Posted on 06/08/2012 11:12:19 PM PDT by WilliamIII
George W. Bush has stepped out of the public eye since leaving office, but absence hasn't made the nation’s heart grow fonder.
The 43rd President of the United States is the most unpopular living former president, a CNN/ORC International poll has found, as only 43% of people surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of him and 54% viewed him unfavorably.
The negative rating puts Bush far behind his fellow living ex-Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Dubya’s father, George H.W. Bush.
Clinton nabbed a 66% favorable rating, Carter scored a 54% rating, and 59% of those polled said they had a positive view of Bush Sr.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Bush is a good man. He might not have been the best president, but he loves his country and our military.
All of that is also true of my next door neighbor. But he has no business being president, he’s neither bright enough or conservative enough. Ditto for W.
I would put Lincoln dead last myself.
Let me guess, you’re a Southerner or a Ron Paul supporter?
Bush got a bad rap from day one as the media went after him
Also true of Reagan, but his conservative policies made him a success and he ended his presidency hugely popular, so much so that Daddy Bush his first term on Reagan’s coattails,
Like Reagan, W faced a hostile press. Unlike Reagan, W pursued liberal policies that ended in economic disaster. Biggest recession since Hoover’s depression. Voters weren’t happy and you can’t blame them. Bush ended his tenure extremely unpopular, and the backlash elected Obama.
You can’t blame the pollsters, but that’s disingenuous. Admit it, Bush was and is unpopular. The Republican candidates know this — their own polls say the same thing — which is why his name was never mentioned in the GOP presidential debates this year. And nobody asks to campaign with him. (Only Obama wants him in the spotlight - witness the recent invite to the White House).
What name was uttered again and again in the GOP debates? Reagan. Even though Reagan - like Bush - had a hostile press. Unlike Bush, that didn’t keep him from being a successful president.
There’s only one reason for this over-all high unfavorability: The Iraq War.
I know there are other issues. Conservatives disliked his big government tendencies and his lack of interest in the border. Liberals disliked his tax cuts and basic pro-business mind-set. But that’s all background radiation.
The force at the core driving Bush’s favorability numbers lower was — and continues to be — the war in Iraq.
And I say that as a simple fact, without passing any judgement on the war myself.
Well you have to admit a CNN poll is always good for a laugh
So you’re saying the poll is wrong and Bush is actually popular?
Better tell that to Republican candidates for office. None of them ever mention Bush’s name. But they can’t say “Reagan” enough.
Do you suppose their polls say the same thing as CNN’s - i.e, people dont’ like the president who left us with the biggest recession in 50 years and the biggest federal debt and deficit EVER — until Obama came along. And Obama was elected because of bush’s unpopularity. Another gift from W.
History will be very kind to George W. Bush.
only if history forgets the biggest recession in half a century, which started on his watch, along with the biggest deficits and debt up to that time; and an unprecedented housing bubble fueled by Bush/Rove easy-lending-to-poor-minorities policy. The creation of TSA - making travel a nightmare - was also one of Bush’s scores - and I do mean SCORES - of Bush’s calamatous legacies. History will have to develop amnesia to be kind to this disastrous president.
3 way tide for 2cd worst, Nixon, Jimmy and W. LBJ wins worst easily,
I’m with you, bro
There’s only one reason for this over-all high unfavorability: The Iraq War.
You don’t think that the biggest recession in half a century — one that has thrown 20 percent of people out of work (if you cut thru the gov’t obfuscation) and turned us into Foreclosure Nation — might have a tiny bit to do with Hoover’s/er, Bush’s unpopularity? I’d say that’s the beginning and the ending of the answer.
Yes, I know that Obama has made it last longer than it should have, and go even deeper — but it started under W, including a stock market crash and a financial seize-up that had average people worrrying about bank runs and mass joblessness. All of that was happening during the last six months of Bush. Go back and read the news from August of 2008 thru Jan 2009. We were in a financial meltdown - Hoover Part Deux.
So you’re saying the poll is wrong and Bush is actually popular?
Are you saying GW is less popular than Jimmy C?
Too rational, and in my opinion untrue. You are speaking like an informed, if opinionated citizen. Most of those polled aren’t well informed, though like everyone, they have their opinions. Compare with the current polls on the popularity of Osambo. It’s the nation of the O.J. and Anthony juries that speaks to us through these polls.
It’s completely irrational, and it’s the effect of the relentless work of the MSM propaganda machine.
It's all relative.
You gotta understand the Bush-bot cult Republican-ist fantasy world. In that imaginary world anything BAD that takes place in the US after 2006 is not part of GWB 8 year record. Why? Because Pelosi took control of the House in 2007. That removes anything bad that happened from the GWB POTUS record.
But what about now? The economy is slowing and O is up for re-election. Is he responsible ? After all Republicans took the House in January 2011. Obama says that it is all House Republicans fault for the slowing economy. Of course O is fully responsible for it now, Obama is POTUS (for 3+years) and so he is responsible for any bad stuff that happens now.
So now that it makes sense, then why does Bush look so bad in these polls? Easy, it's MSM brain-washing. Americans except for a few smart ones just believe he had something to do with the sate of things after 8 years,
But what above Obama’s dive in the polls, Dems claim that is money-in-politics brain-washing so it's not valid. Is that brain-washing like the MSM brain-washing? Of course not.
You see Dems excuses are lame but Republicans are brilliant and all make sense.
Still having trouble? then you must be a DU :) Be Hannitized and it all will come clear.
Why is Farter at 54%? Cause of his charity work?
I don’t have a favorable view of any of them.
