Friday's CBS Evening News delivered a parting shot at outgoing President George W. Bush as fill-in anchor Maggie Rodriguez paired how a just-released CBS News/New York Times survey pegged Bush's approval rating “at just 22 percent” -- which she noted “is the lowest for an outgoing President since the question was first asked more than 70 years ago” -- with how “68 percent said they expect Barack Obama to be a good or very good President.”
The CBSNews.com summary of the poll pointed out the partisan disparity in assessing Bush:
Views of Mr. Bush's popularity are highly partisan. Only 6 percent of Democrats approve of the job he has done as president, while 57 percent of Republicans approve. Eighteen percent of independents approve.
The short item from Rodriguez on the Friday, January 16 CBS Evening News:
There's no question the economic crisis contributed to President Bush's poor showing in the final CBS News/New York Times poll on his job performance. This poll, out tonight, puts Mr. Bush's approval rating at just 22 percent. That is the lowest for an outgoing President since the question was first asked more than 70 years ago. Meanwhile, 68 percent said they expect Barack Obama to be a good or very good President.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And we
January 16, 2009 - 20:50 ET by UpNorthshould care or believe anything the NYT or CBS says? Why would any sane, thinking person do that? And 68% of people with their hands out believe Obama will be do good for them. Or, 68% of people who don't pay taxes said they couldn't wait for Obama to stick it to the people who actually pay taxes.
It has been shown in
January 16, 2009 - 20:58 ET by Dan The Man 2It has been shown in divorce cases that if the spouse who has custody continually says the other is a bum then the kids will grow up believing so. In this case the lamestream media has blasted Bush so much the people believe them.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
This is the best
January 17, 2009 - 15:01 ET by Richard RomanoThis is the best explanation I've seen. People believe the media when they day after day repeat the same lies and distortions. In the end, Bush will be remembered as a fine president who did his best under the difficult circumstances.
The media? No one will remember them.
They just can't stop with
January 16, 2009 - 20:59 ET by bigtimerThey just can't stop with their intentional biased hatred for this man...it is beyond insanity.
Simple as that.
Your agenda is over..you have been fulfilled...move the hell on.
Lie/omit some more about O, we all know what agenda that will be with more of your biased lying polls...why he'll stay at 150% in the polls...he may dip down to 100%... who knows before he is out.
If a tree falls and no one's there...
January 16, 2009 - 21:02 ET by nkviking75Fortunately it was on CBS News so no one saw it.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
nkv... LOL...that was a
January 16, 2009 - 21:35 ET by bigtimernkv...
LOL...that was a great zinger!
True too.
Does CBS know what the word
January 17, 2009 - 08:42 ET by ThisnThatDoes CBS know what the word "context" means? Let's put it in context, here: Of the three (CBS, President Bush, Congress) -- which one has the highest approval? Or, if we talk only about viewership, which of the following has the highest ratings: MSNBC (pro-Obama); CNN (anti-Bush); or Fox News (pro-Bush)?
CBS simply isn't smart enough to do simple research and comparisons. Their BDS and total smugness gets in the way.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Sounds like they interviewed
January 16, 2009 - 21:08 ET by mostlymoderateSounds like they interviewed a lot of RINO's.
LOL
January 16, 2009 - 21:17 ET by CobraManYou got to love this little tidbit: "Mr. Bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago."
Too bad for CBS that Gallup did NOT run this poll. Why don't they show the last GALLUP poll results, if they are going to cite them? Could it be that the last Gallup poll has Bush at 34 percent?
Source
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CBS News
January 16, 2009 - 22:01 ET by blazermaniacDoes CBS News even have an approval rating? Nobody watches their morning show, and their newscasts are laughable.
It is pretty sad Cobraman
January 17, 2009 - 18:10 ET by shawn228When the best defense of a 22 percent approval rating is that he recently got a 34 percent approval rating.
This President has done some good things and some bad, but when the average approval rating the past 6 months is around 30 percent usually means the majority of this country does not approve of the man
Do you feel the approval ratings are mostly biased?
