About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Schneider falsely equated Bush's widespread unpopularity with Clinton's soaring popularity in 1998

September 16, 2005 12:04 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

21 Comments

On CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, senior political analyst Bill Schneider falsely equated President Bush's current widespread unpopularity -- and that of President Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal -- with President Clinton's standing with the public during the Monica Lewinsky matter. Noting that, despite his poor overall poll numbers, Bush still enjoys support from Republicans, Schneider said, "Sooner or later, every leader gets in trouble. President Reagan had Iran-Contra. President Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. Like Bush, they had a base that helped them get through it." But Schneider's suggestion that all three presidents had to rely on the support of their base during times of general public unhappiness with their performance is mistaken: While Reagan did see his approval ratings plummet to the low 40s during the Iran-Contra matter, Clinton saw no similar erosion of public support during the Lewinsky matter.

Unlike Schneider, the public apparently saw little similarity between, on the one hand Reagan, whose administration illegally sold arms to Iran in hopes of appeasing terrorists, and Bush, whose administration took the nation into a war based on false pretenses and badly bungled preparation for, and response to, Hurricane Katrina, and, on the other, Clinton, who had an inappropriate personal relationship.

Clinton's approval ratings were very high all through 1998 as the Lewinsky matter played out -- typically in the 60s, occasionally (such as when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives impeached him) breaking 70 percent. As an Associated Press summary of polls conducted in 1998 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and by CNN/USA Today/Gallup shows, Clinton's approval ratings were high when news of the Lewinsky matter surfaced, and remained high when former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey made further widely publicized allegations against him; when he admitted a relationship with Lewinsky; when Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr released his report; and when House Republicans voted to impeach him.

As Schneider himself reported on the December 30, 1998, edition of CNN's Inside Politics:

SCHNEIDER: President Clinton's job ratings have been in the 60s for most of the year -- the highest ratings for any president on record in his sixth year. Clinton's ratings spiked three times this year: after the State of the Union speech in January and again in August just after his speech in which he confessed his, "misleading the American public for the past seven months." The president got his biggest bounce of all, a phenomenal 73 percent, after he got impeached in December. A few more setbacks like that and he'll go into the stratosphere.

By contrast, Reagan's approval ratings plummeted during the Iran-Contra scandal. In early December 1986 -- shortly after revelations that the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran and used the profits to support Contra rebels in Nicaragua were made public -- a New York Times poll showed Reagan's approval down 21 percentage points in just a month, to 46 percent. By late February 1987, his approval was only 42 percent -- George W. Bush's current territory, and 20 or more points lower than Clinton's was during most of 1998.

From the September 15 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight:

SCHNEIDER: President Bush has one thing going for him as he tries to regain the initiative: He has kept his base. Every leader needs a base. Your base are the people who are with you when you're wrong. This president's base is not abandoning him. Eighty-five percent of Republicans stand behind President Bush. His allies defend him.

[...]

Sooner or later, every leader gets in trouble. President Reagan had Iran-Contra. President Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. Like Bush, they had a base that helped them get through it.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Sagra (September 16, 2005 12:29 pm ET)
         

      Well yeah, but the Right Wing hated Clinton a LOT. I mean, they put all their energy into the Clinton hate. And they had lots of money. Obviously their opinions should have been given more weight in the polls.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by 1428a (September 16, 2005 12:49 pm ET)
           

        Well yeah, but the Right Wing hated Clinton a LOT. I mean, they put all their energy into the Clinton hate. And they had lots of money. Obviously their opinions should have been given more weight in the polls.

        by Sagra

        -----------------------------------------

        The right wing propaganda is desperate to get people to believe them in spite of facts that say otherwise. It used to be a relatively large base, now it's a small base-people who will believe anything they're told, even if the facts say otherwise.

        Some hated Clinton because. A lot of people only hated Clinton because he lied about what he done, the notorious "I did not have sex with that woman..." testimony. Everyone knew he couldn't keep it zipped; he had the problem prior to the presidency.But he could get things done. It was the lies that bothered people.

        It's odd that the very people who find Clinton to be the antichrist, come in defense of Bush for lying to the American people about a BIG issue (not an affair-that doesn't mean Clinton's lies were right, though).

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (September 16, 2005 1:30 pm ET)
             

          The hard right Republicans hated Clinton before he even took office. I was a regular Rush listener during the 92 campaign. The demonization started well before the election. The day after Clinton won, Rush had to come on the air and assure his listeners that the world wouldn't end. I always laugh when I hear Hannity of Rush talk about the "unprecedented hatred of George W. Bush". It pales in comparison to the anti-Clinton venom they spewed on their radio and TV shows every day for 8 years.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (September 16, 2005 1:39 pm ET)
               

            nerzog,

            For once, I agree with you. Neither party nor it's supporters can take the high ground when it comes to spewing their venom against the other.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (September 16, 2005 12:31 pm ET)
         

      Schneider has a history of selective memory.

      Guess which way it slants?

