And ongoing support for this clown is exactly why the GOP got a third smaller this last cycle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402263. html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

I'll bet we see forward movement on impeachment right after the break.

And some golden nuggets out of this article:

""A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh," said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. "That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions.""

Hilarious! So, we are supposed to believe those other clowns on the Internets are the reason for the profound suckage? Maybe if we just left the commentary to the experts, he would only kind of suck then?

That covers, "Blame the lefty bloggers"

"That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization."

This one is too sweet. Essentially "blame the media generally." Ok, well I guess the GOP just does not fully appreciate the fruits of their deregulation efforts then. Hell, Clinton even helped them out on this one.

"Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating."

This is likely true. Having reached the peak --knocked it outta the park, on true suckage, it's as bad as it gets. Might as well just do what it is they want to do. Sound familiar?

"Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. "

And there it is! Blame Americans. I sure feel guilty for reacting out to what is quite possibly the worst leadership I will ever experience.

The upside is that we are highly likely to improve from here. That's a happy thought right?

"The current president, though, has endured bad numbers longer than Nixon or his father did and longer than anyone other than Truman."

This is only a matter of time. The liberating sentiment expressed above more or less assures us of that. Not just peak suckage, but profound flat valleys of suckage. Flat lines, like just bad with no sugar coating potential bad.

"And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post-ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's."

Brutal! So, congress is looking bad too. Maybe that's comforting to know right. Does anybody remember the "Obstructionist" BS we heard over and over the last cycle? I do. Now Congress is sucking because they can't get anything done. Why?

Because the really sucking (P)resident won't allow it --and what's worse is his supporters more or less have to go for broke, if they even want a party after this mess.

This is like getting hurt, poking your friend in the eye and saying, "Look we both hurt!"

"As much as Bush advisers dismiss polls, their predecessors in the White House said public rejection invariably drags down the whole institution. "It colors everything you can do," Donatelli said. "Psychologically, it wears on you.""

It's hard work people. Sucking so profundly is actually quite difficult to maintain. We should respect Bush for that.

"Caddell describes a White House down in the polls in one word: "Awful." "People start going through the motions," he added. "The energy is gone.""

And to think, this was a MANDATE! Remember that?

You'll see movement on impeachment if you see movement toward convincing 17 Republican Senators to vote for removing him (and Cheney) in an impeachment trial. That's what I want to ask anyone who favors impeaching Bush: who would those 17 be? At a time when the Senate can't must 17 Republicans to override Bush's veto of a highly popular stem cell research bill?

Until you give me that list of 17, I don't see impeachment happening. Democrats in the Congress won't impeach Bush unless they think he has an excellent chance of being removed in the Senate.

Andrew

I think the pressure that's gonna come after the break will end up flipping some Republicans.

President Bush Job Approval

Approve 32.8%
Disapprove 62.2%


Congressional Job Approval

Approve 28.5%
Disapprove 64.3%


Spin on, leftists. You don't have the votes and voters dislike your party's performance even more than Mr. Bush.

Herb

Well, which 17? Gordon Smith? Susan Collins? Norm Coleman? If those three leaning, worried-about-2008 Republicans don't go for it, there's no chance in hell.

In 1974, when Nixon faced impeachment, there were 57 Democratic Senators (and one independent) so really only 9, not 17 Republicans were needed to remove him. And he lost those 9 with the revelation of the smoking gun (Nixon heard ordering Haldeman to tell the CIA to get the FBI to halt their investigation of Watergate). There simply hasn't been that kind of smoking gun with Bush.

Andrew

You might be totally right Andrew. If there is no movement away (from Bush), there will be no impeachment.

I think it's gone beyond principle, and has moved into simple value judgement territory. I'm thinking it's just gonna end up less worth it to support Bush all the way out of office, than it is to break ranks.

Pressure is only gonna go up.

I think that only if Larry Flynt outs enough of the senators that Rove is blackmailing, then there's a chance for impeachment and conviction.

Herb, congressional approval is for both Dems and GOP. So, to compare that to Bush's approval is not valid. So, spin on that.

"...congressional approval is for both Dems and GOP..."

WHO'S IN THE MAJORITY? DEMOCRATS.

Hand-wring on.

Herb

Who's holding back votes on all the issues? THE GOP!

Maybe if the GOP weren't the obstructionists and allowed Congress to do what they were elected to do, approval would be better. The poor approval reflects of the GOP just as much as the Dems.

Yeah, the Democrats sure have an overwhelming majority of 48 senators right now in the US Senate.

Andrew

"Who's holding back votes on all the issues? THE GOP!

Maybe if the GOP weren't the obstructionists and allowed Congress to do what they were elected to do, approval would be better. The poor approval reflects of the GOP just as much as the Dems."

And Herb, I'll remind you that the days after the shift in power, you were wearing your ability to stiffle, filibuster and generally stonewall like a medal. So let's not pretend that there is no culpability from your team. OK?

"In 1974, when Nixon faced impeachment, there were 57 Democratic Senators (and one independent) so really only 9, not 17 Republicans were needed to remove him. And he lost those 9 with the revelation of the smoking gun (Nixon heard ordering Haldeman to tell the CIA to get the FBI to halt their investigation of Watergate). There simply hasn't been that kind of smoking gun with Bush."

The reason there is not a smoking gun has to do with perception. We have media control and government secrecy to a level that makes Nixon look transparent and the networks look brilliant in the 1970s.

Somewhere, these past few years, there was gun smoke, or whirling pieces of car, or the sick slow roll of a grenade, and that is all we need. He lied, and now we have 3,600 solid reasons for impeachment. Sadly, the list is growing longer every day.

The entire Congress is betraying the American people by leaving this regime in charge.

Herb...
You lost! Get over it!

Nixon resigned 4 days after the polls showed that he had bottomed out. Resigned in DISGRACE!

With one possible exception, I would still vote for Mr. Nixon over any current candidate, republican or democrat.

Herb

I'm proud of you Herb.

And you would get the same result.

RESIGN IN DISGRACE