He had my vote
→ Big trouble Shawn
January 17, 2009 - 18:19 ET by Cool ArrowBush gets 34%
Congress, led by Democrats, has a 9% approval rating.
So, the outgoing President has an approval rating roughly four times greater than the Nancy/Harry Show.
Thats very true Cool Arrow
January 17, 2009 - 18:33 ET by shawn228.....and if you can find whenever I posted the Dem congress was doing a good job, I would love to see it.
Now I know you never said it, but it seems some are implying the President polls are biased.
If congress approval is 9 percent like you say, are those polls biased as well?
He had my vote
→ Not at all
January 17, 2009 - 18:41 ET by Cool ArrowI don't think the polls are biased. But then again, I don't get polled.
I think there's more skew in the availability of respondents than in any deliberate effort to fool us.
Ask me if I approve of his handling of the GWOT and I'll give a different answer concerning his Illegal Alien position.
But people who do more than sit around waiting for government subsistance will be less available to jawbone a poll than those who don't.
Sure they're biased, but there are so many out there now that it behooves most of them to strive for accuracy.
NYT, CNN, NBC? Different story.
This is an unfair
January 16, 2009 - 21:32 ET by rbosqueThis is an unfair assessment. Bush should be compared to what Obama will do during HIS administration, not by the high-hopes the liberals put on him now. Will Obama keep us from a terrorist attack? Will he make the economic problems his Democratic friends caused worse? This is just journalistic malpractice and bitter hated.
I didn't get the memo
January 16, 2009 - 22:03 ET by Indiana JoeWhen did the MSM become interested in being fair to Bush?
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Robert Redford's opening comments at Sundance
January 16, 2009 - 21:52 ET by krendlerRobert Redford's opening comments at Sundance:
http://www.foxnews.c...
----------
After taking a bow and
accepting raucous applause, Redford launched into his annual welcome,
startling the crowd a little with his opening:
“All
right. Nerves. Angst. Worries. Pain. Panic. Fear. I’m not talking about
the festival, although you might think I was. I’m talking about what’s
going to be exiting the national stage on Tuesday.”
That bit got the audience charged up.
--------
Would have been great to have been in the audience and start booing Redford's comment, or yell "We're here for the films, Bob, not to listen to you spout off about your political views." Worth it just watch the sanctimonious, Cadillac libs going ape$h*t, screaming at you.
A Joke
January 16, 2009 - 22:09 ET by iveseenitallThe MSM and most other "liberals" are despicable joke. They are the cause of so much evil in this country. There must be pods someplace. We have to find them before it is too late.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
You gotta wonder...
January 16, 2009 - 22:09 ET by Indiana JoeWho will this pent-up derangement be directed at once W retires to his ranch? I know, I know, something that Obama proposes in 2010, which is passed by the Dem Congress and then fails in 2011, will be blamed on Bush.
But when will it ever end? Will it ever end? And who will be the next whipping-boy? They've proven they can destroy a person, so who will be next?
These people really need a life. And a job, coz "journalism" ain't it!
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Suicide on the rise....
January 16, 2009 - 22:19 ET by ScrapironThe only cure for BDS is death. Look for a rapid rise in suicides in the near future. Even crazy people have a moment of sanity that is long enough for them to realize they are crazy. Picked up a lot of bodies which were the result of everything from pills to hanging with an electric cord. Usually felt some sadness for the family. Now it will be a joy to stick the liberals in a plastic bag and freeze them. Maybe that'll keep the stupidity from spreading. I highly recommend a a 44 mag or 12 Ga shotgun to the mouth. Fatal 100% of the time.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
What? People don't like
January 16, 2009 - 23:08 ET by imissamericaWhat? People don't like Bush and think Obama's gonna be a good president!? I must've missed that one...
http://democralypsen...
CBS is a member of the
January 16, 2009 - 23:38 ET by TN MomCBS is a member of the Attack Media. Lifetime Member.
Bush wasn't
January 17, 2009 - 00:22 ET by RR GOPBush wasn't perfect.
Obama is.
Get with the program, people.
