[Slick91]

I wouldn’t read too much into this. If you go to USA Today’s web link and play around with the comparatives to other presidents you’ll notice some interesting things.

For one, he is on par with Ronald Reagan at this stage in his presidency. Another thing to note is that most all of them slip down as a trend.

[Fudd Fan]

However, putting it in these terms is psychologically devastating to RATlibs. Especially those who still suffer from severe BDS.

[Soul Seeker]

Reagan was against a Democrat controlled congress and didn’t have the media propping him up. It took a few years for his reforms to have a positive impact.

In contrast Obama has a “friendly” Congress as it’s his own party in control. The media gushes over him. And his programs will not have a positive impact in a few years if enacted.

Right now only Ford and Clinton were worse. Ford never won an election as President. Clinton ended up setting his Congress on a road to being wiped out in ‘94. Had he been up for re-election then he’d have been gone as well. The Republican Congress newly elected saved him 2 years later by stopping many of his initiatives.

[SmokingJoe]

“For one, he is on par with Ronald Reagan at this stage in his presidency”

I wouldn't read much into that if I were you.
You seem to be forgetting that 0bama’s numbers keep falling, despite almost 100% cover up and media worship from the lame brain media. By contrast, Reagan was under constant unrelenting attacks from the liberal media from day one. That 0bama is lower than even President Bush at this stage in his presidency, despite Bush winning less than 50% of the popular vote, and despite Bush/Reagan being constantly attacked by the media, as compared to sickening media worship of 0bama, means 0Bama is in very deep trouble.

For another thing, Reagan fought and won the cold war, while 0Bama is busy surrendering to every left wing/Islamic dictator he can find.
For another, Reagan didn’t rack a staggering deficit of over $1 Trillion in just 6 months. Not even close.
And for another, Reagan didn't preside over the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression.
Readgan had things going for him, that 0bama can only dream of. 0bama should be much higher in the polls than Reagan or Bush at this stage in their presidencies, , because the media's non-critical worshipful coverage alone is worth at least another 10 points to 0bama.

[roses of sharon]

Ah, but you forget....GWB and other Presidents were normal human beings...Hussein is the messiah.

The commie MSM/DNC/Hollywood/Academia war room will find a way to boost him up to walk on water again.

[Deb]

The difference is Obama has received almost 100% favorable, even fawning, media coverage. I don't remember Reagan's press during the same period, but I do remember that GW was still getting trashed daily over "the lock-box" and Congressional Democrats were still ranting about the "selected president", while every one his cabinet nominees was being anally examined and bashed in the press.

For Obama to be even one point below Bush at the same point is incredible.

[SeattleBruce]

For one, he is on par with Ronald Reagan at this stage in his presidency. Another thing to note is that most all of them slip down as a trend.
++++++++++++++++++

Compare the press unity and Congressional unity, vs. Reagan...no comparison..

I think the comparison with Carter is much more apt...