The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

A third "possible" explanation is that Bush does NOT have the lowest "disapproval rating" (as you hinted, at least three Presidents, have had worse approval ratings). Besides, the on-line chat specifically referenced "APPROVAL" ratings. So, get your facts straight too!

Let us know if Karl CHRISTIAN Rove gets back to you though.

"Columbus, Ohio" was wrong. Four Pinocchios for "The Fact Checker".

JakeD,

The poster specifically stated that Bush is "according to Gallup, the most unpopular president in history." Given that it was explicitly phrased in the negative, it is most accurately a reference to his disapproval rating. Although, you certainly are showing even more gall than usual, given that this time someone can debunk your lies by just scrolling up a few lines.

Regardless of the semantic arguments, it's well established that Bush has been a disastrously bad President. The real question, however, is if he'll finally excel at something in his life and succeed at becoming the worst President in history. So, at least you have something to hope for.

This just proves, yet again, how wrapped up we are in semantics. I think what matters more is WHY certain presidents are disliked (or not approved of) as much as this one. That would be a better debate than who has the right numbers.

(Hey JakeD - I think someone should do a little satirical story on you: "Profile of a serial political blog commenter.")

Justin and LeeS:

"Columbus, Ohio" specifically referenced his APPROVAL rating. Regardless, how can Bush be the "most" unpopular President if 28% of the population APPROVES of him while only 24% and 22% approved of Nixon and Truman, respectively? Gallup is not "God" either.

Deflection - the great political shell game, non-answer and Rove tactic - immediately turns the conversation to other presidents with similarly low ratings, instead of addressing the fact that Bush has failed the people (but not his party) in so many ways and aside from an imaginative blip about history remembering Bush kindly - there is no response of any merit.

DonJuilo -- here's the question and answer again:

Q: "You boldly predicted that Bush's approval ratings would rebound ... Will you finally admit that your vision for this nation has been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the people?"

A: "(No) there are at least three president(s) who had worse approval ratings, Truman, Johnson and Nixon."

JakeD, the deflection comes from the fact that the question was about Rove's prediction that approval ratings would rebound. Rove went on the attack and made a minor semantic point, but he completely ignored the issue of his prediction. DonJulio is right; his response was not an answer.

If Columbus, Ohio were correct that the Bush/Rove vision for the nation has been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the people, why does Bush consistently outpoll the current Dem-controlled Congress?

Columbus, Ohio also referenced APPROVAL ratings, not DISAPPROVAL ratings, so I think three pinocchios for Rove is quite steep. One would have been fine, as Rove's apparent prediction of a Bush approval rating turnaround has yet to happen.

I'm surprised Rove as an online chatter fell under Fact Checker's purview. Can we do that with some left-leaners too, please? For one, Valerie Plame put up a series of howlers in her hour here.

Weather or not he is the worst president ever all of the numbers (even those you want to use) show he is in the bottom Four presidents ever, so if you can take that and wear it as a badge of pride bully for you.

It's like saying that your damn proud to be a NY Jets fan last year. And just like the die hard Jets fan I'm sure you look for anything to hang your hat on but at 4-12 most Jets fans had the decency to sit there and not talk smack.

JakeD

Here are the facts.

Fact #1: Bush's approval rating has continued to drop. It may not be the lowest in history, but it's one of the worst and shows no signs of rebounding.

Fact #2: Bush has the highest disapproval rating in the history of modern polling. If the questioner had been referring to his approval rating, he would have phrased his statement as "the least popular president in history." The negative is very clear, and indisputable.

Fact #3: The disapproval rating statement provided factual support for the question of whether the majority of Americans had rejected Bush and Rove's vision for the country. Rather than answer an honest question, Rove dodged by misrepresenting a premise.

So, the real point of all this is that Bush has been one of the worst Presidents in history and Karl Rove was afraid to even acknowledge that. Situations like this demonstrate why McCain's four more years of Bush will not happen. There are no legitimate arguments in support of Bush policy. All that's left are evasions and lies, which everyone can see through at this point.

I'm not here to support either Rove or Bush, but 3 Pinocchios is wrong. Both the questioner and Rove referenced "approval" ratings, and his answer was technically accurate. By your own scale, that may be one or two (no question he was wrong on the broader issue) but not three.

Not at all, Mark -- Bush's approval rating (which was referenced in the question) have already rebounded over 20% since their all-time low -- it is clear that Rove believes they will continue to climb, just like Truman's eventually did. Therefore, he will not "finally admit" that his vision for this nation has been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the people. Any more questions?

I would suspect, that Bush is so unpopular, that if you took a poll, you would get 40-50% of the US populace and 90-95% of the rest of the world sign up to kill him violently with many days of torture preceeding it.

However, the good news is that I am more unpopular than he is.
Ahahahahahaha

"Bush still has a basic bedrock of support among 28 percent of the electorate"

So 28% of the electorate are so partisan and uncaring of the disaster Bush has wrought, or that they are profiteering on the rest of us through his policies, that they would continue to approve of him.... tha number is sad and disappointing.

Justin:

You are wrong. His APPROVAL RATING is currently 34% (more than a 20% improvement from 28%). I suspect it will continue to rebound after he leaves office too.

Not partisan:

Thanks.

Dick Cheney:

As you know, threatening the life of the President is a federal crime.

Steve GR:

Or, both. Or, neither.

I am not a Bush supporter, but I also believe that Rove was technically accurate in what he said. Moreover, citing that historians' survey was unworthy of the factchecker. The survey was not scientific (clearly noted in the link), and reported that a similar survey taken 4 years earlier (just before Bush decisively won a national election) showed a sizable majority of historians who participated in the earlier survey also calling Bush a failure. Clearly, the survey is biased because it is voluntary. Only those who felt strongly participated and their comments suggest a strong ideology, not any sense of actual scholarship. I agree that Bush is a bad president but citing that survey was poor judgment.

According to wiki, Prince George has the lowest approval rating in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating

The wiki cite also has approval graphs as a fxn of time showing that W stands alone in having extremely low approval over a very long time. Nixon's approval fell into a well and he resigned. Truman's and Carter's approval bounced around quite a bit more.

So both in terms of a single measurement in time, but especially over the course of a year or so, Bush has the lowest approval on record.

BeffStew1:

Thanks.

renu1:

Don't believe everything you read on Wiki ; )

According to wiki, Prince George has the lowest approval rating in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating

The wiki cite also has approval graphs as a fxn of time showing that W stands alone in having extremely low approval over a very long time. Nixon's approval fell into a well and he resigned. Truman's and Carter's approval bounced around quite a bit more.

So both in terms of a single measurement in time, but especially over the course of a year or so, Bush has the lowest approval on record.