Who cares if so and so has nuclear weapons...doesn't affect us. Who cares about terrorists? Just hype used to steal our freedoms. 9-11 was an inside job anyway. Bush lied...don't know why, but he did. The Dems are going to make us all rich. Bush wanted us poor...don't know why, but he did.
You all need to read the newspapers and keep on things better for crying out loud.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
What cracks me up is that
January 17, 2009 - 01:44 ET by mostlymoderateWhat cracks me up is that Obama's "Expectations" is only at 68%. With the medias daily anointing of the Chosen One, you would think those expectations would be a tad higher.
A very mixed performance
January 17, 2009 - 05:07 ET by DaMavI voted for Bush twice and would do so again given the same choices. He is without question a decent man, and an honorable one. I have no desire to kick him when he is down, and think his rating will improve considerably with time, both as a result of positive contributions like Iraq, and the inevitable failure of Obama to meet overly high expectations.
Nevertheless I can't say that I would give Bush a "good" rating if asked. There were far too many shortcomings for me to feel comfortable with that. There was the way we went to war, only after months and months of attempting to pacify the UN. The orgy of guilt, self flagellation, and apologetics over Abu Ghraib. (Does anyone remember it was the military who revealed it, was investigating it, and would have handled it quite well without the SecDef bleeding all over the carpet in front of the grandstanding Congress.) I don't know the detailed decision-making, and how much was Bush himself, but I remember the start-stop in Fallujah One, the failure to control al Sadr, and too many to mention episodes of what came across as an attempt to fight a PC war. There was John Murtha calling our troops cold blooded killers; the President to my recollection never hauled him on the carpet for that. In the end Bush gets very high marks for standing up to conventional wisdom and moving forward with the Surge. But the rest of war was hardly one I can give him high marks for.
It would be hard to forget the absolutely boneheaded choice of Amnesty, an issue which ripped apart the Republican Party, as a major issue on which Bush repeatedly and foolishly squandered political capital. There was the Harriet Miers nomination, and most distressing, the lack of pardons to the border agents. Two years after repeated promises that we would have a fence, little progress has been made.
Finally there are the economic issues. Profligate spending on everything from AIDS in Africa to a far more intrusive Federal role in K-12 education. Complete abandonment of conservative economic principles, culminating in an enourmous bailout his last year in office. Bush didn't even stand up the Big Three, but basically bailed out the UAW in the last month. He did well in reducing taxes and regulatory reform but leaves us painted into the corner on bailouts -- how can we argue in principle that Obama shouldn't be riding the horse when Bush opened the barn door for him?
I'd love to give him an 'excellent' or 'good', but I'm afraid that would simply encourage more of the same from the Republicans.in the future. The best I can muster is a "fair", and that's because I think that long term his decision to go into Iraq will pay big dividends. Although even that must be tempered by his decision to waiver on Iran.
DaMav
January 17, 2009 - 08:28 ET by thebutlerdiditI disagree with you on several fronts. What was wrong with the way we went to war? Saddam had many chances to co-operate, but he truly didn't think the US would actually do anything. Why should he? We have never had a President who had the balls to go after him, and stick to it. Republicans and Democrats were in agreement it needed doing, Bill Clinton had been saying the same thing, his last years in office. The handling of Abu Grahib, you're blaming Bush over the SEC of DEF? I'm not sure if that's fair. As for the general handling of the war, no war runs like a machine, there are always mistakes, missteps. It is impossible to say for sure if what Bush & Co did was wrong, you're looking at after the act, they had to work on the knowledge at hand. Why do you have a problem with the work Bush did in Africa? I thought that was what the libs wanted, to build harmony and respect from the rest of the world? Bush did a manificent job in Africa. The original NCLB that Bush first proposed was a slim28 page document. In order to foster a relationship with the Dems, he pretty much had to work with them, especially since he was still fighting those idiots who didn't beleive he was really elected. I agree Kennedy porked it up, but even in this incarnation, it has had very good results. As for the TARP money, I was totally against this from Day 1, of course, but I have actually come to realize, at that very time, when he was being told, the financial market is going to collapse, are you positive you wouldn't have made the same decision? Can you imagine if he had did nothing, and the market crashed. Think that would have made people happy? Even us conservatives? I will agree he make mistakes, as every President before, and every after. I'm just not so sure if they are as severe as we have been being fed. I have spent a great deal of time reading about the Great Depression, and a large chunk of time boning up on this country's Presidents. I have come to realize, just how many of the most revered Presidents we have had, made some mighty big boo-boos.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
My critique of Bush is that he was too liberal
January 17, 2009 - 15:13 ET by DaMavMy criticism is that we screwed around with the UN for months before going to war in Iraq, and worked too hard to fight a politically correct war. If we don't agree, fine. But you seem to imply that I said he should have given Hussein more of a chance; the exact opposite of what I said.
