Look at this long list of approval polls of Bush for his last 3+ years:

[elocs]

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Never even close to 50% in any of the different polls.

Then there is this one from May 2008, " Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president":

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/

The record-low support for the war in a CNN poll could be one reason behind the president's unpopularity, but it probably is not the only one.

"Support for the war, the assessment of the economy and approval of Mr. Bush are all about the same -- bad," Schneider said.

How about this: "HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst"
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

Finally: "Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

CBS) President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush's final approval rating at 22 percent.

Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.

Mr. Bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.

The rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to CBS News polling.

This all kind of puts Obama's polls in perspective. How soon we and Republicans we forget. What I was looking for was what I remembered Bush as saying when his polls and numbers were terrible, about how he did not govern by polls. That was the Republican line then, but not now even though Obama's numbers are far better than those of Bush.

So why should Obama have an obligation to govern by poll numbers when Bush exempted himself from doing that and Republicans agreed?
Evidently their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[ClarkUSA]

1. It's a double-standard, as you have just proved.

It's as if media whores are rats on a wheel, racing from poll to poll, as long as it's allegedly "bad news" for Democrats.

[lxlxlxl]

2. curious if you saw my thread on iraq war popularity.

interested in researching old poll numbers and was wondering how popular the war with iraq was early on. guessing it was pretty high.

im very anti-poll and hope there are better tools going forward to dispel some of the cheap analysis they let people get away with.

[elocs]

7. I found the things in my OP while looking for statement by Bush

about how he didn't govern or make decisions based upon the polls. I'm sure I heard him comment about that during those years when his numbers were tanking badly.

Poll results certainly can be deceptive depending upon how they are worded and how the results are actually parsed. For instance, the Republicans who crowed about the poll which showed 59% of Americans opposed the health care bill did not enlighten their listeners about how 13% of that number were those who did not believe the bill was liberal enough and did not go far enough. Although it's hard to claim that Americans are overwhelmingly against the bill when the number opposing any health care reform in that poll was only 46%.

Ultimately it is probably like that Twain quote about how there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The problem is that Republicans like to point to polls when it is convenient for them and ignore them when it is not.

[Enthusiast]

9. Nice points. nt

[TheKentuckian]

3. I find it pretty odd that Obama is polled DAILY and it is reported DAILY

That is some seriously bogus bullshit. If they had played this way with Dubya there would have torches and pitchforks but the corporate media wiped and dangled until even the dullest regressive could half way see the light.

Obama may piss me off but bullshit is bullshit.

[rasputin1952]

4. Any one who believes that the bush years were "good", is ...

delusional. I've been around since the end of the Truman years, became aware of politics during Eisenhower, I've studied the history of presidents extensively and there is no doubt in my mind that bush is far and away the worst president this nation has ever seen. Reagan is not far behind, Nixon actually looks pretty good from a historical position. Kennedy is average, his status elevated because of the assassination, Johnson was mired down because of Nam, but he did a LOT for the country as a whole in the societal aspects. Eisenhower, he had a knack for delegating, and while basically an average president, there are shining moments, like desegregation of the schools. Carter, beaten to a pulp by OPEC, (of which the US is a member btw). bush I, dud, Clinton, did some good things, some he caved in on, but with the RW maniacs nipping at his ankles, he was hampered. Obama, to soon to tell, but, he has outfoxed the RW so far, and that is good.

But back to bush II. There is no other way to describe his time in power than as a complete disaster. Nothing that came from the bush years can be considered a benefit. On every issue, the clock was turned back; there is absolutely nothing that can be considered "good" from his tenure. The country went from being in debt to bankruptcy; he squandered any international goodwill and made this nation despised by about 1/3 of the world, and unliked at best from the other 2/3. The vast majority of citizens suffered financially under his administration, while the "few" at the top reaped billions.

An approval rate of 22% is high, perhaps 2% would be more realistic. When the dust settles, and historians get to actually compare the results of his presidential years to others, he will fall from being disliked, to reviled. I predict that when he is laid to rest, people won't even cross the street to pee on his grave, the cemetery workers probably won't even weed the grave site.

