He's in the low 40s in his home state. That speaks volumes.

His best states are Utah and Idaho, where the Mormon Church has effectively established a theocracy, and Wyoming, whose favorite son is Dick Cheney. That makes perfect sense.

His weakest state is New York, which has a Republican governor and whose dominant city just re-elected its Republican mayor overwhelmingly. That's a real stunner.

No state that depends on military installations for economic survival gives him a majority. That's heartening.

No state with headquarters offices of a Fortune 500 company inside its borders favors Bush. That's equally heartening.

Thanks for a great post.

But here's the question I can't get rid of: Does it really matter?

I don't think it matters to Bush. As I mentioned a little while ago [condensing now, from Chris Floyd]: Bush and his faction don't care about the consent of the governed. They are not interested in governing. They are only interested in ruling.

And I can't help wondering whether it matters to America. What's it gonna take before we see massive, sustained protests?

Or as Gandhi wrote:

Now listen. Regular readers will know I am a patient, thoughtful and carefully spoken observer of these things. But there has to come a point where even the most patriotic US citizens rise up and shout "Enough! This is not the USA I used to believe in! What have we become?"

Why are there not millions of you out in the streets, calling for the resignation of this pathetic puppet President and his entire administration? Why are you not screaming out of your windows, banging pots and pans like the grandmothers in Argentina used to do? Why are you not marching on the White House, protesting outside the offices of your local officials, doing whatever you can to stop this madness? I don't understand...

The rest of the item I've quoted is unusually ... animated ... for the normally restrained Australian blogger. Read it at your discretion.

If lincoln followed approval polls, you'd have a slave cooking your turkey right now.

Right, Ricky. Bush doesn't follow polls, he pays no
attention to science or to facts or to the advice of
experts, and he doesn't read newspapers. He listens
to advisors who have been selected for their
patience and toadiness, and he listens to what he
sometimes calls his "gut" and sometimes calls
"God"'; presumably this "God" commanded him to
invade Babylon.

Which leaves me with two questions: How can W
distinguish "God" from the aftereffects of last night's
pastrami sandwich, and how can you distinguish W
from your basic everyday garden-variety lunatic
boy-emperor?

While I'm not surprised that the country's attitude is turning blue, Winter Patriot is correct; BushCo could care less. Also, I liked what "gandhi" had to say and wasn't at all offended. I agree with him.

I just hope there isn't a convenient "terrorist" attack to grab our attention and keep us distracted from the ruling brigands' evil doings.

See it worked. I moved from a blue state to a red state and now it is blue ...

Keep on truckin' in the free world ...

Second that, RedHawk - I fear there are no depths these scoundrels wouldn't sink to. But I beg to differ: they couldn't care less...

Ricky,
You probably do have a slave in the kitchen cooking your turkey. You just changed her title to wife.

im from nebraska. how embarrassing.

Hi All! Happy Thanksgiving. I know I'm about to go off topic, but on a self-exculpatory note, I just want to share a chuckle, at a time when we all need every chuckle we can muster...

George Bush is visiting the Queen of England.

He asks her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government?

Are there any tips you can give me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."

Bush frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea.

"Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligence riddle.

The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. "Please send The Prime Minister in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks into the room. "Your Majesty..."

The Queen smiles.

"Answer me this, please, Tony.

Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Blair answers, "That would be me!"

"Yes! Very good!" says the Queen.

Back at the White House, Bush calls in his vice president, Dick Cheney.

"Dick, answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child.

It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says the vice president. "Let me get back to you on that one."

Dick Cheney goes to his advisers and asks every one, but none can give him an answer.

Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin Powell's shoes in the next stall.

Dick shouts, "Colin! Can you answer this for me?

Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or sister.

Who is it?"

Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's me!"

Dick Cheney smiles. "Thanks!"

Cheney goes back to the Oval Office and asks to speak with Bush.

"Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle.

It's Colin Powell."

Bush gets up, stomps over to Dick Cheney, and angrily yells into his face,

"No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!"

Happy trails, all!

That sea of blue is beautiful!

Hey....I just turned 60 and I wouldn't for RED ever, never haveand never willl... Now my 90Year old father problably would for certain. Go 'Blue', go. (bout time)

So what's going on in the last three red states? Who owns the media? Are they asleep? Seriously, any theories forf all the bush love coming from these hold out states?

Public opinion polls matter to Congress. If the public disapproves of the president the Republicans in Congress will suffer in the next election.

