Via Memeorandum, I see that Bush’s numbers continue to plummet:
President Bush’s job-approval ratings continue to slip, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll, while job-approval ratings for most of his key cabinet members also remain low.
Mr. Bush’s current job-approval ratings stand at 36% in March, down from 40% in February and 43% in January, but still slightly above the low point of 34% registered in November 2005.
The telephone poll of 1,001 U.S. adults also shows Vice President Dick Cheney’s job-approval rating unchanged at the record low 30% approval rating that he received in November 2005. About 67% of those polled say Mr. Cheney is doing an “only fair” or “poor” job, compared with 64% who gave Mr. Bush negative ratings.
Years ago (it has to be ten years, now), I remember watching one of the talking heads discussing a politician’s low poll numbers and describing them as “Alfonisan,” a reference to Sen. Alfonse D’Amato’s hideoously low approval rating. In a few years, I would not be surprised to hear low numbers described as “Bushian.”
Mac Buckets
I would be surprised if anyone but Paddy remembers Bush’s approval poll numbers in 20 years. I mean, does anyone ever refer to low numbers as “Trumanian?” He was at 24%.
srv
Paddy, meet John. John, meet Paddy.
Caseyl
In 20 years, the entire Bush Admin will be one of those embarrassing things no one talks about and everyone tries to forget.
Remfin
Like a President who appeased terorists, gave into blackmail, exploded the deficit, laid down the roots of our current big terrorist problem, and evidentally let his minions run rampant doing dirty deeds all over Latin America while not paying attention, and showed no understanding of the enormity of his position while making ill-timed black&white jokes about situations as he was busy taking a government that worked for the people and making sure it just didn’t work anymore by eviscerating its’ civil service with political hacks replacing well-qualified employees? (oh and don’t forget the practically-confirmed rumors of using extra-curicular activities to win an election which was revealed in the large investigation near the end of his 2nd term)
In 20 years we’ll be building new airports and ships and roads just so we have more things to name after George W. Bush!
Otto Man
I mean, does anyone ever refer to low numbers as “Trumanian?” He was at 24%.
Conservatives love to trot out the Truman comparison, usually with the interpretation I’ve seen at Free Republic — that Truman polled low because of his tough stand against the commies, but history eventually proved him right.
The only problem with that spin is that it, as usual, completely misreads the historical record. Truman hit his polling lows in 1951 because he was perceived as not being tough enough against communism. He refused to let MacArthur retaliate against the Chinese to the degree he wanted — MacA wanted to blockade the entire coast, bring in the nationalists, and drop 20-30 nuclear bombs on China — and when MacA kept undermining peace talks, Truman relieved him of his duty. And that’s when his polling bottomed out.
With Truman, the more we learned about the foreign policy situation and the more distance we got from events, the better he looked. With Bush, it’s the exact opposite.
SeesThroughIt
Uma, Oprah. Oprah, Uma.
In other news, President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark…. Dear god, that’s an artificial timetable! Aid and comfort to our enemies! Emboldening terrorists! Undermining the…uh…president?
Pooh
Just in time for the midterms…I called that one 6 months ago…
chopper
I would be surprised if anyone but Paddy remembers Bush’s approval poll numbers in 20 years. I mean, does anyone ever refer to low numbers as “Trumanian?” He was at 24%.
i keep hearing comparisons to nixon. ‘that’s almost nixon territory!’ so yeah, people remember how unliked presidents were more than 20 years ago.
Krista
chopper – the funny thing is, though, when Nixon died, there were people who were downplaying all the horrible stuff that he did, and acted like he wasn’t such a bad guy after all. I know that we have a phobia about speaking ill of the recently dead, but really — they should have stuffed garlic in his mouth and buried him face down.
Caseyl
Remfin, your point’s well taken. Except for one thing: Bush doesn’t have anywhere near or anything like the personal popularity Reagan did.
I never could see it, myself, but most people (not just cultists, either) say Reagan was a genuinely nice, engaging man. And even I have to hand it to him that he had a pretty decent self-deprecating sense of humor. A man who could walk into a hospital while bleeding to near-death from a gunshot wound and still manage to say to his wife, “Sorry, honey, I forgot to duck” gets at least the Wit Under Fire vote of approval.
Bush, on the other hand, is a charmless smirking retard with a bottomless taste for self-aggrandizement. There will be no reservoirs of warmth gilding his reputation in years to come.
Otto Man
I haven’t checked the wingnut reaction to all these polls. Are they still in denial, insisting that the polls are biased, slanted, and the work of Islamocommies?
chopper
it’s the queers. they’re in it with the aliens. they’re building landing strips for gay martians, i swear to god.
don surber
Yea, well some things are more important than popularity: like winning the Global War On Terrorism
Four years and counting since 9/11
No doubt President Gore or President Kerry would be more popular — and far less effective
The Other Steve
Reagan hit 40% shortly after the ’86 midterms when Iran-Contra came out. By the end of his term he’d rebounded back into the mid 50% range essentially because he admitted the failure and his overall policy direction changed course.
The interesting thing is Clinton had a consistently high approval rating throughout his second term. Despite the treasonous war of impeachment the Republicans waged against him.
The Other Steve
Actually if Bush doesn’t change course, by the time he’s gone in 2009, I expect we’ll see a call for the name of both him and his father removed from all public buildings, ships, everything. Much like how Russia wiped Stalin off the books.
The Other Steve
Is it possible to be less effective?
That would surprise me.
Bill R
Mystery Pollster has an interesting write-up on polling methodology( and the wing-nuts reaction to the latest numbers)
Pooh
Pavlov’s Bloggers:
Otto Man sez
Don Surber, Domino’s Talking Point Delivery Man (your winger slant in 30 minutes or less or your money back)
4 years and counting and OBL still at large…Of course Kerry would have done worse, and Clinton did it too.
The sad thing is, since I am DougJ, I know Don isn’t…
chopper
i know, neither of those jokers would have caught bin laden. and i know both of em would have cocked up the war in iraq. unlike…oh, wait.
searp
The interesting thing about Don’s meme: why the implicit assumption that you have to do unpopular things to protect the country? Bush destroyed an 80% approval rate after 9/11. Nobody made him do that, it was his choice.
canuckistani
Krista-
While I would go further than you and suggest that Nixon should also be buried in an unmarked grave under a crossroads, he also had a few successes under his belt, like detente, visiting China, the moon landing, founding the EPA and keeping his promise to get out of Vietnam. What successes will be remembered when GWB dies? He never missed his exercise period?
chopper
a ranch neatly cleared of brush.
Otto Man
Great. Exactly what does that entail, Don?
Four years and counting, without capturing Bin Laden “dead or alive” as the president vowed. Four years and counting of al Qaeda recruitment on the rise. Four years and counting of doing jack shit to secure our ports, our chemical plants, our nuclear facilities, or anything else worthwhile.
How in God’s name could anyone be less effective than Bush on terrorism? A mildly retarded monkey could do a better job than Bush.
Would President Gore have done a worse job of not giving a shit about Bin Laden? Or maybe President Gore would never have caught the people who sent anthrax into the Senate shortly after 9/11? Maybe President Gore would have gone all the way and alienated all of our allies and the post 9/11 goodwill, instead of just pissing off most of the world.
Maybe President Kerry would’ve tried to give control of our ports directly to Bin Laden, instead of just people who vacation with them. Maybe he could’ve wasted even more money and even more lives in the misadventure in Iraq. Maybe he would’ve acted so incompetently that we actually lost a major American city on his watch. Say, New Orleans?
Yes, thank God we never had to live in such a world.
Kyle
The big thing was that Gorbachev offered up arms concessions so sweet that Reagan couldn’t say no. The rest of the GOP wanted him to, but the old man ignored them, thank God. As a result Reagan pulled his presidency out of the dumps and won his place in history as the man who ended the Cold War.
Whether his arms build-up actually brought about the concessions is a much-debated question. But there’s no doubt that Reagan was the only major-league player in the GOP who showed sanity regarding Gorbachev and perestroika. It paid off for him and everybody else.
Krista
Can we say that he was hugely successful at being a complete fuck-up?
vetiver
“Four years since 9/11”? That’s what you’re reduced to?
The first WTC attack was in Feb. 1993 — a full 8-1/2 years before 9/11. So where’s the love for Clinton, who (according to your logic) kept us safe for the rest of his term? Nearly TWICE as long as Bush’s current record!
We can’t know that our 4+-years of domestic safety have been a result of Bush’s policies. (It might be my special tiger-and-terrorist-repelling rock.) The best we can do is to look at the Bush administration’s record in related areas, such as levels of terrorism and anti-American militancy around the world. Or insurgency levels in Iraq (the war Bush demanded, campaigned for, and got). Or domestic security at international contact points, such as ports. Said record does not inspire confidence.
Not in me, anyway. I guess I’m a little pickier than you are, Mr. Surber.
Bruce Moomaw
Well, Truman proves that low ratings do not automatically a dreadful President make — and, for that matter, nobody seems to remember that Reagan’s name was mud throughout 1982 and 1983 (he was trailing Mondale and Glenn by 10-15 points in the polls). But does anyone really see any evidence that Bush learns ANYTHING from his negative experiences? Doing so seems to be against his religious principles.
GOP4Me
Bush won the only two polls that mattered, the rest is wavering vicissitude and caprice. In 5 years, no one will care if Bush’s approval rating is 50% or 5%, all they’ll remember is that he kept us safe after 9/11. In the unlikely event that the Democrats win in 2008, that achievement will appear quite memorable indeed when contrasted with their failures.