Ohio Poll: Voters Say They Would Rather Have Bush As President By 50-42 Margin


A day after Gallup put out this bombshell:

Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP’s largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup’s history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.

Comes this one:

We’ll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but 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.

Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama’s preferable (3%.)

In case you don’t know that polling firm, its a pollster that includes KOS as one of their customers.

Allah linked to this piece from the liberal John Dickerson from Slate in which he, quite unsurprisingly, shoots daggers at President Bush for the typical reasons, but also points out that Obama has continued the same policies that President Bush put in place regarding Iraq, and handled the oil disaster as bad as Bush did with Katrina….meaning, not bad at all. It’s the limit of federal government that was to blame. Of course the liberals conveniently FORGOT that fact when Katrina happened, and gave Obama a pass when the oil spill occurred.

Hot Air:

The great knock on Bush, of course, was that he was so singularly incompetent that replacing him with anyone would necessarily mean a better economy and progress in the war. Replacing him with a global messiah, though? Big improvements in both areas. And yet, 18 months later, here we are facing a double-dip and ever-rising pessimism about Afghanistan. The “it’s all Bush’s fault” meme will be evergreen on the left, but the more trouble Obama has, the less singular Bush’s incompetence looks, which is bound to mean an uptick in Strange New Respect for Dubya.

President Bush was a man with conviction, values, and a true love for his country. He wanted this country to be strong. He wanted to protect this country. He never apologized for America. We now have in a office a man who lacks all those traits, doesn’t love this country unless it looks like a mediocre European Socialist “utopia,” and is a true empty suit. Bush lowered our taxes and helped strengthen our economy. Obama raised taxes and helped turn our economy into the dumpster it currently is. Bush could make fun of himself and understood his limitations. Obama is like an immature little brat who gets mad at the slightest insult.

The Anchoress:

One of my husband’s friends–hated Bush, loved Obama and defended him vociferously for the first year, less passionately the second–told him over lunch this week that he’s done with Obama and “I never thought I’d say this but I miss Bush. We knew that he said what he meant, even if we didn’t want to hear it. We knew who he was, even if we didn’t like him. And we never had to wonder whether he liked us. He always did.”

And that is it, in a nutshell. Bush is missable, because we miss having a president whose affection for his country and its people–even the ones who hated him–was never in doubt.

We miss Bush because he never lectured us or harangued us, and when people disagreed with him, they were not immediately called names in an attempt to simply shut up debate.

Is it there any surprise the “Miss Me Yet?” movementisgrowing?

More here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lisa Murkowski is going down!!! WAHOOOOO!!!!!

Murkys gonna need Daddy’s help again.

CNN is saying Murkowski will concede, and she’s supposed to give her speech in a few moments.

I look at these polls, and am reminded of what Glen Reynolds says: “Don’t get cocky, kids.”

-He’s right. While we can high-5 this win for conservatism, we have a long way to go.

And I want these NEO-FABIAN jerks to hurt BAD in November. 😈

Working Class Ohio has been whacked very hard by the Obama Economically Illiterate Regime.

They could be the tipping point.

On his way out in 2009, Bush was deeply despised by a majority at worst or simply disliked at best. Now? Well, this recent poll is just one example of his improving image. For over a year, one thing has always been clear to me: Obama has been a gift to Bush. Nothing helps the old boss better than the new boss being so incompetent in every conceivable way.

Bush could make fun of himself and understood his limitations. Obama is like an immature little brat who gets mad at the slightest insult.

Obama believes he’s being treated unfairly when he’s asked a difficult question. Can you imagine how he’d react if he had to put up with the volume of criticism and insults that Bush had to put up with?

If you want to call Bush patriot for promoting several different lies to the American public to cover up the Administration’s real reason for suddenly switching the emphasis from Afghanistan to Iraq–to gain control of the world’s second largest oil supply http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15337.htm –I guess you’re entitled to do so. This issue has always been a sticking point between conservative and liberals: It doesn’t matter how many people you kill or maim to get what you want–including citizens of this country–which is the conservative position. The opposite of this position is promoted by liberals.


Ask the people who think for you, to issue a new meme.

That’s one’s wore out, and no longer merits once iota of effort to counter.

-Back to your Moonbat cave with you.


I seldom respond to comments any more–I consider it a futile measure. But this one struck me because as I was running through the articles I noticed it. Do you know what a ‘meme’ is? The word, originate by Richard Dawkins, as a cultural counterpart of the ‘gene’. I know it has been picked up by the right-wing as a code word for something–what, exactly, I don’t know; but as long as you’re speaking to your conservative group, and it’s only important that you understand one another, I guess it doesn’t matter. But, if you ever expect someone outside your group to understand what you’re saying, you have to begin using words which mean something to others too.

Had to laugh at spokesidiot Robert Fibbs, yesterday. Gretchen Carlson asked Fibbs if the Precedent was going to acknowledge Bush for the success of the surge in Iraq. Fibbs couldn’t answer this, so he did his bait and switch routine. Carlson took him to the woodshed for a beating. The Bummer took the victory lap last night. Now he has to convince people how he was for the surge when he was dead against it?

