Bush support wavering?

I was just wondering about your current satisfaction level with our Fearless Leader. Still think you made the right choice?

So ended an e-mail I received late Friday from a respected ex-coworker and strident John Kerry supporter. 

With polls showing Bush's approval ratings slipping ever lower, with moonbats salivating at the possibilities, with Congressional Democrats, led by chief exploiter Nancy Pelosi,  seeing blood in the water, and with the religious left seeing opportunity in tragedy, I can understand why John Kerry supporters would wonder aloud at whether those of us who voted for Bush might be feeling some... angst.

But regret?

No way.

Friday night I watched, stupidly, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.  The venom spewed at Bush by Maher and especially his guest George Carlin was simply incredible.  Completely ignoring relevant points made by the token (and outnumbered 3 to 1) conservative James Glassman as to shirked responsibilities by local Louisiana officials, they simply launched one unsubstantiated attack upon another with Carlin being exceptionally duplicitous and vile.

To think that this country might be led by a person or persons that would share the same ideology as those I've listed and linked to above convinces me that my support for Bush and his administration is not only unwavering but necessary.

That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement.  Although I continue to hold Mayor Nagin and Louisiana Governor Blanco largely responsible for post Katrina mishaps and failures in New Orleans, I do think there to be some merit to those criticizing the federal governments hesitancy in assuming a lead role.  And although I think the removal of FEMA chief Brown from the disaster area will fail to please political opportunists, I think that given the mentality of those desiring to see heads roll, this administration least loses talent by letting Brown be the sacrificial lamb.

Bush's numbers in the polls will mean nothing in the coming weeks and months if he's able to galvanize and lead a successful recovery.  It'll be a tough job given the constant drumbeat of MSM negativity, the baying of the moonbats (and the MSM's focus on that baying) and those Democrats (and members of the religious left) who will continue to exploit this tragedy for political gain.

The bottom line answer to the e-mailed question is pretty simple.  Given who Bush defeated, given who best represents those that oppose Bush today, given the dearth of solutions coming from the Bush haters to problems he's faced, I see no other viable choices.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin provides evidence for some of the chicanery Bush is facing and will continue to face in the wake of Katrina.  And more fodder for my own support of him.

The Baton Rouge-based Shaw Group, CNN tells us, is a major corporate client of Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Among its Katrina-related contracts are this one valued up to $100 million from FEMA; and this one also valued up to $100 million from the Army Corps of Engineers.

But in their zeal to embarrass the Bush administration, CNN overlooks one very fat and inconvenient fact--and embarrasses only itself.

The Shaw Group, a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, is headed by Jim Bernhard, the current chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party. Bernhard worked tirelessly for Democrat Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's runoff campaign and served as co-chair of her transition team. Another Shaw executive was Blanco's campaign manager. Bernhard is back-scratching chums with Blanco, whom he has lent/offered the Shaw Group's corporate jets to on numerous occasions.

So, why was none of this mentioned in CNN's Bush-profiteers-are-evil narrative?
Send them a clue here.

Fortunately for CNN, they weren't the only ones guilty of this glaring omission:

UPI failed to note that the CEO of the Shaw Group also happens to be the Louisiana Democratic Party chairman and beleaguered La. Gov. Kathleen Blanco's most influential crony.

So did the London Observer.

And Reuters/MSNBC. And the CBC.

And the NYTimes (reprinted in the Minnesota Star Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, the Scotsman, and scores of media outlets around the world).

MORE: Instapundit links to this Protein Wisdom piece that provides more evidence for MSM duplicity, specifically Newseek's latest hatchet piece:

Page 2 into this five-page piece, here’s what we know:  Bush wasn’t paying close enough attention, according to unnamed sources frightened of El Presidente, who, we’re told, doesn’t like bad news and has been known to...what?  Routinely have messengers executed?

We know that Bush watches ESPN.  We know that the Iraq War is a failure.  We know that the President surrounds himself with yes men.  And all these things—when coupled with his “failure of imagination” (a more “imaginative” President presumably would have shredded the Constitution and dropped active duty troops into New Orleans over the objections of a sitting governor, and would’ve done so on Tuesday as the levees were breaking—in effect, anticipating what the local government was unable both to anticipate and prepare for)—highlight Bush’s failure.

In short, the dumbest, Chimpiest, most fascist President ever failed to be the most prescient, creative, Constitutionally “proactive” President ever.

This, my friends, is “journalism."

Although the Goldstein piece is long, it's worth every jot and tittle, especially when talking to those who think that perhaps Bush supporters ought to abandon him.