I’ve made this point before, but it seems I have to point it out almost continually. Glenn discusses Bush’s current (relatively) low approval rating. This number is, to me, almost always politically meaningless, though the pundits always want to freight it with inappropriately great import. The underlying thesis, of course, is that since the president’s approval ratings are low, this somehow represents a great opportunity for the Democrats, and that if only the numbers had been like this back in the fall, John Kerry would have been swept into office.

Nonsense.

It may be an opportunity for some theoretical Democrat party–one to which I might even in that bizarro universe belong, and for whose candidates I’d vote. But not in this universe, not with Moveon.org, and Howard Dean, and Ted Kennedy continuing to call the shots. The mindless assumption that unhappiness with one major party translates into happiness with the other continues to pervade the conventional wisdom, but consider:

I was very happy that Al Gore was not elected president in 2000. Ecstatically, almost deliriously happy. And this was even before September 11–that event just made me all the more relieved. But on any day of the Bush presidency since he took the oath of office, if you’d asked me if I approve his performance, I’d say no. On free trade, on government spending, on education, on his faux support for the “assault-weapons” ban, on any number of things, I strongly disagree with his stances and disapprove of his presidency. But since I’m not offered anything better from the other party, this is meaningless in terms of his theoretical electoral prospects, or even in terms of his getting my support on initiatives with which I agree.

Since the conventional wisdom is that Bush is a “conservative” and a “right winger” (though if a Donkey president had pushed through many of the things that this president has, e.g., the education bill co-developed with Ted Kennedy, or the huge Medicare enlargement via the prescription drug benefit, the press and the Democrats would be praising him and them to the skies), then the assumption is that unhappiness with him is unhappiness with the “conservativeness” and “right-winginess” of his proposals, and that the solution to improving his “approval” rating is to “move to the center.” The explanation rarely seems to take into account that the unhappiness may be due to lack of diligence in executing his “right-wing” proposals, or that in fact (as was the case with, for example, the education bill, or steel tariffs), they aren’t “right-wing” at all. The fact that many libertarians’ and self-identifying conservatives’ unhappiness might be dragging down his numbers never seems to occur to these people.

Of course, that might be one of the reasons that their electoral prognostications often turn out to be so wrong…

I notice that retiring “Jumpin'” Jim Jeffords’ dumb book, which purports to explain one of the dumbest acts of political duplicity in history, can be had for less than a buck. Still overpriced, I suspect.

Apparently so, in honor of Earth Day. And she loves it.

When Barrymore (star of “E.T.” and “Charlie’s Angel’s,” to name a few of her films) bragged about defecating in the forest, Diaz responded she would like to have the same experience.

“I am so jealous right now, I am going — I am going to the woods tomorrow,” Diaz said. A clearly satisfied Barrymore laughed, repeating, “It was awesome.”

Read the whole amazing thing. Even if I had time to make the attempt, this stuff defies parody. I don’t even think this guy could manage it.

I think that Cartman gets it right:

(Driving through San Jose, Costa Rica)

Eric Cartman: Oh my God, it smells like @ss out here.

Miss Stevens: Alright, that does it. Eric Cartman, you respect other cultures this instant.

Eric Cartman: I wasn’t saying anything about their culture, I was just saying their city smells like @ss.

Miss Stevens: You may think that making fun of third-world countries is funny but let me…

Eric Cartman: I don’t think it’s funny. This place is overcrowded, smelly and poor. That’s not funny, that sucks.

[Saturday night update]

A lot of great comments at this post on the same subject by Ron Bailey at Reason.

David Galernter writes about the reactionary, and undemocratic, Democrats.

Chuck Simmins says that Americans have now raised over a billion dollars in private aid for the tsunami victims.

Damned unilateralists.

…the Senate, as currently composed, seems to attract people who have that potent & fatal combination of dimness and self-regard, and when you elevate those sorts to the Great National Saucer, you get idiocies like the Bolton hearing. On one side, a charmless babbler like Joe Biden, whose instinct upon finding a bad metaphor is to attenuate it until it is three microns wide; on the other side, George Voinovich, who finally showed up for a hearing and pronounced himself Disturbed by the allegations. This is like a guy skipping class on the origins [of] WW2 for a month then raising his hand to ask why they haven

It occurs to me that, since April 19th is fraught with so much history with respect to the right to bear arms, and the consequences of losing that right, perhaps the NRA (or better yet, Congress) should declare it National Self Defense Day.

In addition to being the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the Oklahoma City bombing, it’s also the twelth anniversary of Waco (which was probably one of the precipitating events for Oklahoma City).

Byron York describes the ongoing absurdity of campaign finance “reform.”

…after years of campaign-finance reform, we are entering an era in which a donor can give an unlimited amount of money to an unaccountable group without any public disclosure. Before McCain-Feingold, big donors gave fully-disclosed money to the political parties, which, because they represented the entire coalition that made up the Democratic or Republican parties, were far more accountable to the public than the new, outside, groups became. Now, new C4s like protectyourcheck.org do not even have to reveal where they get their money

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Rich Fruzetti has some thoughts on the questions that remain unanswered. As he points out, Islamic terrorism on US soil didn’t begin on September 11, 2001–that’s just when we first noticed it. Perhaps if we’d been more attentive earlier, we could have been spared that event.