Its going to be really hilarious explaining the surgerender next July. Call in the spokesidiot again, I guess. The Bummer’s foreign policy is a shambles or a gong show at best.


You posted an article that is nearly four years old about what an author claimed may be happening with the oil reserves in Iraq. An article that is full of supposition and conjecture. Again, your cited article is just shy of four years old.

Do you have anything, anything at all that backs up the four year old conjecture that you posted fully expecting us to believe it?

No? Didn’t think so.

I seldom respond to comments any more–I consider it a futile measure.

That couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that you get your azz roundly kicked every time you stick your pointy little head in the door could it?

Another thing that just cracks me up about the liberal ‘war for oil’ mantra trotted about all the time. The US has taken exactly ZERO oil out of Iraq for its personal use. All oil exported from Iraq goes to fund the rebuilding of the government and it’s infrastructure, as I understand it (I’ll look for actual links to data later).

The other thing…..even if it were true, that the US was hoarding that huge oil reserve, who would you rather have managing that reserve, the US or Saddam? Does the $10 BILLION Oil for Food scandal not mean ANYTHING to ANY of you libs? I STILL trust the US infinitely more no matter what than Saddam friggin Hussein.

Their logic just escapes me……or it’s escaped them permanently.


Why would any thinking person even waste their time posting a reply to individuals like “tadcf”? It’s people like that (i.e… voted for Obama) who got us into the situation we’re in today. They just listen to the MSM and go off marching.

“Blood for oil” — where is all that oil in the last 7 YEARS? Most oil deals with Iraq have been done with other countries. If Bush went into Iraq to help his “Big Oil” buddies, why isn’t gasoline $10 a gallon?

“Illegitimate President” — still can’t get past the 2000 Election even though EVERY major news organization (including CNN and the New York Times), that did a POST-ELECTION analysis, confirmed that Bush had received more votes than Gore, in Florida.

“No Weapons of Mass Destruction” — reading back through the intelligence reports at the time, it’s clear that Britain, Russia, etc., etc. believed that Sadaam had WMD’s (not to mention the fact that he’d already used them — poison gas — on his own people, the Kurds). How could such an “idiot” (that’s the way the MSM and Liberals viewed Bush) con the ENTIRE WORLD into believing that Sadaam had WMD’s?

I could go on and on with examples, but unlike the “tadcf” types, I live in the REAL WORLD.


Why would any thinking person even waste their time posting a reply to individuals like “tadcf”?

One reason. To explain and illustrate to the readers here who don’t necessarily participate in the discussions and debates, that the liberal mindset on any issue is absurd and that reason does not play any part in their theories and ideology.

I do not hope to ever convince those such as tadcf, or Greg, that they are wrong. Indeed, I don’t even care enough about them to try. I do care that their statements might, or might not, determine another person’s thinking on a particular issue, so I deem it necessary, as do others here, to point out their fallacies and correct their wrongful assumptions, and do it for those others who choose to spend time here at FA.

“Does the $10 BILLION Oil for Food scandal not mean ANYTHING to ANY of you libs?”

Not so as much as a war that may have ultimately set us back 3 TRILLION dollars, and has cost us the lives of 4,416 good and true Americans. That’s a very high price tag, when you still can’t quite figure out just what it is you bought.


has cost us the lives of 4,416 good and true Americans.

Good and true Americans indeed. You must be talking about the good, true Americans that believe in fighting and eliminating our enemy so their children won’t have to do it. That’s something my nephew has actually said, he’s also made the comment of fighting over there so we don’t have to fight them here, I’m sure you are aware of many other troops making that specific comment.

I don’t think he would appreciate being written off as a “cost” should anything happen to him, he’s doing what he believes in. I do know he thought the body counters were ghoulish and sickening, like they were almost wishing the count to grow to have something to biotch about….his opinion.

Yep, he’s one strack Army Sgt. that knows a bit more of what went down in Iraq with Saddam and the terrorists than a blog commenter, just can’t talk about it. BTW, he’s a lifer, ready to go where ever he’s sent and do whatever he’s asked for this country and believes going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I would love to know what he knows, others, they don’t want to know and will ignore whatever truth finally comes out. Johnny one notes.

Sometimes I just like yelling at them. It relaxes me. 😉

(I like his trot-out of the newly coined “$3 trillion-cost-of-the-war”meme
Ya know, a singular unit of cultural ideas, thoughts, symbols or practices, transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, etc.)

It’s a $3 trillion projection involving known costs to date, likely costs for the replacement of expended military hardware, future costs of veterans’ healthcare and benefits that are directly related to the conflict, and future interest costs resulting from the fact that we conducted the war on borrowed money.

I haven’t seen a lower alternative figure that factors all of those expenses in. Nor has anyone that I’m aware of suggested how they might now be avoidable. I’m sure that any suggestions would be welcomed.


