President's 'terrible' rating better than last 7

World Net Daily ^ | October 13, 2005

[West Coast Conservative]

Despite the fact President Bush's job approval ratings have dropped to the lowest point of his presidency, they still remain higher than the low-point ratings of the last seven presidents, including his predecessor Bill Clinton.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center shows Bush's job approval at 38 percent.

"President George W. Bush's poll numbers are going from bad to worse," said the Pew report. "His job approval rating has fallen to another new low, as has public satisfaction with national conditions, which now stands at just 29 percent. And for the first time since taking office in 2001, a plurality of Americans believe that George W. Bush will be viewed as an unsuccessful president."

Data from six polling organizations in October show an average of 39.5 percent job approval for Bush.

But according to the Gallup Organization, that's a higher mark than the low points for all commanders in chief dating back to Lyndon Johnson in the mid 1960s.

The low points for recent commanders in chief are as follows:

Bill Clinton: 37 percent
George H. W. Bush: 29 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Richard Nixon: 24 percent
Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent

To find presidents with higher low-point approval ratings than Bush, one has to go back to John Kennedy at 56 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower at 48 percent.

The Power Line blog notes: "The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world)."

[Black Tooth]

President's 'terrible' rating better than last 7

Odd. I was told just this week by a staunch Bush supporter that WND lies and is run by leftist.

[Mr. K]

And they claim the former rapist-in-chief had approval ratings in the 90 % range WHILE HE WAS BEING IMPEACHED

[jimfrommaine]

I love President Bush, he's a good man. But I'm convinced he's not a conservative. So the conservative base which makes or breaks the GOP should give him an ultimatum. Act like the man we thought we were voting for or resign.

[OldFriend]

Don't tell the folks at FNC

[ClearCase_guy]

a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history

With this presidential term, the media has given up even pretending to be unbiased.

[thoughtomator]

There's plenty of time left for him to set a new low. He's working hard at it, it's tough work.

[RightCanuck]

I love the truth.

BTW, I've developed a hypothesis for determining what the truth is based on MSM reports. I take 90% of what they say, determine the opposite, and figure that (the opposite) is closer to the truth. It's not a new law of the universe yet but it is a darn good hypothesis so far.

[edcoil]

RULE 1: Never trust the PEW research polls

RULE 2: Always refer to Rule 1.

[aft_lizard]

I keep hearing that he isnt a conservative, so please define your version of conservativism that every conservative must be .

[Reagan Man]

Reality check. Reagan and Clinton had solid recoveries in their job approval ratings. The others didn't. Two term Presidents who fullfill their terms have that tendency. JFK was a martyr and Ike was another two term winner as POTUS. LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter ansd Bush41 were failures for one or more reasosns.

[Vision Thing]

And just think how his ratings can go no lower. The uber-cons are the last identity group that Bush can lose. And he has already lost them.

The uber-cons have already shot their wad against Bush over the Miers nomination, and they seem unable to persuade anyone else but themselves about how bad Bush is.

So there's no where else to go but up for Bush's ratings.

[aft_lizard]

There opinion pieces are generally anti-Bush and staunch paleo-con and generally there pieces are mostly fluff and spin, when there is facts to back up there info then you can accept or disprove them with a reasonable amount of comfortability. Leftist? No.

[OldFriend]

Guess you are too young to remember Nixon. Reagan was pilloried day and day out. It never stopped.

It was ever thus, the leftist media and their leftist cohorts in the congress are on a mission to destroy our republican presidents by any means necessary.

Lies are the usual method.

[MizSterious]

"Jimmy Carter 28%"--what amazes me, is that it ever got that high for him. I still can't figure out how he got elected in the first place, after all these years.

[Vision Thing]

WND was merely quoting a leftist polling outfit named Gallup. Even Gallup cannot fudge the numbers all that much, so these leftists had to reveal that Bush's low point is no where near as bad as the low points for the past seven presidents.

