control of the Congress, and the results have been awful. Among two-term presidents, his failures of leadership exceed anyone else one might cite, including Ulysses S. Grant. Just think of other presidents who were elected to serve two terms or more: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, even Nixon--none of them ended up with as FEW positive accomplishments as this faux-populist tyrant. Having the largest deficit in US history; the worst terrorist attack on US soil AND two badly prosecuted wars; the most dramatic decline in budget surplus; and so on on your watch are NOT NOT NOT things to be proud of. I mean, he even makes his ineffectual father--who gave Carter a run for his money in terms of ineptitude, but was involved in considerably more scandal--look like Teddy Roosevelt.
We really should never have let the Supreme Court steal this one for him 2000, because we're going to pay the price for decades to come.
[ September 10, 2006, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
As for Jimmy Carter, one would be delusional not to wonder whether George H. W. Bush were not equally as bad OR whether Nixon's criminal actions outstripped his diplomatic triumphs.
One issue we should always keep in mind is that George W. Bush has governed for almost his entire TWO terms with his party in control of the Congress, and the results have been awful. Among two-term presidents, his failures of leadership exceed anyone else one might cite, including Ulysses S. Grant. Just think of other presidents who were elected to serve two terms or more: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, even Nixon--none of them ended up with as FEW positive accomplishments as this faux-populist tyrant. Having the largest deficit in US history; the worst terrorist attack on US soil AND two badly prosecuted wars; the most dramatic decline in budget surplus; and so on on your watch are NOT NOT NOT things to be proud of. I mean, he even makes his ineffectual father--who gave Carter a run for his money in terms of ineptitude, but was involved in considerably more scandal--look like Teddy Roosevelt.
We really should never have let the Supreme Court steal this one for him 2000, because we're going to pay the price for decades to come.
[ September 10, 2006, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
quote:
"...And shame on you for misstating my post, SCTrojan! As I mentioned when we met up here in SD, most of my postings don't go towards defending President Bush..."
Good point. Apologies. That's what I dislike about writing online. Sometimes assumptions are made about a writer's intentions. At least we have "Instant Graemlins" on Outsports to assist w/ making a point. wink
"...And shame on you for misstating my post, SCTrojan! As I mentioned when we met up here in SD, most of my postings don't go towards defending President Bush..."
Good point. Apologies. That's what I dislike about writing online. Sometimes assumptions are made about a writer's intentions. At least we have "Instant Graemlins" on Outsports to assist w/ making a point. wink
No harm, no foul, SCT. BUT - now you owe me one of those powerful cocktails you were drinking! :cool:
Those were my mild ones. You want a powerful one, wait until I introduce you to my potent ones!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.