Home › Blogs › T D Williams's blog ›

Bush More Popular Than Obama

Submitted by T D Williams on Thu, 03/05/2009 - 16:50

 

Peter Wehner notes that George W. Bush had a positive rating of 63% with 22% disapproval in the Gallup March 5-7, 2001 poll--a month after his inauguration.

The current Gallup Poll for Barack Obama shows 62% approving and 28% disapproving–-a month after his inauguration.

Wehner puts it in context:

George W. Bush’s greatest moment in his presidency was still months off. We will see if Barack Obama, facing a crisis of a different kind, is able to meet the challenge before him. So far, with the market having plunged on his watch and lost trillions of dollars in the process, and still with no serious plan on how to deal with the banking system and toxic assets, the early signs are not encouraging. But it’s still very early. Life and politics, as we have all learned, has many surprises.

 

2.333335
Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

Comments

What did they find in the kitty on Day One?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 03/05/2009 - 17:58.

George W. Bush found that Bill Clinton had left him a budget surplus of $236 billion.

Barack Obama found that he had been left a $1.3 trillion deficit.

which he promptly added to by another trillion or so

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 03/05/2009 - 18:48.

It's one thing to spend like a drunken sailor, but the crew in DC is spending like a bunch of coke fiends . Everytime he opens his mouth the Dow sinks another 100 points

Why would you accept the Dow

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 03/05/2009 - 19:30.

Why would you accept the Dow as an indication of the wisdom of anything? Have you not been paying attention re the conduct of Wall Street? Is it not yet obvious to you that the Dow was just another bubble, like real estate?

why would you look to the dow for anything?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 11:12.

stupid price weighted index of forty companies.

way too prone to manipulation. (which we've seen in this bear market, repeatedly)

LOL Are you serious?

Submitted by BulldogsRule on Thu, 03/05/2009 - 22:57.

You think finding one smidgen in time makes a difference? LOL I think Obama has a bit harder road to hoe at this point in time than Bush did! Get real and deal with the facts. Keeps you from looking like a tool.

Pretty surprising numbers

Submitted by RedMango on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 03:40.

for someone who 'stole' the election.  Ronald Reagan's popularity was worse than both though, pegging him at 55% according to Gallup.  Clinton's was just as bad.  Bush's first year was pretty bi-partisan; he had to be, the Dems controlled the Senate.  

Bad comparison

Submitted by cr on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 09:11.

This is apples and oranges. Even complaring the financial bomb with 9/11 is very different. Any comparison will come years down the road.

Actually, in some sense Obama is doing better. A bitter primary and then stepping immediately into a crises where there is no clear right or wrong . . . I don't know what the future holds, but IF Obama does pull it out GW will as a comparison be heading down with the Warren G. Harding camp.

not harding. nixon maybe.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 11:13.

better analog there, when Bush rehired all of the Nixon crowd,a nywhichway.

harding goofed off in office because he no longer had any meaningful support in washington.

agreed.

Submitted by cr on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 11:45.

I heard WGH name recently and it slipped in. Nixon is more on target.

Except that...

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 15:22.

...Warren Harding is one of the most underrated President's in American History.

Laughable

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 11:15.

George W Bush did not have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz, Michael Savage, FOX News, The Washington Times, and the Wall Street Journal all actively desperate to undermine and destroy his Presidency from day one.

After Al Gore folded his cards, the entire country breathed a sigh of relief, and tried to give GW a chance to prove he was the "compassionate Conservative" of his campaign pledges.

In March 2001, Gallup had Bush at 69-28.

So what?  Apples and oranges.

 

This is idiotic

Submitted by jacobjavits on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 13:46.

 

I'm not sure what Wehner's point is here.  Shouldn't Republicans be terrified by the fact that Obama, despite presiding over a cratering economy, is doing just as well as Bush was in the early, ho-hum months of 2001 ?  Bush was setting his own agenda in March 01, while Obama has been forced to react to problems of historical magnitude.

