Tracy,

>I saw graphs on the news (there goes the media again, so who really knows?) so I looked for a comparison chart and found one. Look at page 8:
>
>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/perspective.pdf
>
>It graphs president approval rating since 1937.

Again, My point was the the stunning difference between the relious camp and the rest of the country. But anyways, yes those graphs are pretty interesting. One that is remarkeble is the one of bill clinton. Despite the monica lewinski affair, his rate on the average was getting better than when he started. with a lot less dipps in it, much flatter than anyone else.

I think the peak in GWB graph can be explained in 911 and the massive support for the war in afghanistan and iraq. The decline much of the event that happened after fact and the failures at neworleans and florida. It has distracted the attention from anything else.

Walter,


>
>>>I think it is important to maintain a perspective on presidential approval ratings. Every President since Johnson dropped below 40% in approval ratings during their presidency. It may, in fact, reflect current public opinion, but it is not unusual at all.
>>
>>You might be right or wrong on the issue, but it is a stunning difference. still 80% in the strong religious camp, while beeing well under 50% in all others.
>>
>>Walter,
>>
>>
>>>>>>Daniels,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- faith based government
>>>>>>>How do you figure? Seems we've gone to great lengths to separate church and state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That has been reversed ever since GWB choose to appeal to the neo-cons to win the last election. If you compare the the clinton administration and even the GWB sr, administration, you'll see that GOD has taken a very strong base in the white house. Just count the number of relious statements spoken by your own president. We talked about the bible belt before. Are you denying that got more influence than before the last election ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Walter,
>>>>>
>>>>>Religious statements by the president hardly equate to a faith-based government. Separation of church and state is mandated by the Constitution, and enforced by the courts. Nothing I've seen in the last several years indicates that we are drifting to faith-based government.
>>>>>
>>>>>The term "neo-con" is to liberals what "boogeyman" is to small children. The term is overused and generally misunderstood. It also has little to do with religion. All politicians pander to the religious block to some degree, but that hardly equates to more power for that block in government. So yes, I will deny that the "religious right" has more influence now than before the last election. Prove it otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>Bush apealed to the religious right. That is crystal clear. It was part of his election program to get him re-elected. Bush is advocating a strong religious society where. What did bush answer to the question of who is his most popular philisoph ? ......... He almost says "What I do is because God tells me to do so", yeah sure. History tells me some less nice things about people who more or less said the same. Can you explain why still 80% of the religous right still is supporting bush while every other group has no confidence in Bush anymore.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not fully aware about the background of the term neo-con. If you've got a better term, please tell me.
>>>>
>>>>Walter,