For The Record
Tweet
As George Bush goes below 40% in his approval, please note that William Jefferson Clinton never went below 40% in his entire second term.
So noted.
40 Responses to “For The Record”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Clinton did go below 40% (according to Gallop) in his first term, and he was able to get re-elected. Since this is Bush’s second term, as you note, he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.
Obviously, other Republicans have to worry about it, just as many Democrats lost during their mid-term elections under Clinton.
Is there a point in comparing Bush’s approval to Clinton’s?
JWG: Short answer — Nope
If you’re a congressional Republican, there’s a point.
If he had just kept his pants on& he d be considered one of the greats.
JK
His middle name is Jefferson, after all…
Not only that OW, he hardly ever went under 50%, despite impeachment.
There are a few outliers.
Clinton was a popular President, disregarding the 35-40% knuckledragging contingent who would have hated Clinton even if he had dragged babies out of burning buildings.
If he had just kept his pants on…he’d be considered one of the greats.
JK
JK — That’s not really too much to ask of the President of the United States
But I’m here with good news for all you anti – Christian bigots (you know who you are)
Christian Coalition falls on lean days
The Christian Coalition, once one of the most powerful forces of the religious right, is running a much leaner operation these days.
The group — once based in Washington — now has its headquarters in Charleston, S.C., where it is coping with a vastly reduced budget of $1.3 million, down from the $26 million it enjoyed a decade ago…
Former President Bill Clinton’s eight years in office caused the group to mushroom, said Drew McKissick, the group’s political director.
“But once you got past 2000, you had a much more conservative president in the White House who was not antagonistic toward Christians,” he said. “We had to refocus our agenda as we no longer had a liberal bogeyman in the White House. Instead of being in opposition to, you’re trying to work on the positive side of the agenda.”
So, whoop it up, guys! Religion’s on the run!
Yes, and if Jefferson had lived in the age of CNN, FOX….Ken Starr, Trent Lott, Henry Hyde, Rush…and the other (largely) fat GOP’ers who tar’d and feathered Bubba….Jefferson would have been impeached, too.
God bless the GOP. They know what’s best for ALL Americans. From prayer in school, to the mess in Iraq….hey baby, it’s ALL about what’s best for the United States of America. Right?
These morons can’t be booted out of office, and out of power fast enough for me. I see with Bush’s 39% approval rating, that the country is waking up. Encouraging with the 06′ elections on the horizon.
America them a bone and gave them a decade or so to run the country. The F’d it up royally.
Time’s up. Get out.
JK
The Christian Coalition is not religious or even remotely godly.
JK: ” … if Jefferson had lived [now] & Jefferson would have been impeached, too.” Total baloney, unprovable, insupportable nonsense.
Time’s up. Get out
You’re just running everybody ‘out of Dodge’, aren’t you?
JK über alles!
The Christian Coalition is not religious or even remotely godly.
So says the guy who thinks that Democrats are “more like Jesus” than Republicans.
Yuk, yuk.
>>Total baloney, unprovable, insupportable nonsense.
Ya think, Frank? It’s opinion, you moron. (Man… you’d be better off with a chia pet between your ears than what you’re working with now. )
To paraphrase the Sixth Sense:
” I see dumb people….they’re everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don’t even know that they’re dumb.”
http://www.funlol.com/pictures/0308.html
JK
JK: Your moderated response indicates that your original post was a waste of time. I’m sorry you think so little of your own opinion. I didn’t want to say it was really stupid — I was being diplomatic. Now I can be honest: That was one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen posted anywhere, anytime. You and JadeGold and Loopy Velez must be in a contest to see who can post the most useless combination of syllables in the English language. You’re gaining on them.
here
A May 23-24 poll showed it dropping even more, down to 53 percent, with 42 percent disapproving of his job performance. These were Clinton’s worst numbers in the Gallup Poll since August 1996. His lowest approval rating came early in his first term, in June 1993, when only 37 percent approved of his performance, while 49 percent disapproved.
Clinton was a popular President who couldn’t get a majority of the popular vote in two consecutive elections, even against the pitiful Bob Dole. (How did he win the nomination again? Oh, right… it was his turn.)
At least Bush got his majority and even had 15 million more votes than Clinton in ’96.
