Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest At 28%
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bush, History, Polls
Folks, if somebody inside a company only had the approval of 28% of the decision makers, wouldn’t that person be fired? Now, don’t get excited…I’m not calling for impeachment, but numbers this low are startling.
In fact, check out this slow, steady decline over the past 8 years.
Pretty remarkable, no?
And to those who continue to say that speeches and words don’t matter, I think we’ve seen what happens when we have an extremely ineffective communicator in the top position.
But maybe this is why Bush likes to compare himself to Truman…
Bush’s current 28% job approval rating is at the very low end of the spectrum of approval ratings Gallup has recorded across the 11 presidents in office since World War II. The average presidential job approval rating during that time has been 55%. The highest reading, as noted, is the 90% for the current President Bush in September 2001; the lowest is the 22% for Truman in February 1952.
Problem is, nobody was detailing the ins and outs of Truman’s missteps when he was in office. Dozens of books from highly credibly journalists and White House insiders have already come out and eviscerated Bush’s decision making.
History will not look kindly on his presidency, and he better start realizing that now.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 11th, 2008 and is filed under Bush, History, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The Democrats love Truman, what are you talking about? History doesn’t look poorly on Truman. Nobody is going to read these popcorn coffee table books by cable news-appearing pundits 50 years from now anyway.
If Iraq works out, emerges as a prosperous liberty-loving nation that fights Islamic terrorism and respects America’s role in their independence, I think history will fare better to Bush than you think, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will go down in history with the likes of Neville Chamberlain and Pierre LeValle, otherwise they will be remembered alongside Clement Laird Vallandigham. Who the hell is Clement Laird Vallandigham you say? …Exactly.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Why he was a rabble rousing confused douche bag - exiled for treasonable utterances in 1863 - he is buried in Woodland Cemetery, Dayton, Ohio - don’t you know anything? There won’t be an Iraq like there is today in 50 years……….so will it all have been for nothing?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
What is amazing to me is that there is still–STILL–28 percent of the people who support him….why? Amazing
April 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Why aren’t you calling for impeachment?? Or more crucially, why aren’t the men and women we elect to “police” the executive and judiciary doing everything in their power to see bushncheney impeached and removed?
Drowning torture is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden under U.S. Code. By openly and proudly refusing to acknowledge the law, bushncheney made an indefensible case against themselves.
The charges couldn’t be simpler. You don’t need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that when the occupant of the oval office declares himself (or herself) to be a unitary authoritarian executive, they are violating the principle of consent — the SOLE moral principle on which our nation is founded.
There is nothing left but to say “No Way, Not in Our America!” And impeachment is the ONLY meaningful way to do it.
Articles of Impeachment calling on Members of the House to declare themselves “with or against” the torturers could be on the floor next week. They could be on their way to the Senate the next day. (And the impeachophobes who try to excuse their dereliction by telling us removal impossible could be in for a surprise. Given the fact that the Senate voted 92-2 for McCain’s anti-torture amendment, too few may be willing to declare themselves “with” the War Criminals. Too few may be willing to vote to declare executive “signing statements,” not the legislation they pass, to be the law of the land.
We charge the men and women we elect to Congress with the duty to “police” the executive and judiciary. At least to date, all but a handful of Members have been shamefully and cravenly derelict in that duty.
Criminals can’t destroy the civil order. Only the dereliction of those we charge with enforcement can do that. Just as the police are duty-bound to protect the public safety by seeking to arrest those who openly violate the law in our communities; Members of Congress are duty-bound to seek to impeach and remove corrupt officials. It doesn’t matter whether they think the “perps” will “get away” or “get off.” Their duty is clear.
The perpetrators in the White House didn’t turn the USA into a war criminal nation that spies on its own citizens. It is the impeachophobes in Congress who did that.
And if they don’t find a “cure” for their impeachophobia before January 20, 2009, this nation will remain a War Criminal nation regardless of who occupies the White House.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
You guys are all so negative. As I said in a post last June, this president is seizing an opportunity to finally unite us:
April 26th, 2008 at 8:16 am
What rubbish are you talking about, “seizing an opportunity”? Bush is a psychotic. He lies constantly through his teeth and these few hardcore insane followers believe any public relations rot they hear while Bush rips apart the country and its economy and the dollar, selling the three trillion dollar debt and the future of the US off to the Chinese for countless generations while he commits genocide on the level of Pol Pot and Stalin. Bush is a criminal destroying the country for your children and grandchildren. If that is the “promise” he is fulfilling Bush should be locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his unnatural life.