MSM & BushCons struggle to explain Bush's low approval rating--funny! [View All]

How did the most unpopular "re-elected" President in history get
"re-elected"?
____________

I don't much read the BushCon press any more, but I glanced at it this
morning because of the headline, "Sagging Approval Threatens Bush,"
in my local TP roll.

It was from a story in the L.A. Times yesterday, by Peter Wallsten,
being reprinted everywhere today, which begins:

"Despite a clear-cut re-election and the prospect of lasting GOP
dominance in Congress, President Bush prepares to kick off his second
term with the lowest approval ratings of any just-elected sitting
president in a half-century, according to a series of new surveys."

The Times' Wallsten cites the new Gallup poll (for CNN and USA Today):
"Bush's approval rating at 49 percent, close to his pre-election
numbers," and points out that, "That's 10 to 20 percentage points
lower than every elected sitting president at this stage since World
War II."

He also notes last week's Gallup poll (for ABC and WaPo): Bush
approval rating at 48 percent (and Time mag 49%), with 56 percent
saying the Iraq war is not worth fighting.

The comments in Wallsten's article are hilarious:

Frank Newport (ed of Gallup poll): "The question is, what happened to
the honeymoon?"

David Winston (Republican pollster): "Communications up front is going
to be as important as any task that they have at this point. There is
a lot of important messaging that this administration is going to
have to do in January and in February. It's taking the issues and the
agenda and beginning to set it up in a way that the American public
has a clear understanding of the direction he's going to go."

William Kristol (fascist rag Weekly Standard"): "A lot of the talk
about momentum and agendas and political realignment is overdone in
the sense that it all depends on this contingent fact of how Iraq
goes."

I like Winston's the best, that BushCons still have "a lot of
important messaging" to do, and still haven't figured out how to "set
it up" so that the public can be "clear" on the "direction he's going
to go."

But Kristol's "A lot of talk about momentum...is overdone" is quite
precious as well.

You will notice both Cons use the phrase "a lot of" (did they have
lunch together? coffee with Karl?).

Translation: A lot of what we said last month is bunk.

The Times writer casts about for reasons for the low approval rating.
Is it pending cuts to popular social programs? Kerik? Iraq?

It's fun to see them squirm.

The Times gives this article the headline, "Reelection honeymoon with
voters eludes Bush, polls say." The Age (Australia) is more blunt:
"No honeymoon for Bush as approval slumps," and changes a word or two
to emphasize Bush's "slump."

Note: He got a few %'s of bump just after Nov. 2, presumably for
having been "reelected," then nosedived to where he was just before
the election--an approval rating so low for a sitting President that
he was, in truth, UNelectable.

And guess what?

__________

To read the originals:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bushpolls28
dec28,1,7019609.story

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/
No-honeymoon-for-Bush-as-approval-slumps/
2004/12/29/1103996610162.html?oneclick=true

(Remove paragraph returns before cutting and pasting urls.)