« Yet another ethical dilemma | Main | Twisting Words To An Anti-War Agenda »

Bush Approval Low For Second Term Presidents

WASHINGTON - President Bush's standing with an American public anxious about Iraq and the nation's direction is lower than that of the last two men who won re-election to the White House -- Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton -- at this point in their second terms.

But solid backing from his base supporters has kept Bush from sinking to the depths reached by former presidents Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bush's father. Truman decided not to run for re-election. Nixon resigned. Carter and the first President Bush were defeated in re-election campaigns.

"This president should be glad he's not running for re-election," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst from the American Enterprise Institute. "But the president is clearly holding his base. It's very important for him to keep the base support in terms of getting things done."

Indeed, Republicans in Congress already are starting to fret about the 2006 election. If Bush's approval ratings sink lower, more of them may be unwilling to go along with his major initiatives for fear it could cause backlash for them with voters.

Bush's job approval in recent polls ranges from the low- to mid-40s. It was 42 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll. His ratings on everything from handling Iraq to the economy to Social Security and other domestic issues are at their lowest levels so far.

Reagan was at 57 percent at this stage of his presidency and Clinton was at 61 percent, according to Gallup polling at the time.

Of course, this comparison is more than a little unfair.

First off, there are some very serious questions about the AP-Ipsos poll referred to in the article. Its pretty clear to even the most casual observers of polling practices that the poll's respondents were not a very representative selection of the American public.

Second, the AP-Ipsos poll is being compared to Gallup polls. We have no assurances that the methods were uniform across all of the polls being referred to. Were the samples polled comparable in size and demographic make up? We don't know.

Third, neither Reagan nor Clinton were war-time Presidents. President Bush is in the middle of a war the reporting of which the media consistently infuses with a pervasive negative slant leaving the public with all sorts of false perceptions. I'm not sure the media's bias and attempts to sensationalize all things negative about the war in Iraq has ever been matched before in the history of this country. The media has shown an obstinate unwillingness to report on anything this President does with any but the most faint attempts at objectivity.

In short, I don't much care for comparisons of this President to any others. Especially comparisons made by mainstream media sources. The fact of the matter is that the President was put back into office by a distinct majority of American voters for handling the Iraq conflict much the same way he is now (among other things).

All that being said, I will agree that the President's approval rating is suffering, but I'm not so sure its for the reasons the media and the political left would have us believe. I think that many in the President's base, the people who voted to put him back in office, are a bit disillusioned with him right now. He promised Social Security reform, but we've seen little progress. He alluded to tax reform, but we've heard nary a word about that. He promised continued progress on Iraq, but in the last few months his position has seemed to grow a bit softer. He continues to sign undisciplined spending legislation into law while abandoning all pretense of being a fiscal conservative.

So, to summarize, I think the President's approval rating is low not because the people are realizing that Democrats and leftists are right about their criticisms of him but because he's not being enough of a Republican or the type of President he told us he'd be.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Approval Low For Second Term Presidents:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with The Sad Case of Cindy Sheehan

Comments (6)

Cumulative gains, cumulativ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Cumulative gains, cumulative gains. It's a case of holding one line and advancing toward another, or, "small moves" (or, formally, "small corrections") as they say in flying. We're farthr along with many changes with President Bush and we'll be farther along with the next Republican in the White House. Small moves make for big results, over time.

There are non-war reasons t... (Below threshold)
John:

There are non-war reasons to help explain Bush's low popularity. The absense of any attempt to address illegal immigration (other than declaring it legal) is one.

Or, perhaps, the incompeten... (Below threshold)
The Hague:

Or, perhaps, the incompetence...

...oops! Can't go there until next summer.

C'mon kids...we don't have 130,000 US Police Men in Serbia right now.

Clinton was a war President. Won it from orbit.

Bush pisses me off just lik... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Bush pisses me off just like the next guy, but I wouldn't complain about it from Canada - if I had the misfortune of actually living there.

These bullshit polls mean exactly nothing. We won't know what this administration will have meant to America for another ~10 years.

Ok. Time for the religious ... (Below threshold)
Kin:

Ok. Time for the religious extremist view point on things...
Bush's low ratings are directly related to his screwing Israel.
What proof do I have to back this up? History.
Every president who has been good to Israel has historically had high ratings. As soon as Israel gets the shaft...down they go. Happened to Pappy in a big way. Happened to Slick Willy.
While normaly I'm not one to equate coincidence and causality, on this one, I'm all with it. So, once GW, whom I once respected as a man of principle, puts pressure on Israel to deal with terrorists the same way the US does, then you'll see a bounce. Untill such a time, as long as he's telling Israel to pay for the bullets that are going to used to kill itself, they'll tank.

actually the war coverage o... (Below threshold)

actually the war coverage of vietnam I'm sure were just as bad as the war coverage of Iraq, well maybe not as bad because in vietnam, we didn't have vietnam in the history for the media to compare to.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy