It’s Official: Bush Is Objectively The Most Hated President In History

[Smoot Point Really]

I still can't get over the title of this thread... ABC News reports that his approval rating has been lower than 50% for over 3 years and that means it is "official" and he is "objectively" the most "hated" President in "history"...

As I said earlier in this thread or in another thread... Fanatical-stupidity is contagious. Please don't spread it.

[Burgold]

I still can't get over the title of this thread... ABC News reports that his approval rating has been lower than 50% for over 3 years and that means it is "official" and he is "objectively" the most "hated" President in "history"...

As I said earlier in this thread or in another thread... Fanatical-stupidity is contagious. Please don't spread it.

I agree, but you might be able to make the argument that he is the least popular President during his term in office since they began polling.

[NavyDave]

If people hate him that much here, I can only imagine the disdain from other countries around the world.

Frankly I could care less if other countries hate him or not because more than likely they are jealous of the US regardless of who is the leader of the free world unless they believe the guy has the potential to have socialist, extreme liberal views like them or doesn't have the backbone to step to them if they are a potential threat to national security and yes that also means the free flow of oil.

[Henry]

Like he was popular with you guys during record employment , when the Hussein Brothers and Saddam himself were killed/captured, or when the gas prices were low.

When he should have been liked/ loved you liberals were doing the Yeah But every chance you got to the point that it was obvious you were rooting for failure.

I still remember when there was nervousness among liberals on CNN when they thought we caught or killed Osama bin laden.

Liberals always lick then stick their fingers in the air to see which way the POPULAR winds blow and go in that direction.

Doing what is right doesn't mean that is it going to be popular.

But its true that Liberals, socialists and communists have been Hating from the Start.

Did you look at the chart, Navy?

Yes he was popular early in his Presidency. Yes he was popular when Saddam was captured.

But since January 2006 his approval rating has been lower than 40%.

That's lower than FORTY percent. That's not just liberals, socialists and communists guy.

If your point is that there will always be nay-sayers no matter what, well, the other side of that coin is that there will always be yay-sayers no matter what. And that's where we are now with Bush. For the last 2+ years the only people that approve of the President are the 'no matter what' supporters.

[NavyDave]

I still can't get over the title of this thread... ABC News reports that his approval rating has been lower than 50% for over 3 years and that means it is "official" and he is "objectively" the most "hated" President in "history"...

As I said earlier in this thread or in another thread... Fanatical-stupidity is contagious. Please don't spread it.

Of course the polling wasn't done in only the liberal Northeast and the Left Coast.

[NavyDave]

Did you look at the chart, Navy?

Yes he was popular early in his Presidency. Yes he was popular when Saddam was captured.

But since January 2006 his approval rating has been lower than 40%.

That's lower than FORTY percent. That's not just liberals, socialists and communists guy.

And as I said the liberals on CNN, liberal blogs, etc were doing yeah buts and seemed to on pins and needles when they thought we had caught or killed Osama. It was rare that you saw a positive NY Times article from the start.

Two years ago when we had the great economy and record employment you only had one channel pointing it out while the others was talking it down like their mission was to get consumer confidence down.

[Smoot Point Really]

I agree, but you might be able to make the argument that he is the least popular President during his term in office since they began polling.

Actually, you cannot say that either based on the poll. The poll only shows that for a longer time (since the beginning of the poll) he has had fewer than a 50% approval rating. Also, you have to take into account that even when Bill Clinton became President, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet as we know it today, and there was only one cable news channel (CNN). Imagine if we had the same news coverage in Vietnam as we have in Iraq... This poll only means something to people who actually want it to mean something.

Keep in mind that congress has an even lower approval rating now than the President.

[Midnight Judges]

Of course the polling wasn't done in only the liberal Northeast and the Left Coast.

If it was it wouldn't be a scientific poll.

[Smoot Point Really]

NavyDave, I agree with a lot of what you are saying... But, man, that sig has to go...

[Henry]

And as I said the liberals on CNN, liberal blogs, etc were doing yeah buts and seemed to on pins and needles when they thought we had caught or killed Osama. It was rare that you saw a positive NY Times article from the start.

Two years ago when we had the great economy and record employment you only had one channel pointing it out while the others was talking it down like their mission was to get consumer confidence down.

So it was all just the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy? :laugh:

The way some of you whine about the 'liberal media' it's a wonder a Republican ever wins an election ever.

No, the media has some influence, but not enough to keep those numbers that far down for that long. It sure would be nice if Republicans would take some personal responsibility for their poor showing of late, but you know it's always easier to blame someone else for your problems these days.

