Replies

When reading all the nonsense about the President's current job approval ratings just remember the following:

IT'S THE PERSONAL APPROVAL RATING THAT COUNTS!

"While the President's job approval is upside down by net 10 points, the PERSONAL APPROVAL of George W Bush is still running 2 to 1 net positive. Whether voters approve or disapprove of the way George W Bush is handling his job as President, they were asked what their impression was of him as a person. Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters approve of President Bush personally, while thirty-one percent (31%) disapprove of him. There is also positive intensity to voters' response to this question. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters "strongly" approve of the president personally, while only twenty-four percent (24%) "strongly" disapprove of the President on a personal level. IT IS THIS LIKEABILITY FACTOR OF GEORGE W BUSH THAT PROVIDES THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS WITH A ROADMAP TO REBUILD THEIR SUPPORT AMONG THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE.
Ed Goeas
Torrance Battleground Poll 2006
10/25/05

IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

--According to Gallup, the President's lowest JA rating to date was 39% (it's currently at 41%).
Presidential Lows:
35% Reagan
29% Bush 41
37% Clinton
39% Bush 43

--According to Gallup, the President earned the HIGHEST JA rating ever recorded, ''90%'' in 2001. Clinton's highest: 73%; Reagan's highest: 65%.

The President also maintained JA ratings in the 70s and 80s longer than any other president in history!!! [Bottomline: GWB knows what it means to be 'popular', yet he sacrificed it all in an effort to do the RIGHT thing relative to our War on Terrorism -- something most presidents (e.g., Clinton) would never dream of doing!]

--According to Gallup, the President's JA rating has yet to fall below 50% for an entire year (although it will probably do so this year). In contrast, both Clinton and Reagan posted THREE years below 50%.

In fact, for two consecutive years Reagan's JA average was a meager ''44%''!

Given what the Democrats/MSM/uber-cons are saying about the President now, can you imagine what the same cabal was saying about Reagan in late 1981, 1982, 1983, and into 1984? [Keep in mind that as late as April/May of 1984, Reagan trailed Gary Hart in head:head polls; fortunately, Hart self-destructed!]

--According to Gallup, the President's average JA rating for his first (almost) 5 years in office is ''60%'' vs 51% for Clinton and 52% for Reagan -- have you heard this any where?!

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME:

THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY FADES INTO IT'S TWILIGHT
CQ Weekly October 17, 1987

. . . It was vintage Reagan: flinty-eyed, sure of his aces. The terse words evoked the "make my day" challenge he had once used to wither Democratic talk of tax increases.

But this time it boomeranged. BORK'S nomination quickly plunged toward a resounding and stunning defeat, and much of the commentary that followed had the pall of a post-mortem on Reagan's political career.

This was not just any lost cause. It had been Reagan's self-proclaimed "No. 1 domestic priority." And it had been a cause that most thought Reagan could have won -- and should have won.

The label of "lame duck" which some had tried to paste on Reagan just days after his landslide re-election in 1984, seemed at long last to stick. Reaganism . . . now clearly seems to be a spent force.

. . . "It's variable when lame-ducking begins," notes Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science at the University of Califronia at Berkeley. "With Reagan, you would have thought it would be later. But it began with Iran-contra."

Following revelations of arms sales to Iran . . . Reagan's Gallup Poll ratings took a 23-point nose dive. It was said to be the most precipitous decline in a president's approval rating since Gallup began asking questions.

. . . Democrats were quick to cite Reykjavik as evidence that Reagan was out of touch with, even uncomprehending of, the details of his administration.

That portrait was vividly reinforced by the Iran-contra revelations and even by the Bork episode, in which Reagan lost not only his confrontation with the Senate but his control of the situation. He stood by seeming helpless while a defeated Bork refused to withdraw, prolonging the embarrassment and delaying the choice of another nominee."

. . . Failing in the legislative branch, many social-agenda conservatives have come to see Reagan's choices for the judicial branch as their hope. After all, decisions from the bench -- particularly the Supreme Court -- have been their nemesis.

"The failure on this (Bork) nomination is very significant," says Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn. "This is where the President (was supposed to) deliver on the social agenda." . . . "

DEJA VU! . . . BTW: Polls mean so much in determining a President's legacy -- NOT!!

REMEMBER, LEADERS LEAD; LOSERS READ POLLS!