[RetiredArmy]

in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history

The commie MSM supporting their demo-daddies. 100% true. I refuse to watch TV any more. Even on sports shows, weather shows, etc., they take that 5 seconds to blame something on Bush.

[jimfrommaine]

Okay, this is my short list of what I think a conservative President should be doing right now.
1.Secure our borders at a time of war.
2.Say we can't cut and run in Iraq and leave Al-Qaeda in control of an oil rich nation. The President is almost there on this point.
3.Tax cuts are revenue generators. JFK's, Reagan's and the Bush tax cuts have stimulated economic growth, and revenues to the government have increased. The rich pay a higher share of the tax burden when tax rates go down as well. So it's idiotic to repeal the tax cuts. The President needs to say this in in a blunt, aggressive manor. This new-tone garbage is a disaster.
4. 40 years of great society nonsense, 5 trillion dollars of our money has not eliminated poverty. In fact it has destroyed families. The President talks of free enterprize zones, minority home ownership, and minority businesses in the gulf. Well, if it's good enough for the gulf it's good enough for the entire country. eliminator the welfare state and fight for real change, real progress.
5.Man is not causing global warming. It's a myth created by the socialists to destroy capitalism. Therefore we need to build more refineries, drill for oil in the gulf and Anwar.
A true conservative would be out on tv, on the radio every day arguing these points. Fighting and attacking the socialists. Taking on their myths and destroying them. President Bush says a couple of nice things once and a while, then does nothing to advance the cause. Bad heart and all I could see Dick Cheney on tv every day fighting the good fight.

[Sloth]

I keep hearing that he isnt a conservative, so please define your version of conservativism that every conservative must be .

You didn't ask me, but I'd say any president who expands entitlement programs and the size of government (at least, aside from constitutionally authorized areas such as national defense) is not a conservative. Also, any president who signs bills abridging the freedom of speech is not a conservative.

[HitmanLV]

Give him a few more months. He is acting like he is shooting for the alltime record.

On a brighter note, he will squint a lot, smile, and talk about 'freedom.' :-)

[slowhand520]

You know there is plenty of talk now that Bush is "not really conservative". Ok. But lets not be revisionist historians. Even our conservative hero Ronald Reagan didn't always act conservative. Take his amnesty plan that was enacted in 1986. Or what about in 1982 when he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. Even National Review question weather he was "deserting the Conservatives":

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/1982200510060747.asp

[Frank_2001]

Well stated!

[Pessimist]

"And just think how his ratings can go no lower. The uber-cons are the last identity group that Bush can lose."

There's still the religious right. Although granted it would take a lot for him to lose them. As long as he tosses in mentions of prayer and God here and there, they're a lock.

[TheDon]

President Bush is one of the great US Presidents.

[Pessimist]

"A true conservative would be out on tv, on the radio every day arguing these points."

Good point. Bush has the power of the bully pulpit, and he should use it to help steer the country in the right (literally "right") direction.

I guess my biggest disappointment with the pubs is that they never try to use the power when they have it. Instead all they can think about is the political calculus of not offending any group in the hopes of picking up another voter or two here or there.

[Sloth]

Act like the man we thought we were voting for or resign.

Bush didn't run as a conservative, he ran as a "compassionate conservative" which is code for "moderate" which in turn is code for "somewhat liberal." After all, he was proposing his massive Medicare expansion during the 2000 campaign. We knew we were voting for a big-government moderate.

On the other hand, he DID say he'd nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas, which is why I voted for him both times. I was really unenthusiastic after he signed CFR, but the notion of a Kerry-picked Supreme Court was too scary to ignore. The jury's still out on whether I made the right decision.

[aft_lizard]

1. I agree, and cant understand why he isnt for a secured border, but it doesnt make him not a conservative.
2. He isnt almost there, where you picked that up at I do not know.
3. He has and he has been sticking by his guns on those.
4. One step at a time, unfortunately some fiscally liberal combined with a few socially liberal republicans, seeing as this would be a fiscal and social area of government, are against that due to political concerns. You show it works on a big scale it will be easilly picked up by the entire group.But that issue doesnt make him a non-conservative, especially since he has offered conservative ideas to placate some of it.
5. This is one of the areas he is most conservative on, not signing Kyoto,even offering a capitalistic free-market version of the Kyoto protocal.

