Every now and then I tune in for a few minutes at a time to Chris Mathews, solely out of morbid curiosity. Could he really have become such a pompous, nattering ideologue? Last night, in response to Ed Rollins talking about how hard it would be, if not impossible, for Bush to recover from his slump in the polls, the camera mistakenly cut to Mathews, who was despairingly shaking his head, his mouth slack with sorrow. In the same segment, he claimed that "Democrats haven't done jack!" in the last five years, and when Bill Clinton was mentioned as a good rep for the Democratic Part, Mathews kept repeating "Monica Lewinsky" like a cartoon parrot squawking "Pieces of eight, pieces of eight." It was pathetic and revolting.

Mr. Grieve says something interesting in his post. He asks if the low approval rating of Bush will result in some benefit for the Democrats. His answer is maybe. I hope come November that's exactly the case. But it bothers the hell out of me that it takes this extreme situation of basement level approval ratings for there to be some advantage for Democrats.

How poorly it speaks of them collectively that they cannot see political victory as possible until the the other side has thoroughly discredited itself. I don't wish to rehash the last presidential election so I will only ask this rhetorically: How did a bona-fide veteran, a somewhat distinguished senator with bipartisan credentials, a man who once spoke lucidly and eloquently at age twenty-seven before the Senate's foreign relations committee, manage to lose against a former draft-dodger and coke-snorting business loser who couldn't find oil in Texas and whose pretext for war was found to be unarguably false?

What does it say about Kerry that he lost to such a terrible, bungling opponent? And by extension, what does it say about the Democratic party collectively that victory in November only seems possible now because the Republicans have botched just about everything they've touched?

No, I fear victory will not be ours in November. The consultants described in a recent Salon article and the spineless candidates and office-holders will talk themselves right out of a win. Someone clever should come up with a word to describe this curious Democratic habit.

That UFO statistic clears up a few things. Thanks, Tim.

"Need more polling perspective? The Times says that only two presidents in modern history -- Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon -- have had lower overall approval ratings than Bush is sporting now."

Actually, the Times said only two presidents in the past 50 years have had lower numbers than W., and that he is tied with Poppy. But how many presidents have there been in the past 50 years? Answer is 10. So W. is tied for 7th out of 10. Doesn't sound quite so awful. Try another way of playing the game: only two presidents since the 60's have had lower numbers. Now W is tied for 4th out of 7, which sounds kind of mid-pack. Who cares?

I'd love to. Really. But the reason Bush's numbers are so low is not because the slumbering mass of America has awoken from their post-9/11 intellectual paralysis and made the simple connections required to see Bush as the utter failure that he is. The reason his numbers are low is because Americans don't like high gas prices. That's all. It's just a matter of inconvenience to a spoiled population. I will even venture to say that Bush's drop after Hurricane Katrina was not because of his gross indifference to human suffering and his inability to provide any kind of leadership. It's because gas prices went up after the storm.

Some may call me an America-hater, but I'm merely an American realist. I did not hear Gitmo and PNAC and PSA and Plame and Abu Ghraib on the lips of the ordinary Americans I deal with every day. I only heard a minority of politically astute people complaining about these injustices, and mostly on political blogs. But every day I hear people complaining about gas prices and about Bush not rescuing them.

Boo fucking hoo. I'm glad anything takes the sociopath in the White House down a peg or two, but I couldn't care less about gas prices. We've had it easy and we are a wasteful people who have refused to change our ways. Our people should have been badgering Congress and the White House for sane energy regulations for years. We didn't. It's our fault, not Bush's. The low opinion polls are not indicative of a smartening America, it's just a sign of how selfish we are. Instead of demanding justice all these years, we only demand low gas prices... or else....

You are absolutely correct, of course, when it comes to the facts of the matter. But there's another way to look at the 2004 election based on what gets the press (and people's) attention and votes:

GWB was a wartime incumbent President, with one of the most recognizable names in our nation, the most well-funded and efficiently managed capaign quite possibly in our history, had 100% loyalty and message discipline from every supporter in his party, and had the personality to appeal to the general public (as much as I despise every action the man's taken, I'd probably enjoy having a beer with him at a BBQ or football game).

Kerry was basically unknown outside the northeast, was unable to relate with most of the general public, was outfunded every step of the way, was trying to bring together an incredibly fractured party behind him, ran a terribly mismanaged campaign, and if you take away the gay marriage ban from the Ohio ballot then he would have won and Bush would have had a completely unprecedented loss for the history books.

It only would have taken 60,000 people switching their votes to have turned the election. Although it is greatly in spite of ourselves, the Dems will do well this fall, hopefully retake at least the House if not the Senate. What they accomplish in the next two years with whatever influence they gain will go a long way determine the viability of our next Presidential candidate.