Naomi Wolf explained it very well in The End of America
GwB doesn't care what people think, he's busy creating his own reality and y'all can just suck on the fumes.

In celebration of this anniversary, Bush Jr. has announced his "F*** You, America, What Are You Going To Do About It" holiday plan.

This is what happens when you elect presidents with no experience or policy substance: they just as easily fill the void with policies you hate.

At least those days are behind us. Oh. Right.

Potpurri Sachet,

Yeah I know what you mean. It's like you can't win, because the ones with experience had no understanding that the war in Iraq would be a clusterf**k.

OTOH, it speaks well for the fundamental soundness of our polity. No troops in the streets, no serious talk of impeachment -- just citizens waiting for the constitution to take care of the problem of removing him from office.

"It's something of a crisis for our political system that the president has now spent over three years hated and mistrusted by the majority of the country, and yet has never felt the need to take steps to restore his legitimacy."
That's because those steps don't exist. I don't think there is anything he can do to restore his legitimacy, so I understand why he doesn't even try.

"OTOH, it speaks well for the fundamental soundness of our polity. No troops in the streets, no serious talk of impeachment ...."

I'm not sure that no serious talk of impeachment is in the same category as no troops in the streets. The constitution does offer an alternative to passively waiting out eight years of arguably criminal conduct.

I thought it was a hold over from wen Bush was the most popular president ever. It is easier for people to change their mind about people, but harder I think for institutions. There is institutional inertia that prevents or slows changes that does not prevent someone from changing an answer on a poll.

Am I an elitist for not wanting to hand my toddler a "fuck bush" sign to hold up for the camera?

Helter, no you're not. I wouldn't want my child photographed like that either.

This disapproval might be shocking to Ezra, but not to me. I've disapproved for 7 years now! The public finally catching up just shows how right and awesome I am.

I think what's wrong is that no major Democratic party figure or major media star has discussed the possibility of resignation. It was less than 10 years ago when resignation was casually bandied about as a cure-all for far less severe public mistrust and disapproval. I'm not saying that a resignation drive is prudent or would be successful, but the double standard is pretty shocking.

I suspect W. still doesn't get it. I'd bet he thinks that hoi polloi just don't understand that his policies are sound and don't have the patience to wait for them to work in the long run when we're all dead.

A few months ago, the day after his approval rating had touched a new local minimum there was a piece in the Times describing how he and other members of the Bush family were encouraging Jeb to run on the next round. The presidency--a nice job for a Bush. We bought W. a nice little oil company to play with and then the country. Now we're encouraging little Jeb to take a turn with the country.

I'd call that elitism.

Most presidents work at improving their approval ratings in second terms to burnish their reputations in history. GWB doesn't seem to take much notice of history, so he may not have this motivation.

For that matter, seeking to improve one's approval ratings is a tacit admission that something may be wrong. I doubt that GWB has enough respect for public opinion to consider that as a serious problem.

Being isolated, arrogant, and spectacularly incurious has some advantages in very specific circumstances, I guess. If only those advantages could do the rest of the country some good.

I'm beginning to think that the late-90s Republicans had the right idea: treat impeachment, not as a Big Deal, but as a parliamentary "vote of confidence". If we viewed Presidential impeachment as a parliamentary check, maybe the War Criminal President would have been removed long ago.

No accountability might be best. With no sense of justice or restitution the electorate might be more inclined to take it out on right-wing surrogates. If you could restore the constitution (a big if), eight years of degradation would be a small price to pay for decimating the extremist right. It would be nice to think this was our closest brush with the American falange.

This is why Colbert's roast a couple years back was so shocking and so freaking awesome. For one, it may be the greatest moment of speaking truth to power in American history or some other hyperbolic statement, and two, his thinly veiled disdain for the president and the media was wonderfully cathartic.

What that 40-months period means is that Bush has never broken 50% approval at any time during his second term.

Why should Bush "take steps to restore his legitimacy?" He is still widely handled with kid gloves by the media and still gets most of what he wants from Congress. What the voters think is completely irrelevant.

Most presidents work at improving their approval ratings in second terms to burnish their reputations in history. GWB doesn't seem to take much notice of history, so he may not have this motivation.

That's not it. He doesn't care about history for the same reason he doesn't care about public opinion now.

Elitism.

George Bush has still not lost the approval of elites in Washington DC, the media, and in the top economic brackets. The multi-millionaire Villagers still love him, in large part because they haven't had their lives screwed up by his policies.

In addition, there's an element of this affection that's like the French Court embracing Ben Franklin. The pundits in DC are so out of touch that they think they're showing their connection to the common man by embracing George. Because even though he's a multi-millionaire whose daddy was President, he's one who owns a ranch & speaks with a drawl and therefore, the common man just loves him!

