Poll: 39% approval rating

Hope you had a great Valentine's Day . . . I certainly did!

FINAL COMMENTS (we've beaten this 'horse' to death):

MY PREVIOUS POST: "For my initial comments, I relied on information provided to me by a colleague/friend. Now that I'm looking at the 'raw' data myself (from Gallup and other pollsters), I can see that Reagan's JA ratings slipped below 50% approximately 4 - 4 1/2 years of his 8 year presidency (depending upon which data/pollster is referenced)."

FINAL COMMENT: I obtained this information (via a colleague) from a proprietary website: The Roper Center. If you want to check my (colleague's) facts, you will need to pay the proscribed fee. [FYI: The Roper Center catalogues MANY pollsters, not just Gallup.]

MY PREVIOUS POST: GALLUP is a much different polling organization today than it was in the 1980s. In the 1980s, Gallup was an INDEPENDENT pollster with definite GOP leanings; today, Gallup is 'owned' by CNN/USAToday and definitely reflects the Democrat leanings of its media bosses. In 1980, Gallup surveyed between 1,500 and 3,000 respondents per polling period with a 60%+ response rate; today, Gallup barely manages to survey 1,000 respondents per polling period with a response rate below 30% (and Gallup has the HIGHEST response rate of all the MSM pollsters). And we haven't even addressed the behavior of conservatives vs liberals relative to their willingness to participate in polls nor have we discussed the influence of new technologies. I could go on and on . . . but I won't -- time for me to get back to work!"

FINAL COMMENT: 'nuf said! [FYI: Gallup and Opinion Dynamics were the only two MAJOR polling organizations that completely BLEW their 2004 election predictions -- both organizations predicted a substantial Kerry victory!]

By the way, Opinion Dynamics continues to do the polling for FoxNews. So, no, I don't respect or trust the polling results heralded by FoxNews!! In fact, NONE of the MSM pollsters are currently using valid sampling procedures, even Rasmussen oversamples Democrats by 3-5 points [NOTE: At least Rasmussen uses a consistent, representative weighting procedure.]

The only national pollster to produce DEAD ON results year over year (as verified by tangible election outcomes) is Ed Goeas of the Battleground Poll! [NOTE: Mason Dixon does an excellent job with state polling!]

The rest of these pollsters are generating their current results for 2 reasons only: 1.) to satisfy the leftist objectives of their MSM bosses, and 2.) to embarrass the President/demoralize Republicans (the logical extension of reason #1)!

BOTTOMLINE (again, back to my original point):
At this point in the respective presidencies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan had the lowest average JA rating. In fact, at the end of their respective 8 year terms, Clinton still had a higher average JA rating than Reagan. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THIS? DOES ANYONE CARE?!

It's what a president DOES with his time in office that counts, not the JA ratings he earns during his tenure.

[NOTE: Unlike those who regularly use Reagan 'rhetoric' (vs actual behavior) to disparage GWB, I cited Reagan's stats not to denigrate him (Reagan), but to provide much needed PERSPECTIVE for those who believe that GWB is the first contemporary president to experience below 50% JA ratings in the face of 24/7 criticism from the leftwing media establishment!]

Now, I'm off to have a GREAT day . . . I hope you experience the same!

>>>>FINAL COMMENT: I obtained this information (via a colleague) from a proprietary website: The Roper Center. If you want to check my (colleague's) facts, you will need to pay the proscribed fee. [FYI: The Roper Center catalogues MANY pollsters, not just Gallup.]

Signed up for a free trial to the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Not to be confused with Roper Public Affairs, the people who actually take polls. The Roper Center has tracking polls, exit polls, election results and ALL the job approval ratings, for every President going back to FDR. Including the entire list of Reagan's JA ratings. However, until you hit Clinton and Bush43, its primary source of data is from Gallup tracking poll results. Gallup, Harris and Roper were the main pollsters back in the 1980`s. All three did extensive polling, but for whatever reason the data for Harris and Roper isn't available on the Roper Center website. Btw, I also signed up for a free trial at Harris Interactive, but they also don't offer full access to their historic database. Not about to pay $100-$400 an hour for BASIC data that should be available to everyone. So for good or bad, its Gallup, like it or not.

>>>>FINAL COMMENT: 'nuf said! [FYI: Gallup and Opinion Dynamics were the only two MAJOR polling organizations that completely BLEW their 2004 election predictions -- both organizations predicted a substantial Kerry victory!]

We were talking JA ratings, not election predictions. Fact. Wherever pollsters may dwell on the American political spectrum, they should all be viewed with some level of skepticism. Having said that. Fact. When you do look at all the polls today and for the last year, PresBush`s JA ratings are not good. Across the board his JA ratings are poor.

