More And More And More Americans Looking At Obama And Missing Bush

This is amazing, particularly given that it comes from CNN (which stands for either “Clinton News Network” or “Credible News? NOT!” depending on your source.

CNN Poll: Was Bush better president than Obama?
By: CNN Political Unit

(CNN) – Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. […]

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll was conducted October 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans, including 938 registered voters and 504 likely voters, questioned by telephone. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus percentage points, with a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for likely voters.

Note that Obama’s “win” is WAY WITHIN the margin of error; the results could actually be the other way around, with Bush ahead of Obama.

Just think about it.  Just one year ago Obama was the greatest president in all messiahdom, and Bush was the worstest and evilest president who ever lived.

Now, after just a brief taste of “hope and change,” the Democrats’ greatest president is on the verge of being eclipsed by “the murderer of freedom” himself.

And this according to a LIBERAL poll.

If that isn’t bad enough, yet another left-leaning polling organization found that:

there’s one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they’d rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

And that’s in Ohio, a state in which Obama easily defeated McCain 51% to 47%.

Wonder how many 2008 “blue states” are missing Bush?

We recently noticed that even Über-Über liberal Martha’s Vineyard missed Bush compared with Obama, for instance.

Sadly, too many Americans were fooled by the most biased media America has ever seen:

Due to the most malicious and unfair media coverage of a presidential election America has ever seen, the American people were deceived into believing that a man who flew fighter jets for the Air Force was a drooling imbecile, but a man who couldn’t figure out how to successfully operate an umbrella, and who can’t even say his own name without his “idiot board” –

– was an unparalleled genius.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “More And More And More Americans Looking At Obama And Missing Bush”

  1. Ben Hoffman Says:

    That’s [profanity deleted]. Bush can’t even get speaking engagements.

  2. Robbie Says:

    CNN can also now be called “Client Number Nine” (c/o snl).

    I have a close friend who was foreclosed upon last spring and the only thing he left in the residence was that picture of W with caption “miss me yet” – i think it orginated with MN business men sponsered billboard last Feb?

    i said about 9 months ago this country would end up loving Cheney when the effects of Obamas policies on this country were more evident – wow i didnt think they would swing back to Bush.

    good for him Bush is a man of conviction.

    i have a simple policy of supporting those who bug liberals the most – it is an easy litmus test that always yields someone of character.

    liberals always demonize those they fear the most.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    Don’t use profanity here, or I will block you.

    I’m interested. Can you actually show me proof that George Bush has been trying to get speaking engagements, but no one wants to hear him?

    I expect you to show me the proof, or I’ll call you out as a liar.

    Your assertion seems to fly directly in the face of the HUGE first printing of Bush’s memoir that is coming out. Somebody sure seems to think that people want to hear Dubya. And that somebody is putting their money where their mouth is.

    It also seems to fly in the face of this evidence that Bush is VERY DEMANDED as a public speaker.

    Bush does not seem to crave the spotlight. Unlike Jimmy Carter, who constantly comes out of his hole to spit poison, Bush has remained quiet even as he’s been repeatedly demonized by the most graceless disgrace of a president to ever occupy the White House. I’d say the guy doesn’t WANT to do speaking engagements. At least not yet.

    By the way, Bush’s book has the same first printing size that Clinton’s memoir had. So I guess nobody gave a damn about Clinton, either.

  4. Ben Hoffman Says:

    Here you go you liar…

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, let’s see. The first link (which is dated going on two years ago) doesn’t say squat about Bush being unable to get speaking engagements.

    The second link is dead (“page not found”), which is really quite remarkable given that you just posted your comment.

    Only the third link has any relevance whatsoever. But even that link doesn’t say anywhere what you assert it says (i.e., that “Bush can’t even get speaking engagements”).

    So, let’s see. Yes, we know that Bush left office unpopular. But he’s clearly made quite a comeback since then, given that he is now basically regarded as being every bit as good a president as “Mr. Wonderful.”

    Let’s see. Your article compares Bush to Clinton, and points out that the publisher is betting that Bush’s memoirs will be every bit as good a seller as Clinton’s, getting the same first run of 1.5 million copies.

    The article also points out that Clinton had to repair his own image (e.g., “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”; disbarred for perjury). And I don’t exactly remember Bill Clinton lighting up the campaign trail in the 2002 midterms.

    If Bush isn’t “in demand” on the campaign stump, he shares that distinction with Mr. Teleprompter Idiot Board himself. But that has nothing to do with speaking engagements. Your article specifically says that Bush is popular with his base. Which in fact strongly implies that he could be doing plenty of speaking engagements if he had wanted to. Do you think that right wingers like me are standing in line to hear Clinton speak???

