Bush Approval Drops to Post-9/11 Low - But still high historically

Gallup ^ | June 7, 2002 | David W. Moore

[TomGuy]

POLL ANALYSES

June 7, 2002

Bush Approval Drops to Post-9/11 Low

But still high historically

by David W. Moore

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup poll, conducted June 3-6, shows that 70% of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, down seven percentage points from last week and the lowest level since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The rating is still high by historical standards, and is 19 points above the level measured just prior to the terrorist attacks.

George W. Bush’s Job Approval Rating

The new rating comes after a week of intense news coverage about what the Bush administration knew about the terrorist attacks before they occurred. Virtually all of the interviewing was completed before Bush's address to the nation last night, when he announced his proposal for a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

The poll also shows that the decline in Bush's approval comes from Democrats and independents, but not Republicans. Forty-nine percent of Democrats express approval, down 10 points from last week. Independents show a seven-point decline, from 75% at the end of May to 68% today. Republican approval is at 96% in the current poll, off one point from last week but just above the average level since March.

George W. Bush’s Job Approval Rating: by Party

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,010 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 3-6, 2002. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

[Texasforever]

What is your point?

[GuillermoX]

My point is that Bush isn't above criticism. He is NOT a fiscal conservative at all. He is further to the left than Clinton is on the issues I listed below.

I give him a D- on domestic issues and an A on the war.

[Texasforever]

My point is that Bush isn't above criticism. He is NOT a fiscal conservative at all. He is further to the left than Clinton is on the issues I listed below.

Ok. War is thrust upon a president so he has no choice but to do his best. With that concession I would then venture to say that if by some chance Clinton found a way to run in 2004, you may just vote for him?

[Redleg Duke]

I suppose you pray to allah for that every night, don't you.

[Tauzero]

What does the farm bill have to do with national security? Or the education bill?

[Tauzero]

mile wide, inch-deep

[GuillermoX]

I don't think supporting all those domestic issues is the best he can do. Granted, he did not run for office on a platform of fiscal conservatism.

The War is 85% of his job right now. I gave him an A on that. I gave him a D- on the other 15%.

I would first fling myself off of a bridge before I ever voted for a Clinton. Please apologize for even asking.

[Common Tator]

Bush is no conservative?

God I hope not.

But you make my point. I said that if you ever start to support Bush, Dubya would change his positions. You do not refute that. So Bush will not have to change his positions. You do not support him, now. Never have. Never will. Surprise Surprise. Bush will never listen to you or follow your wishes. Guess what. Daschle, Gephardt and Gore won't either.

No one in power ever has or ever will listen to you.

What part of being totally insignificant appeals to you most.

[Texasforever]

Please apologize for even asking.

LOL Yes that was a real cheap shot. I apologize.

[Houmatt]

No he won't. The nation will rally around him again just like last time.

Sorry, but you have got it all wrong.

The American people have become quite predictable, and when another terrorist attack occurs on US soil, fingers will point directly at the Prez.

"Why didn't you do more?" people are going to ask. "What is it going to take before you guys finish the job, and destroy Al-Queada for good?"

Expect Bush to be a one-term president for this reason alone.

[VRWC_minion]

Expect the numbers to drop after the next terrorist attack.

That will be a first in history, the country always rally's around the president when we are attacked.

On the contrary, his numbers would go back up to 9/11 numbers.

[Texasforever]

Tell me is this what you want to happen or do you know of some action taken or not taken that gives you valid reasons for predicting it?

[finnman69]

Apparently the 4% of Republicans whoa re unhappy with Bush are all at Free Republic. LOL

So Basically there are equal numbers of Green party voters as conservative Bush bashers. Hmmmmmm.

[AmericanCheeseFood]

I recall Dassholes recent job ap rating being quite low, in an embarassing way as well.

So I guess the Dims want to try to paint something not to short of a funny picture here. Like they're stating that they have the Independent vote!! Therefore the Independent line is just like their own!

[GuillermoX]

Bush would change his positions on domestic policy if I started to support them? (That makes sense. I also find it ironic how you bash me for not responding to your stupid assertion, while ignoring my question).

I support Bush, I do NOT support his moronic, ultra-left wing domestic policies. Maybe you have the wrong guy, who knows. I have not been a "Bush basher". I voted for him and have supported him his whole term. But yes, I WILL ridicule him when he supports CFR, farm welfare, 60% increase in ed. spending, etc.

I will give you another opportunity to respond. Which of the Bush policies I posted earlier do you support? Is this such a hard question? Or are you pretending you didn't read it.

[Houmatt]

Who's responsible for "racial profiling" and political correctness, and who chooses to defend Johnny Jihad and the Gitmo prisoners' rights while damning their own country? Not the Bush administration.

And who is doing anything about it? Not the Bush Administration.

George W. Bush is in a position to put a permanent end to Al-Queada. He is in a position to tell Amnesty International, the ACLU and the UN what they can do with themselves (and while that may not look good to the world scene, it would make people here feel less on edge and guarantee him a second term).

He has done neither.

If anything, he has acted more like his father, listening to the same people from a decade ago, telling him it was perfectly okay to declare a touchdown at the 5-yard line instead of taking it past the goal line.

You may feel good about that, but I certainly do not.

[Houmatt]

read message # 37

[terilyn]

I'll take a crack at the "doubling farm welfare" claim.

Farm Reform Reversal
by Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven

Cato Institute

With support from the Bush administration, Congress appears set to pass a huge farm bill that moves decisively away from agriculture policy reforms enacted in 1996. The increases in this year's bill will cause farm subsidies to cost taxpayers at least $170 billion over the next decade. The costs may end up being much higher. When the 1996 law was passed, subsidies were expected to cost $47 billion in total from 1996 to 2002.[1] Instead, farm subsidies since 1996 have cost $123 billion.[2]

The landmark 1996 Freedom to Farm law was designed to move away from the command-and-control regime that had marked six decades of federal farm policy. The law increased farmers' flexibility in planting and eliminated some price supports for major crops. The law was also supposed to phase down subsidy levels between 1996 and 2002. But after the law's enactment, Congress ignored agreed-upon subsidy limits and has passed huge farm supplemental spending bills every year since 1998. As a result, total farm subsidies have soared to more than $20 billion per year, up from an average of $9 billion per year in the early 1990s (see Chart 1).[3]

So, if I do the math, Bush's "doubling of farm welfare actually cuts the farm subsidies an average of 4.83 billion per year.

21.83 (average farm spending over past three years) – 17.00 = (4.83) billion per year cut

link to data here

[terilyn]

"60% increase in the Dept of Ed"

Haven't you heard? Kennedy and the other dems are hopping mad at Bush's Education Bill. It seems they didn't read the fine print.

Oh, the money's there, but the schools and teachers actually have to perform up to standards to receive the increases. Here Kennedy thought he got a huge increase in spending. Too bad they haven't figured out that throwing more money at a problem doesn't fix it. Bush figured it out. They have to fix it before they get the money.

[terilyn]

"50% increase in foreign aid,"

True, but not through the UN. The money is there for who we say, when we say, not who and when the UN says. Didn't you hear Bush say that we wouldn't be sending money to governments that didn't deserve it because they're tyrants? It will go only to those governments that demonstrate that they're using it for the good of their people, not to build huge dictatorships and starve their people.