US Split on Bush (Gallup Poll sans liberal spin: Pres Bush maintains his 76% approval rating)

USA Today ^ | July 9, 2002 | Richard Benedetto

[DrDeb]

Allegations of corporate fraud and questions about President Bush's own financial dealings could be eroding public confidence in the president's ability to manage the economy and look out for the interests of ordinary Americans, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

Three of four (76%) still approve of the overall job Bush is doing as president.

[DrDeb]

From the article's title to its specious assertions concerning the possible erosion of the public's confidence in the president's ability to manage the economy and look out for the interests of ordinary Americans, Benedetto's analysis of Gallup's most recent poll (July 5-8, 2002) is a transparent attempt to advance the liberal agenda by interpreting and reporting poll results in the most negative (for the president) manner possible.

Actual Survey Findings:

--Despite relentless RAT/media attacks, President Bush maintains an INCREDIBLE 76% approval rating [Of course, this FACT contradicts the article's ridiculous/ unsupported conclusion that the "US is split on Bush")

--78% of respondents think President Bush is honest and 73% feel he is trustworthy

--57% of respondents feel more threatened by big government and big labor than big business (38%)

--40% think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress vs 39% if the Democrats controlled Congress

Yes, the public is nervous about the economy; however, they trust the President to do what he can to address the current problems.

REQUEST: Would someone proficient with FR's HTML system post the actual Gallup Poll results?!

[SBeck]

The poll also found a jump in public worry about their personal economic situations and a drop in Bush's ratings in handling the economy.

This, not the war, not corporate fraud, is the reason for the President to be worried. Bush Elder lost because of it.

[lonestar]

This, not the war, not corporate fraud, is the reason for the President to be worried. Bush Elder lost because of it.

A bigger worry is that most Americans just simply don't understand it all.

[dalebert]

The Dems know their only chance is to hang the econemy problem on Bush. They have no other issue. I will take Bush over Daschle anytime.Isn't it time we took a good look at Dem portfolios?

[Poohbah]

We ARE split: it's just a tad over 3-1 in Bush's favor :o)

[swheats]

I'm wondering how many degrees of separation does the companies that inflated their profits [and now in trouble] has from the previous administration. I find it suspect that during '98 everything was blown out of proportion and gave the impression through the media that investments were through the roof. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact mantra, but it was something to the effect of "it's the economy, stupid".

Investors were so impressed with their financial growth that noone questioned how it was happening and the daytrader was a new phenomenon.

I hope Bush will be able to bring sanity back to investing and the reality that it's the longterm effect that is profitable.

[DrDeb]

Bush 41 lost because Ross Perot pursued a narcissistic vendetta that split the Republican/independent vote and enabled Clinton to slither into office with barely 40% of the popular vote.

Additionally, while a nice guy, '41' never connected on a visceral/emotional level with the American people -- Bush 43 has (76% approval rating; 78% find him honest; 73% find him trustworthy).

[Mulder]

What good is a 76% approval rating if he isn't going to use it to implement and advance a conservative agenda?

[Poohbah]

What good is trying to implement and advance a conservative agenda when the Senate is implacably hostile?

Come to think of it...

What good are YOU?

[SBeck]

I hope Bush will be able to bring sanity back to investing and the reality that it's the longterm effect that is profitable.

The "investing class" - Prescott Bush's words, not mine - is not in the majority, it's the guy who looks at his paycheck (or lack of one because he just got laid off) and realizes that he can't pay the mortgage that will be the undoing of the administration.

Regardless of who was at fault, it will be blamed on whoever is currently occupying the WH. (And yes, it is, and always will be "the economy, stupid".)

[BerniesFriend]

I thought something was up..I got home around 5pm and was switching channels..I noticed CNN had their political analyst..name escapes me..but on the scroll underneath was this "Bush's Handling of Economy Poll Number Slips" or something to that effect..but what the liberal new network failed to point out that it is still a healthy 58%..but why let facts get in the way when they want to help the next democrat to become president..

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

But the nation is split, 46%-47%, over whether Bush's priority is looking out for the interests of large corporations or the interests of the American people as a whole.

