June 3, 2015

George W. Bush is much more popular than Barack Obama.

According to a new CNN poll: 52% disapprove of Obama and 45% approve.
[I]t's dropped since April, going from a near-even 48% approve to 47% disapprove split... [T]he rising disapproval ratings come across party lines, from both men and women, from whites and non-whites.
As for George W. Bush:
For the first time in a decade, more Americans say they like him than dislike him.... 52% of adults had a favorable impression of George W. Bush, 43% unfavorable.
So Obama is 7 points into the negative and Bush is 9 points into the positive.

73 comments:

Brando said...

This isn't too surprising--ex-presidents usually see their numbers go up as the public has some time away from seeing them on TV and in the partisan mess. Plus, hindsight often makes presidents look better, particularly when the new guy is making mistakes.

Bush has also been generally a classy ex-president, as I haven't seen much about him criticizing the new guy--he's stayed out of the public eye like his father did. Clinton of course was a jerk of an ex-president because he's an awful person.

Paul said...

Well Bush was the A Team, Obama the 'JV Team®'.

So it's not hard to understand. And Obama has 18 more months to screw it up even more.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary's doing great though!

The more people get to see that grimacing grin pasted to that bobbing head, the more her numbers are going to go up!

damikesc said...

Unlike Clinton, Bush tried to fix problems.

Michael K said...

Bush will only get more popular as the world goes to hell.

tim in vermont said...

It doesn't hurt W that his critics tend to spit and drool while criticizing him either.

Eventually historians will stop pretending that 9-11 was an unprovoked attack and recall that Clinton launched cruise missiles on Afghanistan's soil too. Plus he gets credit for good intentions in Iraq, dishonest lefty critiques notwithstanding.

tim in vermont said...

Remember when all of those evil oil executives met with Dick Cheney? The fruition of which is cheap gas, and oil independence for the US?

Most Americans don't see that as the crime against the planet that it is.

Basil said...

Do you realized just how bad Obama has to be to get to these numbers with a worshiping press? It's incompetence and narcissism on a massive scale. How does Marie Harf have a job?

Brando said...

One thing that might be helping Bush is the contrast with the other ex-president of his generation. While Bush kept a low profile and took up painting, Clinton managed to go around trashing both of his successors and run a billion dollar influence peddling scam, while angling to get his wife back into the White House just so they can enrich themselves. By comparison, Bush looks statesmanesque.

MayBee said...

This seems right. Interestingly, this is at the same time the media has been trying to get Republicans to denounce Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.

David Begley said...

ISIS could burn the White House and Obama would still have a 40% approval rating.

tim in vermont said...

Remember all the Bush press conferences that went like this:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving this in office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me write this down. (Laughter.)

Q Surprised, troubled --

THE PRESIDENT: I've got -- what was the first one?

Q Surprised.

THE PRESIDENT: Surprised.

Q Troubled.

THE PRESIDENT: Troubled.

Q Enchanted.

THE PRESIDENT: Enchanted? Nice. (Laughter.)

Q And humbled.

THE PRESIDENT: And what was the last one, humbled?

Q Humbled. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Okay. (Laughter.) Surprised. I am surprised compared to where I started, when we first announced for this race, by the number of critical issues that appear to be coming to a head all at the same time. You ...


Which led to my parody song (pre-Tea Party, BTW)

One enchanted evening,
you may meet Obama
remember it's an honor
when he tea bags your dripping chin.


The press has hardly changed.

Brando said...

"This seems right. Interestingly, this is at the same time the media has been trying to get Republicans to denounce Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq."

The two things Bush was blamed most for--the Iraq War and the financial crisis--are being seen in a different light today. For the latter--which Bush shouldn't have been blamed for but that's just how the public works--people saw that getting out of the economic ditch was not as easy as they thought, and the problem confounded Bush's successor. That makes it harder to say "Bush should have done this". For the former, the increasing chaos in the Mid-East is making the Iraq decision seem more nuanced--though I still think it was a mistake to invade in the first place, I realize it's not an easy call when the alternative is allowing repression and chaos to fester and it at least seems possible we can do something about it.

