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.

[ladyinred]

Gee, what should we expect with the so called republicans like Rush bashing his every move? Not to mention the constant second guessing by the press.

[OldFriend]

Let me try to explain.........first of all, the man was elected President of the United States. That means that he is to represent ALL of us. Not just those who voted for him and expect him to do it their way or else.

Secondly, this is no time to undermine the man's authority. The world is watching and deciding if he has the power to carry out his threats. When they see his own country expressing doubts about his moral authority then they may decide that he won't be able to punish them if they defy us. This puts our men on the front lines at greater risk and it definitely gives the terrorists the idea that maybe they can attack us on our own land without retribution.

Third, the goal is to regain the Senate, win a second term, and get some honorable judges on the bench.

[speekinout]

Oh, the money's there, but the schools and teachers actually have to perform up to standards to receive the increases.

It's always confused me that so many missed the point of this bill. Bush always said that vouchers or other remedial options would take effect after 3 years of trying to improve. He didn't get the voucher word into the legislation, but he did get the accountability provisions.
If all the schools perform up to standards in 3 years, vouchers or other remedies will be a moot point. If they don't, then we will be discussing the money allocation again. But first we have to know which schools are failing.

[bybybill]

The next terrorist attack will be the fault of the bastards that do it. The President can`t guarantee your safety just as your local police chief can`t. They can do things to improve it and Bush certainly is, but look at the Israelis, they aren`t able to stop 100% of the terrorists and they have a much smaller country to defend.

[Texasforever]

Well said.

[bybybill]

Time to wake up from your very deep sleep. At this time last year, been Losing and the al-Quasadas lived in all the best caves and were running Afganistan. Today the`re toast. That`s not a bad start. Saddaammnn is next on the hit parade. Don`t be so negative, we are winning.

[patriciaruth]

I would first fling myself off of a bridge before I ever voted for a Clinton.

LOL!

*Wiping away tears....* I guess you Bush bashers have some redeeming values.:-).

And yes, Bush is not a purist conservative. No purist conservative could ever have a prayer of winning the Presidency. He is a conservative politician. Politicians make compromises in order to win and in order to govern effectively.

Luckily, he is a very savvy politician, so he has not needed to compromise as much the average politician does. And if Jeffords and McCain hadn't been Clymers, he wouldn't have made as many compromises as he has.

P.S. The Congress, who are the elected representatives of we the people, nationalized airport security. President Bush advised them against it, and they didn't take his advice.

[patriciaruth]

George W. Bush is in a position

And he used that position to do some very gutsy things.

1. nixed Kyoto

2. withdrew from the ABM treaty, and insisted on building missile defense system

3. drew a line in the sand over ICC

4. enunciated the Bush Doctrine, that terrorist organization of global reach (meaning representing a direct threat to the U.S.A.) and those that harbor them were going to pay.

He has done some other good things, but those things were gutsy and principled in my opinion.

[america-rules]

"Republican approval is at 96% in the current poll, off one point from last week but just above the average level since March. "

This means the Bush Bashers here are not the 1 percenters like before 2000 but are now the 4 percenters !

[Houmatt]

At this time last year, been Losing and the al-Quasadas lived in all the best caves and were running Afganistan. Today the`re toast.

This means you have not been paying attention to the news.

Al-Queada is still in existence. And Bin Laden is still alive.

I think that is hardly the definition of "toast." When you start a job, you finish it.

You had better just hope and pray to God YOU are not standing at the next Ground Zero.

[Bommer]

4. enunciated the Bush Doctrine, that terrorist organization of global reach (meaning representing a direct threat to the U.S.A.) and those that harbor them were going to pay.

...only to order Israel not to follow it. Condemns Bin-Lauden as a terrorist, and Arafat as a diplomat! Anyone else see a problem with this so called Doctrine? Its as hollow as a Bush promise,(which seems to have as much weight as a Clinton promise lately) and its these breaking of promises to the base that got him in thats reflecting on his poll numbers!

[Houmatt]

You know, if it was not for:

4. enunciated the Bush Doctrine, that terrorist organization of global reach (meaning representing a direct threat to the U.S.A.) and those that harbor them were going to pay.

