Republicans make huge mistake by comparing Obama's and W's approvals

[Louis-Emmanuel]

I heard right-wing pollster Scott Rasmussen and the New York Post cheer the fact that Obama's very high approval rating is not as high as W's at this time in 2001.

But here is the problem with that meme: now these wingnuts have been forced to PRAISE Obama once his approval in the future inevitably SURPASSES that of Bush's.

W's approval was high until we found out he lied about Iraq, screwed up on Katrina, started making dumb comments in press conferences, Walter Reed, opposition to embryonic stem cell research, etc. Plus Bush made a good economy terrible.

Will Rasmussen post big bold headlines documenting this new trend? If he doesn't, we should remind him of how much he cared about the match-up today as we speak.

See how bad Obama would have to screw up in order to outsuck Junior:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. They're not forced to do shit. They will conveniently "forget" they ever said anything

about this when it comes to that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I don't remember him being quite as popular as Obama is during his first few months into office

Before 9/11/01 he seemed to be blundering around (foreshadowing the massive incompetence to follow), particularly by teeing off James Jeffords so badly that he left the GOP throwing control of the US Senate to the Democrats for awhile. He got NCLB and his tax cut plan through Congress but other than that I don't remember anything particularly remarkable or memorable that he did during those first few months that could begin to compare with the substantial accomplishments that Obama has achieved so far. He seemed to me like a rather bland, mediocre President who probably was not going to last more than his one (illegitimate) term. This is not even to mention that Bush came into office as a result of a HOTLY contested election, a deeply flawed and corrupt election process in Florida, an unconstitutional IMHO SCOTUS decision, and without having even won the popular vote count. 9/11/01 (for some reason which I will NEVER understand) and the first 2-3 years of his "war on terror", including his "successful" invasion of Iraq in 2003 were the primary cause for his his massive popularity for the remainder of his first term and, sad to say, helped him eke out a SLIM re-election victory in 2004. I firmly believe that had 09/11/01 NOT happened or even if the Democrats had simply put a slightly *finer* point on the facts that Bush's incompetence at the helm basically enabled the terrorist attacks on 09/11/01 to succeed and that Bush and his (mis-)administration recklessly and wrongfully launched an unprovoked invasion of another country following a massive propaganda campaign filled with distortions, lies, and manipulation, GWB would've ended up being another one-term President like his hapless (but much saner) father.

*Not that ANY of this makes a difference to Rassmussen and all of the corporate-owned media conglomerates and pundits that make up the "Ministry of Truth" in this country.

[pot luck]

3. Am I missing something?

According to that graph, Obama's numbers are higher than Shrub's were during the same time eight years ago.

[roseBudd]

4. Bush statred his term with peace and prosperity, Obama has the luxury of neither

[Supersedeas]

5. the Party of No Ideas has descended to the level of comparing meaningless poll #'s

No worries, Tweety and the Network shills will be empressed by the level of superficiality.

[high density]

6. Since when has the GOP cared about approval ratings?

Bush's was at historic lows, and the congress has been even worse.