I don't know if Bush will ever get the "Reagan" treatment from the GOP but I doubt he'll get the "Nixon" treatment either.

tim in vermont said...

Obama gets SNL running interference for him too, with them running an ahistorical little bit about Bush creating ISIS. We know who was arming the rebels in Syria, and we all remember that the final S in ISIS stands for Syria. Remember when Obama kept trying to distract from that with the ISIL thing?

I can't wait for somebody to ask Hillary why shoulder mounted Stinger missiles intended for the "rebels" in Syria ended up shooting down a Chinook helicopter full of our boys in Afghanistan. I hope it is in a debate.

tim in vermont said...

So Obama and Hillary armed ISIS, and cleared the way in Iraq for their expansion, but ISIS is on Bush. That's the logic there.

Rusty said...

How the fuck bad do you have to be when George Bush is more liked than you? Pretty bad. And 53% of you asshats voted for him, twice.

tim in vermont said...

Makin' a living the old hard way
Takin' their money by day by day
I dig cash and bonds and credit lines.
Back o' the line (back o' the line)


Hillary's campaign song.

The Drill SGT said...

More of the public now recognizes by comparison that Bush was an honorable guy who loved his country and its troops, who made decisions based on what he thought was right rather than based on what the focus group said he should do.

All you have to see to verify this is some video of George and Laura greeting troops coming home...

tim in vermont said...

You mean compared to Hillary greeting the caskets and promising the family to put the American artist "responsible for their deaths" in jail for making a film?

What is it with this Putin wannabee O'Malley and his bare chest photos?

Larry J said...

Paul said...
Well Bush was the A Team, Obama the 'JV Team®'.


Obama isn't JV. Hell, he isn't even Pop Warner. Sandlot players are better than Obama.

Original Mike said...

"According to a new CNN poll: 52% disapprove of Obama and 45% approve."

It's really disturbing that 45% approve of this train wreck.

Hagar said...

There is hope.
It looks like, in the end, class will still tell.

Big Mike said...

It took people long enough. I always thought that George W. Bush was the better man, better leader, and better president.

Big Mike said...

@Original Mike, I agree.

FleetUSA said...

I suspect over time this will improve for Bush even more as we learn all the dreaded things about The 1's administration.

Michael K said...

The Obama FAA is now using affirmative action to hire air traffic controllers. The old skills based testing is being replaced by a new test using "biography" which, of course, will give the applicant an opportunity to describe poverty and racism.

I expect the first airline accident will increase Bush's popularity even more.

Brando said...

"It's really disturbing that 45% approve of this train wreck."

A given percentage--about a third--are partisans who will always pick their "team" no matter what. Even Nixon at the height of Watergate had a floor. Then you have a certain percentage who may not approve of the job Obama's doing, but imagine the GOP would be far worse. Then finally there are those who see a gradually improving economy, and figure the president must be doing all right as if that has anything to do with it.

The reason it dropped so low for Bush in 2008 was (1) final year of president-fatigue usually leaves people sour; (2) the bank bailouts and attempts at immigration reform pissed off a lot of Bush's own "team" without gaining support outside his "team"; and (3) economy was in free fall and a lot of people blame presidents for that.

David Blaska said...

George W. Bush said that he blames Barack Obama.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Bush 43 no doubt picked up some extra points from the craft beer and bicycling crowd.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

All is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Bay Area Guy said...

After 9/11, we didnt know if Al Queda was just getting started or had reached its apex. Bush told his team that such an attack could not happen again. It didn't. He gets credit for that.

As for the financial collapse of 2008 - the culmination of left-wing policies to promote risky mortgages to unqualified buyers via Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac. It did happen on his watch, hurt our country badly, and enabled Obama to win.

But thankfully, it's over now.

mezzrow said...

George W. Bush is more popular than Barack Obama today, and he'll be more popular than Barack Obama for the rest of your natural life. Obama's not done yet, while W. is.

What a country. Amazing that human nature never changes.

Thorley Winston said...

I suspect over time this will improve for Bush even more as we learn all the dreaded things about The 1's administration.

I agree, while the media has tremendous power in shaping public opinion, it can only do so for so long. Case in point: while Bush was President the media would routinely report accusations that he “lied” to get us into war but eventually even Bob Woodward had to admit it wasn’t true which probably caused many people to reassess the opinion they once had of him. In Obama’s case, the media seems to largely be running interference for him but they can only do so for so long before the truth comes out as it has.

jr565 said...

What's not to like about W, he was gracious as an ex president not constantly hammering home Obamas failures like some ex presidents (Clinton by the way has been another gracious ex president). And he was RIGHT on his key signature actions in the war on terror, including waging war in Iraq.
That was the most responsible course of action there, and if he had a flaw it's that he got soft in the knees after much criticism.
But look at the alternative when there is no war. We can't can't contain Iran. Obama just got three pinnochios. because it's a lie, for his claim that he had stopped Irans nuke production. So his containment is a failure. He can't honor his red lines in Syria. He doesn't support those trying. To get freedom in Iran, he is there for the overthrow of a stable Egypt and giving it over to radicals. He lets Russia call the shots and make him look week while They meddle in those regions at our expense. He has a crummy response to our enbassy being bombed. He goes into Libya without congressional approval violating the war powers act. He demagogues gizmo but doesn't close gitmo. He demagogues programs bush creates but then demands congress reauthoruze them. He takes victory laps in Iraq, then bolts at the first opportunity and doesn't do anything when the Aja team starts wreaking havoc.
ImAgine how much of thst wouldn't be an issue if we had troops in Iraq.
Bush was right. To wage war against Iraq, and even more right to,ask for troops to stay in Iraq

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
"According to a new CNN poll: 52% disapprove of Obama and 45% approve."

It's really disturbing that 45% approve of this train wreck.

there are a good chunk of dens who will support him no matter what he does. Because they don't want the brand name to be smeared. Or, there only real objection to the things Bush did was that it was Bush doing them. If obama continues them, they don't really care.

deepelemblues said...

I think part of Bush's rebound has happened because he's laid low and kept his mouth shut for going on 7 years now. I think a fair number of people who liked him initially (and personally) but ended up not liking him as president because they thought he screwed up a bunch of times have taken his actions post-presidency (staying out of politics) as some kind of contrition and appreciate that.

Robert Cook said...

"After 9/11, we didnt know if Al Queda was just getting started or had reached its apex."

No, we didn't, but, as someone who was only blocks away from the Twin Towers that morning and who had witnessed it first-hand, I felt sure they had done the worst they could do in the way of physical attacks here in America.

I was right about that. They haven't done anything here since, at all.

What I didn't think about was the greater harm we would do to ourselves as the rot of fear and paranoia sparked by those attacks set in, fanned into flame by those in Washington with an agenda, leading to the ongoing dismantling of our civil liberties and the degradation of our republic. Who knew we'd be collaborators with Al-Qaeda in our own undoing?

Robert Cook said...

"...eventually even Bob Woodward had to admit it wasn’t true which probably caused many people to reassess the opinion they once had of him."

Woodward didn't "admit" Bush didn't lie; he is simply doing his job as a propagandist for the empire. No one who previously recognized Bush lied (i.e., he and his entire administration) to justify our illegal invasion of Iraq has since "reassessed" that view. Only those who believed Bush then continue to assert now that he hadn't lied.

tim in vermont said...

It is ruefully clear now that we should not have launched cruise missiles into sovereign Afghanistan in August of 1998 and joked about blowing over tents and killing camels and should not have bragged about "changing the subject" from impeachment.

tim in vermont said...