I would have marked the whole post off as a non-sequitur.

As Bill Clinton so finely demonstrated, saying and doing are two different things. Based on what I have seen, I would say wholeheartedly Bush has backed away from his own policy.

Would you be able to comment on this or any of the other points I have brought up in this thread thus far??

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

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).

I'd like to live in your world. Truth is, we've over 700,000 NGOs operating from within the US, most on the left, ABA (who Bush kicked out..along with NOW), NEA, AFL/CIO, NAACP, NOW, AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WP, XXX-42, DNC, DU, PFAW, ACLU...we pretty much just mind our own business while they've been busy infiltrating our infrastructures until we now have a truly unbalanced and rude group of unelected folks influencing policy...and these folks know they're unaccountable to anyone.

About Johnny Jihad, the Bush administration is most definitely working to get info from terrorists in spite of the left and libertarian attempts to bash them for racial profiling and abusing civil liberties, but more folks are interested in believing press lies spin than the facts.

Check:
Lawsuit Abuse: " Trial lawyers are robbing decent, honest, Americans of their money, trust, freedom and peace of mind."
See also: Protecting the trial lawyer monopoly
www.overlaywered.com.

Conservatives attacked Reagan for not being able to get past the Rats in DC. If Reagan had a tough time with the organized crime machine on the left during relative peace, why do we lose focus on our real, many enemies in a more corrupt America during wartime against the nastiest group of thugs we've ever faced?
Losing by Winning?

[537 Votes]

Anyone notice the double-standard here? George W. revives the economy and destroys Al-Qaeda, and his approval rating is five points lower than what Bill Clinton had after doing nothing more than getting a blow job and committing perjury.

Clinton's approval ratings indicated to me that three-fourths of Americans are non-sentient. I can forgive the American people for supporting Bill Clinton, but I can never forget how stupid they were for doing so.

[Houmatt]

I'd like to live in your world.

Would you? What kind of world do you live in now? One where there is not going to be, with an absolute certainty, another attack upon Americans on US soil?

Only fools believe that.

I live in the real world, and I am not afraid to be realistic in matters such as this.

About Johnny Jihad, the Bush administration is most definitely working to get info from terrorists in spite of the left and libertarian attempts to bash them for racial profiling and abusing civil liberties, but more folks are interested in believing press spin than the facts.

And you know this because.....?

[patriciaruth]

Bush ordered Israel not to follow the Bush doctrine?

Bush's duty is to look after the interests of the U.S. first, not the interests of Israel first. He has never said that Israel is not a sovereign nation that must implement his every whim just on his say-so. He enunciates positions vis-a-vis their problems that he believes are in the best interests of the U.S., but has not threatened force if they do not agree with us and do otherwise.

At the moment the Palestinians per se are not 'proved' to be involved in plots to harm Americans on American soil. Hamas and Hezbollah and other groups are on our terrorist list, and they are also a threat to Israel, and although they most likely have ties to Arafat, the U.S., as far as I know, doesn't have proof of this of sufficient weight to justify a unilaterally attack on him by the U.S.

So far, our President has never personally spoken to Arafat, let alone shaken his hand, nor has Laura kissed his wife on the cheek. His opinion of Arafat could hardly be lower, but he is looking out for the best interests of the United States of America. You may believe he has it wrong, but he does not believe that the pretext exists yet for the U.S. to attack or condone attacks on the person of Arafat.
If Arafat is tied to a plot to harm Americans on American soil, this will turn on a dime.

[patriciaruth]

Based on what I have seen, I would say wholeheartedly Bush has backed away from his own policy.

I firmly believe that we are getting our ducks in a row to do things that will prove Bush, far from backing away from his own policy, has every intention of blowing these people away.

But we cannot take on 60 countries all at once. And often it is more politic for us to use surrogates, who may not be as competent....like the attack on the terrorists holding the Burnhams hostage showed.

Sorry it's not on TV right now for your viewing pleasure, but Republicans like to wage wars in effective ways that do not carelessly expend the lives of our soldiers. It isn't always as exciting as the body counts the Dems rack up.