Regards,
St Wendeler
“So says the guy who thinks that Democrats are “more like Jesus” than Republicans.”
Try reading the Sermon on the Mount sometime Frank. If Jesus was around today, he would be an anti-globalisation protestor, tree-hugger, and peacenik all rolled into one.
He would have nothing to do with the right-wing bigots and rule-followers. He would call them Pharisees, overturn their crony’s money-changing tables, and then cross the road to avoid them.
The problem with right-wing Bible-thumpers is this: they have never read it.
rhys;
They read, but fail to understand.
That’s exactly the reason Jesus spoke in parables(scripture available on demand) because he knew there would be those who would distort his words, no matter how he framed them.
He spoke in metaphors. Some people have a genetic, or willful kink in their hard wiring. Metaphors are incomprehensible to these folks.
Or here, for you IE 6.0 users
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sermon+on+the+Mount
No, Leo, your metaphors are incomprehensible to all folks (a little criticism goes a long way, when it’s directed at you, eh, Leo?)
I really hope your comparing your incoherent metaphors to Christ’s parables, It would confirm some of my worst suspicions about you.
rhys: Do you really thinnk I’ve never read the Sermon the Mount? Do you really think there’s a born again Christian (I am not one, by the way) who has not heard and read the Sermon on the Mount a hundred times? How idiotic.
There are many problems with the Jesus would be a radical (hippie / liberal, etc.) meme, too numerous to mention here. But the first problem would be that Jesus probably didn’t intend for Christians to become an autonomous religion, but rather an ever growing sect of Jews.
Secondly, Roman Catholics don’t believe that the Protestant Reformation was necessary. Thus, Jesus’ teachings have already been through two major permutations, whch, for a reasonable person — unlike say, you, Rhys, or Oliver, — would suggest that speculating how Jesus’ life and sayings would transform into modern politics is best left up to experts. I don’t expect experts such as those to be waiting around here to carry Oliver’s water. Over here, maybe, but not on these threads.
Or here:http://tinyurl.com/ckyaj
St Wendeler- patron saint of lying with numbers?
I saw your argument and was sure someone else had beaten me to ripping it to shreds. To my delight, that was not the case, so here goes.
Well lets examine the mechanics of the two elections that Clinton won, shall we? Ross Perot was a third party candidate and and in both elections took a sizable chunk of the electorate. This is why Clinton couldn’t take a majority. But lets see how many percentage points he beat Dole by. 9. How many did Bush beat Kerry by? 3. That’s a 300% difference. Let’s also examine electoral votes. In 96 it was Clinton 379 Dole 159. Ouch. Breaking THAT down into percentages gives us a 70-30 split. In the most recent election those numbers were closer to the actual popular vote, about 53-47.
Yes- Bush did get a majority of the popular vote in 2004. Perhaps because third party candidates mustered 1 or 2 percent of the vote as opposed to the 10 or so from 96. We also learned the popular vote was irrelevant in 2000, since Bush lost the popular vote. You do remember that right? Because you didnt mention it in your post. So I’m assuming you forgot and didn’t intentionally leave it out of your insipid analysis.
As for the “15 million more votes” stat. Simply put- this has to be the stupidest part of your post. You ever heard of “population growth?” Im sure it may have had a significant part of those “15 million more votes.” Conisdering how many more registered voters there were in 2004 than 8 years prior, that number really doesnt mean anything.
Thanks for playing, and feel free to return when you have a coherent argument.
So, you’re saying – More Registered Voters, more GOP Votes?
Ok
Regarding Perot and ’96, as I mentioned in my post, I’m surprised Dole did as well as he did…. the guy was a terrible candidate. However, assuming that Perot voters would’ve gone to Dole, Clinton, or stayed home is pure speculation. There was a third party candidate in 2000 and 2004.. and at least in 2004, Bush still got a majority.
Clinton was popular… I agree… even I liked the guy, despite some of his more clueless policy decisions (see Healthcare and foreign policy vis a vis North Korea). However, he did receive lower polls in his presidency than Bush has thus far… although Bush is sinking quickly.
