IN this article via Yahoo! News , it's been made fairly apparent that the author & editor(s) there have no clue whatsoever about the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Or, do they know something re: this amendment, to which the rest of us are not privy?
True, they give passing mention of it, deeply buried in the article, but, gee whiz! It looks to me as if somebody not the POTUS may be grasping at straws. Stand and flail your arms wildly about your head and repeat these words: "His ratings are falling! His ratings are falling!"
Or, are they trying to suggest something I don't even want to consider, by the tone of this last sentence in the article: "Kennedy bottomed at 56% in September 1963, two months before his assassination, as the public began to grow uneasy about U.S. involvement in Vietnam."
Any way you look at it, this article is problematic. Richard Benedetto has written a story based on something not in evidence -- that Bush's low numbers are guaranteed going to cause the peeling away of the party as the "rational ones" and the professional politicians try to distance themselves from him before the next elections. He fails to take into account the even-lower approval numbers for the Democrats in Congress, according to several recent polls. I'm not saying he's going to be proven wrong in the next elections, but I do think he may be premature in his cry of "Bush = miserable failure". There's still plenty of time for the Dems to dig themselves in deeper. For example, they could re-nominate John F. Kerry. Or, they could continue to have the rest of their party's leadership put their footsies in their moufsies every third day, as have Dean, Carter, Clinton (Bill. Hillary is at least an astute politician who knows how to straddle an issue, if nothing else), Turban -- er, Durbin, and the hapless idiot, Murtha.