OK, rant off...;)

[Cosmocat]

5. Nope ... Bush II will get Reagen treatment ...

I appreciate most of your post, but I would say you might want to see what has happened with the reinvention of Reagen when considering how history will treat Bush II ...

I TOTALLY blow republican's minds when I grade Reagen by THEIR standards ... Seriously, they just get a blank look, then it completely is lost and they go back to saying he was a great president ...

What are the "fundamental core concepts" of conservatism? Small government, no taxes, national security and imigration ... How does Reagen rate in this areas?

He increased the size of government more than any president in the last 30 years, outside of Bush II.
He raised taxes.
He cut and ran from Beurit after the worst terrorist attack in our history on our troops.
He signed off on amnesty.

By every STATED "conservative" measure he failed, and to be frank, and if you really want to see their rat basturd heads explode, note that by these standars Clinton was far more "conservative."

Where I am going with this - the right has just totally ignored history and with the willing help of the MSM reinvented Reagen to be one of the greatest presidents ever ... His hall mark moment was his grandstanding knock the walls down momenth and with that, the lunatics give him COMPLETE credit for winning the cold war.

NOW, Bush II was such an unmitigaged disaster, they are not going to foist him to that level, but make NO mistake, we have already heard the narrative they will run to pretty him up ...

KEPT US SAFE during the most grave threat the country ever faced and had the bad luck of being president when so many darn bad things happened. He was a man of principle who did what he thought was right, and we were lucky to have him as president at that time ...

That he froze like a friggen deer in headlights during the moment he was told about it (which, if it was a D, the right and MSM would have KILLED him for) does not matter, all they will do is go back to his rolling his sleeves up and standing on the rubble fo the trade towers ...

DARN GOOD PRESIDENT!

Book it ...

[elocs]

6. Bush kept us safe except for when he didn't,

but freepers evidently believe he was entitled to that one 9/11 incident.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Yet, Obama has not had a 9/11 type incident in over 434 days.

Longer than Bush with only 234 days.

[rasputin1952]

15. Actually, in a very short period of time, the Obama Adminsistration

has had more success that bush's entire 8 years, as far as ME terrorism. In the case of domestic potential terrorism, the FBI, SS and BATF has been on the track, something the bush Admin didn't see a need to do.

[LiberalFighter]

19. They probably had it in their stupid mind that Christianity religion would protect them.

Dumb asses!!

[rasputin1952]

10. The Reagan years are just now being analyzed by historians...

(it does take a while for them to properly assess the situation), and Reagan is going down hill pretty fast. Reagan's legacy will be failure, nowhere near the level of failure of bush, but it will be one of failure. Most likely, Reagan will come out as "average", somewhere in the middle of the pack. His presidency is seriously tarnished, but that tarnish was burnished into a "glow" by those who found Reagan as some kind of hero, when the facts show a completely different view.

Looking back, both Harding and Coolidge were seen as "good" at their time, but reality caught up, and their fiscal policies led directly to the Great Depression, for which Hoover was blamed. Hoover had a lot to do with the level that was reached because of his inaction, but Harding and Coolidge paved the road. Reagan is being investigated recently, and a host of things are being brought into the light. There will always be people who will not accept the truth, but over time, as facts emerge, no matter how much a few deny the truth, the majority eventually come around. Like all processes, time is the overall winner.

The one thing about bush II, is that his failures are so glaring, it is hard not to see them. The man is so incredibly stupid, even those who "support" him have come to realize that electing an idiot is a very dangerous thing, (and an MBA attached to a name can really mean disaster!). The R's have a capacity over the past 30 years to nominate some of the dumbest people to run for office. It is as if they are stuck on stupid. Now I know that there are intelligent people that are in the Republican party, my mother, who is a lifelong R, is far from stupid, but those that get elected from that side of the aisle have a serious flaw in their brainpower. Thinking about those who are currently the "Power Figures" in the GOP, I see Boehner, Palin, Grassley, McCain, and a host of others, that simply cannot use deductive reasoning; they are dumb as rocks...which is one of the reasons they can't come up with a "plan", except to say "no". McCain, no seriously bright bulb in the chandelier is being challenged by a remarkably dimmer bulb, Hayworth...I know the GOP can do better, but they consistently head to the vegetable bin to find candidates. One R that is actually pretty smart is Steele, but his greed is so monumental, it overshadows his slightly above average intellect.

