[Ninong]

How Low Can He Go?

26%


President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.


June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.

P.S. -- I still don't understand where they're finding the 6% of Democrats who approve of Bush's job performance? Are there that many clones of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller running loose? We're dipping into lizard brain territory here.

[Ninong]

Bush even made a new low in the recently released Fox News poll: 31% job approval. His previous low in their poll was 33%.

He has now become just about the lamest lame duck president in history. This was clearly evident this past week when he was unable to pass his immigration reform bill even though he had overwhelming support from the Democrats in the Senate.

Senators McCain and Kennedy had worked for months to craft a compromise bill that would garner enough votes to pass. It wasn't a perfect bill by far but it was the best they could come up with that met the President's requirements while still being acceptable to a majority in the House and the Senate. The House is not a problem because all you need is a simple majority to pass legislation. In the Senate, you need a supermajority of 60% to cut off debate (envoke cloture) and move to a vote.

When the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill first came up, it was blocked by the Republican Party in the Senate. Eighty percent of Senate Democrats voted for it but 85% of Republicans voted against it. I believe it got 56 or 57 votes to envoke cloture. Tim Johnson was still out sick but that wouldn't have made any difference because the vote was either three or four votes short of cutting off debate and moving to a vote. So even though the bill had majority support, it didn't have enough support to stop the Republican filibuster.

Then the President announced that he had prevailed upon the Senate to take up the bill again, but this time Republicans (and Democrats) would be allowed to offer amendments. The problem, according to the Republicans, was that they were unhappy with the original bill and voted against it because they weren't allowed to offer amendments for consideration. The reason it was being presented that way was because it was known that the amendments that were going to be offered would make the bill less acceptable to the majority.

So now the immigration bill gets run through again and this time both sides offer amendments, some of which barely pass with a simple majority. The problem now is that some of these amendments make the bill unacceptable to Senators who previously voted for it. This time the vote to envoke cloture wasn't even close -- only 46 yeas. It is interesting to note that the Republican Minority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), voted AGAINST the President. In fact, the President was never able to get more than 15% of the Senate Republicans to support any version of his immigration reform bill.

You can't get much lamer than that when 85% of your own party refuses to go along with one of your major policy positions.

Some people seemed to think that just because the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in January, that things would change. The Democrats do have operational control of the House on most issues but they don't have control of the Senate because of the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to cut off a filibuster. In the Senate, there are only 49 Democrats and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. One Democratic Senator, Tim Johnson, is still out on sick leave due to his brain surgery, and one of the Independents, Joe Lieberman, frequently votes with the Republicans.

The Republicans realize that they can block just about any legislation they want to simply by filibustering it in the Senate and that's what they have been doing in a lot of instances.

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail... and so far it's working for us." -- Republican Whip Sen. Trent Lott, April 18, 2007.

YouTube clip of Obstructionist Republicans in the Senate

[Ninong]

CBS just released their latest poll.

Bush's job approval is at 27%, the lowest ever in their poll.

Other interesting results: 77% think the war in Iraq is going badly, up from 66% just two months ago. Nearly half, 47% say it's going very badly.

Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, while 40% want ALL U.S. troops removed.

Only 19% think the U.S. is on the right track -- the lowest number since CBS News first started asking the question in 1983.

[Ninong]

13% and falling!

That's Deputy Leader Dick's current favorability rating among Americans. That's down from a high of 43% in October 2000. That's not to be confused with "job approval" rating. Favorability is when you ask if the person has a "favorable" or an "unfavorable" opinion of someone.

Believe it or not, only 31% of Republicans and 26% of conservatives say they have a favorable opinion of the vice president. When you add in the Democrats, you end up with 13%. Not many Democrats have a favorable opinion of Dick Cheney.

Here.

P.S. -- And in a different poll last week, 54% of Americans said they wanted to IMPEACH CHENEY!

[Ninong]

New Harris poll out today gives Bush a job approval rating of 26%!

The 26% job approval rating quoted in the opening post of this thread was from a June 21, 2007 Newsweek poll. This new Harris poll was taken July 6-9, 2007. The sample was 1,003 adults, sample error = +/- 3%.

Job Approval ratings as follows:

George W. Bush, President, 26%
Dick Cheney, Vice President, 21%
Democrats in Congress, 31%
Republicans in Congress, 21%
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 34%
House Minority Leader John Boehner, 19%
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 20%
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 20%
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 47%
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 30%

Country going in right direction or off on wrong track?
Right direction 19%
Wrong track 70%

Here.

[Ninong]

And just for the record: Bill Clinton's job approval ratings in his second term.

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing all the GOP jackasses get away with claiming that Bill Clinton had low job approval ratings, too, especially during the Monica Lewinsky problem.

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 and acquitted in the Senate on February 12, 1999.

Here is a summary of all of the polls during his second term.

Note that his job approval ratings were actually rising during the impeachment investigation. In fact, he had a 68% job approval rating on December 15, 1998 (4 days before the impeachment in the House) and it spiked up to 72% on December 19, 1998, the day the impeachment bill passed. (P.S. -- The various individual polls follow that summary. Note that in Gallup's poll, Clinton's job approval shot up from 63% the week before impeachment to 73% the day of impeachment.)

Compare Clinton's job approval ratings, which ranged in the 60's to low 70's, with George W. Bush's job approval ratings which have been running in the high 20's to low 30's.

The next time you hear one of those lying Republican talking heads on TV say that Clinton had low approval numbers, too, scream at the TV like I do.

P.S. -- Note that the Republican-controlled Congress failed to impeach President Clinton at a time when his job performance was approved by two-thirds of the American people. I'm not saying that a Democratic Congress would be successful in impeaching President Bush but at least we know that more than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job he's been doing.

[Ninong]

Bush's job approval hits a new low!

25%

New poll from American Research Group has President Bush's job approval rating at a dismal 25%.

[MarkS]

You do realize that no one, other than liberals, actually care?

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by MarkS

You do realize that no one, other than liberals, actually care?

Care about what?
Poll data?
Oh yes, poll data is strictly a liberal pastime.

That seems a tad naive.

However, one might say 25% of the respondents don't "actually care"...

[MarkS]

I don't mean poll data in general. I'm referring specifically to his poll data.

[Ninong]

OK, so I googled "Who cares about Bush's poll numbers," and I found that it's a hot topic among campaign managers for the current crop of GOP presidential candidates. The consensus of opinion seems to be that now that Bush's poll numbers are circling the drain, they don't have to worry about agreeing with him on anything unless they feel like it.

The change, say GOP operatives, is the absence of fear about being perceived as something less than an ardent Bush backer. "What's the penalty now, Karl being mad at you?" Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio asked with a laugh, referring to Bush political adviser Karl Rove. "Who cares? Even his former chief strategist (Matthew Dowd) walked away from him and pissed all over him."

That's not a very respectful way for a paid GOP pollster to talk about the current Republican president. On the other hand, Bush doesn't get much respect from the GOP presidential candidate who is currently leading the pack:

"What we're lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan." -- Rudy Giuliani, speaking at a Flag Day rally in Wilmington, Delaware two months ago.

And low poll numbers mean that the president has spent all of that political capital that he claimed based on his 51% mandate in 2004. He was unable to pass his immigration reform bill in spite of the fact that 80% of Democrats voted WITH him. That's because 85% of Republicans voted AGAINST him. That's what happens when your overall job approval rating among all Americans is in the mid to upper 20's. Even your own political party thinks nothing of dissing you publicly.

[MarkS]

I just wanted to see how you'd respond. I voted for him in the last election, but I considered him the lesser of two evils. If I were polled right now, I would not approve of his performance as president. I still would have voted for him, but I do not agree with many of his actions. Not anymore at least.

[Zoanuts]

It is a very interesting subject.
If 9/11 didn't occur or the war wasn't going on I wonder what his rating would be?
Would the economy be as strong?

[Zoanuts]

Do you feel that we would be at war with any other President Demo or Repub?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Zoanuts

It is a very interesting subject.
If 9/11 didn't occur or the war wasn't going on I wonder what his rating would be?
Would the economy be as strong?

His job approval rating was 89% in the weeks following 9/11, so 9/11 did not have a negative impact on his popularity with the American people. In fact, I thought his speech following 9/11 was excellent. I realize he didn't write it but he read it with feeling and it was very well written to suit his normal, everyday language -- no big words that he couldn't pronounce.

He was unlucky in that the dot.com bubble burst for good in November 2000, shortly after he was elected and before he even took office in January 2001. The NASDAQ crashed in March 2000 but it recovered completely by November and then, for no rational reason, it started to decline again AFTER he won. There was a lot of uncertainty in the days leading up to the election. In fact, the GOP expected him to win the popular vote but possibly lose the electoral vote. It turned out exactly the opposite, thanks to shenanigans in Florida both before and after the election.

So the economy started downhill exactly as he was taking office. The market was down for three years straight -- 2000, 2001 and 2002. That hadn't happened since the Great Depression. It's difficult to say whether he could have done anything to avoid that. It had been building for the previous five years because of the 'irrational exuberance' in dot.com startups and an overall overvaluation of the entire market due to momentum-based investing. And now that we're finally getting over the deflation of the dot.com bubble, we're about to be hit with the bursting of the real estate bubble. That has the potential to be even more painful than the dot.com fiasco. We could very easily be in a recession by the end of next year, just in time for the November 2008 election.

Bush presided over an enormous loss of manufacturing jobs during his first term. In fact, he lost jobs at an alarming rate for the first three years. Even today, job creation is barely keeping pace with population expansion. It's not likely that a Democratic president would have allowed that to happen, although if both houses of Congress had been under Republican control, there may have been little a Democratic president could have done. On the other hand, a pragmatist like Bill Clinton, may have been able to accomplish a lot more than Dubya did even with an opposition-controlled Congress. Remember that Clinton pushed through welfare reforms in spite of strong opposition from the unions and the Congressional Black Caucus. Clinton also managed to run up enormous budget surpluses the last three years of his second term but that was helped greatly by the economy.

Clinton also supported NAFTA, which most Democrats were against. In theory, NAFTA makes a lot of sense, but in practice it's turning out to be extremely painful for working class Americans. Maybe it needs some tweaking? We can't become isolationist and set up trade barriers but, on the other hand, we're getting killed right now by our trade imbalances with China and our outrageous reliance on energy imports from unreliable sources. We don't have to elect Richard Gephardt but I think anyone other than George W. Bush would have done a better job at protecting American jobs. Maybe the Republicans should have nominated John McCain in 2000 when he was sane?

The bottom line is that Bush's approval rating has definitely been negatively impacted by his handling of the situation following 9/11. He invaded the wrong country and lied to the American people to do it. The Scooter Libby thing was directly related to the administration's efforts to hide the truth about the pre-war intelligence. Bush lied continuously during the early stages of that investigation and then he granted Libby a full pardon of his prison sentence. That was an extremely unpopular move with the American public, even Republicans. Three-fourths of Americans think it was a mistake for Bush to remove Libby's jail sentence. By the way, all of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates said they agreed with the Libby pardon (actually commutation of sentence). The GOP is out of touch with reality right now.

Bush mishandled the war on terror. He invaded the wrong country. He's got us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. He still hasn't caught Sammy bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, dead or alive. He pardoned Scooter Libby. He has spent money like a drunken sailor. He pushed for Social Security reforms that were nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to kill off Social Security and replace it with a privatized system of 401K-type accounts. He has always expressed a desire to eliminate Social Security, going back to his unsuccessful 1978 congressional campaign. He pushed for immigration reforms that were opposed by the majority of his own party. He backed Alberto Gonzales in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans and many Republican congressmen think he should resign. He appointed political cronies with no applicable experience to critical jobs like FEMA director.

He has proven himself to be in way over his head. He is totally unqualified to be President of the United States. He has destroyed our standing in the world community. He has destroyed our military. He has rearranged the federal tax structure to the benefit of the top 2% at the expense of the rest of us. That won't last because Congress will not allow the complete elimination of the estate tax (which Bush calls the "death tax"). It's much more likely that the $3.5 million deduction that takes effect in 2009 (it's currently $2 million) will be frozen. As the law stands right now, there is no estate tax at all in 2010 but then everything reverts back to the old levels (meaning 50-55% estate tax) following 2010 unless Congress enacts new legislation. The current legislation sunsets after 2010 -- even the federal income tax brackets all revert to pre-Bush levels. Current maximum bracket is 35% (it was around 38-39% before) and it's highly likely that the maximum bracket may be increased to 36% or maybe even 37%. It all depends on whether Congress ever decides to do something about the AMT (alternative minimum tax), which is completely unfair at the moment. It should have been indexed to inflation and it wasn't.

Anyway, the Bush Administration has been an unmitigated disaster for the country. It has been the most corrupt, most inept, most incompetent administration in more than 100 years. The invasion of Iraq may go down in history as the worst blunder by any president ever.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Zoanuts

Do you feel that we would be at war with any other President Demo or Repub?

I don't think we would have invaded Iraq with any other president, Republican or Democratic. The invasion of Iraq has been the dream of the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century since the early 1990's, following Bush the Elder's decision to not advance all the way to Baghdad. It has been the neo-conservatives' dream to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East in order to control the oil fields there before the coming resource wars. When you think about it, that's exactly why Eisenhower overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah back in the early 1950's.

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al. have been looking for a pony to ride into the White House ever since Bill Clinton defeated Bush the Elder. And they found the perfect candidate in George W. Bush. Someone so stupid that he would be easy to control and someone with enough charisma that he could carry the Christian evangelical voters while getting a majority of independents, too. The folksy, anti-intellectual persona that Bush parades in public was just the right touch to counter Al Gore and John Kerry, two uncharismatic, overly intellectual liberals.

P.S. -- The military high command was NEVER in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Never! They felt that we could continue to contain Saddam without an invasion that they correctly predicted would lead to a quagmire. They were shocked when they were ordered to start drawing up plans for the invasion of Iraq while they were still mopping up in Afghanistan and had not yet captured Sammy bin Laden or Mullah Omar.

[Zoanuts]

Very well put!! I appreciate your view and it is right on!! Ninong for President!!!

[Ninong]

In Dead Certain, the newly released authorized Bush biograhy by Robert Draper, President Bush tells us that he cries a lot as president.

"I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president. I'll shed some tomorrow."

We all cry a lot with Bush as president.

[Ninong]

According to Robert Draper, Karl Rove was against the idea of Dick Cheney as Vice President. Rove also recommended against Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. President Bush told Draper that Chief Justice John Roberts recommended Harriet Miers for the court. Roberts immediately issued a statement saying that he did no such thing.

Bush told Draper that he can't remember why the Iraqi Army was disbanded following the capture of Baghdad and the fall of Saddam because he knows it was NOT our policy to do that. It just happened but he didn't approve it.

Jerry Bremer, refusing to be thrown under the bus, immediately released letters between himself and President Bush proving that he informed Bush of plans to disband the Iraqi military and the Baath party structure. Letters from Bush to Bremer indicate that he approved of these plans. It could be that Bush is trying to pretend that he didn't know what was going on at the time. Maybe he just signed everything Deputy Leader Dick gave him to sign without actually reading it?

Draper also relates a meeting of senior staff and cabinet officers back in April 2006 when the question was asked how many of those present thought Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced. The vote was 7 to 4 in favor of ditching Rumsfeld. Bush was one of the four who voted in favor of keeping him. Rummy finally resigned November 8, 2006.

Here we have a perfect example of revisionist history while the history is still being made. Instead of waiting until after he is out of office to publish his memoirs, he's having someone else write them for him before he even leaves office.

[Ninong]

Speaking of going down...

Our president is down under right now in Sydney, Australia, which was misspelled Sidney in a White House press release. (Disambiguation: See threads on Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, et alii, for the other going down, which the Urban Dictionary now defines as "going republican.")

Anyway, the Aussies are spending $140 million (probably Australian) on security in Sydney. They have set up an elaborate system of checkpoints blocking access to the area where the various visiting heads of state are staying.

The Australian comedy group, "The Chasers," dressed one of their guys as Sammy bin Laden, stuck him in a black official-looking car with a Canadian flag on the bonnet (that's hood to us) and managed to get through all of the checkpoints. They were finally stopped just 30 meters from Bush's hotel, where they were unceremoniously arrested.

Check out the two video clips here, they're both hilarious!!!

"The Chasers" take a look at Fox News.