When I read about something like this, it makes me wonder about those 20-or-so-per-cent of Americans who still think Bush is a good president. Are they self-deceptive, in denial, ill-informed, or some combination of the above?

Or maybe I'm way off base? I don't think I am, but if you are one of the people who approve of Bush, then please share your perspective here.

As others have pointed out, when a story like this breaks, it just proves what most of us had thought already. We didn't need proof that Bush was deceptive, it is easy enough to tell by simply listening to him, or to others in his administration, including and especially the press secretaries. McClennan is only the latest example, and frankly I'm not sure how much damage it will do because most people's opinion of the Bush administration is already so low, it's hard to shove it any lower.

At some point we will discover just how many people there are who don't care how bad a president is, they will back him because they want to back the party.

Not so sure, middle.

I think it's because they've been taught to hate and FEAR "liberals" (that includes everybody from Ralph Nader on one end to Chuck Hagel in the Middle-Right)....and as long as Bush is not going "100% liberal" (they concede he sold them out on spending and immigration)...they back him and oppose Obama because he's "one of them" (no, not just black, but a "lefty")

Doesn't matter if Repubs and conservatives absolutely screw over their lives or wreck the country...in their minds "The liberals will do WORSE to us!"...even if that's almost an impossibility after Bush.

So they keep going.

Plus it's pride...can't admit they were fooled.

What amazes me is how quickly the personal attacks on McClellan from the wingnuts have been launched. You have to give the 20% credit for their organization skills. It borders on a hive mind. Within a few hours of the book's preview, they were out in force with their talking points about what a traitor her is. It doesn't matter which propaganda show you watch, O'Reilly, Hannity and Strawman, Rush, Foxtards and Friends They all had the same talking points.

McClellan is learning what others who had broken from the herd had learned. Once you're out, you're just another enemy to be destroy to them.

I work with a guy who is a member. We are not supposed to talk politics at work so I cannot get into it with him but he thinks bush is doing a good job.

I guess it does not matter because if that is what he thinks at this point what on earth could I possibly say that would cause him to reconsider. Of course the guy also thinks Hannity is too liberal and Rush has great ideas.

There isn't anything you can say. There is just a certain percentage that believe that anything a republican does is completely justified if it helps keep democrats out of office. To be fair, there's probably about 20% of the population on the other side who will defend any democrat no matter what they do.

But even so, the idea that this administration can screw up everything they've touched and still have it's defenders is amazing.

The 20 percenters are.

And always have been.

My feeling is that the 20% club is generally composed of people who aren't ignorant politically. I'd say that they more than likely read the news often, strongly identify as conservatives (probably find the term 'neocon' offensive since it implies that things weren't always this way), and have to rely on politics to create a sort of artificial pride for themselves to replace the lack of pride they have in family, culture, God, whatever.

What I'm saying is that they're current events people. Most of this country comprises people who care very little about current events. We all know it is very difficult generally for people to admit they're wrong. Most people never put too much of a stake in politics, they do whatever they think is right based on the sociopolitical climate of the time, and if they are wrong, they'll have no serious qualms about admitting it. They never put a lot of thought into it anyhow and are aware of this. The members of this 20% club care about politics, they follow the news, and in doing so, they create no landmarks for themselves and absorb these fleeting bits and pieces of information without really contextualizing them.

And yes, they are self-deceived.

Well, I wouldn't say that they're ignorant. But I would say that they are inflexible in their views and see everything through a lens that only confirms their preconceptions.

I liked your hive analogy. They are not unlike the Borg.

I noticed you haven't gotten a republican response, and I'm not going to give you one either.

I think a big part of the 20% is the pro-lifers. More than any other issue, the pro-life stance defines morality for these people, and to support anything other than a republican is -- in many ways -- a sinful act.

So much for separating religion and politics.

Ever cheered for your sports team...no matter what?

That's the 20%.

It's got nothing to do about facts...just fox.

Sadly, for many of these folks, that is what passes for patriotism.

“When I read about something like this, it makes me wonder about those 20-or-so-per-cent of Americans who still think Bush is a good president. Are they self-deceptive, in denial, ill-informed, or some combination of the above?”

I would imagine that they’ve looked at the same set of facts that you have and simply came to a different conclusion. I used to feel that Bush was doing a decent job with the incredibly poor hand dealt to him by the outgoing president. Over time I’ve soured on Bush and found him to be average on his best days and terrible on his worst days. In the end I still believe that he has done better than Gore or Kerry would have done. Bush is lame and I knew that back in 2000, but he isn’t as lame as Gore (New World Order activist with no loyalty to the United States) or Kerry (a traitor to his country for meeting with the enemy without government sanction and escaped execution because Jimmy Carter pardoned all domestic terrorists, subversives, and dissidents). I picked the lesser of two evils in 2000 and 2004 so I wouldn’t call myself poor-Bush, but rather anti-lame ass uber liberal. As you can imagine I will not be voting for Obama.

McCain is smarter, more experienced, and very different from Bush.

Cassandra

I would say that most pick the lesser of two evils. As long as the Democrats keep nominating uber liberals a vast majority of the moderates will not vote for them. The last time your party won they did so with the relatively moderate Bill Clinton. In fact he was the first Democrat elected by the South since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Hillary Clinton had a much better shot of beating McCain than Obama does.

Cassandra