    Nor does your article anywhere so much as insinuate that Bush has tried and failed to get speaking engagements, which was your claim.

    Meanwhile, I actually HAVE evidence that Bush is going to hit the speaking circle flying – even though the left already hates him for it:

    He was often a man of malaprops — e.g. “Is our children learning?” — but former President George W. Bush will be getting $150,000 a speech when he hits the hustings later this month.

    Bush is charging a six-figure fee, plus private jet transportation or first class for a party of four – when he launches onto the lecture circuit. The former president’s first gig, entitled “A conversation with George W. Bush,” is scheduled for March 17th in Calgary, Alberta.

    Same first run that Clinton got. $150,000 per speech. Already being missed by nearly half the country after only two years of lib failure. I’d say Bush is doing fine, and will only get better with time (which is exactly what happened with Clinton, fwiw).

    So, on the one hand, I’ll leave it for the reader to find where “I’m a liar.” On the other hand, not only did you totally fail to back up your lying assertion that “Bush can’t even get speaking engagements,” but you also revealed yourself to be such a vile sub-species of humanity that I never want to waste another moment dialoguing with you ever again.

    So go find another bridge to lurk under, you troll.

  6. Ben Hoffman Says:

    Face it, you’re a sheep. You’d support Charles Manson if he was the
    Republican candidate.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll allow that, just to make plain what a sick, evil, vile human being you are.

    If Charles Manson ran for office, he would be running as a Democrat, not a Republican. And I have no doubt he’d be your dream candidate.

    Charles Manon came out of the Haight-Ashbury radical leftist hippie movement. Only a truly demonic fool would try to say he was a conservative. Charles Manson was an ANTI-conservative; he hated everything that conservatism stood for. Just like you, I might add.

    Hippie guru Jerry Rubin – the “high-profile, left-wing American social activist” – said, ““I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV.”

    Bernadine Dohrn – who along with husband Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama get his start, had THIS to say about Manson:

    Bernadine Dohrn, who with her husband and fellow Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers became close mentors of Barack Obama, praised the grizzly murder of Sharon Tate when it happened in 1969.

    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson,” The New York Times quotes Dohrn as saying at a convention of the Students for a Democratic Society. The Times quote is part of an article commemorating the 40 years since the shocking Tate murder took place.

    Manson tattooed that swastika on his head, a pointed reminder that “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” And if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” YOU’D be there, you disgraceful punk.

    You are a disgrace to the truth, Ben Hoffman, and to anything that has anything whatsoever to do with the truth.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Ben Hoffman is just plain evil. Which is why I will never allow another one of his comments to ever appear on this blog again. In addition to a bunch of name-calling, he said this in his most recent rant:

    You’re a moron if you think the NAZI party was socialist. That’s a common tactic of right-wingers… to use an name for political gain.

    I thought that was useful to cite, simply to show 1) how incredibly wrong creeps like Hoffman are; and 2) to show just how close we have come and are still coming to the policies of National Socialism.

    To begin with, it was called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (A.K.A The National Socialist German Workers Party) for a damn good reason. Hoffman is a moral idiot, who warps the truth just because he prefers lies.

    “Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.”

    Some memorable Nazi slogans:

    Public need before private greed

    Everything must be different” (I.e., Hitler’s version of “fundamental transformation”)

    People’s community!

    We socialize human beings

    And here were the major platforms of the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party:

    Universal Education (“The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education … We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.”)

    Guaranteed Employment (“We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.”; “)

    Welfare for the Elderly (Social Security) (“We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.”)

    Nationalization of Industry (“We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).”; “We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.”; “we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.”; We demand the … immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms”; “We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility”)

    Nationalized Health Care (“The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”)

    Abolition of market-based lending (“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.”)

    You can find all of this in the Nazi (that is, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS PARTY) platform.

    Hitler was also:



    Pro Gun Control

    Pro Abortion

    Pro Euthanasia

    Pro Animal Rights and a Vegetarian.

    Which is to say, Wrong again, you hateful liar.

    Ben Hoffman is genuinely depraved. Jesus could have been speaking of people like him when he said, “He was a liar from the beginning.” Everything he says seems to be twisted and perverting of the truth.

    He called me a “sheep” twice. But I’m not a sheep; I’m a sheepdog, out to protect the flock with the truth. Ben Hoffman is a rabid, vicious coyote who would lead naive sheep to their ruin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: