They'll bring up and blame Bush anyways.

Along with the liberal mental disorder comes an incurable blame booosh diarrhea of the mouth.

This news was very surprising; I thought CNN already had closed its doors and gone out of business, but I guess this means they're still on the airwaves.

Dubya is living inside Bammy's head from now on.

That's quite a drop in numbers over 20 months. Just wait until this time next year.

Most liberals will be saying "Barry who?", don't know him.

You know, I have it on good authority (I saw it on a bumper sticker), that Bush didn't really win in 2000, so don't rule out the 2012 so quick. Who are you going to believe, the left or the constitution as to whether he is elgible to run again?

A poll that shows Obama's approval higher than Bush's, even if it is statistically insignificant? As a lifelong Democrat, my neck veins are just fine, thank you.

It's not surprising. Bush was a strong leader who led us in the wrong direction. Obama is a weak leader, though Americans support his programs (don't make me Google it for you... when framed as "government take-over of healthcare" they oppose it, but when polled on the individual points of the plan there is clear support).

These polls also don't ask the important question... WHY do you disapprove? Many Democrats and independents disapprove of Obama because he hasn't been pushing hard enough on his agenda, not because they oppose the agenda. I, for one, would answer "disapprove" about Obama, but that doesn't mean I'd prefer Bush.

Besides, the conclusions here are not supported by the polling. By my read, the questions assessed the approval of each of them individually, and then they're contrasting those numbers. That's not the same as a question such as "who would you rather be president right now?"

"Many Democrats and independents disapprove of Obama because he hasn't been pushing hard enough on his agenda,..."

John,
I would welcome that Obama push even harder for his agenda. I assume the harder he pushes the more he will have to articulate the details of his agenda. If healthcare is an example it seems he wants to push hard for yet to be enacted legislation, but once passed all of a sudden not many Democrats have much enthusiasm for discussing it. Yeah, great plan. Among my limited friends and acquaintances I know almost no one who disagrees with the concept of healthcare reform. On the other hand they are not interested in seeing the United States run even larger deficits to pay for reform. Therefore, Barry could claim that almost all of DaveD's friends and acquaintances support his goal of healthcare reform. He would be wrong to say they are enthusiastic about his particular means of doing so. You talk about important questions. An equally important question would be something along the line 'do you support President Obama's particular program for healthcare reform if these are the anticipated long term costs as calculated by (insert name of legitimate independent/nonpartisan auditing organization).

Aaaiiiieeeeee.

John, you should go over to Hillbuzz and read the following post - it will explain why many more people are now looking more fondly at W, a man of integrity and a President who was presidential: "Another awesome George W. Bush story you probably have never heard that makes me hate myself for ever saying anything bad about this man."

So far, my "no, I didn't vote for Obama, no matter what I said in 2008" count among my friends is up to 8. Yeah, eight "Obama's the bestest EVAR" people who are now denying voting for him at ALL.

but once passed all of a sudden not many Democrats have much enthusiasm for discussing it.

That is a huge point of frustration among many Democrats, since as I noted the individual points of the plan poll very well. Why the Democrats refuse to take credit for it is a mystery to many. It's likely that they are afraid of being out-messaged by the Republicans, who are much better at framing a message than Democrats.

On the other hand they are not interested in seeing the United States run even larger deficits to pay for reform.

And they would rather run even larger deficits to provide the rich with tax cuts? Let's be clear, the Republican Pledge to America does not in any way, shape, or form reduce the deficit. The opposite, in fact:

Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won't cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: "No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more National Institutes of Health. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50348824-82/budget-tax-cuts-republicans.html.csp

If the dums cant run against Bush, they will forced to run on their accomplishments.

Wonder how well that would work.

Let's not forget that Palin is at 22% approval.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018819-503544.html

You must be doing some vein bursting of your own.

The better man usually DOES perform better.

W has a lock on better.

Keep in mind Obama had a 23 point lead in the same poll a year ago.

Is it a matter of class (GWB) versus NO class (Obama)?

If so, it explains why john and the Dane-ish fool love Obama so much...

Let's not forget that Pelosi is as popular as BP.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosis-negatives-hit-all-time-high-as-unpopular-as-BP-103977024.html#ixzz10sylHcYh

See, I can post a irrelevant comment as well as John does.

And in the West Virginia Senate race, guess who loves W? "Manchin has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association and the Chamber of Commerce, but so what? As long as he's a vote for a Democrat as Senate majority leader, he'll be an Obama enabler. Manchin has been reduced to plaintively showing reporters an old picture of himself with George W. Bush in the Oval Office."

OOPS, forgot the link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/249135

Substance vs style. Bush was solid, not flashy - and Obama's all flash w/no substance.

And sadly, Obama's going to be looking worse and worse as time goes on.

Ever meet a really intriguing person of the opposite gender (or same, if that's the way you roll) and find them very attractive... for a few hours? And then, as time goes on you realize that charismatic person doesn't have a bloody thing going for them BUT their charisma. The life of the party is serially divorced, minimally employed, and is constantly bumming money off you to pay the rent.

Obama's got charisma. He's got sackfuls of it, he could sell ice to Eskimos and sand to the Iraqis... ONCE.

