On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:

On Mar 13, 9:18*am, wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

That article starts with such horse****, I can't take its subsequent
conclusions seriously. Start with:

"Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is
below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.
Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential
approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who
strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just
six, his lowest rating to date."

Firstly, what period of Bush's presidency in 2001 is analogous to the
present administration?

Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March...

W started with a shrinking, but
unquestionably healthy economy and a substantial budget surplus.
America was safe, we weren't bogged down in two wars, and times were
pretty good in W's first few weeks. *He* ****ed it up; it wasn't
given to him that way. That comparison alone is utter bull****.

Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about,
oh, say, birth until yesterday...?


Secondly, the "net approval rating" comparison is bogus. Even being
the incompetent he was, W did not have an army of rabid corporate
media mouthpieces spewing outright lies, hatred, and violence against
him 24/7.

If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at
the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents
start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there,
_averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. Hell, if
he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong.

From what I've seen here as well as in the media, the
possibility that BHO has high "negatives" at present is not the least
bit surprising; and IMO more than a little disgusting.

"Disgusting?" Why? It's normal.

Obama could
give everyone a million dollars and a basket of kittens, and he'd
still have high negatives thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh,
O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and their irrational wingnut ilk. To
suggest an objective comparison based on a "net approval rating" there
is just more horse****.

If the remainder of this "analysis" from the WSJ is based on that
false premise, it's not worth the electrons; and frankly, it's
contributing to the problem.

What problem?

Joe F.

HTH,
R