It's great for Dems and all patriotic Americans because it means we might get a new Congress that will offer Bush a non-negotiable early retirement.

Yep, people's opinions do matter. At least they will if the elections aren't entirely rigged.

We've got to make sure the electronic voting machines and tabulators are taken out. We need court action on that!

Any election results which were done on electronic machines need to be challenged in court as unverifiable, unconstitutional, unacceptable.

Lincoln prosecuted the War Between the States TO PRESERVE THE UNION, NOT TO ELIMINATE SLAVERY.

He said, "If I could preserve the Union by freeing every slave, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing some slaves, I would do it. And if I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it, too."

Slavery had already been outlawed in the North, on a state by state basis, before the war started. So Lincoln didn't need polls to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did he need the approval of the South, because those states had already seceded. One by one, slaves encouraged by the proclamation
would have escaped via the Underground Railroad and/or their freedom would have been purchased by labor-intensive industries in the North.

The War Between the States was fought to preserve the Union, not to eliminate slavery, albeit that was a welcome effect of the Union victory.

Right, RLM. Not that Ricky makes any sense anyway.

For the sake of argument:

Lincoln didn't follow polls.
Bush doesn't follow polls.

Therefore, Bush is another Lincoln.

Now, what do you call that, children?

Here's something that will help us distinguish between Bush and Lincoln (aside from the fact that Lincoln communicates in complete sentences and has a command of the English language):

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." --- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

Thanks for that, Soul Rebel. Other distinctions between Lincoln and Bush bear mentioning (God, isn't everything is a distinction between them?).

Lincoln agonized during the war. He believed he was doing right, but went into long periods of melancholy and self-examination. He surrounded himself with men who often disagreed with him, because his ego didn't require sycophancy and because he felt these were the most capable men, whatever their differences on matters of policy.

Bush is the polar opposite of Lincoln. He never considers that he might be wrong. When doubt and reappraisal are warranted, he gets rid of men who disagree with him and retires to the ranch, mouthing the same canards over and over again.

Using Lincoln as a model to justify Bush's conduct is analogous to using a Pope to justify the crusades.

Guys, we know talking to the trolls is useless. They aren't here to learn or expand their understanding of the world, they're here to piss on everyone and laugh.

Yeh, the fringe element.
----------------------------------------------------------
WP --- re: Gandhi --- I think we are seeing the effects of precipitous educational decline coupled with effective, almost hypnotic, propaganda. (How many times has it seemed that we are dealing with brainwashing and that what is really needed is de-hypnotization?) And, I should add, we are seeing a loss of self-reliance and a lazy, almost childish, looking to "experts" and authorities for explanations. (What constitutes an expert or an authority? Sometimes nothing more that being "on the air" - a celebrity of sorts.)

Someone posted (on another thread) about the "cultish" character of neocon public support, and I think that person was right.

The only thing in Gandhi's essay I was slightly uncomfortable with is his sentence: You must be prepared to place your basic human beliefs, sentiments which unite us all, above your loyalty to your much-hyped country. While I agree that advancing basic human beliefs and sentiments should be primary, I believe that it would be a very good thing to conjoin loyalty to country to basic moral values and human sentiments. It is an idealistic view, but practical for making a structure to embody those characteristics. (As well as in slowing decimation of the world.)

Re-thinking my post above. No, I think Gandhi was right in the way he said it. I was thinking loyalty to country should include adherence to principles of morality and basic human ideals --- which is true. But Gandhi was speaking of those who haven't been shocked into action, the subject of his essay. Look to the principles first. Those who see the need to act already have.

I think Gandhi was simply rejecting the notion, "My country, right or wrong." The first part of that maxim, of course is, "...may she always be in the right."

"My country, right or wrong" sounds patriotic, but really isn't. At least, not after a guy like Bush steals two elections, than acts as if he had a mandate. Reason being, corrupt administrations like Bush's use jingoistic phrases ("America, love it or leave it" was popular during Vietnam) in order to pursue imperialistic policies in the face of criticism.

"Support our troops" is sincere, but it's also a cudgel, because it's used as code for "If you don't like the war, you're disloyal to our bravest and best." Who doesn't support our troops?

Gandhi was right. So was the author of "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

KansasBlue #13

Take Idaho for example. It is said that there are more NAZI's there than there are in Germany. Someone else can deal with the other two states.

The MSM is right wing there, up to this point in time.