(bump)

Statistics can lie and often do. By the way who even needs statistics to know Bush is an international criminal wearing a dunce cap? The sad part of his being one of the worst presidents ever is the misery and death he has inflicted on so many.

The dunce cap works wonders keeping people busy discussing his idiocy while in fact, he is a highly motivated thug. Don't believe for a minute this man is as stupid as he wants people to believe.

If people would not wear blinders but look the facts in the face, he would be lucky to have more than 5 or 10% approval rating, mostly from other thugs or; real idiots...

Jake D is running out of lipstick for the Bush pig.

JakeD,

I hope that the Post reinstitutes sign-on requirements and bans you from the Post web site. Not because you are conservative, but because your comments are uniformly vacuous and you post too much. How about trying thinking more and holding your posts down to 5 a day? Or better yet, rather than putting your excretions all over the Post, make your own blog.

Ronn and tom:

Truman caused more "misery and death" with just two A-bombs -- yet his approval rating rebounded eventually -- do you approve or disapprove of Truman?

No thanks, renu1.

If you ask only the liberal Democrats, Bush's approval will still be low. If you ask the "customers" of Jim Lehr (NPR), BBC and CBC, Bush will get a "0" rating. That is no surprise

Mr. Rove should take a long walk off a short pier, wearing concrete boots.

why would anybody expect a straight answer from someone as slimy as Karl Rove?BillK.

I definitely disapprove of Truman's use of "the bomb" but, I believe the long term damage Bush is causing, not only to others in the world but to our own country (USA) is worse. I have been living abroad now for 17 years (outside the bubble) and can clearly see how much mistrust and head-shaking there is. We used to be an example to follow, now we are an example to avoid.

It is no longer "America compared to 'Old Europe'", but; "New Europe compared to 'Old America'". We should take care of our own house before throwing so many stones...

JakeD: 'Truman caused more "misery and death" with just two A-bombs.'

No, sadly, the casualties of the Iraq war have surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/358/5/484
New England Journal of Medicine
Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006
Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group

Don't hide from the consequences of your decisions and votes, JakeD. Live with the truth.

OD:

I am not just counting the 200,000 direct dead -- what about radiation sickness and other indirect deaths too -- I can artificially inflate the "casualties" number too just like the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group.

"No, sadly, the casualties of the Iraq war have surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

PS I should have said surpassed by far.

In fact, the Manhattan Engineer district estimated 66,000 dead at Hiroshima and 39,000 dead at Nagasaki (where many were sheltered by dips and valleys).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm

The Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group, ten times bigger than any previous survey, estimated 151,000 violent deaths between March 2003 and June 2006, plus hundreds of thousands of non-violent deaths over and above the pre-invasion rate, due to the collapse of Iraq's health system (more than half of Iraq's doctors have fled the country).

Just among children under 15, such deaths amounted to 45,000 excess deaths in the study period.

And that study closed before the Iraq war entered its most violent phase, in late 2006-early 2007.

The Iraq war, overall, has killed about 300,000 people directly through violence, and as many again through health system collapse.

Produce your evidence that the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group artificially inflated casualties, JakeD, or shut the hell up, liar.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/5/484

Which of these groups that produced the survey twisted the results? Do tell.

"The affiliations of the investigators are as follows: the Federal Ministry of Health, Baghdad (A.H.A., I.J.A., M.J.H., T.W.I., H.H.H.); Kurdistan Ministry of Planning, Erbil (O.S.); Kurdistan Ministry of Health, Erbil (A.R.Y., V.M.A.-J.); Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology, Baghdad (M.M.A.-A., L.H.R., S.M.H.); World Health Organization Iraq Office, Amman, Jordan (N.A.-G., F.A.M., N.A.A.A.); and World Health Organization, Geneva (M.M.A., J.T.B., C.M.)."

You are a snivelling coward using self-deceit to hide from the consequences of your own malice, hubris and stupidity.

And, Truman (indirectly) killed MILLIONS by ushering in the Atomic Age (see what I told you?).

OK JakeD, both men were/are killers. So we agree...

I believe the difference may be in WWII we were seen (and rightly so to a large extent) as liberators from fascism whereas today, with a decades long history now of dubious interventions, assassinations and bullying we are being seen as somewhat fascist ourselves.

It is not only the casualties that are worrisome but the fact we have given the madmen "justification" for their acts in the eyes of their followers.

Some people say we should have used introspection and dialogue. I agree. The problem is these people running our country are not interested in peace or solution finding, as this does not suit their agenda. There isn't enough money and power in it...

War is business....BIG business.

OD:

"Though the IFHS study group should be commended for its attempt to capture the highest-quality results, uncertainties remain. The survey design, in particular, is certainly open to criticism, and the authors honestly admit the shortcomings of their analysis. For example, sometimes it was problematic or too dangerous to enter a cluster of households, which might well result in an undercount; data from the Iraq Body Count on the distribution of deaths among provinces were used to calculate estimates in these instances. If the clustering of violent deaths wasn't accurately captured, that could also increase uncertainty.

The sampling frame was based on a 2004 count, but the population has been changing rapidly and dramatically because of sectarian violence, the flight of refugees, and overall population migration. Another source of bias in household surveys is underreporting due to the dissolution of some households after a death, so that no one remains to tell the former inhabitants' story. Mortality estimates that are derived from surveying deaths of siblings were also calculated, but this method may also be subject to such underreporting. However, the IFHS group's overall estimate of mortality does reflect uncertainty in the level of underreporting (20 to 50%) and the instability of the projected population during the post-invasion period (1 million to 2 million).

Under the current conditions in Iraq, it is difficult to envision a study that would not have substantial limitations. The circumstances that are required to produce high-quality public health statistics contrast starkly with those under which the IFHS study group worked. Indeed, it must be mentioned that one of the authors of the survey was shot and killed on his way to work."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/5/445

Was that author's "death" included?

Ronn:

I prefer the label "peace makers" rather than "killers" : )

You know, I'm amazed at the defenses here. Even conceding that a few presidents may have had lower ratings than Bush, or the some president may have caused even greater misery and death, one is still left with the fact that Bush's ratings are VERY low, and that he has indeed caused a great deal of misery and suffering. All the denials in the world do nothing to change this.

Simply not being the "worst ever" should not be our standard....

B-W:

The point, of course, is that -- regardless of contemporaneous low approval ratings -- history may come to a much different conclusion someday (just like it has re: Truman ; )

What a fool you are, JakeD. Read your cut-and-paste again. Every one of the uncertainties cited points to a possible UNDERCOUNT. There is not a single question raised about a possible OVERCOUNT.

Do you understand basic English?

'Was that author's "death" included?'

Why did you put his death in quotation marks? You don't accept the reality of that one either?
Pathetic. I feel dirty just talking to you.

JakeD I wish I could say you are right, i truly do, and I sincerely hope that in the long run peace will come about. For the sake of peace, I hope you are right.

I also believe you are sincere even if I am convinced you err. That was one thing that infuriates me so, these heartless, ruthless people deceiving decent people that sincerely want to believe them.

You have been duped and it will be hard as hell for you to accept that, acknowledge it and act accordingly. My own father, who had been a staunch Republican his entire life, as well as my mother, for the first time ever in their lives voted against Bush the last elections.

The most effective of evil men are those in sheep's clothing...

JakeD - Millions dead? Was there a nuclear war and I missed it? Harry S Truman (thought you'd like the all caps middle name)wasn't even vice-president when the Manhattan project was initiated.

Still, I'm surprised that the Fact checker bothered with a web chat. Must be a slow news day.

BB

OD, add in the firebombing of Tokyo (100,000 civilians killed in 1 night) along with firebombing of nearly every Japanese city (made with wooden houses) and Truman has gone way past the self-inflicted casualties in Iraq. Now add in the fire bombing of Dresden.

In WWII, we deliberately targeted civilians, in Iraq we use the best technology we can to
avoid it.

Back to the thread: you gave Rove 3 Pinnochios for a statement that was at least partly true. That's the same number you gave Hillary for her statements about sniper fire in Bosnia.

Now how many Pinnochios would you give yourself if you told us you weren't partisan?

I expect, in the future, a majority of Americans will dislike Bush like they dislike Carter. Bush will be to loyal Republicans what Carter is to loyal Democrats: they really do like him, they just keep it to themselves. Something I consider interesting is that I have never with any other president seen as much anti-anything: the count-down calendars and bumper stickers (not the usual stickers you can only find on the fanatical political sites), books, television (anyone watched Lil Bush?). Fair or unfair, President Bush will be considered less a former president and more of a pop-culture joke. Sorry, George. Furthermore, I have read the argument regarding Truman and I personally don't think it matters what people today think of Truman and regardless of what people say in polls, I doubt you'd find many that were that passionate about their approval or disapproval of Truman. I think a more accurate poll would offer a C option: "Don't Care" or "Don't Know" and I bet the majority would pick C. Who cares what someone that never lived through the effects of a certain president's term (or don't understand how they are affected) thinks? I think the people that were paying taxes and placing votes in Truman's time are more accurate judges of how great Truman was than we are.

I'm not sure how people are arguing this, it's quite obvious if you aren't set in what you want to believe beforehand.

"Columbus, Ohio" said that Rove boldly predicted Bush's approval ratings would rebound. STOP.

So right away we see that the question is about why Bush's approval ratings have not rebounded. We can all agree they have not rebounded (high 20s and low 30s is not a rebound)

Next.

"instead he is, according to Gallup, the most unpopular president in history." STOP.

Now the commenter is saying that not only did Bush's approval ratings not rebound, but he has actually become the most unpopular president in history based on Gallup's DISAPPROVAL rating. You don't have to approve or disapprove of someone (i.e. if you approve it does not mean you disapprove and vice versa), but if you do disapprove of them then that means they are unpopular.

The commenter ends by saying: "Will you finally admit that your vision for this nation has been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the people?"

If the majority of people disapprove of Bush, and if we can say Bush is carrying out Rove's "vision", then we can honestly say that a majority of Americans rejected Rove's vision (or at least disapprove of it).

To see this any other way shows a prejudice or a lack of understanding basic speech. I'm assuming it's prejudice since you seem to argue your invalid points well enough.

Three Ponnichios?

As the above comments show, the questioned posed by "Columbus, Ohio," can be properly construed as either referencing the disapproval or approval ratings of George W Bush. Given that there is a strong ambiguity, the reliance upon how many Ponnichios should be given should be placed on the factual analysis of Rove's statement. Under such an analysis, Rove is indeed correct.

The "Fact" Checker's analysis of the above, and also even his choosing to take the statement in the first place, demonstrates the bias which he injects into these articles. Rather than seeing the question as ambiguous, the Fact Checker instead preferred to see it as black and white.

As someone already said, four Ponnichios for the Fact Checker for journalistic misconduct and intellectual dishonesty.

OD:

Feel free to stop talking to me then -- I certainly don't want you to feel dirty -- I am simply asking honest questions. If tthat author's "death" is included, can't that be argued, in good faith, to be an OVERCOUNT?

Ronn:

I pray it does turn out too.

BB:

"Millions dead" just in the Communist countries during the Cold War. Also, I did capitalize Truman's ENTIRE middle name.

Michael-

I give you 2 Pinocchios.

Rove was nearly 100% correct in saying that Bush has higher approval ratings than other Presidents. (I say nearly because he did make a mistake: Carter, not LBJ, is on that list.)

The question posed was about Rove's prediction about Bush's "approval rating."

Then you have changed it to "disapproval."

Rove didn't answer the question because it was about future events. Again, a prediction. Let's wait and see how it turns out.

Plus your casual use of an un-scientific "historian" poll is not relevant.

Jerry:

It is, also, possible that Mr. Dobbs did not write this particular "Fact Checker" (as he does have some assistants too).

Hey, Jake, does the D stand for Desperate? You are reduced to nitpicking over whether Bush has the lowest approval rating ever, or maybe only the third lowest. OK, let's say he is the third lowest. Does this make you feel good? Is this some kind of triumph for you and the remaining Bush loyalists? Maybe the D is for Delusional.

George W. Bush is the worst president in American history and an embarassment to thinking people the world over.

This argument is ridiculous - 28% approval versus 69% disapproval versus JakeD's imaginary 34% approval - ALL the numbers suck. Rove really gave it to Columbus, OH: "He's NOT the most unpopular president in history, he's the third most unpopular president in history so THERE!" ha ha ha ha

#1. Why would anybody be stupid enough to believe anythign tah comes out of the mouth of Karl Rove (Minister of Propaganda)

#2. It is beyond me why Bush still has anybody that thinks he is doing a good job. However, it does occur to me that lemmings will follow their leader over the cliff and into the ocean.

Putin has recently begun to rehabilitate Stalin. there are still people in Germany who believe that Hitler was good for the country. Why should we be surprised that Bush's Goebbels, Karl rove, continues to propagate the faith. what else has he got left to do. Bush is not only a disaster, his administration took this country closer to authoritatiran fascism than any President in history. Rove is right. History will decide and there is little doubt how it will come down.

Mike:

No, the "D" stands for the first letter of my last name -- I could care less what Bush's approval rating is -- but, since we are "nitpicking" now, Gallup has not kept records for "ever" ...