      Could it be that Bill's working on his audition video for an opening at FOX NEWS?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MrTimPA (September 16, 2005 1:14 pm ET)
         

      Drafted - haha - yeah, it sure sounds like it - and he'd fit right in with comments like that! :)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oxyconservative (September 16, 2005 1:18 pm ET)
         

      As I watched Schnieder, I noticed something else. He said Bush was keeping his base and this was helping his approval numbers. But from many recent articles I have read, Bush is in fact losing some of his base, as the drop in his poll numbers is attributed to his drop in standing with Republicans. See here: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by 1428a (September 16, 2005 5:30 pm ET)
         

      Bush is in fact losing some of his base, as the drop in his poll numbers is attributed to his drop in standing with Republicans. See here: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

      by oxyconservative

      -------------------------------------------

      Yeah, people realize they're being lied to, and they elected a real zero. But the bottom line is they elected him. Too late to turn back-better luck next time.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (September 16, 2005 6:04 pm ET)
         

      i think the big difference between reagan/bush and clinton is the actual effects of their actions on both individuals and the country as a whole. people saw clinton's acts, repulsive as they may have been to some, as affecting only him and his wife. the actions of reagan/bush have had a more calmitous effect on the entire country, resulting in loss of life and national treasure.

      there really is no comparison. i'll take the oval office BJ for 100 alec.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by 1428a (September 17, 2005 6:19 pm ET)
           

        there really is no comparison. i'll take the oval office BJ for 100 alec.

        by cpinva

        ===========================================================================

        Comparison of Bush to Reagan? Both talked the talked of "evil empire" / "axis of evil." Reagan, didn't walk the walk-he met with Gorbachov and was also able to sign an nuclear arms reduction treaty. Bush on the other hand launches a useless and ultimatatley detrimental war (Iraq), and refuses to deal with North Korea. Afghanistan was where the terrorists actually were so it's different, but Bush may have messed it up.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (September 16, 2005 6:05 pm ET)
         

      sorry, that should have read "calamitous".

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (September 17, 2005 10:59 pm ET)
           

        Don't worry about it, it's a trifle mistake. Why, the White House once spelled "Saudi Arabia" "Iraq" and look what happened.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (September 17, 2005 9:13 pm ET)
         

      we had eight very good years under clinton and 5 very bad years under bush and the only thing bush has left is his "base", not by coincidence the same people who believe in the bible whether it contradicts itself or not.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (September 17, 2005 11:03 pm ET)
           

        Am I the only one who shudders when they say our president is appealing for support to his "base"? Remember: Al Qaeda means essentially "The Base". How about "foundation" or "tabernacle"? Something less zealous sounding.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (September 17, 2005 9:27 pm ET)
         

      could we just declare bush an unnatural disaster? he fits all the criteria.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (September 18, 2005 8:51 pm ET)
           

        mefirst - Saturday September 17, 2005 09:27:47 PM EST

        Bush, the catastrophe that walks like a man (Bill Mahar).

        Report Abuse
    • Author by leatherhelmet (September 18, 2005 4:54 pm ET)
         

      Amazing,

      Reagan had terrible popularity numbers late in his second term he was recently picked in a Gallup poll as THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER.

      Twenty years from now Bush will be in the top 5 because of his success in the war on terror, the establishment of a democracy in the heart of the middle east, and his astounding economic turnaround spurred by his tax cuts.

      "A recent Gallup Poll finds Americans rating Ronald Reagan as the greatest president in history, followed by Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Republicans and Democrats differ sharply in their views of the greatest president, with Republicans most often mentioning Reagan and Democrats most often mentioning Clinton. When asked to choose the greater president of the two, Americans pick Lincoln by a wide margin over George Washington. Most Americans say they would not want their child to grow up to become president someday."

      [link to www.gallup.com]

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (September 18, 2005 5:12 pm ET)
           

        Twenty years from now Bush will be in the top 5 because of his success in the war on terror, the establishment of a democracy in the heart of the middle east, and his astounding economic turnaround spurred by his tax cuts. -by leatherhelmet

        ***

        I have serious doubts about the conclusions you forecast but for the sake of this country and its people I hope you are right and I am wrong.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (September 18, 2005 6:27 pm ET)
           

        too bad all those great things leatherhelmet is predicting that will make bush a top 5 president haven't happened. we already know every prediction we did hear in the last five years has been completely wrong. nice to see one of the old troll names resurfacing.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (September 18, 2005 8:49 pm ET)
           

        leatherhelmet - Sunday September 18, 2005 04:54:11 PM EST

        Yeah, and the cow will jump over the moon, which is made of green cheese, it will rain honey and caviar from heaven, and my ass will learn to chew bubblegum. Then I will grow wings and fly to the Moon.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by libertarian with caveats (September 19, 2005 2:35 am ET)
         

      When you say Clinton's crime was "an inappropriate personal relationship" you are omitting the fact that he lied to the Grand Jury in order to avoid a civil suit. I'm sure if it had been your daughter who had been suing him, you would have considered the lie a high crime. Lying to the Grand Jury is a felony offense.

      Stop spinning me, Media Matters.

      Report Abuse

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace