The relentless popularity of George W. Bush

The so-called liberal EM ESS EM, staying the course when it comes to Bush's popularity.

First, there's Newsweek, putting domestic spying in context: bold action by Dear Leader to keep us safe in our beds.

Then, there's the recent Washington Post poll indicating that most Americans would gladly have their calls monitored.

Another example of pro-administration reporting is a questionable Washington Post poll (later undermined by a Newsweek poll) discussed here by Jane Hamsher: "The headline blazing across the Washington Post this morning reads: "Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts." It was written by Richard Morin, and we've been down this road before. Just days after the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke, before people had become wise to what was going on (and long before Clinton's popularity soared during the congressional hearings), Morin was polling on impeachment with carefully worded questions. He got the results he was looking for, and long after public opinion had turned they existed as a bulwark against any change in conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill."

Jane's money quote: "People are getting wise to how the ground game is being run. That awareness is becoming part of the zeitgeist, around which conventional wisdom is also being formed. The chattering class might be as clueless as ever, but the listening class is getting wise."

Not to be outdone when it comes to listening to, writing down, typing, and publishing White House spin, there's Time.

The sole basis cited for the claim that the President will get a "boost" from the data-mining disclosure is the flawed Washington Post poll. That "early indicator" of a boost is eviscerated by the latest USA Today poll, in which a majority of Americans disapprove of the data-mining program (51%-43%).

But polls aside, why in the world would TIME conclude that the President would get a boost from this latest revelation? He sure didn't get a boost from the last domestic spying disclosure; his poll numbers have plummeted by at least twelve points since the New York Times reported on the domestic program last December.

The only reason for TIME to predict a boost then is that it wants a boost to occur. We've seen this pattern time and time again: the President is at an all-time low, the press frets and wonders aloud how the President can recover, and then they push a media narrative to help him recover (see the hacktacular WaPo poll).

We're on our own here, folks. The press seem to see the plummeting poll numbers as a mere blip, a small detour on the way to Bush's enshrinement on Mt. Rushmore.

I can only theorize about why this is. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the press assumed that the nation needed a great leader, one who would rise up from humble beginnings (or, in Bush's case, inept beginnings) to unify the nation and make us safer, stronger. So that's the narrative they cobbled together, most strikingly by Bob Woodward's "inside account" of Bush's strong leadership. They've never been able to change course, even as most of the country has.