I’ve posted on Oliver’s propensity to look backwards for electoral success here and here. enjoy
Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
Jesus probably didn t intend for Christians to become an autonomous religion, but rather an ever growing sect of Jews.
You have made referece to your Catholicism in the past. Is the above statement the position of the Catholic Church? I think not. How long has it been since you went to confession?
“Beatitudes (that hippy spiel part of the Sermon on the Mount blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things) are one of the passages in the Gospels /most probable/ to have survived garbling in translation and about as close to Christ s words as he spoke them as we can get without talking to the man himself.” Ah, yes, the “blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things” part… And this is what school of theology? Perhaps the George Carlin School of Apostasy?
I didn’t say the beatitudes were garbled in translation, I said the original Church had undergone major changes, that make it nearly imposible to speculate on what political position Jesus woud take. He did say a few more things than “blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things”.
Everyone would like to believe that try to live their lives according to the Beatitudes (you can read the “whosits” and the “stuff – and – things” here, by the way.
Next time, slow down, and read a word at a time.
Leo, here’s a little something for you to chew on:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_12_122/ai_n14695913
Wysdom: Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Counter Reformation. One of its leaders was the patron Saint of the Salesian Order of Priests and Brothers who taught me in high school — Saint Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church
To be honest with you, I had never heard of the Jesus Seminar. Apparently, it was no great loss:
You do not have to look far to find someone saying something nasty about the Jesus Seminar, from pulpits, in print or on the internet. The Seminar has no desire to dignify such abuse with counterattack. The critiques selected here are those that raise substantive issues that merit an intelligent response.
*
The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? — Earl Doherty posts essays in radical historical criticism arguing that Jesus never existed; pages include a review of R. W. Funk’s Honest to Jesus.
*
The Gospel according to the Jesus Seminar — Birger A. Pearson’s 1995 critical review of The Five Gospels calls the Jesus Seminar for faulty historiography for ascribing eschatological materials to sources other than Jesus while failing to recognize the eschatology implicit in sayings it recognized as genuine & claims the Seminar produced a non-Jewish secularized image of Jesus. (Expanded version of article printed in Religion 25, pp. 317-338).
*
The Corrected Jesus — Richard B. Hays 1994 critical review of The Five Gospels faults the “attempt to assess the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings in isolation from a more comprehensive reconstruction of the events of his life, ministry, and death” as “methodologically problematic” (First Things 43; posted 12/6/96).
*
The Gospels According to Luke — summary of L. T. Johnson’s critique of Jesus Seminar in The Real Jesus with reaction from fellow Emory scholar and JS Fellow Vernon Robbins (Emory Magazine Fall/96).
*
Jesus Seminar Under Fire — twice updated transcript of Gregory Koukl’s flamboyant 1995 diatribe from the radio show ironically entitled, “Stand to Reason.”
*
The Seventy-four ‘Scholars’: Who does the Jesus Seminar really Speak for? — Craig L. Blomberg argues that the Seminar does not represent a real consensus of scholars except ‘in a small percentage of the issues.’ (Christian Research Journal 1994).
What’s the matter? Couldn’t find any non – heretics?
“Read a book, for the love of God.” Do tell
Sorry about all the italics — a typo.
Frank_D: “But the first problem would be that Jesus probably didn t intend for Christians to become an autonomous religion, but rather an ever growing sect of Jews.”
That’s a very interesting idea to just throw down without a single reference to back it up. I’m assuming you’re not so arrogant as to present your own conjecture as an analysis of what Jesus intended–now THAT would be a Messianic Complex–so please… Let’s see the work and research you’re drawing you derived the above-quoted opinion from.
Frank_D: “Secondly, Roman Catholics don t believe that the Protestant Reformation was necessary. Thus, Jesus teachings have already been through two major permutations, whch, for a reasonable person unlike say, you, Rhys, or Oliver, would suggest that speculating how Jesus life and sayings would transform into modern politics is best left up to experts.”
Er… Frank…? This is painful. TWO major permutations? Is that what they teach in the Catholic church, or are you merely revealing your jaw-dropping lack of knowledge about history, language, and ancient culture, theological and otherwise?
Furthermore, if the Protestant Reformation hadn’t happened, Frank, you (if you’re indeed Catholic) would have been excommunicated for implying it’s even POSSIBLE to alter the word of God. The Bible is perfect–any version out there at any time in history… pay no attention to the man behind the curtain–infalible, and it is thus because God does not /allow/ it to be altered… at least not in any way that matters or would change its meaning even the tiniest bit.
Protestant Reformation not necessary… Egad. The mind boggles. So there was nothing that needed to change about the Catholic Church when Luther nailed his memo to the door, eh?
Read a book, for the love of God.
And ONE last thing–if YOU had read even a sampling of the scholarly work available on the authenticity of Christ’s word as it exists today, you would know that the Beatitudes (that hippy spiel part of the Sermon on the Mount–blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things) are one of the passages in the Gospels /most probable/ to have survived garbling in translation and about as close to Christ’s words as he spoke them as we can get without talking to the man himself.
Check out research published by the members of the Jesus Seminar, particularly pertaining to comparisons of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as well as the Gospel Q “single source” hypothesis. They reflect, as well, much earlier Gospels considered “non-canonical” like Thomas and Magdalene.
Before you shoot down other people’s ideas and assumptions, make sure you KNOW they’re wrong… because rhys was most certainly not, and the experts you invoked back him up.
Thanks for fixing it, Oliver…
Frank;
First let me say; thanks for the link. I take back at least some of the things I’ve thougth about you.
According to the pacifist Mennonite Yoder;”Neither Jesus nor Paul rejected Judaism, and Judaism did not reject Christianity, according to Yoder, at least in the first century.”
Frank, this has to be the outer limits of the most radical fringe of thought I’ve seen within Christendom(except mormonism)
The premise that Jesus or apostles never rejected Judaism is correct within limits. The Law was necessary in order for the Jewish Nation to see for themsleves it is an impossible law for imperfect men to live up to. He kept sending them prophets with the message of the spirit of the Law, so they could see the need for the Redeemer. Jesus fulltilled the Law. Therefore he substantiated it. He never rejected it. What he rejected was those who used their religious status (Pharisses/Sadducees) to exercise dominion over the people. Many, misled by the leaders rejected Christ and his teachings. All this culminated in the final destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 by Roman General Titus. Unlike the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the year 600 BC (approx) after centuries of warnings from prophets like Jeremiah, Isiah, Micah, the holy Temple built by Solomon was laid waste. It has never been rebuilt. In point of fact, a mosque(Dome of the Rock) now stands in its place. It is the final monument to both the end of Judaism, and the rejection of Christ by the Jews.
My Jewish friend and I have a bitter joke about this: “You’ve lost the right to Eternal salvation, but you’re not going home empty handed — were going to give you two centuries of persecution.”
There is plenty more to the story for sure.
However, you are approaching the matter from a secular point of view, which is fine. But in order to understand the dyanmics between jew and christian in the theological sense, you must reference the Bible. Anyway I am not arguing either side in the long haul. I was taking an advocacy position because I thought that was your disposition. Was I wrong?
Secular discussions have their foundation in human logic. That talent which places him higher than the animals has limits to it’s effectiveness when discussing the mysteries of life. I’ll leave it at that.
Jesus never rejected the Jews — they rejected him. Those that didn’t, became Christians. Think of the “seeds sown on three different soils” parable
There’s more to the story than that. The actual split took place, I think, at a “See” discussing Christ’s humanity, where I think it was also determined that Jews and Christians were now separate and distinct. That information I couldn’t find right away. It may have been tied to the “Arian heresy”, and related to the Virgin Birth, an issue that wasn’t finally resolved until the 1850′s.
Here’s more, from the Jewish Perspective.
On these threads, I’d be a fool to reference the Bible, and be called a “Bible – thumper” by a succession of anti – Christian bigots.
Frank;
I can’t speak for others, but I think anti-christian bigots are born when hypocrisy fathers them.
Well in a sense yes, obviously. But that also means more Dem votes. Kerry received more votes than Clinton did. Is this relevant though? No.
Well I’ll agree he was a terrible candidate. But are you really surprised he did that well? The 39 of the 40% of the popular vote he got would have voted for him even if he died a week before election day. These are, in all likelihood, the same people who still “approve” of the job Bush is doing. Besides, like I pointed out, elctoral vote-wise, Dole got whupped.
Yeah and I addressed this point already. The third party candidates mustered 1% of the vote altogether. This includes Nader and the handful of no-names from the more obscure political parties. With 1 point, some one would have to get a majority. Let me also mention that Clinton missed a majority by about seven tenths of a percent. Can you at least agree that had Perot not run, Clinton wouldve gotten that .7 to claim the majority that you hold in such high regards. And why do you keep ignoring the fact that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 since those numbers are apparently so relevant.
Bush’s first term gave him better numbers than Clinton, mainly based on considerable upticks after 9/11 and in the runup to war. Overall though Clinton’s numbers were better throught his two terms in general. In his second term his numbers hovered around the high fifties to mid sixties for most of the time. Even during impeachment they werent affected. As a matter of fact, they were at their highest points right after the House impeachment vote in some polls. Why? I beleive its because most Americans saw through it for what it was- bullshit- and rallied around him.
Frank_D: “Ah, yes, the blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things part& And this is what school of theology? Perhaps the George Carlin School of Apostasy?”
0.o
You can tell you’ve really called someone out when the best they can manage is attacking a tongue-in-cheek remark.
At least St. Carlin has a sense of humour.
Frank_B: “To be honest with you, I had never heard of the Jesus Seminar.”
Frank_B: “What s the matter? Couldn t find any non – heretics?”
o.o
Oh-kay then. Let me get this straight.
1) You’d never heard of the Jesus Seminar.
2) Your idea of research is to pull summaries of six critiques, which you haven’t read, off the ‘net…
3) Based on this, you’ve concluded that these 74 scholars are heretics
The question now becomes not WERE you dropped on your head as a child, but how many times?
Frank_D: “Do tell (www.tanbooks.com)”
*rotfl*
You know, while I appreciate the link to “Dressing with Dignity” and the doubtlessly invaluable information about how I can protect myself and my “loved ones from the onslaught of tasteless, immodest clothing”…
Thanks, and yet… no thanks.
Wysdom: Please be assured that it is with the greatest respect that I pay you the compliment of calling your comment completely worthless.
Leo: So anti – Christian bigotry is the fault of — the Christians?
Frank;
The Sermon on the Mount can answer that question.
Christians are seen by unbelievers as ambassadors of Christ.
Christians who are not living as “the light of the world” while espousing their christian commitment, create a credibility issue for the religion as a whole. If they cannot live by the standard of their namesake, the conclusion, by some, is that they must worship a false god. No, Christians are not hypocrites. Hypocrites are hypocrites. It is for each one to examine their behavior to determine how it reflects the life of Christ.
But others will form opinions based upon their own perception of what it means as well.
BTW;
Such hypocrisy is not exclusively the domain of christians.
I am in a position to observe many ethnic groups. Whether Hindu, Sikh,
Muslim or jew, it seems much easier to espouse a belief than it is to live it.
I’ll put the question another way: Are you saying tha anti – Christian bigotry is aimed only at hypocrites?
Did you know that in mental health circles today, people who attempt to convert other people to Christianity are called “hyperreligious”, and that “hyperreligiosity” is considered to be “obsessive behavior,” bordering on the pathological?
How’s that for anti – Christian prejudice?
Frank;
Are you trying to start an argument?
Using your definition (from where, I know not) Jesus would be regarded as both ‘hyperreligious’ and OCD. I am not suggesting there is not a prejudice
against christians from certain quarters of society, nor am I denying it is a form of persecution. But isn’t that just what Jesus prepared his followers for; “You will be persecuted for my namesake.” The fact that it occurs unjustly provides no safehaven for those who bring dishonor to him by their behavior,
which can be seen as contrary to WWJD.
“I think anti-christian bigots are born when hypocrisy fathers them.”
You said it — I didn’t.
When Jesus said, “ You will be persecuted for my namesake, He didn’t add, “And that’s as it should be.” And, He didn’t say, “That’s just fine.”
Are you trying to say that prejudice against blacks, women and gays is a blight on society, but anti – Christian bigotry is acceptable, because some Christians are hypocritical?
http://www.americanatheist.org/smr99/T2/zindler.html
Well I guess that answers my question.
Happy Trails to you.