Right Bobby, because you don't care about what the evidence is and you will redefine the word "lie" like "rape" or any number of other leftist tropes to "prove" he "lied."

Not to mention overlook so many other arguments made at the time and Bill and Hillary Clinton's complicity in the matter.

tim in vermont said...

Talk about spreading "fear and paranoia" Somebody should look in a mirror once in a while.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much of that 45% is based on the color of his skin.

I suspect it's a pretty high percentage. We've really been conditioned in this country not to be critical of Obama, and to disagree with him is racist.

Who wants to be a racist? Easier to just say you approve of the guy.

Which is why you should always vote for a Republican. Because you can always be critical of a Republican, even if they are black, or female.

Scott said...

Voter's remorse.

Robert Cook said...

@timinvermont:

There was no evidence to support the claims for war advanced by Bush and his cohort of war criminals. Despite whatever "arguments" were "made at the time," without either UN Security Council approval or an exigent self-defense need--neither of which we had--our invasion of Iraq was an illegal act of aggressive war, a war crime.

Brando said...

"while Bush was President the media would routinely report accusations that he “lied” to get us into war"

That charge never made logical sense--if Bush knew there were no WMDs before going in, it would make little sense to invade and prove that he was lying.

Similarly, the theory that the invasion was at the behest of oil interests makes no sense--if the oil interests wanted to keep Saddam's oil off the market, then the status quo (with sanctions) was preferable; if they wanted the oil on the market, then simply letting him sell would make more sense. Invading is risky either way, and there was never a guarantee that U.S. oil interests would get that Iraqi oil.

The most logical solution--even in hindsight--is Bush believed Saddam had WMDs, and they would get in the hands of people who would do harm, and Saddam was a long term threat to stability in the region. Bush believed the war would go better quicker than it did, and a "liberated" Iraq would help improve and stabilize the whole region.

Bush made mistakes, but that doesn't make him duplicitous, or suggest he had evil intentions. Even criticizing him I give him credit for good intentions.

Brando said...

"It is ruefully clear now that we should not have launched cruise missiles into sovereign Afghanistan in August of 1998 and joked about blowing over tents and killing camels and should not have bragged about "changing the subject" from impeachment."

Clinton enjoyed being in power during a post-Cold War, pre-9/11 stretch where the economy hummed along due to massive productivity gains--a chicken tied to a stick could have governed our country at that time (and that chicken would have had better taste in women). His reaction to mounting terror attacks was to bomb milk factories and send cruise missiles at empty tents--a great way to piss off but not weaken our enemies. But Clinton didn't care--he just wanted a distraction, and to look like he was doing something. He was a truly irresponsible man who missed many opportunities to do good while in the White House. An honest history of his presidency would recognize him as a failure for this.

Rusty said...

Bob needs to understand the word "sovereign"

exhelodrvr1 said...

Robert Cook,
"They haven't done anything here since, at all"
I wonder why?

tim in vermont said...

Well Robert. You don't get the only vote, and clearly your POV is losing.

cubanbob said...

tim in vermont said...

It is ruefully clear now that we should not have launched cruise missiles into sovereign Afghanistan in August of 1998 and joked about blowing over tents and killing camels and should not have bragged about "changing the subject" from impeachment.
6/3/15, 10:33 AM "

That Clinton is jerk, agreed. However much it pains me to defend him, the cruise missile attacks were justified. Perhaps the embassy bombings and the Khobar towers bombings escaped your attention. Clinton however did screw up by not killing Bin Laden when the opportunity presented itself. As for 9/11 if the FBI and State Dept were working under Clinton DoJ rules those terrorists might never have been allowed to enter the country so yes Clinton does bear responsibility in part for 9/11.

cubanbob said...

Robert Cook said...

"...eventually even Bob Woodward had to admit it wasn’t true which probably caused many people to reassess the opinion they once had of him."