[Henry]

Actually, you cannot say that either based on the poll. The poll only shows that for a longer time (since the beginning of the poll) he has had fewer than a 50% approval rating. Also, you have to take into account that even when Bill Clinton became President, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet as we know it today, and there was only one cable news channel (CNN).

That's right. Fox, the highest rated 24-hour news channel, has only been around for the Bush Presidency. Good point.

[Smoot Point Really]

How are those Air-Anti-America ratings doing? That 24-hour whining vitriol working out for you?

[zoony]

I always hated that bastage Chester Arthur, personally. He was up to no good.

[Switchgear]

That crossed my mind. I was thinking the Republican base will disapprove of Obama in every poll regardless of what he does in office. They will disapprove in retaliation for Bush.

But I don't think Bush was given any treatment he didn't deserve. After 9/11, people embraced Bush. He had an approval rating that was sky high (81% or so?). His ratings didn't plummet until after people saw the way he was handling Iraq. In other words, I think people gave him a fair shot and he blew it.

Henry already posted this link, but it's just easier to bring the graph into the discussion.

Pre 9/11 the 50 percent or so of the population that voted for Bush approved of the job he was doing. I didn't vote for him, but I didn't hate him either. I was in college and I distinctly remember a couple of months in to his first term in office professors posting emails outside their offices about him being a "compassionate conservative", generally ending

Compassionate: 0

Conservative: <fill in the large number here>

18 months after 9/11 his approval rating was back to the original levels. The Iraq spike and Saddam spikes were short lived, and it's been downhill ever since.

I think that because of the contested election there was no honeymoon for Bush, he came into office facing a lot of resentment from across the aisle. His conservative agenda killed off whatever bipartisanship there might have been. Given the mistakes his administration made and his poor public speaking it's a wonder it took as long as it did for public opinion to turn against him as thoroughly as it has.

I don't think Bush will end up in the same class as some of the other reviled Presidents that later turned out to be really good (Truman was already mentioned, Lincoln was loathed, in the North almost as much as the South) but I doubt his administration will go down in the books as being anywhere near as bad as it has been made out to be these last 8 years.

Oh, and the thread title sucks and should be changed.

[Switchgear]

NavyDave, I agree with a lot of what you are saying... But, man, that sig has to go...

I turned sigs off because of all the gross ones that have popped up lately. It's a much cleaner look for the site.

[Henry]

How are those Air-Anti-America ratings doing? That 24-hour whining vitriol working out for you?

What's your point? That there are liberal media outlets in existence that have been critical of Bush?

You got it. Point for you.

There are also PLENTY of conservative media outlets around. Hell, we get links to them every day here. Are seriously suggesting that for over two years 60-70% of the American public have been constantly duped by the media, and that you and your small band of elites are the only ones who've known the truth about what's going on?

[JMS]

And don't forget that they promised not to. To go back on that promise would expose their (and the Reps) thirst for power.

Pelosi said back in 2004 before the interum election that she didn't want to waste time on impeaching Bush. She didn't promise. There have been many issues which have come to light since then. I wouldn't be all that broken up if she decided to impeach Bush on any number of issues...

• lieing to congress
  
• torturing prisioners against us law
  
• tens of billions of dollars of us currency flown to iraq on Presidential order on pallets disappearing with no records
  
• the entire jack abramhoff scandal
  

I'm ambivalent. There is just so much there.

On the other hand, currently the dems don't have the votes and shouldnt waste the time. After the next election the dems likely will have the votes, but by then Bush will be out of office. So baring a billion dollars showing up in Bush's matress, something that the republicans can't overlook, I think Bush is safe.

[Beer is Food]

After the democrates won a majority they tried to write a centure bill on the president for lieing to congress. It failed. You need a super majority to do anything in congress because of filibuster and veto issues. The democrates don't have the votes. Not to centure the president, certainly not to impreach him.

I'm not saying impeach... I'm saying amend. And, I know it's a pipe dream- but there should be a way congress can remove the current President with a vote of no confidence- say 2 thirds vote. You can only impeach when the President breaks the law. And, I'm not saying Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached. I think he's an incompetent crook.

Ideally, I would like see the President with line item veto power to control pork barrell spending. Which will never happen because congress will be relinquishing power. And, I'd also like to see congress with the ability to vote no confidence with the President to remove him. A vote of no cofidence is different than impeach. To impeach a President, he has to do something illegal. A vote of no confidence means that that congress can remove him because the people don't like him. I doubt that either will ever happen unless the constitution is amended.

[JMS]

I still can't get over the title of this thread... ABC News reports that his approval rating has been lower than 50% for over 3 years and that means it is "official" and he is "objectively" the most "hated" President in "history"...

As I said earlier in this thread or in another thread... Fanatical-stupidity is contagious. Please don't spread it.

I agree, but it's not just that Bush was bellow 50%, it's that he's been down around 30% for that long. Just above Trumans record low of 28%.

[Smoot Point Really]

What's your point? That there are liberal media outlets in existence that have been critical of Bush?

You got it. Point for you.

There are also PLENTY of conservative media outlets around. Hell, we get links to them every day here. Are seriously suggesting that for over two years 60-70% of the American public have been constantly duped by the media, and that you and your small band of elites are the only ones who've known the truth about what's going on?

Yeah, 60-70% of Americans are stupid and being misled. Whereas the 30-40% are completely sane. I guess you don't follow Occam's Razor.

[JMS]

I'm not saying impeach... I'm saying amend. And, I know it's a pipe dream- but there should be a way congress can remove the current President with a vote of no confidence- say 2 thirds vote. You can only impeach when the President breaks the law. And, I'm not saying Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached. I think he's an incompetent crook.

It takes a super majority of 2/3rds to impeach him and or remove him from office. The Dem's don't have the vote, and even though bush isn't all that popular among Republicans today who face re-election blood bath in 2008, they aren't coming off of the votes to centure bush much less remove him from office.

Bush's come uppance will come via history. Bush will go down as the worst president in the modern era. Worse even than Carter. Carter was worse economicaly. Bush has been very bad economically, and historically bad foreign policy wise.

Ideally, I would like see the President with line item veto power to control pork barrell spending. Which will never happen because congress will be relinquishing power. And, I'd also like to see congress with the ability to vote no confidence with the President to remove him. A vote of no cofidence is different than impeach. To impeach a President, he has to do something illegal. A vote of no confidence means that that congress can remove him because the people don't like him. I doubt that either will ever happen unless the constitution is amended.

Sounds like you want a parlementary government. The beuty of our government is the checks and balances, where all the branches of governemnt basically cancel each other out and we the citizens are left free to pursue our lives. Parlementary government just looks good today because bush who has enjoyed the majority in senate, house, and supreme court hasn't had any checks and balances for six of his eight years. Even today they are minimum because he can veto or block legislation with a filibuster.

I personally believe it's going to swing the othe way after 2008 and we might have a democrat with the same powers Bush had 2000-2006. then we will get to see if the Democrates are any better or %shudder% worse?

Either way Bush has been a reordering episode on the scale of the Great Depression. Now we need to figure out if the Dem's have another FDR or similar candidate weighting in the woods, or another Johnston.

[Burgold]

Yeah, 60-70% of Americans are stupid and being misled. Whereas the 30-40% are completely sane. I guess you don't follow Occam's Razor.

Actually, wouldn't Occam's Razor contend that the simplest explanation is true? If so, the simplest explanation for Bush's low poll numbers is that he is a really, really bad President.

[Smoot Point Really]

I agree, but it's not just that Bush was bellow 50%, it's that he's been down around 30% for that long. Just above Trumans record low of 28%.

Actually, it has been in the low 30s since July of 2007 and dropped 7 points to get to 28% now. BTW, congress is pretty low now too. It's government as a whole and not just President Bush.

[Smoot Point Really]

Actually, wouldn't Occam's Razor contend that the simplest explanation is true? If so, the simplest explanation for Bush's low poll numbers is that he is a really, really bad President.

The simplest explanation wouldn't be that 60-70% of the nation is being misled... It would be that 30-40% are being misled.

Also, since Congress' current approval rating is 13% (Rasmussen Reports), then I would say that President looks better at 28% and the nation isn't happy about Government in particular (Republicans or Democrats) and not just the President...

[Henry]

The simplest explanation wouldn't be that 60-70% of the nation is being misled... It would be that 30-40% are being misled.

Also, since Congress' current approval rating is 13% (Rasmussen Reports), then I would say that President looks better at 28% and the nation isn't happy about Government in particular (Republicans or Democrats) and not just the President...

That's a little misleading.

13% said Congress is doing a 'good or excellent' job.

If you add those who said Congress is doing a 'fair' job to that total, it's 51%.

That's not great, but it's not exactly a '13% approval rating' either.

Do you have a poll with a straight-up Approve vs. Disapprove numbers?