Bush doesn't care about history because he believes that no matter how much he screws up, the people with the money and the microphones are going to say he did a great job.

And he's probably right. 5 years from now, we're going to start to see "contrarian" pieces--first from right-wing hack shops, but later from media pundits--saying how George wasn't so bad, and he actually moved this country forward in an irreplaceable way.

He will end up better regarded than Hoover, in spite of the fact that he probably deserves to be less well regarded than even Buchanan. Of course, only the liberals will say that. Because they're blinded by their liberal liberalism and hate the common man.

We ultimately get the government we allow. GwB is the result of an electorate that concerns itself more with style more than substance. Gwb is the result of an electorate that concerns itself with the perception of someone with whom they think they would rather have a beer with rather than distancing itself from "The Smartest Kid in Class". GwB is the result of an electorate that would vote for someone whom would appeal to it's basest instinct as opposed to someone who would appeal to it's highest aspirations.GwB is the result of what the electorate allowed itself to have.

5 years from now, we're going to start to see "contrarian" pieces--first from right-wing hack shops, but later from media pundits--saying how George wasn't so bad, and he actually moved this country forward in an irreplaceable way.

I thought they'd started on this already.

Two things:

I think Bush is largely and purposefully insulated from the disapproval of the people - he boasts about not reading the newspapers, his advisors shelter him, his town-hall meetings require background checks for the audience, etc. How many times has he been informed about his low polling numbers? Does he even know at all? (that's probably a little extreme, but after reading that the Iraqi army was disbanded on a whim by Bremer on the ground after specific planning not to, I'll believe anything). I don't think he truly realizes how unhappy America is with where we are headed.

Also, I think we would have impeached Bush long ago if not for the long stretch of time of a Republican-domanted Congress and unprecedented party-discipline. And once the Democrats came to power, their victory proved hollow - the Senate majority was too narrow to do anything. So even the possibility of impeachment is unreachable. So the President can go on, devil-may-care, doing whatever he pleases and promising that history will vindicate him, Truman-style.

Unfortunately, there's no parlimentary procedure for a vote of confidence, or a special election in America for the president. Whether there should be would be an interesting thesis topic, or if several writers could submit articles to Slate.

So we bid our time and wait eight months...

The suggestion that Bush Jr. levels of criminality, conspiracy, negligence and outright malevolence have anything to do with a lack of "experience or policy substance" is perhaps one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever, ever, ever encountered from a non-right winger.

You could have literally had stone statues sitting in the oval office instead of Bush Jr. and Fourthbranch Cheney and far, far, far less harm would have been done.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the corporate Media is actively blocking the expression of the country's discontent in our national political discourse. The pattern of scandal and corruption is never given the catalysis of a voice, articulating the full perception of a pattern, along with the outrage it justifies. Effective and credible voices, speaking from a moral center, with a considered and informed view, are largely excluded from the national political discourse, or drowned out by the political clowns, the professionally complacent, the glibertarians and the right-wing shills.

The most troubling, to me, are those Media figures, who adopt an above-the-fray non-partisan complacency, while posing as referees. I am thinking especially of people, like Charlie Rose or Tim Russert, who exercise the power of gatekeepers. Even worse, are the clowns, like Chris Matthews and the professional incompetents like Mark Halperin.

Think about the N.Y. Times op-ed page. Then, imagine the contrast of Maureen Dowd with, say, digby of Hullabaloo.

The blogosphere is large, and reaches an increasing audience, but a vast part of America sees only the political news drivel of the corporate Media. They are not completely ignorant, but they see things through a Media filter, that keeps them from connecting their daily experience, a few bits of news, and the political reality of Republican policy and process, with their own participation in the political process.

The Media's incompetence, focus on the trivial, lack of institutional memory, and complacent neutrality contribute to the maintaince of a large part of the country in completely separate, virtual realities. Conservatives simply do not have to face the collapse of the economy or the catastrophe of the Iraq War as an objective, shared reality, and so, they can not be compelled to cooperate with the center or left, in the kind of course correction that followed Nixon and Watergate.

It is simply not possible for the country's discontent to catalyze into a political upheaval in any way, outside of the political campaign -- and even that outlet is threatened by the determination of the Media to trivialize and slander Democrats, while mechanically lauding McCain.

Bush believes he rules by divine right. That's not figurative in the sense of him having contempt for us commoners, thinking of himself as superior, etc: that's literal, in the sense of him thinking that his authority is derived from God.

Well, Dems, so your margin is a little thin in the Senate. So what. If you think impeachment is the right thing to do, you should do it. Dems are no different than the corrupt knuckleheads they replaced. Just same old same old.