Alice:

Please re-read the comments by The Angry One, not partisan, BeffStew1, Nathan, and Jerry; then tell them they are ridiculous too.

Jake D or A, The Rat, and Thinker....go outside and get some air...relax...do something with your pitiful lives. Cripes your toxic posts are like breathing caustic air. Go pray or something...God may be able to fix it for you.

The only poll which mattered for Bush was the one taken in November 2004. At that time his approval rating was apparently higher than Kerry's. Anyone who disapproves of him now, well you should have spoken up earlier.

H. Simon:

I just came back from outside ; )

so what?:

Good point.

There is at least one poll showing Bush at the very bottom with a 19% approval. http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/02/21/bushs-new-low-a-19-approval-rating/

That poll could be an outlier. In any case, averaged over a year, it is quite clear that W is at the historic bottom.

Karl Rove is very slick with wording (remember his comments about Valerie Plame that sounded to ordinary people that he claimed to be not involved at the same time he was testifying of his deep involvement?) This appears to be another case of that. Anyone would be a fool to take Rove's words at face value.

As an aside, Rove is a weird man. He ran the 2006 election as a referendum against gay rights, yet his father (whom he claimed to love) was gay. Very weird dude.

Bush needs to be tried at the Hague as a war criminal.

by any measure, bush is the worst president and certainly the most unpopular. How do I know? If Rove says it ain't so, then it MUST be true!

To 'so what?"- yeah, unfortunately you are totally right about that. I am amazed that so many people bought his campaign based on fear of terrorism, which course was the eternal triumph of Karl Rove. Too bad it took so long before the scales fell off most people's eyes.

Worse president ever in my opinion. Of course I wasn't around for all of them but 61% of historians agree. 98% agree that he will be judged poorly. (Is Karl Rove a historian? That would explain part of the 2%.)

By any measure Bush has been a horrible failure. The economy is a disaster. We are in an unnecessary and unwinnable war. Gas prices are three times higher then when he took office even though anyone who's paying attention knows the Iraq war was about oil. New Orleans is still in ruins years after Katrina. We are now a nation who keeps people without trial and tortures them. Bush's appointee's are inept cronies or in some cases are openly hostile to the agencies they lead.

The list goes on and on. If anyone can list ANYTHING positive about the Bush administration I'd like to hear it.

At least Bush is Bush. We know who he is.

Who is Hillary Clinton? A Wellesly, Yale law grad who can loan herself $11 million? Or someone on the back of a pickup truck slugging down shots with the boys? Is she a hand-shaking first lady or Indiana Jane and the Plane Ride of Doom dodging snipers on dangerous adventures? Or whatever morphed caricature she needs to be to win the rest of the states?

David:

"By any measure"? Not by the measure of finally banning one form of barbaric abortion ...

Well, this sure is fun, ranting on and on about how horrible/wonderful Bush may be. Too bad it's not accomplishing a dang thing; no one on either side of the question is about to be swayed by any argument, logical or not. We're all just killing time here, so good-bye!

If the next president is as bad as GWB, GWB's future approval ratings will improve just as Bill Clinton's did when people compared him to GWB. Generally, people's peceptions of ex-presidents improves over time, even if only slightly.

Mike:

The fact that Bush appointed Supreme Court Justices who finally upheld the Partial Birth Abortion ban is not a "positive" (at least from the unborn children's perspective) and therefore logical argument?

"Gas prices are three times higher then when he took office"

If you are a true Democrat, you should credit that as a great positive development because you should be concerned about global warming. The high price of gas is the only way that we will stop buying huge SUVs like we did during Clinton-Gore cheap gas bubble. The current price will provide the economic stimulus to invest in alternative energy and conservation. It will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil

If Iraq is about oil, it is the American gas guzzling, air-conditioned energy hogs that are to blame, not a president. Think what the price of gas would be if Saddam Hussein had control of all the oil in Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and Iran.

Or if you prefer lower gas prices, you're going to need someone to protect the oil flow from the Mid-East even if it means war. What is your plan? Ask politely?

Why is the fact that gas is over $4.00 a gallon a good thing...not all of us have big SUV's but $4.00 a gallon hurts regardless of what you are driving. Get back at the Auto & Energy Industries reaping all of these profits not the Americans. It is always the American's fault for things that corporations do. I know we share some of the blame but not all of it. Someone please stick up for us...just once.

A better question is why Rove is not awaiting execution in a Federal prison for high treason against the United States of America.

You see, David? That's TWO "positives" from GWB : )

Does anyone expect anything other from Karl Rove except spin and lies? The man will be in jail once we get our government back.

Come on, people. Look at the photo and admit it: Men in flag pins are to die for.

Karl Rove pointed out that there were 3 presidents that had worse approval ratings than Bush, but he didn't say how history sees these presidents now, since he and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers seem to think that history will prove them right.

The $4 a gallon is what it will take to stop global warming. Don't you think that will destroy rich and poor alike? Did you think just because a wonderful Democrat was president, all the hard work to reverse climate change would just go away?

Literally

So there have been presidents less approved of, but never any so disapproved of, as Bush. He's almost but not quite the least popular, but he is certainly the most disliked.

Let's acknowledge the distinction and let Bush's supporters take what comfort they may from it.

The $4 gallon is good because it brings us to the reality of the true cost of carbon based fuel. Yes gas hurts the poor who don't drive SUVs. But it's still those SUVs that are responsible.

Nobel Laureate Gore didn't use the huge budget surplus during his admin to invest in mass transit, alternate energy or higher gas mileage standards. In fact, the trend to bigger gas guzzlers started during his admin.

Leftist Avenger:

Or, better yet, why Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table?

Unnamed Poster:

Can you think of any other "positives" besides $4 /gal gasoline for David?

ck nails it at 3:35. Rove and his defenders have no case.

"Nobel Laureate Gore didn't use the huge budget surplus during his admin to invest in mass transit, alternate energy or higher gas mileage standards. In fact, the trend to bigger gas guzzlers started during his admin."

Actually, he did, it was the republican led congress and the auto industry that shut it down. The trend toward bigger gas guzzlers started because gas was a third of what it is now. in fact when gas started inching above $1/gal, Bush actually blamed Clinton for the "high price of gas".

JakeD, get back to us after you've finished smoking on Karl's Johnson.

here's a fact... bush is an idiot...and rove...go f@@ck yourself!

Mister Methane:

I don't smoke.

to Rove, the question remains;

"Will you finally admit that your vision for this nation has been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the people?"

listen folks, I don't need a weatherman to tell me that it's going to be cold in the winter, and hot in the summer here. On any given day, I pretty much know what the weather's going to be like without the ASSistance of a meteorologist's loud mouth telling me something I already know to be true.