The Summer of George
The economy is dismal, but one man is enjoying a recovery.

Reader Daniel Loomis sends along his capsule summary of “The Summer of George,” the eighth-season finale of “Seinfeld,” which aired May 15, 1997: “George uses his severance from the Yankees to stimulate the perfect summer–the ‘Summer of George’–but spends it playing frolf (frisbee golf), watching ‘The White Shadow,’ ‘investing’ in a recliner with a built-in refrigerator, taking midmorning naps, banging his head on tables, and having insignificant telephone conversations. Eventually, he ends up in the hospital having to relearn to walk.”

And here is Loomis’s capsule summary of “The Summer of Recovery,” the finale of the first full season of “Obama,” a midseason replacement that premiered to hype and high ratings but is now struggling and may face cancellation: “Barack uses his trillion dollar stimulus to create the best summer ever–the ‘Recovery Summer’–but wastes hundreds of billions on things like studies on how cocaine affects monkeys, investigating the link between yoga and hot flashes, bus-stop art, international ant research, and an upgrade to the statehouse and political offices in Topeka, Kan. Eventually, the economy ends up barely ambulatory.”

There are other parallels. Like “Seinfeld,” “Obama” is a show about nothing. Like George Costanza, Barack Obama is ending his summer with a fall, albeit a figurative plunge rather than a literal one. Oh, and Obama’s “Summer of Recovery” has actually turned out to be a summer of George, though we don’t mean Costanza.

“As Obama Struggles, Bush’s Legacy Recovers” reads the CBSNews.com headline on a picked-up Slate piece. Obama “is not consciously trying to improve the public’s view of the Bush years,” writes Slate’s John Dickerson. “Indeed, he is actively reminding people of the mess he inherited from his predecessor.”

The problem is that Obama’s leadership has been so ideologically extreme, and so politically and administratively incompetent, that every time he reminds us of his predecessor it makes Bush look good by comparison. Little wonder that a new survey of Ohio voters by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, finds that “by a 50-42 margin voters there say they’d rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.”

Last night, in an Oval Office speech, Obama said something nice about Bush for the very first time: “No one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” At one time, such an uncharacteristically gracious statement might have made Obama look good. But our hunch is that among those who bothered to watch the speech, a common reaction was: I miss having a president whose support for our troops, love of country and commitment to our security no one could doubt.

The show must go on. The network is committed to another 2½ seasons of “Obama.” If the star is hoping for renewal after that, he could do worse than to study another “Seinfeld” episode about George Costanza: “The Opposite.”



t’s a $3 trillion projection involving known costs to date, likely costs for the replacement of expended military hardware, future costs of veterans’ healthcare and benefits that are

Ok, Greg, after skimming across the net, and perusing several articles on the subject, your $3 Trillion number is about the average I’ve seen. I haven’t seen any hard numbers on the subject, and most of the cost is projections after the current quantifiable cost. The numbers I’ve seen also include the cost of Afghanistan too.

I have a problem though with their estimates. Most of the articles on the subject cite a book by Joseph Stiglitz as the source of the claims. Stiglitz was a former economic advisor to Bill Clinton, so, he has left leaning tendencies as can be imagined.

He estimates part of the cost as the rising cost of fuel to the average American. I’m not sure how he can place the average increase of a cost of a barrel of oil purely on the shoulders of war costs, since there are many other factors that are involved. Maybe you can spin…..I mean answer that question for us?

He also uses estimates based on the replacement of used weaponry and other equipment. What I’d like to know, and I’m sure others here do as well, is just how he figured this out. You do realize that the military replaces old weapons and equipment constantly, whether they’ve been used or not, as a means of keeping our ability to fight a war, any war, as close to 100% as possible. These replacement costs get budgeted in the normal cost of maintaining forces, and aren’t necessarily related to a current conflict we may be in at the time.

Another cost he figures in is medical costs for troops, both injured and dead. I guess that we are to worry about the cost of someone fighting for us who may get injured or killed and base our feelings about any conflict by weighing this particular cost versus what? The benefit to America for fighting the war? Outrageous, by any standard. As well, he bases these costs over an approximately average 60 year period from when his book was written, yet, he adds it based upon a seven year projection. Something doesn’t add up here.

One last thing that I question is the total amount. Are we to believe that two wars, since 2001, that have cost somewhere in the ballpark of $1.07Trillion, in roughly 8.5 years, will balloon to $3Trillion in just under 7 years(estimates made to 2017)? Are we to believe that as we continue to drawdown troop strength overseas that the rate of added increase to the total cost of both wars will go up?

This is why one can question the use of figures, like you present, and not accept it as fact.

Of course the liberals conveniently FORGOT that fact when Katrina happened, and gave Obama a pass when the oil spill occurred.

Actually, I mostly gave him a pass because no one actually died during the oil spill (with the exception of the initial Deepwater Horizon incident, which was under private control). As opposed to the 2,000 Americans killed or missing during Katrina.