On Abu Ghraib I fault both Bush and Rumsfeld for allowing the antiwar Dems to make way too much of a big deal of it. The topic of the thread is Bush, not Rumsfeld so I didn't mention him. I agree Rummy was also to blame for bleeding all over the carpet for months over what should have been handled as a minor incident.
I gave Bush high marks on invading Iraq, and on backing the Surge. Certainly mistakes are made in all wars but there is no reason to sweep them under the carpet.
You defend Bush's African performance by saying it was "just what the liberals wanted". I couldn't agree with you more. That's the point! Ditto NCLB. And the TARP, although I agree that one is less clear cut. And a number of other actions as well.
Bush's low approval rating is not solely a result of liberal disapproval. If he had been a more conservative President, he would have had a much higher approval rating. He tried to appease the left and failed, and in the process alienated many on the right. I've had it up to here with "compassionate conservatism", which seems to be a stalking horse for liberal policies, and I'm hardly alone in this view. Add back in conservatives and Bush's poll approval would be closer to that of other Presidents.
George W Bush
January 17, 2009 - 11:20 ET by lareeGeorge W Bush - Keeping You Safe Since 9/11/01 Whether You Like It Or Not.
http://sarah-palin-2...
Just the facts Maggie
January 17, 2009 - 12:00 ET by pocomocoFrom Fact Checker:
Truman's rating bottomed out at 22 percent in
February 1952, as he was buffeted from the fallout from the unpopular
Korean War and a poor economy.
You're correct
January 17, 2009 - 18:10 ET by ArminiusBut Truman was a Democrat, so CBS News will ignore his low rating.
http://www.ibdeditor...
Might have been better...
January 17, 2009 - 13:01 ET by markg8...if Bush had kept us safe since January 20, 2001. Just out of curiosity what do you guys htink Bush's real popualrity rating is these days?
Mightr've been better if Bill Clinton . . .
January 17, 2009 - 13:16 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . hadn't responded the FIRST bombing of the then-standing World Trade Center as an act of war, rather than serve legal papers to the terrorists
. . . hadn't cut our military by about 33 percent
. . . hadn't screwed up our intelligence-gathering agencies and taken human intelligence out of the field, to the extent it was
. . . hadn't handled Somalia the way he did, thus giving Osama bin Laden and every other terrorist of his stripe the signal that America would do NOTHING when attacked; thus the bombings of the embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, etc, ensued
. . . hadn't handed all this to George W. Bush
. . . hadn't been the wuss that he was
As for Mr. Bush's popularity? Who knows? But I'll bet that as time goes on and Barack Hussein Obama's coronation fades into history, some people on the liberal/leftist side of politics and culture will begin to apprciate the about-to-become-former-president.
→ Mark my words
January 17, 2009 - 13:30 ET by Cool ArrowJoe Biden:
Biden states this as fact. Biden is aware of this catastrophe, but wishes it to happen for the honor and glory of Obama.
Mark his words! Joe has promised a situation he refuses to do anything about until after it has happened.
Is that leadership?
CKA
January 17, 2009 - 14:12 ET by markg8<i>Mightr've been better if Bill Clinton ...</i>
<i>. . . hadn't responded the FIRST bombing of the then-standing World
Trade Center as an act of war, rather than serve legal papers to the
terrorists</i>
His Justice Dept caught the perps and they are serving the rest of their lives in prison. OBL? He's still alive, issuing fatwas and his buddies control large portions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Heckuva job Bushie.