Frankly, I think the best polls come on election day.

When we do look at election day results, we see Reagan had two historic landslide victories that changed America's future for the better. Reagan's bold conservative leadership and American spirit made many young people, who grew up in life long Democrat households, say to themselves, it's okay to switch political party's and become a Republican. Some of those people who did become Republicans because of Reagan, ran for office in the 90`s and gave the GOP control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Impressive. The GOP needs to get back to its conservative roots of the Reagan Era and the Gingrich years. The Contract With America turned out to be quite a revolutionary proposal for governing America, further advancing the Reagan agenda.

>>>>[NOTE: Unlike those who regularly use Reagan 'rhetoric' (vs actual behavior) to disparage GWB, I cited Reagan's stats not to denigrate him (Reagan), but to provide much needed PERSPECTIVE for those who believe that GWB is the first contemporary president to experience below 50% JA ratings in the face of 24/7 criticism from the leftwing media establishment!]

I don't know of anyone who uses the Reagan legacy, the Reagan record or the Reagan vision, to disparage PresBush. Bush is the current President and is responsible for his own words, actions and behavior, and those of his administration. He is creating his own Presidential record for history.

As I said, your objective in defending Bush43 is admirable, its your approach that is disturbing. In the 1980`s I can remember when polling numbers indicated the American people weren't as supportive of PresReagan as I was. We Reaganites took the good news with the bad news. In the end, we Reaganites were proven right. Reagan was right. You want it both ways. When the polls are up for Bush, you Bushies are happy. When the polls are down for Bush, you whine and make all types of excuses for why Bush`s JA ratings have fallen.

I voted for GWBush twice, believed he was a better man then Gore or Kerry. Still feel that way. Bush has impressed me with his prosecution of the WOT, his judicial picks, his support for right to life issues. While the Bush recrod has been good at times, other times its been downright horrible. His liberal spending habits, expansion of the federal bureaucracy and opposition to immigration reform are the issues that stand out to mainstream conservatives like myself, as not being in the tradition of the Grand Old Party or in the spirit of Reagan. With his track record of the last five years, I sincerely doubt that Bush intends on making serious changes on those issues, in the three years he has left in office. We shall see.

Finally, I think we can honestly change your original remark.

>>>>>>>>I don't deal in ~~"excuses"~~ facts; I deal in ~~"facts"~~ excuses!

Have a nice day.

You dismiss my facts as opinion, but hail your opinions as fact . . . typical!

I'm not going to let this slide:

"His liberal spending habits, expansion of the federal bureaucracy and opposition to immigration reform are the issues that stand out to mainstream conservatives like myself, as not being in the tradition of the Grand Old Party or in the spirit of Reagan."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .
Did Reagan reduce the size of government? No.
Did Reagan cut taxes only to raise them again? Yes.
Did Reagan sign into law an amnesty program for illegal immigrants? Yes.
Did Reagan run the largest budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP) in American history? Yes.

[Additional questions: Did Reagan sign into law Social Security legislation that has NEGATIVELY impacted current government spending? Did Reagan actually encourage the growth of Islamic terrorism with his behaviors in Lebanon (and other places around the globe)? Did Reagan put conservative justices on the Supreme Court? I could go on and on.]

I loved Reagan and respected his political pragmatism . . . President George W Bush learned at Reagan's knee and has opted to walk Reagan's talk!!

Bookmarked for the truth

>>>>I'm not going to let this slide:

Neither am I.

>>>>Did Reagan reduce the size of government?

Overall, no. Has Bush43? Hell no! The new Bush 2007 budget is 49% larger then the last Clinton Budget. Reagan's 1987 budget was 48% larger then the last Carter budget. But Reagan did succeed in reducing welfare and entitlement spending and non-defense discretionary spending. According to omb.gov Carter's last budget spent 53.4% on Human resources, Reagan reduced that level of spending over the next 8 years, to 49.7% in 1989. The new Bush budget calls for spending 66.1% on Human resources, aka. welfare and entitlments. A chart to back me up on non-defense discretionary sepnding.

Bush43 versus Reagan and others.

And federal budget growth.

Did Reagan cut taxes only to raise them again?

Reagan never raised fedral income taxes. The Economic Tax Recovery Act of 1981 reduced the top tax rtaes from 70% to 50%. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced that 50% top rate down to 28%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, the US basically had two income tax rates, 15% and 28%.

>>>>Did Reagan sign into law an amnesty program for illegal immigrants?