Same goes for this article, except the need to have twerps like rove, bush, cheney finally suck it up and make amends to the american people by reversing, YES, reversing their positions permanently on the subject of leadership on the United States.

There SHOULD be a rehab for these turds, just like they do for loud-mouthed junior pricesses like Britney, and that British P.O.S. that permanently changes their internal wiring so they DONT get the opportunity to screw-up lives of so many for the arrogance of a few.

ever again.

or their misinformed families, for that matter, too.

How disgusting are they? Very.

As I look out the window, there's nothing but mayhem in Iraq, the economy's tanking, and speaking of TANK, it cost me 50% more what I paid eight years ago for gasoline.

Mutual funds for retirement are more of a liability thana an asset these days, I've lost more than 50% of my "retirement holdings" in the last eight years as well.

I don't need K Rove to tell me, or anyone ELSE anything more about how things should be.

He FAILED the CLASS.

I know he's screwed it up, bigtime.

It's DOMESTIC problems that they ignored, still trying desperately to rule the world.

Twits.

JakeD writes:

"Mister Methane: I don't smoke."

You don't understand thinly-veiled allusions, either, do you Jake.

Poor Jake.

Does Karl rest his drink on top of your head while you're in his service?

Mister Methane:

I've never met the man, so, I guess not.

I don't agree with the Fact Checker. Rove was given a semantic opening, and like the weasel he is, he took advantage of it without technically lying.

The guy can spin all he wants, there are people in this country who believe Bush is a good president. People also believe that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago, humans and dinosaurs coexisted, we're winning the war in Iraq, and "Intelligent Design" is science. Unsurprisingly, they're mostly the same people.

What I think is BS is the mud Rove slings at Congress, citing low approval ratings for that branch of government. After all the Rove and his cronies have done to make Congress irrelevant except for shoveling money at their friends who fail in business, it's no cooincidence the institution is held in such low regard.

However, Mr. Rove, please name one, just one Democratic (that's right, I said Democratic) member of Congress with an approval rating among their constituents as low as Chimpy's rating among his.

Or disapproval rating, I don't care which side you try to spin it on.

PS -- could the Post please put the name of the poster at the top of a comment rather than the bottom? I don't even like skimming JakeD's idiocy to find the next post.

JakeD writes:

"

Mister Methane: I've never met the man, so, I guess not."

Jake, that is indeed a sad situation, having to service a man you've never met.

I take it that both of you wear masks.

One last time for everyone else:

How can Bush be the "most" unpopular President if 28% of the population APPROVE of him while only 24% and 22% approved of Nixon and Truman, respectively?

JakeD asks us:

"One last time for everyone else:

How can Bush be the "most" unpopular President if 28% of the population APPROVE of him while only 24% and 22% approved of Nixon and Truman, respectively?"

Jake, I suppose you don't consider it self-abuse when you use your non-dominant hand?

When I use my non-dominant hand to do what?

Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama! Osama loves Obama!

Poor, poor JakeD asks:

"When I use my non-dominant hand to do what?"

I see that you only an Apprentice Baiter, Jake. I assume that you are in graduate school, matriculating for your Master's Degree in Baiting.

No, I finished graduate (Law) school a long, long time ago. Any other questions?

I agree with JakeD. The question referenced approval ratings. To switch to disapproval is the worst kind of verbal sleight-of-hand.

Second, ck's point about the rebound is not what Rove was disagreeing with. He was disagreeing with the lowest approval rating by Columbus OH which is clearly wrong. Sorry, Fact Checker. You blew it. Rove was right.

"Bush still has a basic bedrock of support among 28 percent of the electorate."

What this definitely shows is that there is a solid 28% of the electorate who are absolutely incapable of making any sort of wise decision in a vote for leadership of the country.

That is almost 1/3 of the vote working against the best interest's of the country at the start of any given Presidential election.

Good grief... that's scary. Let's just hope the other voters can overcome this obstacle of idiocy in November.

JakeD informs us:

"No, I finished graduate (Law) school a long, long time ago. Any other questions?"

Are you really Roy Pearson?

Bradley:

Thanks.

Mister Methane:

No. Are you?

What's all the argument about anyway, everyone agrees that Bush is a bumbling moron, so who cares?

We know Bush is an idiot and Rove is a Liar.

This is News?

Hey, I got an idea!

Lets parse words, like we learned from Bill Clinton.

What happened to Conservatism, anyway? He should have not argued over the ratings but restated the fact that Truman is seen very favorably now.

Why would he even try to change the subject to Approval Ratings.

Weak!

What happened to our good old days of Teddy Roosevelt, etc... What is all this wishy washy BS?

We need to stand up, like Cheney, and say, "Yeah, that's right! We lied about the War. What about it? We've still got another year left, and there aint squat you can do about it."

We don't need approval ratings. We already got their votes.. TWICE. Or at least the second time we definitely did.

So, TOO BAD. You hate him now, you voted for him, shove those approval ratings up your wazoo, buddy in Cincinnati, OHmygod,i voted for Bush and don't like it anymore!!!

Good one, FAKE Jake.

P.S. to David: did you see the TWO "positives" from GWB above?

JakeD,

are you schizophrenic? (I'm doubt that's spelled correctly)

You are on both sides of the argument from what i can tell.

That was a FAKE Jake (and I doubt you are the real "svreader" as there's nothing in your post about SLUMS!!!!).

Look, buddy,

quit posting in my name, you jerk!

The Worst President Ever!
The most incompetent Administration of all time!
Karl Rove belongs in jail.

I've got every right to post as myself,

you're the FAKE Jake!

Move on, troll!

LOL!!!

Slums are nice, but I HATE Obama something fierce.

I mean, he has an entire closet full of EMPTY SUITS !!!!!!!

No, YOU'RE the FAKE Jake!

I thought he only has FIVE suits?

OH no I am NOT !

Are Too!

Well, he may have only 5, I'm not sure,

But they are all EMPTY SUITS !!!

Think about those poor people in the Slums that Hillary could have helped.

It's all so sad now.

(Don't worry, everyone, it's just a typical Obama supporter)

I know you are, but what am I?

Just ignore him, I'm Republican, HE'S FAKE.

I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

How immature. Probably an Obamabot.

They like Kool Aid, you know? They drink it in the slums.

(They will leave as soon as "Ugly Betty" comes on)

Who cares about if it's Approval or Disapproval, anyhow. Point is, NOBODY likes Bush anymore and mostly it is Carl Roves fault. He messed up the whole country.