Unfortunately as President cant be on TV night and day, he should be using the bully pulpit more, but because he isnt it does't make him a non-conservative.

[aft_lizard]

And how long would a Conservative stay in power if he didnt have to play politics? Not very long, even Reagan was forced to play politics. Bush doesnt use the pulpit much, which always has bugged me.

[Maceman]

I still can't figure out how he got elected in the first place, after all these years.

Ford was perceived as a clumsy, bumbling well-meaning, unelected, inept nice-guy airhead. There was anger at him for pardoning Nixon, and a joke at the time was that he had played football without a helmet too often in college.

The economy during his term was in trouble, with inflation running at painful rates (though not as high as they got under Carter). His big anti0inflation initiative was those stupid "Whip Inflation Now (WIN)" buttons that he touted in a national speech.

Carter seemed like a decent, hardworking guy -- a businessman, a former governor, religious, compassionate and ernest.

Since whatever Ford was doing to fix the economy was not working, it makes sense that the people would vote in someone new.

No one really dreamed that a president could be as incompetent as Carter turned out to be.

That's why he got elected.

[CGTRWK]

Not increasing federal discretionary domestic spending by 23.2% would be a good start at being conservative.

Not pushing for a multi trillion dollar Medicare expansion would be conservative.

Defending the borders would be conservative.

Standing up for gun rights, instead of funding 700 full time anti-gun prosecutors and saying he'd sign an AWB renewal is conservative.

The only thing Bush has done to look conservative is run against the likes of Gore and Kerry.

[aft_lizard]

Thats a pretty narrow definition there. Let me present my narrow view. Strong on national defense, tax cuts, pro-life,anti-Kyoto, privatizing ss(even though it wont happen under him,its still his belief)hes for school vouchers(NCLB was supposed to be a stepping stone for it).

[jimbergin]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
President Bush Job Approval -47% - Rasmussen

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval

Strongly Approve 24%
Somewhat Approve 24%
Somewhat Disapprove 15%
Strongly Disapprove 35%
RasmussenReports.com


Friday October 14, 2005--Forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That matches the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

Fifty-one percent (51%) Disapprove.

For the first time in a week, more than 8-out-of-10 Republicans give the President their Approval. His rating among the GOP faithful bumped up to 83% on Friday. Still, while an improvement over the past week, this support is lower than the President has enjoyed from his own party during most of his time in office.

Twenty percent (20%) of Democrats, and 35% of those not affiliated with either major political party also give the President their Approval.

Despite vocal opposition from many conservative activists, most Republicans believe Harriet Miers should be confirmed and serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Overall, 65% believe she will be confirmed.

[Reagan Man]

NO revisonism here. Reagan signed the IRCA of 1986 and that was a mistake. But if those critical aspects of the IRCA that prosecuted and punished employers for hiring illegals were enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have been what it was meant to be. A one time amnesty deal. Btw, those enforcment triggers are still on the books today.

On taxes. As Bruce Bartlett points out in another National Review essay, Reagan never initiated any of the tax increases enacted during his Presidency. Quote: "In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. "Congress never cut spending by even one penny, " Reagan complained in 1993."

Unlike Bush43, Reagan didn't have a GOP House to deal with. Reagan had a hostile House under the leadership of Speakers Tip O'Neal and Jim Wright. Deals were made. Some deals were good and a few deals were bad. Even though taxes went up under Reagan, strong economic growth and expansion went on for 18 years, 1983-2000.

[Verginius Rufus]

Bill Sammon made this point on Brit Hume's program on Thursday.

Today is Eisenhower's birthday.

[aft_lizard]

Not increasing federal discretionary domestic spending by 23.2% would be a good start at being conservative.>>>

I sound like a parrot, but get fiscal conservatives in Congress and you would have that. Bush's only job is to offer proposals and to veto spending bills, he fails on those but why dont all the"conservatives" in congress come through as well?

Not pushing for a multi trillion dollar Medicare expansion would be conservative. >>

Dont know about the multi-trillion part, but he promised that before he was elected.the first time.

Standing up for gun rights, instead of funding 700 full time anti-gun prosecutors and saying he'd sign an AWB renewal is conservative.>>>

They arent just for guns, the prosecutors are for other laws too, such as coke smugglin. And I would like to know where that info comes from, NRA? Unbiased please. And being pro-gun or anti-gun does not a conservative make.

The only thing Bush has done to look conservative is run against the likes of Gore and Kerry.>>

Umm no, lets reword it. The only thing Bush has done to look non-conservative is not agree with my narrow myopic view of what I believe a conservative to be.

[slowhand520]

If you read further in Bartlett's essay he states the following:

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

I am 100% with you. I have a Reagan shrine in my office. My point is even Reagan did some not so conservative things.

[MizSterious]

He was also a big phoney, and lots of people knew that. One of his posed photo-ops was supposedly on a peanut farm--but the crop in the picture was soybean. I never, ever liked him, and never thought he was either decent or hardworking. If it's that easy to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, we should all be very concerned about the next election. Hillary is quite good at it, as we know.

[Reagan Man]

GWBush did sign off on three tax cuts for American workers, but he's no fiscal conservative on the spending side.

According to OMB:
Clinton's last budget spent 64.1% on Human Resources, aka. socialwelfare & entitlement programs. Bush spent 65.5% in 2002, 65.6% in 2003, 64.8% 2004, 64.0% 2005, estimate 65.3% in 2006, estimate 66.1% 2007, estimate 66.9% in 2008 and estimate 67.2% in 2009 and 2010. With Bush`s track record those estimates will likey be higher.

As a comparison. When Reagan took office HR spending under Jimmah Carter was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. In 1982= 52.1%, 1983=52.7%, 1984= 50.7%, 1985= 49.9%, 1986= 48.6%, 1987= 50.0%, 1988= 50.1%, 1989= 49.7%.

Let's be fair though. Bush did cut taxes three times and the impact on the economy was significant. The Reagan tax reform package of 1981 reduced the tax burden, as a percentage of the annual budget, on Americans by 5.3%. The Bush tax cuts reduced the taxes by 3.8%, 2.5%, 2.7%. Total, 8.1%. Not quite as big as the Kennedy tax cut (8.8%) of 1964, but larger then Reagan's.

Here's the analysis by the Tax Foundation. Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts

[DesertSapper]

Though I disagree with President Bush on many points (borders, domestic spending, etc.), I believe he will go down in history as one of the greatest US Presidents.

How many other Presidents have conquered two remote countries and replaced their constitutions and governments to side with us in a global war? That list only includes a few. On the issue of taking the battle to the enemy, President Bush is outstanding.

It's the domestic arena where Bush demonstrates that he is far from a conservative.

[Maceman]

He was also a big phoney, and lots of people knew that.

Most people didn't know he was a phony. The Big 3 Networks and the NYT never told them.

It's not like there was a blogosphere, Fox nNews or even Rush to counter the Liberal Establishment line.

[TheDon]

It's the domestic arena where Bush demonstrates that he is far from a conservative.

Yep, like tax cuts to revive the economy and increase tax revenues. What was he thinking? Any conservative would know that was the wrong move. :^)

[Reagan Man]

>>>>In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate.

Don't just cut and paste from the article without placing the proper quotations. Do some research.

In 1981 America was in a fiscal mess. The worst economic times since the Great Depression. Social Security was in about to go broke. PresReagan appointed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Social Security reform commission. Its job was to come up with a plan to reform Social Security and make it fiscally solvent once again. That is exactly what happened. History doesn't lie. Social Security taxes did go up, from 4.8% to 5.7% (Today 6.2%). Reagan accomplished Social Security reform without a GOP House. Reagan achieved reform with a hostile House controlled by the Dems. OTOH. PresBush has a full GOP Congress and so far, Social Security reform has gone nowhere. It's a dead issue for now. The GOP is the majority party in power. We have a GOP POTUS. Yet all they can do is advance a liberal spending agenda. That is not in keeping with a fiscally conservative agenda.

