I’ll concede that I don’t know all the answers and that you may be right, but that’s my one concession for the year, buddy

Mike

Perhaps we have different view of the legitimacy of race-based land socialism?

The best alternative is to dissolve the reservation system, like South Africa did.

I have spent hundreds of hours researching the Cobell v. Interior lawsuit. If Elouise Cobell signed off on this agreement, it was the right thing to do. She is a great American hero. One of the problems in the case is that the record-keeping by DOI was so horrifically bad over the past 100+ years and to this day that no one really knows who is owed what. This might be the best of a bunch of awful alternatives.

Mike

Ah. Gotcha.

When using short sentences, context is always important. The story clearly refers to the rapidity of net unpopularity. That was the context. Given that, say, there is no talk of Obama reaching Nixon levels of unpopularity, such a conclusion would have been entirely out of context.

History is long and fluid; it can’t be broken into bits to be highlighted as representative of all “history.”

So when you say, “Obama is the least popular President in American history,” this is patently false. There have be other presidents less popular “in history.”

Put another way: You are comparing Obama-at-this-particular-moment to all-history-for-all-presidents and saying that the two are equivalent, able to be compared.

At least Fox News qualifies their assessment by pointing out that his popularity rating is “the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.” In other words, they are comparing Obama-at-this-particular-moment to other-presidents-at-the-same-point-in-their-terms.

Though Fox News makes a better comparison, they are using a fairly irrelevant comparison, per Jeffrey’s observations above. Highlighting the irrelevant comparison suggests more importance than the comparison merits.

So I was wondering if you are in competition w/ Fox News to see who could prevaricate most effectively; i.e., with an eye to effects rather than important truths.

Thanks for the comment.

You are right that its wiser to front-load on unpopular measures, so that closer to elections politicians can take a victory lap. Obama may be doing this.

I’m not sure I understand the prevarication question, though.

Jeffrey,

Just trust whatever this blog says, and you will never be led astray

Seriously though Dan, I don’t know who prevaricates more on these issues, you or Fox News. Are you in some kind of competition with them?

OK, I read the rest of foxnews.com’s website and I was jumping to conclusions. Reagan’s number is there, though it doesn’t exactly stick out like a sore thumb.