Truman's popularity ratings were among the lowest during his tenure. Today he is among the top 10.
Also, knowing that Historians in the humanities along with social scientists have consistently ranked (no pun intended) as the most liberal of college faculty members somewhat taint their opinion on President Bush.

Mr. Stuart Smith, Jr.:

Your "point" is that NOBODY likes Bush anymore? Are you sure about that? So, if I can find even ONE person (among the 34% approval above), then your "point" is proven wrong, right?

OH noooo!

Now, Bush is unpopular!

"So."

doesn't matter. What are they gonna do? IMPEACH HIM? Ha Ha Ha Ha,

For What? It's not like he had SEX or anything, for cryin' out loud. What's the big deal, we were due for another war anyway. Shucks, I've lost two sons in Iraq and I haven't batted an eye. That's just life, you Liberal Wussies!

We've got a lot of other countries to attack yet! I just wish I had more kids to donate to such a mobil cause.

You left out Andrew Johnson and Jefferson Davis

P.S.: 34% of 300,000,000 = 102,000,000.

Actually, the question involved whether or not Bushie would "rebound". It would appear he has not. Rove is just full of spin/crap as usual.

P.P.S.: I like Bush ; )

Why would you ever ask Rove if you wanted the truth?

some idiot wrote:

We need to stand up, like Cheney, and say, "Yeah, that's right! We lied about the War. What about it? We've still got another year left, and there aint squat you can do about it."

We don't need approval ratings. We already got their votes.. TWICE. Or at least the second time we definitely did.

So, TOO BAD. You hate him now, you voted for him, shove those approval ratings up your wazoo, buddy in Cincinnati, OHmygod,i voted for Bush and don't like it anymore!!!
-----------------

Well let me tell you something, pal. That's not how it's supposed to be done, OK? We've got what's called a Constitution in this country and if you don't like it, leave. What this administration has done is patently illegal and some of it is under the category of "War Crimes." As a Naval officer, I do not appreciate your insinuation that what has been done in the name of my country is some sort of passing joke. I took my oaths seriously and do not intend to allow these two buffoons to get away with this indefinitely. Other leaders have been brought to justice. With this group, they each come out with a book in succession, pointing the fingers at each other. Well, someone is to blame. Justice Will Prevail.

JaneD:

Treason.

An you must be one cold shrew to "not bat an eye" over losing 2 sons. That or a liar.

I feel dirty communicating with you.

JakeD, why do you like Bush?

I already gave two reasons, above. You should know that, if you are me.

michael4,

we are under attack, that's why. I wish I had more to sacrifice against these terrorist killers. We must Obliterate the Entire World and identify Bin Laden by his dna in the clouds.

We must all sacrifice our children for this mobil cause and one day Bush will be exxonerated.

KILL KILL KILL, I say, KILL the OTHERS!!! AS THEY HAVE KILLED US!!!

America is now experiencing the effects of exactly what it voted for TWICE: a Bush/Cheney ticket. You deserve it America!
(My sympathies to those who voted otherwise)

If I already know, because I am you then why did you ask me? Why are you always confusing us?

I didn't. YOU asked ME.

whatever, dude.

(seriously, I wish I got paid by the post ; )

See you, tomorrow, everyone!!

JaneD:

You're a moron, and not even mildly amusing, so shut up.

Good Bye, FAKE Jake!!

AND YOU'RE PROBABLY A TERRORIST RACST OBOMBA SUPPORTER!!

"Fool me once, shame on YOU! Fool me twice, shame on ME!" America was fooled by this buffoon of a president the first time in 2000, shame on him (and puppet master Rove). But when the same clown fooled the US again in 2004, what does that make those who voted him to office the second time around? IDIOTS, DOLTS, AND NINCOMPOOPS. Hahaha, you losers certainly got what you deserved!!!

Can I add my two bob's worth from HK?

The headline is an 'attention grabber' - how unpopular is George Bush (relative to whom), while the question, framed in the context of an apparent prediction that Bush's approval ratings would rebound, asks will you "admit that your vision for this nation has been overwhelmingly rejected" (for whom, by whom and by what objective measures) - my thoughts are in brackets.

Moving on, I've enjoyed the various comments as I killed time this morning - I found some factual, others provocative, personal and thoughtful, while some go places I found hard to grasp or cared not to follow. Can I suggest a focus on the issue, not the person and if you don't much care for an opinion or for persistent commentary, move on.

Anyhow, one thought - there is a lot of focus on the negative? One idea - useful if we learned from the past (bad and good). One question - would you care to consider the interests of folks from the rest of the planet? The latter might be useful given unilateral solutions end up messy and mostly counter productive. By the way, I think the clock's ticking.

I used to think never again would we have a President as bad as Jimmy Carter but Bush Jr. is so very Stupid and incompetent he does not even realize how Stupid he really is. Or does realize that most Americans think he is not qualified to run a dog Pound! Without an doubt he is by far the most stupid, worthless President in any one currently living life,s time!

Dear Washington Post,

I am saddened to see that only Bush's disapproval/approval ratings are the subject of this article. Why isn't there more attention being given to the underlying issues? The enormous elephants in the room?

Please help me understand why there has not been any substantive investigation into the obvious misdeeds of our Executive Branch of government and the trampling of our Constitution. I cannot find any better words right now than that of Barbara Charline Jordan:
"Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.
'Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?' 'The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men.'¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

Our public trust and our Constitution have been violated and it's the moral obligation of the public, but also the free press to expose this and do something about it.

no one talks about congress approval rating its what 11% ?

JakeD = Proud 28%er

Some people don't know when to be embarrassed.

Ecellent link Saddened

I am a tool...

8 hours... stop tying, get life...

who is running this country an who's country is it ??????

You didn't mention Rove's claim about Johnson whose lowest approval rating was 35%. He can argue about whether the person from Columbus Ohio made it clear that the issue was disapproval ratings not approval ratings, but he can't argue about Johnson.

I'd say that brings his factual error up to the 4 Pinocchios level.

we still need someone to fight for us not for there pocket

old news is old let's do new why should we laydown an let everyone take everything from us ?? an we pay for it ??

bush is all for himself it is old money rigght ??? what do we do ?? we need someone to stand-up for us right or wrong need to see the coment

It is what we say that sapose to count ??

Thanks, Fred. We need to keep speaking and demanding the truth. It's important to rise above the noise the media and some of these bloggers put out there and focus on what will get us to a better, brighter future for everyone.

Oh, please.

We must rise above this silly squabbling. Bush is a criminal. So are so very many of his staff and supporters. If they were not in power they would be in prison. It is the test of our society whether that rule of law will eventually win out, or if we too, like other cultures, must wait for an outside government to become more powerful and get rid of Bush and his ilk, and, sadly, also of us, the citizens who remain sadly without guts, without power, without power.