>>>>I am 100% with you. I have a Reagan shrine in my office. My point is even Reagan did some not so conservative things.

100%. Oh really. LOL Pointing out certain facts without explaining what led to those events, is unfair to the Reagan legacy. Just more cheap shots at the Reagan record. There's been a lot that going on here at FR lately. It's being done to excuse certain aspects of the Bush policy agenda. And I don't like it.

[Pessimist]

You're right. Unfortunately a certain amount of politics are necessary.

But too often I see that being the unspoken excuse for not taking the issue directly to the people in clear, uneqivocal terms.

I guess that's why I liked Reagan so much. He had to compromise on things too, but that didn't seem like it usually stopped him from stepping up to the mic and telling it like is.

[aft_lizard]

With Bush`s track record those estimates will likey be higher.>>

How can you say that? There is no track record for an increase, there is however evidence it will decrease seeing as 2004 it dropped .8% from 2003 and 2005 dropped .8% from 2004(making 2005 lower than Clintons), 2006 may be a blip because of the largest natural disaster in American history reducing federal spending in other ares(we hope)but would increase the % for social welfare spending as a whole, but not really increase it in real dollars amount compared to past years.

[slowhand520]

I have cut and pasted as you have. The bottom line is Reagan raised taxes. You can give valid reasons why but the point remains a conservative president raised taxes and supported legislation that did so. Again not a very conservative move. A fact that the National Review echoed. I am not giving Reagan any cheap shot. Along with many others on this board I consider him an icon.

[twigs]

Act like the man we thought we were voting for or resign.

Now there's a prescription for an unstable government if I've ever seen one. There's a reason why we have four year terms. I'm sure you're not the only one who's been dissatisfied with the actions of the person they voted for.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>How can you say that?

Because that's what is posted at OMB.GOV. I just posted the data to FR. You know who operates the Office of Mangement and Budget? The Executive Branch of the US government. That would be the Bush administration. On social welfare and entitlement spending Bush is a liberal.

[BushisTheMan]

So the conservative base which makes or breaks the GOP...

A little pompous, don't you think?

[kaktuskid]

Reagan had a more "civil" media in those days, not the current Moonbats who take as fact anything some Al Queda goat-romancer bloviates.

It may be time to discuss breaking up the media (again)

TV/radio networks should not own their own stations (no more "O&Os"!)
Limit the number of stations anyone can own to the 60s/70s levels.
Newspapers should not own TV/radio (and vice versa)
And pollsters must show their polling methods, including D/R/Indy percentages polled.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I have cut and pasted as you have.

I'm explaining some of the history of the events during the Reagan Presidency. What reasoning was involved. You're just cutting and pasting to make Reagan look bad, in the hopes of elavating the Bush Presidency and legacy.

Again. Bush has a majority GOP Congress. He has expanded government and increased spending like no POTUS before him. His proposal to privatize Social Security came from an idea put forth by Reagan in 1964 and again in 1976 and 1984. Reagan acted on Social Security. Bush can't get anything accomplished on SS reform, or immigration reform either. On the latter, Bush really doesn't want real immigration reform. Bush wants the Hispanic vote to go for the GOP in 2006&2008. While he continues to appease the business contingent of the GOP by furthering cheap labor.

>>>>The bottom line is Reagan raised taxes.

Those are the facts. Repeating it time and time again gets to my point. But then again you missed one of Bruce Barlett's points. Barlett believes Bush will be forced to raise taxes at some point. I don't necessarily go along with that. I think Bush will just deficit spend and throw the cost for his big governemnt expansion and liberal spending on future generations.

>>>>I am not giving Reagan any cheap shot. Along with many others on this board I consider him an icon.

You have a funny way of admiring Reagan. try again.