Another way of saying "Bush's greatest accomplishments were a half a year away" is "Bush didn't have anything urgent to take a stand on in his first couple of months."  That's a perfect recipe for the Presidential honeymoon period.  And yet Bush, the faded knight in shining armor, didn't outperform the current president. 

At this rate, "the next right," whatever that is, will be waiting for a long, long time to be on top.

 

 

You'll find quite a bit of similar nonsense here.

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 14:26.

The posters here at TheNextRight do tend to pull a lot of silly apples and oranges comparisons in order to hate on Prez Obama. While at the same time ignoring other comparisons that are blatantly obvious,  but don't support their prejudices.

Seems to me it would be quite helpful to look at the last president to inherit a persistent deep recession in progress from his predecessor, and calculate how long it took for the new president's policies to turn things around. I believe that would be St. Ronald Reagan, inagurated Jan. 20, 1981. The economy didn't turn around for 18 months, until late Summer of 1982.

But conservatives would have you believe that the current downturn is all Obama's fault. Some even point to the Dow slide between election day and inauguration day as somehow being Obama's responsibility while Bush was still sleepwalking to oblivion. One asshat I read even said the recession started from sheer fear when Wall Street realized Obama was going to beat McCain.

Meanwhile Americans of the non-kool aid drinking variety were recently polled and very sensibly it will be 18 months until a majority of Americans believe the economy is the responsibility of the new president.

If anyone wants to look up Reagan's Gallup numbers from 1981-83 I'd be interested in the comparrison to Obama. Thankfully, Rasmussen didn't exist back then so we don't have to deal with any of their bullshit numbers.

Depressingly predictable

Submitted by undoctored on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 23:52.

Instead of dwelling on these non-issues, why don't you spend time here discussing policy issues? Explain IN DETAIL what Republicans would do differently from Obama. What CONCRETE  proposals would they put forward to fix the economy? Do you have anything to offer instead of tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts? How would you go about re-regulating the financial sector? OK, so  you're against what you call a "government health care system." So, just what do you propose as a solution?  On the one hand you say you want the GOP to go in a new direction, but on the other you are extremely vague about how you would do that.  If Rush Limbaugh isn't the head of the party because of his vast influence, why don't you tell us who is. Why are you afraid to be specific on all of the above? Such an approach would do wonders to enlighten those who frequent this site with the added benefit of elevating the quality of discussion. I would love to see an article that began, "How the GOP would solve the (something of widespread concern) issue." Yes, try to write an article that would not mention the President or the Democrats even once, but would focus entirely on your ideas.  Are you up to the task?

Look now

Submitted by lgm on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 22:32.

The latest poll has Obama at 70%.  And he's not buying people off with enormous unfunded tax cuts.

Obama is ruining this country.

Submitted by lord3drx on Sat, 03/14/2009 - 09:39.

Obama is black and a black person can do nothing right. Most Americans hate him because he is African and believe he is a terrorist in disguise. I am worried my children are being taught to love Obama at public schools and that he is "saving" the country from "greedy capitalists." This is AMERICA and we are NOT COMMUNISTS LIKE OBAMA.

It had to happen eventually.

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 03/14/2009 - 11:18.

Could this be the end of Patrick's amazing record of not banning anyone yet?

How many months has it been since this site's inception? Most political sites don't last a week before they are banning people en masse. You are all to be commended for keeping this place so clean for so long.

Your mammas must have raised you right.

overt racists get banned

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 09:35.

colorblind racists get praised.

welcome to the republican party, where WE didn't do it first! and They all did it LAST TIME.

The blood will be on Ruffini's hands, just as much as anyone else's, when the time comes. For being an apologist for those who should be rightly rejected. Instead of taking a stand on "This is What REPUBLICANS are NOT"... he weasels, writhes, and says quite cowardly "but they did it first".

The Secret Service needs your help -- I know you're down in the Deep South -- just keep an ear out. I know I intend to, when I'm up here in the heart of KKK country (Pennsylvania).