(no subject)

[wrog]

2006 is only two years away; it took less time to get rid of Nixon and he actually won by a landslide in '72.

It amazes me that I wrote this line a year ago. I figured then that it was just pissing in the wind at best, but if Fitz really does have Cheney in the gunsights, ... well, hell...

Comments

[firni.livejournal.com]

Bush won by a landslide of 1%! He has a MANDATE!

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

It's amazing someone can declare a mandate after losing an election.

What's this about Fitz having Cheney in his sights? He already seems to have blinked on Rove, so it's hard to muster up much hope for taking down bigger targets.

[solarbird]

Economy's still skipping along, tho'. Shame the holiday season is going to suck, but 2006 is going to have all the storm-damage-repair stimulus to keep it from getting as far into the hole as it would have otherwise. So, um... yeah. I don't get it either.

[twistjusty.livejournal.com]

Apparently, with what's bollixed now and what's about to be bollixed, the current President's nadir of populace affection is higher than the nadirs of the last eight predecessors of his office. Political ingenue that I am, I'm wondering why this is. I'm also wondering if the more socially and fiscally more liberal Mr. Nixon's popularity suffered because he didn't do enough to reach out to the fundamentalist/evangelical sort, or because they weren't organized enough at that point.

I'm pessimistic: I don't think indictments are going to impact the current President's popularity -- Iraq, CIA leak, flimsy claims of WMD evidence, sluggish federal emergency aid action just don't seem enough to disturb the TRUE BELIEVERS that seem to represent >40% of people polled. Having a base that doesn't waver apparently does a lot to ensure stability against events that chip away at one's approval rating. If voters were, on a whole, as rational and as conscious as this post's commenters (myself excepted, of course) appear to be, then I'd see some hope.