He talked his way (with a willing press that didn't look at all closely at his actual qualifications) into the Presidency ONCE. He won't be so lucky a second time, even if he choses Hillary for the second go-round.

The job of President isn't a 15 minute one. It's a 4-year slog that's damn difficult for someone with experience, much less someone without.

Obama's finding out that when the charisma he's depended on all along doesn't work, he doesn't have anything useful to replace it. And it sucks for all of us that he doesn't - I always figured there was SOMETHING to the man. Though I couldn't see it, everyone in the media kept going on about how brilliant and competent he was, so I was hoping I was wrong and that there was something other than the flash.

And so far, there hasn't been anything but.

Obambi versus Bushzilla

assuming that there is still a united states in 50 years and that the dems haven't sold us out to the united nations, i believe history will show bush as being a fine president whereas obama will be a mere footnote.

Either john @ #11 is underinformed, or he is deliberately trying to mislead with his assertion that the Tax Policy Center is "nonpartisan." It's a division of the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, and their articles read like a celebration of Democratic ideas.

Of course, with his lips so tightly attached to Obama's anus, he may just not have noticed the fine print.

See, I can post a irrelevant comment as well as John does.

Yeah, in a thread about the approval ratings of past and present presidents, how irrelevant to comment on the approval rating of a potential future presidential candidate. I may as well have brought up the approval rating of an oil company!

Hey Jim, with your eyes so blinded by Palin's winks, you just may not have noticed that I was quoting someone else.

(Cue the Krugman attacks.)

United States of America President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief-Elect Sarah Louise Ronald Wilson Reagan-Heath-Palin.

Hmmmm! Hmmmm! Hmmmm!

Has a nice ring to it, hey, John.

As does President Chris Christie.

And does President John Bolton.

John,
you could cherry pick lots of individual bits from most horrendous agendas and find broad support...
national road system, modernized alphabet, a car for the average citizen, trains running on time...
doesn't make whole package any less foul

No, John, the post was not about "the approval ratings of past and present presidents." It was specifically about how far Obummer has fallen in the polls [remember immediately after the 2008 election conservatism was declared dead and on the way to the cemetary?], while W, a decent man of integrity [even the libs admit that you could count on W to do what he said he was going to do], who was mercilessly and wrongly vilified by everyone on the left and in the MSM [redundant, I know] is making a come back in people's minds. It had nothing to do with either Palin or Pelosi. You were trying to get off the topic at hand - Obummer=Buyer's Remorse, W=Gosh, pretty good when compared to the lying, left-wing hack we've got now.

No, John, the post was not about "the approval ratings of past and present presidents." It was specifically about how far Obummer has fallen in the polls

Oh, that must be why the lead of the cited article said nothing about how far Obummer (did you come up with that one yourself?) has fallen -- which isn't mentioned until paragraph 3 -- and instead compared his approval rating with "his predecessor".

Walter, you can claim the post was about puppies and rainbows, but that doesn't make it true.

John, don't misquote. I said that the post was how Obummer has fallen in polls while W has made a comeback. The first sentence reads: "Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll." If you remember when Obummer was elected, his poll numbers were through the roof, while W's were in the basement. Since that time, W has made no public statements, while Obummer and the left have continued their unprincipled attack on W, blaming him for everything but the heartbreak of psoriasis. Yet, Obummer's numbers go down, while W's go up. Obummer=Buyer's Remorse. W=Looks pretty good compared to the lying, left-wing hack we elected. The post has nothing to do with Palin or Pelosi.

the only way you can imagine this incompetent communist puppet ever getting the first vote is because W was a liberal. He paved the way by giving Ted Kennedy and John McCain the reins of government. He was like all these RINOs, a Reagan Democrat; liberals who could see the demos did not know how to do foreign policy and defense. That's what you had: Kennedy. Roosevelt. Democrats of today aren't 'liberal', they're 'wacko'. And 'bipartisan' means somewhere between liberal and wacko.
We need conservatism again. That would be a good thing to try. Let's do that.

John, don't misquote. I said that the post was how Obummer has fallen in polls while W has made a comeback. The first sentence reads: "Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll."

Uh, yeah, thus supporting my #28 statement, thank you very much. Not a misquote. That excerpt you're quoting says nothing about "how Obummer has fallen in the polls while W has made a comeback". If you think your statement and the one you're quoting are saying the same thing, you need some remedial help with reading comprehension.

Why the Democrats refuse to take credit for it is a mystery to many. It's likely that they are afraid of being out-messaged by the Republicans, who are much better at framing a message than Democrats.

Yep. that's it. Take credit for it. Every Dem. Shout it from the rooftops: "I'm a Dem, I voted for that stinking pile of crap, I'm out, and I'm proud!"

Take all the credit. Leave nothing to chance; make sure everyone knows just exactly whom to credit, and for what. Go with that. Have the courage of your convictions.

.... Too bad the former president, Mr Bush, can't run again in 2012 ....

Oh he'll run, all Right.

Obambi's successor, pompous pratt and pretender to the "presidency," Plugs, having nothing else to run on and having already run most of Neil Kinnock's speeches and half of Law Review by us, will insist on it.