pageok
pageok
pageok
How Low Can They Go?:
Pollster.com publishes a very interesting trend line for Presidential approval ratings that combines the results of all of the different major polls. Based on the latest chart, President Bush is in serious danger of spending the rest of his Presidency in the dreaded Nixon-Just-Before-He-Resigned range.
Nathan_M (mail):
If the Democrats had any sense they'd be working to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
4.22.2008 1:55am
pgepps (www):
bwahahaha! Nathan_M wins for the most compact, pointed, and non-deranged poke at Bush I've seen recently. Poor George W. As an unenthusiastic supporter (and very enthusiastic opponent of Gore and Kerry), all I can say is . . . as much criticism as he can bear, and still deliver us an alternative to HillBama, suits me fine, really. . . .
4.22.2008 2:15am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Why is this news? The liberals hate Bush and now a large part his conservative base also hates him. The conservatives hate him for his fiscal irresponsibility, failure to enforce border security, prolongation of the Iraq war because of over restrictive rules of engagement (read them on Wikileak), failure to regulate dangerous imports from China, and the failure to regulate the financial services industry. If anything the conservatives hate him more than the liberals because they feel betrayed.

I'm surprised Bush gets any positive ratings at all. He should be running near zero. I don't know anyone who likes Bush. I don't know anyone who doesn't think he's a complete idiot. But let's face it. Bush doesn't give a crap. He's the president. He's rich, and he will live the rest of his life in comfort and luxury. Unless of course things get so bad we have an insurrection.
4.22.2008 2:37am
wm13:
Two points. Isn't the CBS article a little disingenuous by omitting Truman? I believe his approval numbers were comparable to Bush's. (And for those who say that Truman wasn't a two-term president, neither was Nixon, ha ha.)

Second, interestingly enough, Bush doesn't seem to care. Clinton's entire second term was pretty much devoted to jumping on popular initiatives whenever they surfaced and getting out in front. Bush doesn't do that at all. Yet it would take a brave (or at least contrary) person to argue that Clinton was more effective in getting his way during his last years in office than Bush has been.
4.22.2008 9:57am
Anon21:
"Yet it would take a brave (or at least contrary) person to argue that Clinton was more effective in getting his way during his last years in office than Bush has been."

I don't know about that. Bush failed to get his top post-election domestic policy priority, Social Security reform, on the congressional agenda even though both houses were controlled by his own party. He has done fairly well "getting his way" on Iraq policy, but that's mostly because Congress doesn't have a lot of effective tools in its arsenal to shape his decisions in that area. Even Clinton was basically able to chart his own course with the 1999 bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, despite sustained criticism from his political opponents, after coming off a damaging scandal. In terms of second-term policy achievements, I can't see a lot of daylight separating Clinton and Bush.
4.22.2008 11:05am
glangston (mail):
Approval of Congress is probably equally low. It only shows that we're disappointed in where government, in general, has gotten us. A war, high gas prices, a falling dollar, financial shenanigans.....what's not to like? Oh, ...forgot Global Warming
4.22.2008 11:48am
Adeez (mail):
Might be time for another False Flag.
4.22.2008 1:15pm
wm13:
Anon21, you seem to agree with me that Clinton was not more effective than Bush in getting his way during his second term, despite much higher approval ratings. So I'm still waiting for the brave (or contrary) person who will take on that argument. In the meantime, I would note that Iraq is a much larger and more unpopular endeavor than the Kosovo thing.

This isn't meant as a partisan point. The conventional wisdom is that a president's approval ratings translate into political clout, but Bush seems to disprove that, which I think is interesting.
4.22.2008 1:48pm
WHOI Jacket:
Wow, Bush better step it up on the campaign trail or there's no way he's getting re-elected......
4.22.2008 1:49pm
Just an Observer:
Why focus just on the approval ratings, in Bush's case, the quarter-glass that is full?

His disapproval rating in the Gallup Poll just hit an historic high:

WASHINGTON — President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.
4.22.2008 1:53pm
JosephSlater (mail):
I knew there was a reason why a poster in "dignity" thread went out of his way to say Bush wasn't a "conservative." Sorry -- in all senses of the word -- he is.
4.22.2008 2:03pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
The conservatives hate him for . . . prolongation of the Iraq war because of over restrictive rules of engagement

What's your thinking here? Seriously. Do you think that if we had just nuked the place that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds would be getting along dandy? Or if we just killed a lot more people there would be no civil war there? Perhaps if we made the whole male populace engage in pseudo-homosexual acts and photographed them a la Abu Ghraib the place wouldn't be crazy right now? I am really curious as to how you think our overly restrictive rules of engagement hurt.
4.22.2008 2:35pm
Ex parte McCardle:
Well, CrazyTrain, it's all part of the stab-in-the-back scenario that's deployed by the, um, non-victorious side in any conflict. It goes: we were just on the verge of victory until our noble forces were stabbed in the back by [fill in your preferred out-group of domestic "traitors" of choice here].
4.22.2008 2:52pm
Ex parte McCardle:
Oh, and to answer OK's question--lower.
4.22.2008 2:52pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Fine, don't vote for him this time.
4.22.2008 7:23pm
Kathi Smith (mail):
Just as the Samsung CEO who resigned today upon his indictment said, "I take full responsibility", Bush on 1/20/09 should say "My fellow Americans, now is the time for me to tell you that I take full responsibility for the complete screwed up mess I am leaving behind me for the newly sworn in President to clean up. May God help him/her."
4.22.2008 7:28pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"What's your thinking here? Seriously. Do you think that if we had just nuked the place that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds would be getting along dandy?"

You should first read the actual (classified) rules of engagement over at Wikileaks. Then you might understand why our troops get killed and maimed. We have a confusion over mission. Are the troops supposed to be fighting a war, or are the supposed to provide a substitute for ordinary civil police services? You should also ask yourself why we were able to occupy Germany and Japan and give them new governments. Compare and contrast our occupation policies in Germany an Iraq. Once you explore these topics you will appreciate why it's appropriate to call the Bush occupation policy incompetent.
4.22.2008 7:28pm
LN (mail):
Nobody here ever liked Bush! The liberals elected him because they liked his fiscal irresponsibility and lack of an exit strategy in Iraq. Fortunately he'll be gone soon.
4.22.2008 8:25pm
Andy L.:
You should first read the actual (classified) rules of engagement over at Wikileaks.

Irony anyone?
4.24.2008 10:14am