Today we hear the astonishing news that our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has a 43% approval rating from the American people!
Isn't that wonderful! Isn't that amazing!
Blogs like the HuffPo couldn't wait to bash Fox News for daring to criticize this amazing woman; and even suggested that the did it because the sexist pigs were upset by her amazing popularity with the American people:
But launching this latest assault through TV captions is just, well, infantile. I guess Fox heard the latest and simply had to act.Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans have a favorable opinion concerning the nation's new Speaker of the House. The first woman to serve in that role, Nancy Pelosi (D) earns favorable reviews from 45% of women and 41% of men. ...
Pelosi: 43% Have Favorable Opinion of New House Speaker
It's really incredible that the likes of Sean Hannity and Fox "News" can't take a moment out from their character assassinations to acknowledge that this was an historic week for women. This would include their own daughters, but I guess their political pettiness blinds these boys to the possibilities. Their Republican attacks continue unabated, complete with graphics.
It says a lot about the Republicans' support for women, especially those who reach the pinnacles of power. Republicans love to bring women out for show, but they do not give them the respect of their male counterparts. From Rice to Christy Todd Whitman, these women had titles, but no real voice.
[Ed Note: The sexist moron who wrote this obviously doesn't remember the incredibly vicious and racist attacks with which her friends on the left regularly attacked Condi Rice--a woman with more grace, talent and brains than the likes of Pelosi could ever dream of possessing--but I digress]
[Ed Note: Condi Rice had a title but no real voice? As one of the closest advisors to the POTUS in several key roles in his cabinet? What is the matter with these racist, sexist idiots of the left? --but I digress]
[Ed Note: And, they clearly were not listening when Fred Barnes said some very kind words about Pelosi just the other day before she was even sworn in--but I digress further]
What is not mentioned--nor will you ever see it as a headline in the NY Times -- as I suggested to my friend; is President Bush's approval rating from the same poll, which Don Surber kindly brings to our attention :
An e-mail from Mark Eichenlaub at the Regime of Terror:If you listened to the MSM you’d swear that it was Pelosi. As false as most of their impressions are, you’d be wrong listening to them again.
Today’s approval numbers via Rasmussen are:
45% approval for Bush
43% approval for Pelosi
Another MSM conventional wisdom flushed down the toilet….
D’oh! Another guy not falling for our lies.
WHAT!! Can this possibly mean that The President of the United States--the BushHitler!--has polled higher than fancy Nancy?? Is this even remotely possible? How can this be?
To paraphrase the Huffpo hysteric, It says a lot about the Democrats' (and left's) support of this country, don't you think--especially those so blinded by ideological hate for anyone who thinks differently from them and has the temerity NOT to be of their political persuasion--that they reflexly do not give either the President or the women in his administration the credit they would to any lying, corrupt Democrat?
I certainly do.
UPDATE: Anyone who reads this blog knows my position on popularity polls (see here and here, for example). And, because I vehemently despise the way these meaningless and ridiculous daily polls are used and distorted by the media and everyone else (including myself), the reader should check out this post which draws a broader lesson from the poll analysis exercise. I shall retain my position that these kind of polls are almost completely worthless; certainly biased and meaningless; and should be taken with a grain of salt by anyone with a grain of sense. What concerns me most is the way polls are being used and abused in today's media; and are trotted out and enthusiastically highlighted when it suits someone's ideological purpose, and ignored when it doesn't.