I think I have to agree with you William, Ford and Poppy Bush were more liberal but I don’t think they damged the party as much, OTOH Ford’s only lasting impact on the country was his horrible SC Justice (the brightest spot for Bush). Nixon also blew and screwed us over.
Taft was ok I guess. I’m “meh” on Ike, undecided on McKinley. TR sure went off the rails in 1912. Agree with you 100% on Harding, the most unfairly dissed President was clearly much better than most of his successors and if only by default one of the best Presidents of the 20th century.
I guess you could be right, WilliamIII, which is a sad thing, since the one thing that clearly is not Bush’s fault is the financial collapse, which was brought about by decades of liberal policies — especially in the housing industry — policies which Bush did try to reverse, though not very vigorously.
I would argue that one of the reasons Bush was so unsuccessful at stopping Barney Frank and his allies from wrecking the financial markets with their bad-loan-guarantees was that he was so mired in Iraq and had spent all his political capital in Iraq.
I could be wrong, but I still believe that had Bush limited the war to Afghanistan he would have governed more as a conservative domestically and that the financial collapse would have been lessened... maybe even avoided.
But instead, Bush was hobbled because of the Iraq War and his legacy is to be hated. That hatred, in my opinion, is either directly or indirectly related to that war.
In my opinion that war directly lead to the election of Obamugabe and is thus the biggest single political blunder in US history. That’s my opinion. I admit I could be wrong.
This poll does show that the general public still has a bad aftertaste of the Bush era after 4 years, and should be a warning sign to dopey Condi Rice supporters that putting her on the ticket will NOT increase the likelihood that "independents" will gravitate to the GOP, and would probably have the opposite effect (wish they would run some poll just asking about Condi's approval ratings, because I think it would back up my statement... Rice fans live in a delusional world where people were "impressed" by her tenure at the state department)
>> I think I have to agree with you William, Ford and Poppy Bush were more liberal but I don’t think they damaged the party as much, OTOH Ford’s only lasting impact on the country was his horrible SC Justice (the brightest spot for Bush). <<
You may have a good point that George W. Bush did more to damage the GOP brand than Ford or his father (on the other hand, neither of them came into office with the left fanatically determined to destroy them). On the other hand, I think there's a good argument that Ford and Bush Sr. were worse for the country on domestic issues. As another poster noted, George W. Bush mainly dragged down the GOP because of Iraq.
>> Nixon also blew and screwed us over. Taft was ok I guess. I’m “meh” on Ike, undecided on McKinley. TR sure went off the rails in 1912. Agree with you 100% on Harding, the most unfairly dissed President was clearly much better than most of his successors and if only by default one of the best Presidents of the 20th century. <<
We're ranking NON-living ex Presidents now? Nixon's hard to rank, if he was only remembered for his first term, he'd probably be fondly remembered, but his second term was an EPIC disaster and it's surprisingly that it's faded so much after 40 years that George W. Bush is probably less liked than Nixon now. I agree Ike is "meh" (did some really good things, did some REALLY bad things, but at least he campaigned as a "centrist" so you knew what you were getting) TR was "progressive" by the standards of the day but would be considered a conservative on issues like gun-rights and immigration/assimilation today. He did go insane in 1912 but realized the damage he had caused with his 3rd party bid and returned to the GOP fold in 1916 to campaign against Wilson. Taft was a good conservative except towards the end of his term. Harding had way way way too much corruption and cronyism in his administration for me to "rank" him on the good list (he also gets bad marks from me for pardoning Eugene Debs), but it's silly the way historians rank him as the worst President ever. Like Kennedy, he pretty much died before he could accomplish much. Coolidge was more conservative and an honest and decent man who cleaned up the country after what Harding left us.
Harry Truman was less popular than dirt when he left office, and is today rated as a “Near Great” President by historians and public alike, he usually ends up in the Top 10 tier of Presidential rankings.
That’s interesting because Truman was a socialist. He was pushing for nationally run health care 60 years before Obama, invoking Truman, got it through.
I actually think the American people are pretty good judges of the quality of their presidents — in real time. They knew Reagan was a great president, and his popularity was high when he left office, as a result.
They knew Carter was a failure, and he left office unpopular.
Hoover also left office unpopular - with the economy tanking. Bush, like Hoover, left office with the economy in a tailspin, so it’s not surprising that most people (with the exception of a remnant of Bushbots) considered him a disaster.
the one thing that clearly is not Bush’s fault is the financial collapse
Wrong. Bush and Rove had an explicit policy of encouraging no-down-payment loans to low-income minorities who couldn’t afford houses under normal, responsible standards of lending. The crash in 2008 was the natural result of the housing bubble that inflated throughout the previous six years of the Bush-Rove presidency.
Read all about it:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/
“Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit
Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults
By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004
President Bush’s weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The election-year idea may appeal to those who can’t save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers — especially if home values decline.
If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.
And those who can’t afford large down payments usually don’t have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.
“If you’re really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house,” said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island.
Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill’s passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis.
Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.
“To build an ownership society, we’ll help even more Americans to buy homes,” Bush said in an Ohio speech to home builders. “Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don’t have the savings to put money down.”
A no money down mortgage still has to have under writing scrutiny. You are like most leftist/progressives, using the fallacy of the undistributed middle to promote your deceptions. Blaming Bush for poorly run underwriting just because he promoted no money down mortgages is a typical Obama whine. The property to be under written is a collateral. With poor underwriting work, the property combined with the income history should be not Bush's responsibility but the banking under writeting responsibility. Obama deception troops will increase their DNC disease efforts at FR no doubt, but you have just outed yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.