<i>. . . hadn't cut our military by about 33 percent</i>
That was GHW Bush and Dick Cheney his SecDef who did that. And rightly so...the Soviet Union collapsed and there was no need to keep 100,000 US troops and 10,000 tanks in Western Europe in 1992.
<i>. . . hadn't screwed up our intelligence-gathering agencies and taken human intelligence out of the field, to the extent it was.</i>
Maybe if the intellignce services quit hiring USSR experts after the fall of the Soviet Union and firing Arab linguists for being gay they might have been better at ferreting out terrorists
<i>. . . hadn't handled Somalia the way he did, thus giving Osama bin
Laden and every other terrorist of his stripe the signal that America
would do NOTHING when attacked; thus the bombings of the embassies, the
U.S.S. Cole, etc, ensued</i>
GHW Bush put US troops in Somalia not Clinton, and then he left the mess to him. Every single time Clinton used the miltiary Republicans cried foul, it was all "wagging the dog". In any case OBL cited Reagan pulling the marines out of Beirut after the suicide bomber blew up the baracks more than any other event to show what paper tigers we were to him. Now all he has to do is point to Bush to round up thousands of recruits.
<i> . . . hadn't handed all this to George W. Bush</i>
Maybe George Bush shouldn't have run for president if he wasn't up to the job. In any event Clinton's advisers told Dubya's during the transistion in 2001 that terrorism was going to be their no. 1 foreign policy challenge. The Hart/Rudman Commission warned Bush in Feb. 2001 a terrorist attack was most assuredly coming. Bush appointed Cheney to chair his new terrorist working group. They met once in June 2001 and that was it. When the DCIA Tenet and Richard Clarke were running around DC with "their hair on fire" warning anyone they could that the intel said there was an imminent attack in the summer of 2001 Bush asked for a summary in his PDB. Tenet responded with the "OBL determined to attack in the US" brief that was read to Bush at his ranch on 8/6/08. Dubya answered the briefer, "Ok, you covered your ass" and did nothing. On 9/11Condi Rice was scheduled to give a major speech ridiculing the senate for moving $900 million from Bush's pet nat'l. missile defense shield budget to counter terrorism activities. She never got a chance to make that speech but the Bush aministration did classify it afterward because it was proof positive just how out of touch they were.
<i>. . . hadn't been the wuss that he was</i>
After the Cole attack Clinton left submarines on station in the Indian Ocean ready to launch as soon as the CIA finally figured out where OBL was in Afghanistan in early 2001. George Bush couldn't be bothered with "swatting at flies"as Condi Rice called it so he took them off alert.
<I>As for Mr. Bush's popularity? Who knows? But I'll bet that as time
goes on and Barack Hussein Obama's coronation fades into history, some
people on the liberal/leftist side of politics and culture will begin
to apprciate the about-to-become-former-president.</i>
Don't count on it. He deserves indictment on multiple counts, a trial by his peers, and incarceration in a federal maximum security prison.
Not Again!
January 17, 2009 - 14:15 ET by BlondeMore talking points.
We need a better class of troll, here. ©
Blonde
January 17, 2009 - 17:03 ET by choselife3xWe need to remember to lock the basement door.
Seriously, there are so many new trolls crawling in here I'm having flashbacks to 'I Am Legend'.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Well, congrats on some great revisionism of history . . .
January 17, 2009 - 16:49 ET by CKA in Red State USABTW: Bush deserves indictments? And trial by his peers?
Just who would those peers be? You, me, even Obama? I don't think so.
BTW: Regardless of what GHWB did, Bill Clinton folded to the pressure of the terrorists and showed the terrorists that the U.S. lacked the resolve it needed.
Regrettably, the casualty count mounts as a result of that.
As for OBL still being alive, we'll see how the empty suit from Chicago handles it--that is, if he doens't capitulate first.
Oh, yes, didn't the Saudis offer Clinton OBL, but WJC and/or Algore find some legal reason to refuse the offer?
