California, New York...and Iowa, and Ohio and...

Another "the Lamont win is no big deal" post from Putz today, who links to an article at Pajamas Media, that bastian of non-partisan, even-handed analysis. Typical whining about how the mean, "hyperpartisan" blogs handed the election to Lamont, how Lamont is "super-rich" and therefore a phony (his grandfather did business with JP Morgan!) and how it really doesn't matter much anyway.

But this passage really displays it's utter cluelessness:

Feinstein also has a de facto alliance with Schwarzenegger, as do quite a few major Democratic politicians in California. But she is a deft politician. She certainly wouldn’t be caught dead being buddies with Bush, as Lieberman was, or defending policies that obviously are ineffective, as Lieberman did with respect to the occupation of Iraq.

So Feinstein is safe in resolutely anti-Bush California. So is Hillary Clinton, about whom there have been many blog murmurings, in anti-Bush New York.

Ah, those wacky, leftist blue states on the coast. So reliably "anti-Bush."

Just one small problem with that analysis: Bush's approval rating is below 50% in 47 states, including Texas. The only states that are "pro-Bush" are Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

It appears the right wing punditry is still in denial about how unpopular Bush really is.