I'm really not sure what meaning impeachment has any more, other than one party has the votes and the will to push it through. If Clinton was impeached, but Bush was/is not, then impeachment has no moral meaning whatsoever (thanks, lame duck House Republicans of 1998!). Of course, Clinton's impeachment didn't really change anything, so perhaps Dems think it's not a good idea to push for impeachment unless you have a good shot at removal as well.

The picture of that cute kid scowling and holding the "fuck Bush" sign unintentionally shows how juvenile the sentiment is. Some things have gone pretty well under Bush, and some have not. 9/11 was conceived and plotted largely in the Clinton years. It hasn't been repeated here. Osama himself said he was emboldened by the lack of response to the bombing of the Cole. The wild hatred of Bush is in part an attempt to elevate the Clintons yet again.

The reality that no one wishes to address is that while Bush's ratings are low, the Democrat controlled congress has an even lower approval rating.
That's right, Democratic congress rating in the tank. This seems OK with all of the liberals here. They wish to forget this context when discussing Bush.

Yes, this liberal IS perfectly happy with what you think is the rating of congress. You see El, we liberals are known for our thinking ability, unlike the regressives. So to wit, our deductive capabilities allow us to see the story behind the soundbites (Unlike the regressives.).That being said, we understand that the congress is not "Democratic", but Democratically led. We also understand that the Regressive party has offered more filibusters in the last two years than those put forth in the previous four in which they were in control. The Regressive strategy of obstuction is willful and articulated, but the strategy is apparently flawed. With the special-election victories in Illinois, Louisiana, and last night Mississippi, it seems as though a forty year tactic of fear and smear may have finally run it's course. And without the ability to scare mainly white people, the Regressives are exposed as the economic/corporate royalist that they were, are, and always have been.

Democratic congress rating in the tank. This seems OK with all of the liberals here. They wish to forget this context when discussing Bush.
Posted by: El Viajero
--------------------
I'll take that one.

The all-time low Congress reached last year was in pollster John Zogby’s survey.

“There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

the reason we haven't seen action in congress on those issues is because of republican obstructionism.
there is also widespread disapprovial of congress for their inability to end the iraq war.

the reason we haven't seen action in congress on those issues is because of republican obstructionism.
there is also widespread disapprovial of congress for their inability to end the iraq war.

What a load of succotash. The Democrats could end the war tomorrow is they chose to do so. The reason they don't is POWER. They would lose it.
So don't tell us that they CAN'T. Say, instead, they WON'T

Not gonna work this time either El. The Democrats can end the funding for the war but, what will that accomplish. Nothing that the Democrats do will reverse the lies that the BuSh junta told and it's Regressive party cohorts (With some help from some corporate Democrats.)supported to get us to illegally invade a sovereign nation. No, cutting off funding will only leave the soldiers vulnerable as they will be left with even less realiable equipment than the BuSh junta left them with or refused to supply. Until we get a legitimately elected president in office who uses his brain to see the nuances that the situation presents ( I know regressives can't do nuance.)we will continue to illegaly occupy a sovereign nation.

That sovereign nation invaded another sovereign nation, Kuwait. Over the course of history, plenty of "sovereign" nations have had to be invaded for the good of all concerned. You wave the word "sovereign" like a talisman. Just chanting that word as an answer to every policy dilemma doesn't show much "nuance" -- ya moron.

Well first, ya mother was a moron for having you. Just like a regressive to throw stones and not even use a name with which to be skewered by. Secondly, talisman or not, Kuwait or not, WE invaded a sovereign nation under a penumbra of lies and mendacity and no amount of historical selective reasoning is going to change that. Even though it was not the first time that this country engaged in an iteration as such, it may be the most egregious as the plan for it was created years earlier with the creation of the Project for a New American Century, and it should have been nipped in the bud with the American people not allowing this selected president to not take office in the first place.

Bush lied and people died. Power to the people right on. No blood for oil. Selected, not elected. There, some slogans you left out.

Again, out of the regressive playbook. No substance, only effete attempts at derision of the messager, not the message. We can do this as long as you want, but it will not change the facts that the liberals are generally right on the issues because we think and we use the facts of a matter to garner our conclusions. We are ideas based not idealogues like the regressives, and we try our best to create solutions to problems that ALL can benefit from, regardless of the stupidity of SOME of us. Can you say that this has described the BuSh junta, the Reaguuun administration, or Tricky Dick's occupation of the people's house? Don't think so.

the reason we haven't seen action in congress on those issues is because of republican obstructionism.
there is also widespread disapprovial of congress for their inability to end the iraq war.
-----------------
What a load of succotash. The Democrats could end the war tomorrow is they chose to do so. The reason they don't is POWER. They would lose it.
So don't tell us that they CAN'T. Say, instead, they WON'T
Posted by: El Viajero
---------------------
hmmmm so are you saying that if the democrats drew up legislation to end the war the republicans in the senate wouldn't obstruct it?