Woodward didn't "admit" Bush didn't lie; he is simply doing his job as a propagandist for the empire. No one who previously recognized Bush lied (i.e., he and his entire administration) to justify our illegal invasion of Iraq has since "reassessed" that view. Only those who believed Bush then continue to assert now that he hadn't lied.

6/3/15, 10:33 AM

Is there an Iraqi Arab Nazi Party trust fund that is still paying you to troll on their behalf?

Brando said...

"However much it pains me to defend him, the cruise missile attacks were justified. Perhaps the embassy bombings and the Khobar towers bombings escaped your attention."

I don't think the criticism is that Clinton should have done nothing at all, but that shooting a few random cruise missiles and random targets for show--which could only be justified as an attempt to make himself look tough--is worse than nothing. At least with "nothing" we wouldn't have wasted money on those missiles.

Had he done something calculated to track and capture or kill the guys behind the bombings, I'd applaud that. But Clinton was burned after the Somalia thing and did not want to risk any American troops by 1998.

Lem said...

Obama low approval is because as he said... He is the closest to a Jew to sit in that office ������ (speak hear and see no evil emojis) Google needs to update blogger big time.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I especially miss Seven Machos whenever someone drags out the "illegal war" trope. Yep, those were good times.

Meade said...

By definition, no violent attack is legal, while no self-defense against violent attack is illegal. The question is: was former President Bush's attack on Saddam's Iraq moral? A.: yes. Was it well executed? A.: no and yes.

Next question: who lost Iraq? A.: President Obama.

A few questions for President Obama: what did you and your allied belligerents expect to achieve by violently attacking Gaddafi's Libya? Do you think you were successful? How was your attack moral? What was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's influence on your decision to attack Gaddafi's Libya? On balance, will conditions in the Levant be better — by the end of your 8 years as POTUS — or worse?

damikesc said...

That Clinton is jerk, agreed. However much it pains me to defend him, the cruise missile attacks were justified. Perhaps the embassy bombings and the Khobar towers bombings escaped your attention

Clinton didn't give much of a damn about the Khobar Towers. The only reason any of our guys got there to investigate was because Bush Sr made it happen. Clinton was all too happy to ignore it.

Brando said...

Whether a president is a success or failure depends on how you measure the job they do--is someone a bigger failure because of the gravity of the consequences of their mistake, or because of the stupidity/immorality of their actions? Harding and Grant both allowed a lot of corruption in their administrations, but the consequences aren't really connected to major long term disasters. Buchanan on the other hand didn't do anything to stop the secession crisis from turning to war, so while his inaction may not have been all that egregious (as it took a strong leader like Lincoln or Jackson to avert or quell it) the consequences were massive.

Clinton I think fits into this as an immensely vain, corrupt creep who never took any politically risky stand at a time when doing so could have benefitted this country immensely--with the economy strong, we could have reformed our tax system and made improvements to our entitlements (SS, Medicare) to ensure long term solvency, and a serious effort to hunt down Al Quaeda and similar terrorist groups. But the effects of his failings are harder to measure, as they are more sins of omission than comission.

damikesc said...

Clinton I think fits into this as an immensely vain, corrupt creep who never took any politically risky stand at a time when doing so could have benefitted this country immensely--with the economy strong, we could have reformed our tax system and made improvements to our entitlements (SS, Medicare) to ensure long term solvency, and a serious effort to hunt down Al Quaeda and similar terrorist groups. But the effects of his failings are harder to measure, as they are more sins of omission than comission.

He could've done something about corporate accounting fraud (as Bush did in 2001). That caused a massive economic crash and mass distrust of corporations.

jr565 said...

Brando wrote:
That charge never made logical sense--if Bush knew there were no WMDs before going in, it would make little sense to invade and prove that he was lying.