Mr. Karl Rove should have said: President George W. Bush and his low ratings will be forgotten, but his bad decisions will continue to create difficulties for our country for a long, long time. Solving those problems will take so much of our time, efforts, resources and sacrifices that exhausted population will have no time to blame Bush for creating those problems, and a small idle minority may even proclaim that times were better during the Bush presidency!!

So I take it that this site is not so good ?? no one is reading!!! the pupet dose not matter we need to say no more of this bull unless you all are makers of over $100,000 a year come down to my leavel ? they take my money for taxs an leave me with nothing to feed or school my kids WTF oh unless I am from the south of the border then they give everything I was born here an can not get anyhelp for my helth cuz I am from the U S A now answer that

Hummmmmm

Hillary's sniper fire was a blad-faced lie: she got four Pinnochios. therefore, everything has to be measured against that standard.

Rove basically ducked the question, but pols usually answer the question they want, not the one they're asked. What he DID say was technically accurate. One Pinnochio.

oh

whatever you think of JakeD, he at least has the saving grace of a sense of humor.

JakeD, dude -- this first post for every article is worrying me. Don't you get outside? The weather's great! Get outside, it's good for your skin. WaPo's not going anywhere, it'll still be there when you get back.

maybe I am in the wrong spot maybe i need to go down to the low lifes ??? the ones on the streets the lil ppl what do you all think????

I'd like to explain how I believe Rive indeed oplayed a shell game and give my judgment(s) on Columbus, Ohio VS. Karl Rove. Please let me know if you agree/disagree.

The complication- Columbus, Ohio has asked a question AND made a statement. Let's strip it down and start with the statement, or facts:

Columbus, Ohio: You boldly predicted that Bush's approval ratings would rebound -- instead he is, according to Gallup, the most unpopular president in history.
Karl Rove: Get your facts right -- there are at least three president who had worse approval ratings, Truman, Johnson and Nixon.

OK, here's my take on that conversation- Columbus, Ohio suggests in an approval rating poll, Bush has the lowest approval rating in history. Rove is correct here, that isn't true.

Now the question portion. Let's omit the numbers out of the question:

Columbus, Ohio: You boldly predicted that Bush's approval ratings would rebound -- Will you finally admit that your vision for this nation has been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the people?
Karl Rove: I'm absolutely positive history will be kind to this president, who made the right decisions in a difficult time for this nation.

In my opinion, the purpose of Columbus, Ohio's question is to receive a direct answer about Rove's past prediction of a rebound in Bush's appoval ratings. I believe Rove intended his prediction to come to be in a time while Bush is in office. Therefore, his prediction was wrong. In Rove's response, I see the shell game. He does not answer the question. Rove acknowledges the approval rating hasn't changed... BUT they ultimately will rebound if the population were polled at a time when the Bush years are thought of as 'history' instead of 'recent news'. Rove changes his prediction time. Rove won't own up to what is true: The majority of the people do not approve of Rove's vision for this nation.
Columbus, Ohio wins.

And on, a personal note it frustrates, angers and saddens me when any elected official lies by manipulating their words and intentions. Their job is so important because we are all their employers. Shell gaming elected officials are not committed to their jobs and should be fired.

nothing but bot answers here

ok thats it I do know this site is full of what part of the past maters ????? we need now

kownone answers :P

The page just updated and I've picked up on the JakeD, FAKE JakeD and JaneD commentary. So very amusing, thanks guys and girl (?). Seems a nice example of asymmetric warfare in the virtual world?

Oh, stop bothering Nero, he is fiddling, as usual.

Rove will be remembered by history as the "Architurd". But do keep him talking, that guy just loves to babble. I call his constant babbling "force of tongue" . I guess in his world, everyone is "fair game".

Other than that, watch something terrible happen this weekend. Will Cheney be fishing through the wedding, stay tuned.

It's all about image over substance ain't it ? Hitler was the best at what he did too, so what ?

WOW you are

thats funny

The Bush Administration has been dealt some harsh blows.

It is reassuring that Americans did begin catching on at one point. It accounts for Congress' 11% approval.

How about addressing that abysmal fact there WaPo.

Especially as the Morons in this Country have decided to hand the 33% approved Executive Branch to the 11% Approved of Congress!

With the Scorched Earth Politics introduced by the Loser DIMocrats because Al Gore could not Steal an Election, came one of the worst periods of Bone-Headed partisan Politics in American History.

The Epitome of it, came as the Dimocrats debated "How long after 911 they had to be nice?".

Before they could once again, be the Butt-Headed Snits they seem to live to be.

At the detriment of America! :-(

Then, realize, no matter how hard Bushie tries to be the Worst,

Carter keeps raising the Bar! ;~)

No, George Bush has succeeded brilliantly. He has succeeded at making himself and his cronies even richer than when he took office. These Texas oilmen may have ruined Iraq, sold their country to the Chinese, wrecked American education, and ignored global warming until it will be a miracle if it is ever reversed, but fear not. At least they have made themselves very, very wealthy.

and what do we the ppl do ???

How could anyone be surprised that Rove would be rude. He's acting all fat and sassy, so I suppose he is either whistling in the dark or is pretty sure he is not going to be prosecuted, ha ha.

Can I ask Mr. Rove a question? I want to know how much it cost to fix the 2000 and 2004 elections. It was pretty obvious that something went wrong in 2006 - could we ask him about that?

It is a pity that Rove is an American - what a blotch on a country that could raise a cow blossom like that. But I'm sure he'll have his cush little job lobbying for a totally corrupt corporation soon. Way to go, Rove!

you know what I am tired of the BS of Bush is to blame for global warmig, economy, etc.
you want to take the money from the big people...go ahead....what used to me a 99 cent hamburger is goint to cost you $3.....why because the big people who allow ou to buy that burger are going to be taxed so heavy and they are goint to say F you! I will close by business and you the middle class will have to do what ou should do to begin with ...feed your children at home......

do I have an audience?

Polls and statistics cannot be used to compare presidents, because the circumstances and issues of each president are so different. For instance, Truman was said to bungle the Korean War. But after 50 years of occupation in a tiny country, the rewards of the occupation are finally realized. Korean made electronics and automobiles are now recognized in the U.S. Johnson was disliked because he escalated the Vietnam War. But after years of fighting communists, and managing a war protest in the U.S. Johnson did help pass the Civil Rights Act. 40 years later we see the Civil Rights Act has produced profound change in American politics. Bush has shown courage in combating terrorism, and has provided leadership in fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two tiny countries that have proved to be resilient and resourceful with help from OPEC sponsors. Maybe in 50 years, Bush will be judged less harshly? After that time, OPEC will have been replaced with american corporations, like Exxon, Haliburton, and Blackwater. Once OPEC is replaced with american MBA managers, and oil profits are stabilized, the vision of Bush will be realized.

