Bush's approval rating hits an all time low

[kellyahern]

According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

 

[martha]

Polls don't mean anything unless they support your position.

 

[vaz02]

That percentage is higher than i expected

 

[trevster2k]

The scary thing about the poll numbers is that there are still humans walking around approving the way Bush does his job as president. I would like some perspective on that 28% of the population. What else to they approve of just to get an idea of how they view the world. It would be very enlightening. Do they buy Clay Aiken records and approve of the job he is doing as a singer or watch Paris Hilton movies and approve of her job as an actress?

 

[martha]

I would like some perspective on that 28% of the population.

I wouldn't.

 

[deep]

The scary thing about the poll numbers is that there are still humans walking around approving the way Bush does his job as president. I would like some perspective on that 28% of the population.

This is about as low as he can go.

I was 18 when Nixon resigned. July 1974.

And he still had die hard supporters.

Nixon (Gallup)

1/1973
Approve 51%
Disapprove 37%

6/1973
Approve 44%
Disapprove 45%

1/1974
Approve 27%
Disapprove 63%

8/1974
Approve 24%
Disapprove 66%

 

[absintheminded]

I thought Bush's approval rating hit an all time low in 2003, 2004, 2005...well you get the hint...

 

[Liesje]

The scary thing about the poll numbers is that there are still humans walking around approving the way Bush does his job as president. I would like some perspective on that 28% of the population. What else to they approve of just to get an idea of how they view the world.

There are plenty of them in my neck of the woods. If I get their gist, it's not so much that they support Bush, but they feel like in order to stay true to their moral Christian family (read: fascist fundamentalist) values, they have to blindly support "God's chosen one" (read: the Republican).

OK, now I'm going to go purge because I just typed that

 

[Jeannieco]

There are plenty of them in my neck of the woods. If I get their gist, it's not so much that they support Bush, but they feel like in order to stay true to their moral Christian family (read: fascist fundamentalist) values, they have to blindly support "God's chosen one" (read: the Republican).

OK, now I'm going to go purge because I just typed that

You are exactly right! They support him based on ideology, therefore he can do no wrong. This boggles my mind especially when they call themselves "Christians". The hypocrisy is dumb founding. I am a believer, but believe me, not all Christians support/follow this lunatic of a leader (imo) whose actions are in total contradiction to the actions of Christ.
I look to Bono and Edge as people who walk the talk, quietly and with much grace.

 

[U2democrat]

You are exactly right! They support him based on ideology, therefore he can do no wrong. This boggles my mind especially when they call themselves "Christians". The hypocrisy is dumb founding. I am a believer, but believe me, not all Christians support/follow this lunatic of a leader (imo) whose actions are in total contradiction to the actions of Christ.

Right, that's how the people are in my are too...scary people

 

[CTU2fan]

28% huh? Well you know what? The other 22.5% or whatever that voted for him twice and got us all into this better damn well support him too. Where were you in 2000 and 2004 when we elected this boob? No way, ya don't get off that easy...Bush voters ought to be wearing "1 <3 Bush" T-shirts until 2008 when we end this national nightmare.

Seriously though, that's pretty bad. I wonder if that 24% for Nixon in '74 was the worst ever for a President?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Polls don't mean anything unless they support your position.

I think we should have a poll on this...

 

[martha]

I think we should have a poll on this...

I'll only believe in it if it proves me right.

 

[STING2]

28% huh? Well you know what? The other 22.5% or whatever that voted for him twice and got us all into this better damn well support him too. Where were you in 2000 and 2004 when we elected this boob? No way, ya don't get off that easy...Bush voters ought to be wearing "1 <3 Bush" T-shirts until 2008 when we end this national nightmare.

Seriously though, that's pretty bad. I wonder if that 24% for Nixon in '74 was the worst ever for a President?

The worst ever was 22% for Truman in 1952, but today Truman is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Over 70% of registered Republicans support Bush. According to the latest gallup poll, 40% of Americans are against any sort of pullout from Iraq. Bush's approval rating in the latest gallup poll is 36%. The fact of the matter is, most of these often repeated criticisms of Bush were there in 2004, and Bush won that election with the first clear majority for any Presidential win since 1988. George Bush received more votes in 2004 than any President has in history. One of Bush's strongest area's of support is the military and there are Americans from every single background race and religion across this country that currently support Bush, as well as U2 fans and members of this forum.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[Vincent Vega]

The worst ever was 22% for Truman in 1952, but today Truman is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Which isn't analogous to Bush and how they will view him in 50 years time.

 

[martha]

Over 70% of registered Republicans support Bush. According to the latest gallup poll, 40% of Americans are against any sort of pullout from Iraq. Bush's approval rating in the latest gallup poll is 36%.

Like I said, I only believe in polls when they support my position.

 

[STING2]

Which isn't analogous to Bush and how they will view him in 50 years time.

Provided the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan and those country's develop stable and non-hostile governments, history will likely view Bush in a favorable light, especially when one compares the cost and success of those undertakings to others throughout history.

 

[VintagePunk]

According to the latest gallup poll, 40% of Americans are against any sort of pullout from Iraq.

This number does not necessarily translate into approval for Bush. I'm about as anti-Bush as you can get, and I'm vehemently against any pullout. The thought of pulling out of Iraq at this point and leaving the country and its people in a state of chaos, created by Bush in the first place, is morally repugnant to me. You broke it, you fix it.

 

[martha]

history will likely view Bush in a favorable light,

I want what he's smokin'!

