...in the spirit of which I hereby declare that I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.Not saying I necessarily agree, but the author, Norman Podhoretz, offers a spirited comparison between Palin and a conservative's most favored prez, Ronald Reagan. And it's a point well worth considering.
Showing posts with label ronald reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ronald reagan. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
What Sarah Palin Knows
It's easy to poke fun of Sarah Palin, especially when it comes to political knowledge. To balance the score, I point out this Wall Street Journal column and its eloquent defense of Palin. It ends by paraphrasing an infamous quote by William F. Buckley, saying:
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Remembering W
And now begins a host of books, magazine articles, online stories, and no doubt a glob of academic journal pieces on remembering President George W. Bush.
In a recent CBS News/NYTimes poll, 93 percent of Dems disapproved of how W did his job in the past eight years. No real surprise there, but 34 percent of Republicans disapproved. A third of GOPers. If we turn to the self-described "independents" for an answer, we find nearly three-fourths disapproved.
All in all, it's gonna be a tough few years for Bush's legacy.
Asked where W will rate historically, an ABC/WashPost survey found nearly a third described his two terms as "poor" and one-in-five said "below average." Only 4 percent said history will judge Bush as "outstanding." Hell, Bill Clinton gets an "outstanding" from 13 percent of adult Americans in a recent poll. Time heals all wounds. A quarter of adult Americans said Reagan will be remembered as "outstanding."
The journals I read, in political science and mass comm, will soon be filled with retrospective studies of what people know about Bush and his presidency and what they think and what it all means. It's the last part that matters, whether the attitudes people have about Bush and his two terms translate into something else -- confidence or lack of confidence in the political system, faith in the U.S. economy, and hope for Obama's presidency.
In a recent CBS News/NYTimes poll, 93 percent of Dems disapproved of how W did his job in the past eight years. No real surprise there, but 34 percent of Republicans disapproved. A third of GOPers. If we turn to the self-described "independents" for an answer, we find nearly three-fourths disapproved.
All in all, it's gonna be a tough few years for Bush's legacy.
Asked where W will rate historically, an ABC/WashPost survey found nearly a third described his two terms as "poor" and one-in-five said "below average." Only 4 percent said history will judge Bush as "outstanding." Hell, Bill Clinton gets an "outstanding" from 13 percent of adult Americans in a recent poll. Time heals all wounds. A quarter of adult Americans said Reagan will be remembered as "outstanding."
The journals I read, in political science and mass comm, will soon be filled with retrospective studies of what people know about Bush and his presidency and what they think and what it all means. It's the last part that matters, whether the attitudes people have about Bush and his two terms translate into something else -- confidence or lack of confidence in the political system, faith in the U.S. economy, and hope for Obama's presidency.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Debate Summary - Who Won
Who won the McCain-Obama debates? Summing up the USAToday/Gallup polls, the numbers for Obama were 46, 56, and 56 percent for debates 1, 2, and 3. McCain had 34, 23, and 30 percent, respectively.
So Obama improved from #1 to #2, then held his ground in #3. McCain's performance, even GOP loyalists have to admit, was far from inspired. He had flashes, his moments, but for a guy who is supposed to be a good debater he was a disappointment to many.
What's more interesting, from a what people know perspective, is responses across all three debates to a question asking if people's impressions were more or less favorable about the two candidates after the debates. For McCain, kinda a random walk, but Obama improved after each debate: 30 percent favorable, then 34 percent, and finally on the third debate, 37 percent.
Keep in mind that for about half of all respondents, nothing really changed despite the debates. The response to Obama is not unlike that to Reagan in the 1980s. At first people were suspicious of this former actor and California governor. Did he have the seriousness to be president? He did well in the debates and people grew more comfortable with him. Obama enjoys a similar debate effect.
So Obama improved from #1 to #2, then held his ground in #3. McCain's performance, even GOP loyalists have to admit, was far from inspired. He had flashes, his moments, but for a guy who is supposed to be a good debater he was a disappointment to many.
What's more interesting, from a what people know perspective, is responses across all three debates to a question asking if people's impressions were more or less favorable about the two candidates after the debates. For McCain, kinda a random walk, but Obama improved after each debate: 30 percent favorable, then 34 percent, and finally on the third debate, 37 percent.
Keep in mind that for about half of all respondents, nothing really changed despite the debates. The response to Obama is not unlike that to Reagan in the 1980s. At first people were suspicious of this former actor and California governor. Did he have the seriousness to be president? He did well in the debates and people grew more comfortable with him. Obama enjoys a similar debate effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)