So how can polls and statistics be used to compare Truman, Johnson and Bush? Truman was fighting communism in Korea, a weak country before american business showed quality management. Johnson was fighting communism in VietNam before american military showed farming innovations for growing rice. And then Bush had the vision to take on OPEC and terrorists at the same time! Each president was bold, courageous and military leaders, but each fought very different cultures, spreading democracy, capitalism, and american management.

But only Bush can claim to be the first MBA to simultaneously fight two wars, world-wide terrorism and OPEC. His vision for spreading democracy, capitialism, and corporate outsourcing set a high standard for subsequent presidents.

Nixon was famous for stating "I am not a crook!" Now Bush may be famous for stating "We do not torture!" I would like to see a comparison of the executive branch resignations, indictments, investigations, and other corruptions.

I could be wrong, but it seems unusual to have so many cabinet level executives resign, as well as, attorneys and political counselors.

Rather than use Polls and statistics from average voters who really don't know what is going on in Washington, it might be helpful to develop a corruption metric.

A corruption metric is an objective measuring of the number of officials who resign, are investigated for wrong doing, arraigned, convicted, etc. Elected officials caught in corruption schemes should get a higher score than political appointees. Cabinet level officials should get a higher score than staff workers caught for wrong doing. (each official could be assigned a numerical rank)

The corruption metric could include a weighting for resignation vs. investigation vs. conviction (the actual outcome).

So there you have it: a corruption metric could include an official's rank and the actual outcome assigned a weight (a conviction scores higher than a resignation). Multiplying the rank by weight produces a corruption metric.

This method is more objective than a simple poll. Everyone knows you cannot trust the polls because they are designed by sociologists who use statistics. Everyone knows statistics can be manipulated at will. A corruption metric measures the behavior of officials who are forced to resign, investigated for wrong doing, or actually convicted of a crime.

Richard, There's a better old fashioned word for what this country is spreading. Fascism. We no longer have democracy in the US. barely ever did have it. If you think we do, you're either naive or under educated.

It has often been discussed what a poor and unpopular president has been. I am still unaware of any serious discussion on how he managed to become president.

Ok ok

I give up...you guys are right...George W. Bush may very well be the worst thing that's happened to America since fat chicks discovered Lane Bryant stretch pants. All I was really hoping to achieve was a bit of normalcy in this mediocre existence of mine.

No, I didn't go to law school. And no, I'm not even a registered voter. I'm 45 years old and I still live with my mother. But only because under the current administration I can't seem to find gainful employment.

So there you have it. I feel better and now we can all just move along. I apologize for furthering this pointless discussion; knowing there's not an end in sight that reflects what I've previously defended.

Now, I'm going to go back to my daily life because this is too much stress for one person to have to deal with.

LOL -- the fake JakeD seems to have serious personal problems -- don't worry, I won't tell anyone ; )

UPDATE! Rove Responds (and Fact Checker agrees "may have been a little harsh in awarding Karl Rove three Pinocchios" and downgrades the number of Pinocchios):

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/bushs_brain_on_bushs_heart.html

Yes bush is popular with his dictator ship but unpopular with having a heart.

their names their names from think I noticed by helping I was then did for a while, a young up across

KILL YOUR OWN SONS AND DAUGHERS BUSH FOR OIL

somewhere I read that Karl Rove was involved in the l972 dirty tricks activities with other young Republicans, but George Herbert Walker Bush investigated to see whether he was guilty of anything substantial, compared to Nixon, Liddy, Haldeman, Mitchell, Colson, Chapin, Segretti,Krogh,Hunt and so on. And George HW Bush decided Rove wasn't a seriously bad boy. Does anyone have a documented source for that? And what did he do that we know of? What is he doing now that we don't know of? What will he do between now and election day that we won't know of? Does anyone seriously think he won't try to steal the 2008 election for McCain?

Okay, I'm late to the party on this one, but it appears what Rove said is essentially correct. The difference is whether one looks to approval or disapproval numbers, and Rove chose the approval numbers because they are more favorable to his argument. That's spin not a falsehood.

It appears Rove has been awarded three (later reduced to two) Pinochios for a difference of opinion not fact.

Ha ha! Funny funny Bush. Funny funny Rove!
Them trick us. Them smart not dumb like Obama. Me want beer with Bush. Me want beer with McCain. Them good and funny. Them keep war going ha ha. No end to war. We have beer. No beer with Obama!

Funny funny Bush. Him trick us. Ha ha! Him clever. Me want beer with Bush. Beer with McCain too! Them good presidents. Them tough. Them funny. Me want knickname like Brownie or Rummy or Condom. Ha ha! We drink beer with them! Hillary like beer too! And shoot gun. Me want beer with Hillary, Bush, McCain. Ha ha! Trick us! Funny!

As a life long Republican I cannot understand why anyone with a brain would vote Republican this time around. I am so ashamed of the lies, misery, killing, robbing of tax dollars to enrich Halliburton, ignoring Geneva Conventions, etc. etc. etc. that were brought about due to my vote for Bush. McCain looks like he would be much worse, and I won't take a chance this time. Bush never was a "compassionate conservative" but we believed what he said and he made a mockery of our government and made his own law to protect himself. And he said Saadam was a madman? Christ, I don't know when I'll be able to call myself a Republican again.

I love the Washington Post on-line and all of this blogging!

Why are will still in Iraq? Where is Nancy and the rest of the criminal Democrats with the "checks and balances" of the Constitution. I can say I'm ashamed to call myself a Democrat! The whole Federal government is a sham. I'm really sick of the whole thing. Screw the golf game and Rev. Wright, lets talk about a real fix! Please!

im sick and tired of numbers and "he said this" or "she said that" when in the end this is how it went down. Bush started off his presidency with a freakin national disaster. I mean come on, show the man some respect. with what he had at that time he did the best that he could. I hate how people talk about "well why did it take him so long to get over to Iraq and start a counter- offensive" and now they say " Why is he still in Iraq" that gets me so ticked. Its hard to see my fellow Americans on T.V. running they"re mouths and they don't even know what there talking about. If the American people would give some time out of there so called "busy lifetime" and listen to what he says instead of making fun of a president THEY elected they would hear that his side of the story has good thought. Heres an excerpt from an interview on George.W Bush. "President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidental candidates' plans to withdraw abrubtly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists. What he says here is that pulling out of Iraq when the job isn't finished would put in the Terrorists eyes that "hey, we just made them run home with their tails between their legs, we could beat them. WHO WOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BLAME THEN?