 

[Chizip]

 

[yolland]

Olmert's approval rating is 2% now, he must be jealous.

 

[Smallville]

Provided the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan and those country's develop stable and non-hostile governments, history will likely view Bush in a favorable light, especially when one compares the cost and success of those undertakings to others throughout history.

Absolutely.

 

[Irvine511]

Which isn't analogous to Bush and how they will view him in 50 years time.

yes it is. don't you see? history is only there for us to pull out numbers and then make a wild, completely unfounded comparison, and also to conveniently ignore context so that we can pretend like we're making an argument, when in reality we're saying very little at all.

the biggest question is whether Bush's total ignorance of the world will do more damage than his total inability to govern domestically. he's presided over the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam in Iraq, and the biggest domestic disaster since Galveston in New Orleans.

the last thing history will be is kind to Bush. we're already seeing it -- look at the pains to which the current crop of Republicans are taking to distance themselves from easily the most corrupt, despised administration since Nixon, if not since Hoover.

 

[A_Wanderer]

History may yield objective facts; such as what the CIA knew about Saddam, WMD, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups and the decisions of the administration between September 11 and March 2003. It hasn't played out yet and it is still all ad infinitum politics from Sting (two resounding electoral victories) to Irvine (worst FP disaster since Vietnam).

 

[Angela Harlem]

Provided the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan and those country's develop stable and non-hostile governments, history will likely view Bush in a favorable light, especially when one compares the cost and success of those undertakings to others throughout history.

You make me want to cry.

 

[Irvine511]

It hasn't played out yet and it is still all ad infinitum politics from Sting (two resounding electoral victories) to Irvine (worst FP disaster since Vietnam).

while i think we can all agree that history remains to be determined, and i do take the point about the Bono-ist becoming a monster in order to defeat a monster, of the two above statements you've attributed, which is the more defensible? does losing a popular vote and then being re-elected by the smallest margin for an incumbent in the 20th century come close to "resounding"?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Perhaps the problem is that history in the popular imagination gets glossed over; I mean Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Kennedy etc. all did things that are as ethically questionable as Bush - when Sting makes the comparison it's saying that Bush must be as great as Truman, maybe it should be that they each made decisions that infringed on individual rights or killed thousands of civilians to pursue the national interest.

 

[U2DMfan]

I mean Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Kennedy etc. all did things that are as ethically questionable as Bush

The PR problem Bush has, is his competency and the lack thereof.

Ethically, you could accuse any President of wrong-doing because that becomes the nature of the beast. Even Reagan had the Iran-Contra affair hanging around his neck, Clinton had bedroom problems, they are both the most popular Presidents since JFK.
In fact most of their harshest critics would admit a certain level of competency in both cases.

With GWB, it is transcending politcal parties and idealogical boundaries. The public perception of his competency was never strong even among those who supported him in 2000. They voted for him because of conservative, Christian values and a big electable last name, not because he ran an oil company into the ground and piloted a baseball franchise to severe medicority.

If this were an ethics number, I'd guess it'd be higher.
I don't think it's all that difficult to assess the situation (if one were a Bushie) and quickly come to the conclusion that he's still a good guy, probably meant well and just didn't have the tools (read:the ability to listen to dissenting opinions) to make a very good decision. If he's lost 15% or so of his support, I'd guess these people think something very similar. Rather than buy into the war crime argument or something.

Basically, I think for that 15% or so that is bailing, the social concerns are just outweighed by a ton of other more pressing problems.

If the SC overturns Roe in the next 20 months, he'll be seen as a revolutionary in the Republican and conservative circles. He'll take on mythic status. Otherwise, socially he's done nothing for his base or anyone else besides cut taxes for the rich. What about the history books will rewrite itself about the intelligence failures and the post war planning? It will not rewrite itself. Short of this thing turning around before 2010, it will become a debacle or it will have been turned around at the hands of someone else, who will take and be given credit.

Where would Bush fall into that mix historically?
Exactly as the history is and will be written.
Book after book, from Tenet's latest to Sheuer (sp?) to Richard Clarke, to Colin Powell speaking through his assistant Wilkinson, to Woodwards book, written from inside the Oval office.
They all say the same thing.

Some folks are waiting for a magic bullet to appear.
Bush will not be able to escape the last 4 years, period.
If democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan take hold and revolutionize the middle east, the whole thing turns around blah blah blah wine and roses etc., it will be the interventionalist foreign policy that gets the credit, dare I say, the actual neocons, the Perle and Kristol crowd who will look like geniuses, and their defense will ultimately be "had we had better leadership, we'd have saved time, money and lives" and the culprit then becomes, Bush, Cheney and Rummy. Fall guys, and if the circumstances were such, rightfully so. This administrations' goose is cooked barring a miracle in the next two years.

 

[Irvine511]

If democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan take hold and revolutionize the middle east, the whole thing turns around blah blah blah wine and roses etc., it will be the interventionalist foreign policy that gets the credit, dare I say, the actual neocons, the Perle and Kristol crowd who will look like geniuses, and their defense will ultimately be "had we had better leadership, we'd have saved time, money and lives" and the culprit then becomes, Bush, Cheney and Rummy. Fall guys, and if the circumstances were such, rightfully so. This administrations' goose is cooked barring a miracle in the next two years.

very perceptive. the neo-cons have already widely turned against Bush, not for invading Iraq but for doing so in a wildly incompetent, indefensible manner. even if Iraq were to become roses and puppies in the next few years, Bush will still be damned for not having done it better.

there's no getting around that, you're absolutely right.