Oh, wait, that doesn't fit revisionist history, does it?
And as for the "perps" serving time for the first WTC bombing?
Terrific. But that does not negate the fact that Clinton acted as if they simply broke the law, rather than took hostile, warlike action against the U.S. Big difference. Well, that depends on one's POV, of course--and whether one is a Democrat, liberal or leftist or not.
Finally, I'm impressed that in your revisionism, it appears that, per usual in such DLL-provided apologia, the DLLs have the cleanest of hands and purest of motivaitons. It just was those dastardly Republicans and conservatives that caused them to fail.
Truly, your revisionism is impressive.
Enjoy your stay in the wilderness
January 17, 2009 - 17:32 ET by markg8The Republican party isn't going to be viable again unless you guys start facing reality. Here's a few places to start. George Bush ignored the threat of radical Islamic terrorism before 9/11. There were no operational ties between Saddam Hussein and OBL. There were no WMD in Iraq. Much of New Orleans despite George Bush's promises to rebuild after Katrina over three years ago remains abandoned and uninhabitable. Torture is not only illegal under our laws and international law it is ineffective. The Bush Administration ordered the torture of prisoners. Spying on Americans without a warrant is against the law. The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with causing the financial crisis. The abandonment of rules, regulation and government oversight of the mortgage and financial sectors of the economy, long a pet project of conservatives, had everything to do with it. UAW Big Three employees do not make anywhere near $70 an hour. Giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of our population does not result in A. increased government tax receipts B. prosperity for all and C. anything but massive deficits. You can't force people to like you, agree with you or adopt your ideology at the point of a gun. Ask the Russians about that one.
Enjoy your stay in the asylum
January 17, 2009 - 17:59 ET by Trix RabbitHonest dissent is indeed needed and allowed here, but face it, Myron, you'll never get anywhere around here until you:
1) Stop using Kos Kids talking points.
2) Loosen the bolts on your tin-foil hat. It's apparently cutting off the circulation.
Of course you may go on in your own self-righteousness and wonder what is wrong with the rest of us on NB, and you'd continue to fulfill the role of troll/pariah - the guy kids point at when you go to the Seven-Eleven to stock up on Cheese Whiz, giving them the extra urge to do well in school and make something of themselves so they don't end up living in a basement somewhere wishing that someone would take pity on them to save them from their pathetic lives.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
wow skippy
January 17, 2009 - 18:04 ET by botgawesome points!!
btw: what color is the sky in your world?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg... I think those
January 17, 2009 - 18:11 ET by bigtimerbotg...
I think those rose-colored glasses of his that he evidently hasn't taken off for years now have turned a deep red.
...ah well, it's a Saturday...fun to read what the newest trolls have to say that come to play.
BT
January 17, 2009 - 18:20 ET by botgthis one is just devoid of reality is all.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Oh, Good Lord
January 17, 2009 - 18:38 ET by BlondeThat was the full boat of DKos talking points.
Very persuasive, don't you think?
This one, folks, has his head up his *** so far he needs a glass navel to see out....
We need a better class of troll, here. ©
Now we know
January 17, 2009 - 18:58 ET by choselife3xWhat Arianna named her Eclectus parrot.
I wonder if she waterboarded 'mark' to break his little bird brain down like that. Someone call PETA.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
It is really news any more about what the adversary media say?
January 17, 2009 - 13:10 ET by CKA in Red State USATruly, they're so undone as reporters of news and observers of politics and life, generally, we could put up a constant hede that's akin to "Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead."
Whatever it is into which they've morphed, it bears no relevance to everyday life, nor does it give views or readers any worthwhile information which to inform themselves.
To call CBSNBABCMSNBCCNNCNBC a joke would require penance for denigrating jokes.
The ALPHABET SOUP PROPAGANDA outlets ...
January 17, 2009 - 13:15 ET by Jayke... are such a joke it's not even funny. They are SERIOUS AGENDA PUSHERS. They would love to TEAR UP the CONSTITUTION and create something like the USSA in the image of the SOVIET UNION. I wasted 20 years of my life fighting COMMUNISM!