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
ATTRIBUTION: Senator CARL SCHURZ, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872,

Schurz expanded on this theme in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1899: “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”—Schurz, “The Policy of Imperialism,” Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, pp. 119–20 (1913).

(Cribbed from Bartleby.com)

For Kansas Blue: Why are Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming still supporting Bush while all the rest are against him?

UTAH: Basically, a theocracy with the political standing of a state. Mormons (who are almost exclusively white) believe in large families (see G.O.P. "family values" paradigm), they believe in aggressive business tactics (because the church gets 10% of everything, and the church is holy), and they're strict about booze and tobacco (Bush wouldn't have been elected there 20 years ago).

IDAHO: Southern Idaho is dominated by Mormons (see Utah). Northern Idaho is loaded with Nazi-type
groups, skinheads, anti-government fanatics, and guys sitting on mountaintops pointing rifles at everybody down below. They all hate liberals.

WYOMING: Dick Cheney's home state. Also the site of Teapot Dome, where oil properties belonging to the Navy Department were sold off to Sinclair Oil by Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall during the Second Gilded Age (1920s). The only thing that would turn Wyoming against Bush and Cheney is if they decided to drill for oil in Yellowstone Park. Don't laugh; with this crew in charge, it's possible.

I predict his approval ratings will go up some when troops start coming home in January.

Again, I say, polls don't matter, because the Republicans have stolen the vote on electronic voting machines and optical scanners. The polls said Kerry won the election.

I believe polls are accurate, that's why I think the vote was stolen. These polls that say the country is turning blue, are correct.

Polls are people asking people questions, with no machines involved. That's why I believe Kerry won the election. That's why they had a re-vote in the Ukraine.

Rickey is a turkey!

Jo #26

I wonder if the admin will be able to take any credit for any exit strategy when they have called anyone contemplating withdrawal cowards? (Which means most americans.)

I think this is going to be a different election year because there is an underlying mood based on the unpresidented criminality of this admin and of the people's mistrust of it.

I do not think platitude mode is going to take the stench off this administration.

For Dredd and Jo: An interesting point, no? If the troops start coming home in January because Iraq has suddenly been determined to be capable of defending itself better (sic), it should make Murtha, Hackett, and other Democrats who orginally approved of the occupation look good. They forced the issue, and got results.

Another reason Bush might only get a minor bounce in the polls is that once we start pulling troops out, it will become less "unpatriotic" to investigate the origins of the war. I'd expect the Downing Street minutes to come back into focus. Libby's trial (if it ever takes place) will shine the light of truth on Cheney and the neo-cons. C.I.A. whisteblowers might come out of the woodwork.
And if the war winds down, investigators will have a freer hand to look into the missing $8 billion and other financial irregularities vis a vis Halliburton, war profiteering, etc.

So Bush's numbers are going down? So what?
It really doesn't matter. We have three more years with Bush at the helm..... and that's the reality we have to live with:

Good Read:
On the Road to Rock Bottom: How Many More Will Die?
CLICK

Has John Kerry won Ohio yet?????

John Kerry won Ohio on Nov. 2, 2004. The fact that he didn't realize it is his fault, not anyone else's.

#28 Dredd and #29 RLM,
I think people will believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel if troops start coming home.I don't think it is so much a matter of who will get the credit. Average people have lots to think about just getting through the day. They will be happy to see progress and for some that's enough to put them back in the approval range. Will be a big bump? I don't know. I do think there will be an increase though.

For Jo: I'd predict a brief rally, then a drop. The media have soft-pedaled the Valerie Plame story for the most part, haven't told us about Halliburton's crimes and other war profiteering (what Harry Truman called crime) at all, nor the missing $8 billion in Iraq money. The Downing Street minutes have been a non-story from the beginnning.

I think they're sensitive to criticism that covering these stories while troops are at risk is unseemly. If and when the troops start coming home, the gloves should come off, especially because Scottie McClellan was caught denying that anyone in the White House had revealed Valerie Plame's identity. The White House's cover has been blown.

We must remember the above is a breakdown of approval ratings. It is not about votes. Many conservatives have issues with this administration, now. It does not mean they would not vote for a Bush Administration over any liberal.

And, where there are moderates, the votes only go left if there are good candidates. So yes, we can find solice in the appearance that very few approve of this lame duck admininstration. It does not mean the majority would vote for any Democrats up for election.

Polls also show that there is shrinking support for Congress as a whole, reflective of both sides of the aisle.