bush will go down in history as the worst president, (so far), and Reagan will not be far behind. Time will win out; of late, Carter is being seen in better light as facts come out about his presidency. Carter will never get past "average/good", but for all of the railing about him being a failure, history is showing us something different. In the scheme of things, bush II will fall well below Andrew Johnson, his seat at the bottom has been dusted off, and he'll have to live with the fact that he was a complete disaster. The momentary halcyon days of post 9-11, (immediately following the attacks, he hid out here in Nebraska, nice "leadership" there!), have been followed by one failure after another. bush will never be seen as anything but utter failure, except for the very few that are so blind they can even see when they've been slapped silly.

[LiberalFighter]

14. They need to harp on Reagan/Bush admin intentionally manipulating

the Iran incident to win the election.

[Enthusiast]

17. If we had only taken Carter's

energy conservation concerns seriously. Of course oil industry profits wouldn't have soared as they did. That would have been a negative for any Republican.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. The hagiography of Reagan has less to do with the man than the party.

They need an icon.

[rasputin1952]

23. Yes, since they cast Lincoln out as the icon, and replaced him w/Reagan

they have slid ever further down into the swamp. They didn't like TR after the "Great 180" the parties went through. Nixon was the last of the "Cloth Coat Republican's", For all of his faults, Nixon would have been horrified at the thought of wearing a $1000+ suit. bush on the other hand, would wear a $1500+ suit, and prove that clothes don't make the man time and again.

The differences between Betty Ford and Pat Nixon and Nancy Reagan are glaring as well. But Laura Bush brought "frump" into the WH. Then we have that clothes horse Palin...she believes she make up for lack of substance by "looking good", she fails miserably on all counts.

There seems to be a complete lack of reality in the GOP ranks...well, w/the exception to the point where their own reality peeks in from time to time. Bottom line, except for the baseline morans, the GOP is history, and that suits me fine. I'll be out there pointing out their idiocy at every opportunity...I'm very busy these days...:D

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. What's a 150 years between friends?

:shrug:

[Enthusiast]

12. Good points. nt

[Enthusiast]

11. The 2000 Bush vs Gore supreme court

decision was not coincidental to initiating the worst presidency the country has ever known. It was obviously part of some gigantic scheme to enrich the specially connected and it worked perfectly. And the scheme, this ongoing operation, it continues today.

[rasputin1952]

16. All the more reason to get the ideologues out of the USSC...

but unless they retire or are impeached, filling seats is a long process.

I still get nauseous when I recall bush I saying that Thomas was the most qualified judge for the position...:grr: (BTW, another idiot Republican, Thomas is not only stupid, he's incredibly lazy as well).

[Enthusiast]

18. I well remember Poppy Bush

telling us how wonderfully qualified Thomas was. But I believe every word of Anita Hill's testimony.

[rasputin1952]

20. Anita Hill was one of the most believable people I've ever seen

in a Senate Hearing. There is no doubt in my mind that everything she said was true. From what I saw of her, and I watched those hearings extensively, she was dignified, honest and exceptionally articulate. I got the impression she is a fine lawyer, and I would hire her in second if needed an attorney. She is FAR more qualified than that sack of crap in a black robe that bush I foisted upon us.

:hi:

[Enthusiast]

24. Zactly. nt

[Enthusiast]

8. That final 22% Bush approval

rate is his base that comprises the Tea Party. Not only are they Republicans but they are the die-hard Bush supporters. The American media has been completely duped. Imagine that.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Yet the media rarely talked about it. Let alone speculating if he'd be a

"one-termer." I wish someone would shove this information up Joe and Mika's asses.

:puke: