Throughout Bush's Presidency the left argued that Bush was stubborn, would not admit he was wrong, would not be swayed by public opinion, and ignored the will of the people.
So here was a lefty arguing for Demonstrations and protests to force Bush to do what the people wanted, based on polls.
In having a president who completely ignores the will of the people, including the views of some of his most trusted allies and advisors, we are dealing with a situation of arrogance bordering on tyranny. In such situations, pretending as if conditions are normal is absurd. If the president cannot hear our concerns, then we must shake things up in such a way that even he can not longer ignore them.
Combine this information with recent polls that only 37% of Americans supported the massive stimulus package.
Does that mean Obama is ignoring the will of the people and that we should be rioting in the street, protesting his "Tyranny"?
In the recent so called controversy on whether Rush wants Obama to fail in his efforts to turn the country into a socialist state, it was pointed out that James Carville made remarks on the morning of 9/11 that he did not want Bush to succeed. Democrat Pollster Stanley Greenberg agreed and added that he had focus group data that showed people were turning against Bush and that he hoped to use the information to turn people away from the President.
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
We often hear people argue that Bush used 9/11 to make himself more popular. Some critics were claiming Bush either caused the 9/11 attacks or was hoping to "not let a good crisis go to waste". There was an argument that prior to 9/11 Bush was unpopular and he seized on 9/11 and "played on our fears" to scare people into supporting him. A Former Vice President, past opponent and symbolic head of the Democrat Party at the time, Al Gore, siad "He betrayed his country".
This notion that Bush was unpopular in his honeymoon period or in his pre-9/11 days is often cited by disgruntled liberals who point to what they consider widespread anger over Bush winning the election despite Al Gore's efforts to contest the results. This also was cited as Bush ignoring the will of the people.
In the current political atmosphere, many Democrats argue that even if there are people that are unhappy about Earmarks, Pork, paying for others mortgages, they claim that Obama is still popular and some even claim he is one of the most popular Presidents ever, so issue oriented polls are irrelevant.
But the latest polls show that at this point in Bush's Presidency, he actually enjoyed more support than Obama currently does.
Bush more popular than Obama?
How can the worst President in History be more popular than the most popular President in history?
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.
So regarding the "loyalty oaths" of the media who ask if we want Obama to succeed? According to Carville and Greenberg, Bush's support based on polling data at the time justified a call to turn against him. According to the above poll, Obama enjoys even less support now than Bush did then, so that would make a call to "turn against" Obama even more imperative.
The Democrats that call a stubbornness in the face of polls measuring a lack of public support as ignoring the will of the people went so far as to call such stubbornness, "Tyranny".
They argued that Americans should not only wish that a stubborn and unpopular President should "fail", but attempted to compel the American public to march in the streets against such a President, to Demonstrate, and to protest until he halts his unpopular policies and submits to the "will of the people".
So if such activities were in order for Bush, who had higher approval ratings than Obama, it makes sense that they would consider it fair and appropriate that the American public should use even more extreme measures to "Halt" Obama's unpopular policies that ignore the will of the people.
So in light of the highly unpopular response to Obama's first Stimulus package, one can assume that his recent call for another Trillion dollar stimulus package will be even more unpopular.
So based on the Democrats logic it is the duty of all Americans to not only wish that Obama fails, but we should be rioting in an effort to bring about his failure.