approval is something I’ve been following for a while too. It’s become a morning ritual to visit the site.

On the one hand, the rise in his popularity among Dems since HC passed is understandable if one views support for a pol the way one supports for a favorite team–a lot of people cling to a brand out of emotional needs and those needs are temporarily met when their team or their candidate is presented as a “winner.” Seen as a winner in the HC battle, some may have viscerally reacted by giving him high marks simply because he fought and won.

However, it’s hard to know how many who now, according to Rasmussen, approve of him strongly do so out of a strong belief that this new law will be beneficial to the country/and or to them and theirs, and if they will remain in his corner on this issue once they learn more of the particulars.

If my friends in education, who voted for him and who are your garden variety libs (as opposed to hard left libs and as opposed to Reagan dems), are any indication, some are not yet aware of the details of this thing, and if I know them well, they will begin to turn once they turn their attention to its specifics.

FWIW, my last few conversations with them yielded these results:

Two who voted for him were obviously concerned with what passed and one is so disturbed with O on many things, especially HC, that she will not vote for him again (unless Palin is on the ticket.)

I first noted their unease with Obama during the Gates/Cambridge cop dust-up since they hate the pc culture of the public schools and saw that incident as a mirror of what they face in their jobs, but their attitude about health care has been primarily formed , I think, by their attitude that Americans are viewed badly by the world. I know, I know–that just really gets to me as well as to you– but it is this ingrained, stupid notion they have that somehow Western Europe is enlightened or sophisticated in matters of inclusion and that the US is not. They were truly bothered by how Americans were viewed under Bush (evolutionary psychology/genetics/brain research teach us that women hate to be disliked). Recent European dis-ease with Obama, should it continue, will bother them a great deal; however, the MSM hasn’t played that up. The media do, however, play up the US-Israeli conflict.

It’s easy to respond, “Who cares what they think?” but these Dems really are capable of dumping Obama in ’12 if they continue to sense he has an underlying goal of taking from them to give to those who don’t work and who have no intention of working, and if their 403b’s and their savings continue to languish, and, in the case of two, if their highly educated sons/daughter have difficulty getting a job. They also love their health care packages and have given up raises for many years in order to retain those packages so when they realize the damage done to their medical choices, things will turn, I believe.

The health care debate, framed as it was by the Dems as a matter of inclusion, spoke to their need to be seen as fair, inclusive, not provincial. These are people who’ve travelled to Europe, some many times. In fact, some maintained that from what they saw of the health system there, things worked. (One has family in Scotland.)

So, I am left wondering if these friends had been called by Rasmussen, if : 1)pure party loyalty and emotion, maybe even respect for O’s tenacity would have ruled the day, causing them to have said they approve of him (they hate Limbaugh, Beck and the more they get press for blasting O, the more is their tendency to defend him) or ; 2) they would have tempered their support for O because of unease with either the process or the substance of the legislation or both or; 3) they would have been less likely to support him because of the emerging details of the bill/law.

I think this: one would have definitely increased her support of him because of his fighting for the bill, and she would have said she strongly supported him. The GOP likley will never get her vote unless he abandons Israel totally.

One would have said she approved of his job performance, and that would have been because he passed HC. However, she will be the one most likely to freak when she learns more of the specifics.

Another I’m unsure of. I know she isn’t all that happy with O, but her linking of the tea partiers with people like Beck and Limbaugh would, I think, have caused her to give him support in a poll. IOW, the more strongly people on the right bash him, the more likely she is to support him IN A POLL, but not necessarily in the voting booth.

Another would have said she strongly disapproves.

Another would not have said she strongly supported him–she would probably have said she supports him on some issues, not others. On health care, I know she is concerned about the details.

Another, the daughter of a military family, a woman who lived for years in France, is probably going to remain his supporter unless the economy simply doesn’t recover much by ’12. I doubt she is a strong supporter, but I also doubt she could bring herself to vote for the GOP candidates on the horizon.

Crucial to turning some dems against Obama is to keep unraveling all that is in the new law. It seems each day I read more (for example, clauses which push affirmative action in health care hiring) but because I am retired, I have a chance to do a lot of reading. Some of them don’t and the MSM, which they watch, does not report the specifics of the new law.

Thus, it’s up to the GOP to keep speaking about this thing, not let it die. I will say that these women were impressed with Paul Ryan. They didn’t recall his name, but I could tell they viewed him favorably, but they basically haven’t seen enough of him. If the face of the GOP were linked more to him, to Cantor, we’d be better off.

Lastly–when the town hall meetings began, when the Dems began portraying these people in a bad light, my Dem friends were offended. They saw the unfairness and absurdity of the President, Pelosi, Reid, trying to portray these people as anarchists, as trouble-makers.

However, I do believe that last week’s poll numbers showing a definite trend up for Obama among Dems is evidence that the attacks on the Tea Partiers are working–the marginalization is working. Looking at the Rasmussen a few days ago, O’s negatives grew after his uptick after the passage of HC, but now those negatives are subsiding again, and that coincides with the MSM, talk radio, even Fox’s constant asking of the question, “Are Tea Partiers getting out of hand?” or “Is it fair to accuse the Tea Partiers of violence?”

I notice the word “violence” (one brick?) has been replaced by the Dems with “vitriol.” My gawd, there’s more vitriol heard at a Little League game than is heard at Tea Party gatherings, but it doesn’t matter. The mere repeated mentioning of this “story” (“Did legislators endure indignities at the hand of Tea Partiers?”) is a victory for the Dems. Whereas people who felt town hall participants, many of whom were silver-haired senior citizens, were unfairly described by the media, I think the Tea Partiers, the more organized they become, are now and will be more easily be demonized by a very well-planned attack by the Left spin-misters, aided by MSM.

I think a lot Dems who might be won over might start to think, if the parties are held constantly, that demonstrators are demonstrating for the heck of it.
That wouldn’t be good.

All this being said, I have to add that I live in CA and I realize it’s not typical of the rest of the country, but it’s a trend setter, sad to say.