I got news for you liberals. When Bush looks out for the interests of large corporations, he is looking out for the interests of the American people as a whole. These corporations employ 90% of Americans in the private sector. You're damn right he better be looking out for their interests. He needs to do everything in his power to ensure they turn a huge profit so they can continue to employ tens of millions of Americans and help them maintain their high standard of living.

[SBeck]

These corporations employ 90% of Americans in the private sector.

Actually, you're wrong. Small businesses employ the vast majority of Americans. Read the statistics here.

[justshe]

Bush 41 lost because Ross Perot pursued a narcissistic vendetta that split the Republican/independent vote and enabled Clinton to slither into office with barely 40% of the popular vote.

A fact those who continue to compare #41 and #43 refuse to address. I have seen multiple posts by many people in the last few days who continue to say the sky is falling and they hinge their entire argument on the economy. They don't let those pesky facts re: the Perot factor infringe on their righteous indignation re: #43....nor spoil their omniscient predictions for 2004.

I only hope their soothsaying is as accurate as their memories re: the 96 elections.

Good post, DrDeb.

[Mulder]

What good is trying to implement and advance a conservative agenda when the Senate is implacably hostile?

Well, Reagan passed massive tax cuts with a democratic House in power. So it is doable. Clinton got much of his expansionist government agenda passed with a GOP Congress, so again it's possible.

It's all a matter of either having strong principles and the courage and ability to articulate them (in Reagan's case), or playing ruthless hardball with the opposition (in Klinton's case). Bush appears to have no strong principles (except bigger government), and is unwilling to play hardball with the liberals. Quite the contrary, he has been rather accomodating to them.

Come to think of it... What good are YOU?

Wow.... It didn't take long for one of the bots to start with the personal insults. The pattern is pretty predictable:

1) Someone has a legitimate critism or (in my case) a question about the Bush administration.

2) The bots respond with personal attacks, rarely addressing the underlying issues that were initially brought up.

3) The inital poster replies, and if the personal attack is returned, then one of the bots goes crying to the admins.

[concerned about politics]

That, coupled with strong Democratic criticism of the president's business stewardship, might be shaking public confidence in his ability to solve what appears to be difficult and worrisome problems.

This is all media illusion.
There are 17,000 corporations in the U.S.
3 have been ACCUSED of being corrupt, but so far it has to be proven that laws were actually broken.
Accounting (because my husband is an accountant) is based on IRS laws. The "grey areas" the democrats speek about are "grey" IRS laws.
For example: Invest in property by buying new carpeting throughout the whole complex. A huge expence, but it increases property value.
Many accountants would capitalize on that and devalue the investment over time, say 3 years. The IRS says they can't do it "because someone might spill something and the carpet would be devalued faster."
BUT, the company buys a company car, which could get in a wreck, and it IS depreciable!
The IRS has mixed up rules to follow depending on the meaning of the word "is."
If the Democrats want "black and white accounting", they have to re-do the IRS, and then check their own books for accuracy and fraud because of the changes.

Because there are 17,000 corporations today, and 3 have fallen, that leaves 16,997 still left in good standing. I'd say that's a damn good success rate for free enterprise.

[SBeck]

This is all media illusion.

As a former resident of that den of inequity known as D.C., I can unequivocally state that it is always perception that brings the mighty down.

[SBeck]

The bots respond with personal attacks, rarely addressing the underlying issues that were initially brought up.

That's because they got their training as Amway distributors. BWAHAHAHAHA.

[Poohbah]

Well, Reagan passed massive tax cuts with a democratic House in power. So it is doable. Clinton got much of his expansionist government agenda passed with a GOP Congress, so again it's possible.

Reagan also ran huge deficits because he didn't try to restrain spending. And Clinton's expansionistic government actually grew at less than the inflation rate because (believe it or not) Congress actually restrained Clinton's spending requests.

The President proposes, the Congress disposes. Read Article I if you don't believe me.

Wow.... It didn't take long for one of the bots to start with the personal insults.

It's a fair question. And your use of "bots" is telling: if you don't want to get personally attacked (and believe me, that line I posted wasn't a flame on you--I spent eight years as a Marine, so I have the art of the insult mastered to a degree that most inferior forms of life never even learn exist), don't engage in them.

[tubebender]

"...I noticed CNN had their political analyst..name escapes me.."

Was it that socialist Bull Schneider?(sp)