Not so much the rest of us, though. Bush disapproval rating is worst in history "But-but--Congress is disapproved of even more, so it's really the Democrats who are in trouble!" was the retort I heard throughout 2008. I'm really wondering what the response is now.
Seriously, though, why the recent further drop in his approval? Is it all about the economy? Is he just looking worse now because people have bought in to Obama?
And I missed my chance to make millions with my bumper sticker "I thought I was voting for more Bush, not George Bush!".
What's more amazing to me is that if you subscribe to the theory - like I do - that anywhere from 10-20% of Americans will always approve of how a president is doing his or her job regardless of performance; and if you subscribe to the theory that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 of Americans who associate themselves with either major party will always favorably rate their party's representative in the White House ... It's reasonable to assume there isn't a sane American out there who actually thinks the guy is doing a good job. -Pop
It isn't really that important. It is more or less trivia now. My guess is that he has lost the "approval" of some holdout ("Bush isn't THAT bad") Republicans for contributing to a crushing election defeat in Congress. All a Democratic candidate had to do is post a picture of the Republican with Bush and they won. The fact of the election snapped these semi-delusional folks back into the real world. Really, who cares if his "approval" rating is a bit lower than the low numbers he has been running for a while now or a bit higher. His lame duck status is the same either way. Bush is yesterdays news.
Well, it's not necessarily a good barometer of how good his presidency was. I mean, it could be. For example, I read a lot of non political revisionist history and Clinton's administration is considered by nonpartisans as the 3rd most corrupt in history and he's beconing regarded as the 10th worst president. Yet he had a favorable approval rating. As to Bush, I think revisionist historians will treat him poorly. He passed far too little major legislation and was unable to get congress to work with him (I realize that's greatly due to partisan politics, but I think Bush could have done more to building compromise solutions) and the war in Iraq may have been based in necessities, but it was so poorly planned that it ranks with Vietnam as a hoplessly blundered war.
Are you referring to Bush or Clinton? I'd say you're wrong on either count...but especially Bush. BTW, since the Dems won the election, why the fascination with continuing to kick Bush, McCain and Palin around? Aren't they yesterday's news?
...only by corruption and theft [PA would have been the state of "controversy" too...just like Ohio and Florida before it]
McCain is truly yesterday's news. No reason to kick him anymore. Palin is being promoted by some as a 2012 candidate, or a senate candidate. As such she's still news. Bush is still President for a couple more months. He's not old news quite yet. barfo
Yeah, Bush is yesterday's news. Unless he makes news. That this story was on the home page of CNN today shows, and that it was historically the lowest point ever measured for a president, made it seem worthwhile bringing up to me. Four years from now when everybody is comparing Obama's presidency to Bush, it seems pretty likely that this topic will come up.
BTW, who was the last president you can think of that you weren't happy to see leave office when their term was up? Some can keep it going for two terms, but it generally seems like we feel like we're ready for a change after a few years.
I'd venture to guess that, in his campaign efforts, Bush would have incessantly trotted out WrightGate.
How would Bush have been competitive? McCain's only chance was to avoid being tied to Bush. Obama could have tied Bush to Bush even more easily. When a person drags his entire party down, across all the races in all the states, that person doesn't stand much of a chance of being elected, himself.