If you were lying wouldn't you plant evidence that showed that you were in fact not lying?
Reminding me of the Dave Chapelle joke where the cops kill the black guy in his own house:

"SPRINKLE SOME CRACK ON HIM JOHNSON Ive seen it before johnson. Ninja broke in and hung up pictures of himself, sprinkle some crack on him, open and shut case"

If they're going to lie about it, then they have evidence on hand to show that its true (i.e. the sprinkled crack)

Rusty said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
I especially miss Seven Machos whenever someone drags out the "illegal war" trope. Yep, those were good times.

2nd that.

furious_a said...

Someone in the Palace Media should ask Pres. Bush:

Knowing what you know now, would you have authorized the Surge and followed through on the Anbar Awakening if you'd known your successor-in-office was going to p*ss it all away?

james conrad said...

Well, one thing W has going for him, he did not stand up there and lie to your face. Obama has a problem with the truth, he continually tells falsehoods that he knows are not true. This is very disturbing for a president, I wanna know the truth as i think most americans do.
Another thing, W understood quite profoundly that after 9/11, America was at war, it's a very stark contrast with Obama who, thinks he can just call war off if he refuses to participate. rolls my eyes, one has to be pretty stupid to fall for the crapola the dem's are selling.

John Lynch said...

Wait until 2023 and see what Obama's approval rating is. This isn't apples to apples.

dwick said...

Eric the Fruit Bat said...
Bush 43 no doubt picked up some extra points from the craft beer and bicycling crowd.


Eric obviously hasn't run up against the bicycling and craft beer folks here in Portland, OR... the bicycling and craft beer capital of the US.

jeff said...

GW will alway have my respect, all 8 Chrishmas Days him and Lora spent in the White House and left the following day for home so as many staff as possible could spend Chrismas with their families.

Freder Frederson said...

Well, one thing W has going for him, he did not stand up there and lie to your face.

Apparently you forgot about the run up to the Iraq War and "We don't torture".

Birkel said...

"Freder Frederson" calls Bob Woodward a liar.

Michael said...

George W. Bush, the dumbest motherfucker ever born, tricked the entire world including Freder Frederson into thinking that Iraq had WMDs. HA. Halliburton. Blood for Oil. Torture torture torture torture.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

So Obama is 7 points into the negative and Bush is 9 points into the positive.

And that's after six years of absolutely savage anti-Bush press coverage 24/7, and seven years of fawning pro-Obama press coverage.

Imagine what the difference would be with an unbiased 'news' media.

Rusty said...

Birkel said...
"Freder Frederson" calls Bob Woodward a liar.

I'm waiting for Freders book on the subject.

The Godfather said...

Valerie Jarrett: Mr. President, I've got a plan to improve your polling numbers.

BHO: That's great, Val. Tell me about it.

VJ: Resign. Right now.

BHO: Resign? How does that help?

VJ: Look at that Cowboy Bush's approval numbers, Mr. President. Six years out of office and he's more popular than you. But it's not just him. It's a law of nature. It's SCIENCE. Like Global Warming. Six years out of office, and your poll numbers will go right up to positive.

BHO: Well, you know I don't want to deny SCIENCE, but does it really mean I have to resign now.

VJ: Yes, for two reasons. First, SCIENCE says your poll numbers will go up six years after you leave office, so the sooner you leave, the sooner your numbers go up. Second, if you resign now, Vice President Biden becomes President. You'll start looking better almost immediately.

BHO: But if I leave office now, what will I do with my time and talent? I'm still a young man, with many creative ideas about how to make the world a better place.

VJ: I'm glad you asked. Take a look at this. It's a draft prospectus for the Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha Foundation . . . .

Original Mike said...

"I'm waiting for Freders book on the subject."

He's still working on his thermodynamics textbook.

Drago said...

Original Mike: "He's still working on his thermodynamics textbook."

Actually, he's still working on his "How Not To Negotiate For Perks & Benefits At Your Next Job" book.