Reagan didn't support open borders, as BUsh43 does. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, effecting 2-3 milion illegals. It specified prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law was enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time amnesty deal. Instead, the Feds lack of enforcement led to an ongoing series of liberal immigration policies under Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, that has led to the 10-15 million illegals we have living in the US today. Of which, 4-5 million have come here since Bush43 took office.

>>>>Did Reagan run the largest budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP) in American history?

And that biggest deficit as it relates to GDP, helped to win the Cold War, dismantle the USSR, the Eastern Communist Bloc and the Soviet Empire. Freeing 500 million people from totalitarian rule. Today, Bush43 is running up the biggest deficits in history to support a trillion dollar Medicare Prescription Drug Program, doubling the size of the Education budget and signing off on the pork barrel boondoggles like, the transportation bill, the farm bill and the energy bill. Also, Bush hasn't vetoed anything and has allowed the GOP Conmgress to go hog-wild on spending, with over 15,000 earmarks in 2005. Btw,

>>>>Did Reagan sign into law Social Security legislation that has NEGATIVELY impacted current government spending?

No. From 1964 to 1980, Reagan spoke about privatizing Social Security. When Reagan took office in 1981 he quickly found out that SS was the third rail of American politics. Instead of continually pressing the issue of SS privatiziation with Speaker Tip O'Neill and the Democrat controlled House, Reagan took a different route. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as chairman of a Social Security reform commission. Its job was to come up with a plan to reform Social Security and make it fiscally solvent once again. That is exactly what happened. Reagan did have succcess in reforming SS, just not with private/personal accounts. SS is solvent until 2030.

Bush found out last year that SS was the third rail of American politics. In his 2006 SOTUS, Bush outlined the creation of a bi-partisan SS commission, similiar to the Greenspan Commission of the Reagan Era. We shall see.

>>>>Did Reagan actually encourage the growth of Islamic terrorism with his behaviors in Lebanon (and other places around the globe)?

The ultimate cheap shot at Reagan. You have your anti-Reagan talking points down well. Now for the historic facts of those 1983 events in Beirut.

The US Marines were part of a multinational peackeeping force, that was thrown into the middle of a civil war in Beruit Lebanon. After the Marine barracks was car bombed, US intelligence was unable to determine, who committed the horrible act. Some experts believed the responsibile party was Hezbollah, with help from either Syria or Iran. Islamic Jihad actually took credit for the bombing, but no one in the US government took their claim seriously.

The Reagan administration did hatch a plan to knock off a military barracks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. DefSec Weinberger opposed such action. Weinberger told Reagan, any attack without positive proof of who committed the Beirut action would lead to an expanded civil war, dragging the US further into that War, maybe pulling the Soviets into the conflict and undermining Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.

Until this day, Weinberger insists the responsible party is unknown. Reagan did order air bombing and shelling from the USS New Jersey. Soon afterwards, the Marines were pulled out for good. All in all, a smart move. Reagan came to understand that Beirut and all of Lebanon was an untenable situation. Besides, Reagan had bigger fish to fry.

It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say Reagan was negligent for his lack of action. Fact is, if Reagan was given proof positive who committed the killing of the Marines, he would have taken stronger military action then he did.

>>>>Did Reagan put conservative justices on the Supreme Court?

You betcha! J Scalia is the most conservative of all SC justices. Rehnquist's promotion to CJ was another great conservative choice by Reagan. Kennedy received the endorsements from all the major right to life organizations. While his poasition on abortion has changed, Kennedy remains a strong law and order conservative and more an ally to the right then a foe. Sandra Day O'Conner was a mistake, if only because of her pro-choice stance. Regan should have listened to his gut and not advisors Schutz and Meese. I like Alito and believe he will turn out to be a solid cosnervative. But both he and Roberts will have to prove just how conservative they really are.

>>>>I could go on and on.

Bring it on.

Let me revise and extend my remarks, to clarify one question you offered.

>>>>Did Reagan run the largest budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP) in American history? Yes.

No.

The largest deficits in historic terms and as it relates to GDP, occured during WWII. Far exceeding anything that occured under Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War. The deficits vs GDP for each year: 14.2% in 1942, 30.3% in 1943, 22.7% in 1944 and 21.5% in 1945. Reagan left office in 1989 with a deficit of 2.8% of GDP. Bush is running a deficit right now of about 3.0%-3.5% of GDP. The US also ran some significant deficits during WWI and the Great Depression.

Yep.. the MSM tried to DUPE people in to DEAN with BS polling about how strong he was.

Once they realized they were not able to trick enough people, they used the 'scream' as a convenient excuse to abandon him like they regularly abandon their own.

10% difference between CNN and Rasmussen... hmmmmmm.

39% approval from a CNN poll is outstanding. Did all 5 people vote?

The poll was conducted in the CNN office cafeteria.