Posted on 06/01/2006 8:35:25 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Poll: Bush Worst President Since 1945 Reagan Picked As Best President In Nationwide Survey
(CBS News) President Bush has been named as the worst president since the end of the World War II in a new national poll.
Mr. Bush was chosen by 37 percent of the voters who participated in the the Quinnipiac Unversity survey. Richard Nixon finished second with 17 percent -- just ahead of Bill Clinton with 16 percent.
Ronald Reagan was the top choice as best president, with 28 percent. Finishing second was Clinton with 25 percent.
The poll reflected deep partisan divisions. Mr. Bush was ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Republicans.
Reagan, on thew other hand, was named as the No. 1 president by 56 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Democrats.
"Kennedy and Truman get big Democratic votes, especially among baby boomers (45 - 64 years old) and seniors (over 65), but recent memory counts," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.
"Democrats say Clinton's the best and Republicans say he's the worst. Republicans don't think much of Jimmy Carter either. There's no contest for the GOP favorite: It's the Gipper," Carroll adde
(Excerpt) Read more at wcbstv.com ...
Excellent reply with some factual data for that idiot to chew on. Thanks for that. These people either were too young or just conveniently forget the problems with Reagan's presidency, INCLUDING Reagan doing things they now attack Bush for such as high spending and a TRUE amnesty as opposed to what they now incorrectly label as such.
Also, they conveniently forget Reagan had a major lapse of judgment with sending troops to Lebanon and trading arms for hostages in Iran/Contra. The latter was a major scandal that consumed nearly all of Reagan's entire second term which I think actually was worse and less effective even than Bush's has been. Bush hasn't had a major scandal of any sort, and yes that includes the phony Plamegate "scandal" which is nothing but a media creation which continues only because of an out of control prosecutor out to turn this into a make work project for himself who needs to be reigned in and fired by the Justice Department.
Don't hear this as meaning I don't thing Reagan was a fine president because he was. But to claim somehow he is so far and away beyond Bush as to make Bush unworthy of mention in the same breath as Reagan is sheer nonsense. I think Reagan would support most of what Bush is doing, including on immigration. Reagan was just merely a more effective communicator than Bush, but was guilty of many and more of the same sins Republicans accuse Bush of in caving to Democrats.
Anyway, thanks for the perspective you gave. Very important points all.
and yet niether gore nor kerry could defeat the "worst president ever"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
but I still say mondale and dukakis were the worst canidates ever
This poll can't be right. I'll bet the sampling was skewed. They must not have phoned any illegals, or Vincente Fox.
You hit on the reason why the poll only covered post-WWII presidents. The Left could never risk Roosevelt's coming in lower than Reagan in the poll.
Bush's open-borders policy sure isn't popular, so I guess you could call it "courageous." I sure wish he was more interested in doing what's popular on immigration - - or at least what's popular with Americans in general as opposed to what's popular with Teddy Kennedy and the ACLU.
This poll has an editorial quality that approval/disapproval polls do not have. It creates a public perception that is probably invalid if for no other reason than it is extraordinarily improper to compare a sitting president with past presidents. This is particularly true when his approval rating is exceptionally poor (or great as they were after 9/11). Respondents are likely to focus more on current news than on history poorly remembered. That is poor polling.
The editorial quality is unfair. It borders on sensationalism given the expected headline.
But that said, what are the consequences? People don’t always read the detail, and thus it is even more unfair. Even so, two details stands out: 1) the number of Republicans who say Bush is the worst president is significant given the choices before them. 2) the contrast to Reagan is should be disturbing for Bush supporters.
The more the public argues about who is the worst president, the more the poll gets attention around the water cooler.
A congressman in a contested race will pay attention; not because he agrees but because he must weigh the consequences of being to closely identified with “the worst president,” which phraseology-wise resonates more with public understand or misunderstanding than does an approval/disapproval rating.
Now, I am personally very displeased with Bush even though I support much of what he has done. I've veered away more and more lately (imigration reform, Dubai, Harriet Meirs). I'm even inclined to say that he is among the top three worst presidents of our era (the others being democrats),
But I don’t think that this poll is honest. Not in the least.
I don’t quibble with purported representation of party affiliation, timing or statistical methods. But I do have in mind that the designers of this poll pretty much expected the results. I wonder if that was not a motivating factor for the design of the poll.
It is one thing to write an editorial explaining why you think that Bush is the worst president (or a poor president). Many have. It is quite another thing to design a poll to wrap-in the American public, to make them unwitting spokespersons rather than present your own arguments. This poll was a cheap shot. It will hurt Bush (for now) but it may help crystallize the evolving confrontation between congress and the White House.
The opposing argument would be that Bush has been too ambitious and in some areas, like foreign policy, he's attempted more than he could have achieved. Reagan was the sort of person who cleaned things up and put the messes of past leaders in order. For many, Bush is one of the mess-makers.
Also, there's a question of how many of Bush's acts will remain in effect. It may be that Reagan influenced the country's history more in indirect and inspirational ways that won't be uprooted or overturned as easily as more overtly political or administrative measures. Beyond that, Bush seems to have been blindsided by events more than Reagan was -- or at least, the consequences of such suprises have been worse.
Most of the time, polls of historians about great Presidents are top-heavy with the leaders the historians agree with politically (polls of ordinary people tend to put the most famous or most charismatic or most recent Presidents on top). But competency and the ability to leave behind lasting achievements matter a lot. Reagan was a much better President than liberals ever thought he was. Time will tell, but Bush may be rated worse than many conservatives think.
I second that sentiment. Even at his worst, he's head and shoulders above Carter who was consistently wrong on every issue he cared to weigh.
So it seems like the primary characteristic admired is glib speaking.
God help us if Ryan Seacrest ever runs for President. ;)
Good post. It is unfair to have a poll comparing a sitting president with past ones, and there probably is an agenda.
Pres Bush has been fairly strong and has been performing his office diligently. Those who want the occupant of the office to be the intellectual leader or father figure of the country need to go to church more.
"Whatever my issues with Pres. Bush, he's been a pretty good President. His is no Carter, and no Clintoon."
And no Lyndon Johnson, the most corrupt politician to ever become president until Clinton came along.
FYI, they used to call me a Reagan Disciple before they called me a Bush Disciple. I think you should review Reagan's 11th commandment.
I think history will actually be kinder to Bush because many of the ways in which he's tried to re-shape the world will only bear fruit in future years, especially in Iraq. I think Bush will be vindicated on my points in terms of security policy, especially later when Democrats come in to power and tinker with things like the Patriot Act and we end up getting hit again. It will be shown measures Bush took to protect the country were needed afterall.
And I believe despite present difficulties Iraq will down the road be shown to have been a visionary move, one which will spark democractic movements in other countries in the Middle East. We can't see it now because all we see from the media are the carbombs and the blood flowing. But years from now when the media has moved on to some other obsession, Iraq will quietly blossom into a functioning democracy, even if not a Jeffersonian or exactly Western model, one which will inspires others in the Muslim world.
And when the country steadily goes into deeper and deeper debt because we refused to reform Social Security when Bush offered leadership on it and the system slowly goes broke, again history will show Bush's vision was right on the money and at the right time.
As for the things you say Bush was "blindsided by," well I don't think that's entirely fair. Frankly the country has endured more blows to its mainland than ever happened under Reagan including 9-11 and Katrina. That's why comparing Bush to Reagan on that regard really doesn't work since frankly Reagan never dealt with disasters on the scale Bush has had to so we don't know how Reagan's administration would have responded.
But to somehow lay those disasters at Bush's feet and to use that as a measure of his competency is really a brutal standard. It's not Bush's fault our country has been battered by both natural and foreign enemies during these years. And I think he did about the best he could in reacting to them, especially realizing how incompetent the locals in Louisiana were. And let's face it, the media was never going to give Bush his due after the 2004 election again. They resented his re-election and wrote a script long before Katrina that they would focus only on the negative of everything that happened in his second term, rather than focusing on what he did right. Have we heard even one story of what the Feds did well in Katrina? Any credit to Bush for declaring a disaster BEFORE Katrina hit? Any credit to Bush for demanding Blanco and Nagin make a mandatory evacuation order BEFORE Katrina hit when they refused? Any credit to Bush for pre-stationing supplies BEFORE Katrina hit? No, all we here is he flew over NOLA rather than landing and getting in the way of relief efforts and at a time it appeared the city was gripped by lawlessness.
No, history will be very kind to Bush even if our current political and media culture with an agenda of their own are not. Few great leaders have been appreciated in their time. You watch.
A poll reported by WCBS-TV, New York, NY probably biased ?
It contains the letters CBS.
I would say that is it 110% certain IT IS BAISED.
Great list. People forget that Pres. Bush's strength and confidence in our nation, as well as his determination to deter further terrorists attacks, helped us through the fear and rage engendered by the attacks of 9/11. Pres. Reagan was the best president in my lifetime, as far as I'm concerned, and I could never take anything away from him, but Pres. Bush ranks right up there with him. I'm not a single-issue voter (read: illegal immigration), so I'm willing to consider all of Pres. Bush's accomplishments (no more terrorist attacks, liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from their terrorist-controlled governments, de-fanging Libya, SCOTUS appointments, tax cuts, etc.) and rate him just as high as my hero Pres. Reagan.
Did all these people sleep during the Carter presidency?
Stagflation, a phrase unique to Carter, gas lines, failed solar energy policy (every flim-flam scam artist in the country got on that bandwagon), heavy taxation and restriction of car imports from Japan -- causing all USA models (and Japanese) to double in price during his one term, using an inept (college professor) translator in Poland -- allowing the President to embarass himself and his country to the Poles, failed military strike in Iran, US hostages in Iran that got released on (Reagan's) inaugral day, fully supported Iranian President Bakhtiar for all of two weeks before doing a Murtha-like "cut and run," demanding no uniforms in the Pentagon for military officers and personnel, the Panama Canal fiasco, and worst of all, home interest rates that hit the mid teens.
This man adversely affected EVERY American.
He's the VAINEST man to occupy the office.
He's not only the worst President in history, he's the worst ex-President in the history of the country.
Yes!! This poll question is evidence of the bias and agenda of this polling organization. Or else they are ignorant. Historical questions require about 50 years for the answers to be believable. "Creative masturbation": beautiful phrase. I often think of punditry shows like Hardball as "political masturbation".
You had some good thoughts there and who knows how Bush will be remembered. History is written by the victors. In the case of Reagan, the country has been turning more Conservative over the past 20 years so the victors have portrayed Reagan in a positive light. If the country were to turn more liberal I can imagine history will be written by Michael Moore. Many of his minions certainly troll FreeRepublic these days, don't they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.