WSJ's Taranto offered no backup to his claim that Bush's poll numbers are bouncing back
Appearing on the September 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto relied upon nonspecific poll data to claim that President Bush's job approval ratings are rebounding after the Hurricane Katrina disaster and that the Democratic response to President Bush's handling of the catastrophe has "backfired." It is unclear, however, to which polls Taranto was referring, as most polling shows Bush's approval ratings are in a steady, downward slide.
Without citing any specific polls, Taranto claimed that Bush's job approval ratings have risen recently, saying: "I think we've already seen the poll numbers start to bounce back." When co-host Alan Colmes asked Taranto, "Where are the poll numbers bouncing back?" Taranto obliquely replied: "I've seen some polls in which the approval rating is almost as high as the disapproval." Guest host and National Review editor Rich Lowry then admonished Colmes and suggested that the data Taranto referred to is posted on OpinionJournal.com, saying: "Read OpinionJournal.com, Alan. Come on."
But most polling available prior to September 16 shows that Bush's job approval ratings have steadily declined and, indeed, several polls show Bush's approval ratings at the lowest mark of his presidency. Among recent polls showing record-low approval ratings for Bush:
- ABC News/Washington Post, conducted September 8-11; 42 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove.
- NBC News/Wall Street Journal, conducted September 9-12; 40 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove.
- CBS News/New York Times, conducted September 9-13; 41 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove.
- Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, conducted September 13-14; 41 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove.
Even The Winston Group, a Republican polling outfit, put Bush's approval rating at 42 percent in an August 31-September 1 poll (subscription required) released September 15. All of these polls had margins of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
Taranto may have been referring to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted September 8-11, which showed a one-point increase in Bush's job approval ratings -- from 45 to 46 percent -- over a previous Gallup poll conducted August 28-30. This increase, however, fits well within the polls' margins of error (+/- 5 percent for the August 28-30 poll and +/- 3 percent, for the September 8-11 poll) and therefore is meaningless as a statistical matter. The September 8-11 poll also showed a 51 percent disapproval rating for Bush.
As for Lowry's suggestion that Taranto's poll data is available on OpinionJournal.com, a Media Matters for America search on OpinionJournal.com turned up no discussion of any polling information supporting Taranto's assertion.
From the September 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
LOWRY: What's been amazing about this debate over the last couple of weeks is conservatives used to joke, you know, Bush haters are going to blame Bush for the weather, and the next thing, you know, and they've actually been doing it the last couple of weeks. And it's not as though conservatives, you know, jumped all over Bill Clinton and blamed him for the deaths in the heat wave in Chicago [in 1995]. It just seems as though this president is in a uniquely poisonous, partisan environment.
TARANTO: Well, I don't know about uniquely. I mean, the -- there was a pretty poisonous partisan environment with FDR was president, when Lincoln was president. You know, we go through these periods in American history. I will say I think that the behavior of the angry left when the hurricane first struck, and they saw an opportunity to beat up on Bush, it was really shameful. I mean, to some people in this country, Hurricane Katrina was this month's Cindy Sheehan, it was this month's excuse to pound President Bush. I argued --
LOWRY: Yeah, do you think that's going to backfire?
TARANTO: I think it already has backfired, and I argued all along that it was going to backfire. You know, I think that the hatred is so irrational of this president.
LOWRY: What are the signs that it's backfiring?
TARANTO: Well, I think we've already seen the poll numbers start to bounce back. I don't think we've seen any evidence that the Democrats have gained politically from this. Look at the [John] Roberts hearings. Now, that was mostly a matter of having a nominee who was just unbelievably poised up there answering these questions. But, you know, they tried to make Katrina an issue with John Roberts. You know, what is the chief justice of the Supreme Court supposed to do about hurricane victims? It's ridiculous.
[...]
COLMES: Where are the poll numbers bouncing back?
TARANTO: I've seen some polls in which the approval rating is almost as high as the disapproval.
COLMES: Really?
LOWRY: Read OpinionJournal.com, Alan. Come on.
COLMES: I do read OpinionJournal.com. James, thanks for being with us.
I think Colmes likes it when you lie to him.
Not this poll.
[link to www.cnn.com]
...
Media Matters conveniently left out the Rasmussen poll [link to www.rasmussenreports.com] which has had Bush at 44 to 48 percent approval all month (average, about 46.3).
(Rasmussen was one of the more accurate in predicting the 2004 Prez election: [link to www.rasmussenreports.com])
...
Rasmussen poll [link to www.rasmussenreports.com] which has had Bush at 44 to 48 percent approval all month (average, about 46.3).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wow, and the disaproval rate is 53%. Those are numbers to be proud of!
Are you trying to say that these numbers show Bush's approval rating "bouncing back"? That's a pretty pathetic bounce.
Media Matters conveniently left out the Rasmussen poll which has had Bush at 44 to 48 percent approval all month (average, about 46.3) - from bannedagain
You point that out as though it contradicts what MMFA says. The Rasmussen poll has held pretty steady. It doesn't indicate a bounceback unless you assume that Rasmussen was wrong earlier and the other polls were correct and that those positions are now reversed. Stretches one's credulity a bit to buy that line of reasoning.
even rasmussen's polls show a decline. how does this support taranto's claim that bush's numbers are "bouncing back" ? or did you forget that this was the topic of the thread ?
Today it's down to 44% approve, 54% disapprove. So this is the poll you think we should be looking at to support Taranto's claim that Bush is "bouncing back"? OK, have it your way.
up is down in bushco land !
actually, i'm sure the tactic is "if we say it enough, we can make people believe it". i guess they figure their supporters won't do any research ... and i'll bet few of them do. it's really a very smart tactic, taking advantage of the ignorant and lazy.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -- President George W. Bush (May 24, 2005)
Straight from the horse's mouth -- he even used the word propaganda. How much clearer does it really need to be, people?
"actually, i'm sure the tactic is "if we say it enough, we can make people believe it". i guess they figure their supporters won't do any research ... and i'll bet few of them do. it's really a very smart tactic, taking advantage of the ignorant and lazy."
....and the ones that DO actually check the polls will take from them what they want. Just look at bannedagain's post above.
Bannedagain saw the same information all of us did, yet somehow believed it refuted Colmes and this MMFA post.
The Rich Lowery's, Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's of the world know damn well they are preaching to people who have either already "drunk the kool aid" or are simply ignorant.
I think what gets me the most is that Taranto actually tries to pull off a favorable comparison with Bush to Lincoln and Roosevelt. I see him as more of a Hoover/(James) Buchanan type.
It's time we stopped asking why do they lie to us and start asking how they can be held accountable. Does a "news" organization have the right to lie to the American public? Shouldn't they be held to a high standard as to what they are allowed to say on the air?
I can't believe people actually pay for this garbage to be brought into their homes. I killed my cable over a year ago and haven't looked back.
we have "truth in advertising". why doesn't this extend to reporting ?
we have "truth in advertising". why doesn't this extend to reporting ?-by atheist
***
My guess: advertising’s Free Speech rights are subjected to consumer protection restrictions.
Reporting was supposed to be just that reporting and did not fall into the consumer protection box.
Now reporting has become more entertainment then reporting so they are able to hide behind the protections afforded by free speech even more.
Sort of ironic that reporters were once thought to protect us from government corruption and abuse and now some are talking about the government protecting us from reporters corruption and abuse./-:
Another favorite quote from the Bluestocking collection seems apropos here, this time from Juvenal. Frankly, it's one which has been brought to my mind all too frequently over the last four years thanks to the Bush administration.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Trans. "Who will guard the guards themselves?")
"...we have 'Truth In Advertising"
Hmmm. So, you believe the advertising?
Not only are Bush's polls numbers not going back up at this time, Taranto's statement concedes that Bush's numbers have been dropping in the last several months. This is after conservatives have regularly denied that Bush's poll numbers had not been dropping. Here's an example:
[link to mediamatters.org]
Not only are Bush's polls numbers not going back up at this time, Taranto's statement concedes that Bush's numbers have been dropping in the last several months. This is after conservatives have regularly denied that Bush's poll numbers had been dropping. Here's an example:
[link to mediamatters.org]
I made a correction.
The right-wing pundits must have gotten their talking point memo from Frank Luntz on how to frame this argument.
This is about the 10th time in a week I've seen the Right use the "liberals are blaming Bush for the weather now" line.
Who is blaming Bush for the actual storm??? People are mad because of the slow response and red tape. FEMA was supposed to be streamlined and inter-department coordination was supposed to be improved by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and putting FEMA under it. Otherwise, why did we spend all the time and money?
People are mad because Bush stayed on vacation, continued his PR tour, and showed up on Good Morning America talking about how New Orleans had dodged the bullet and how nobody could have anticipated the levee breaks (a blatant lie).
They're mad that Republicans have repeatedly cut funding to improve our infrastructure. They're mad that Republican policies have increased the gap between rich and poor, and added to the problem of poverty in this country. They're mad because many of the National Guard units were not available because they're serving in the useless Iraq War. They're mad that Republicans are all for nation-building and rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, yet don't favor the same here at home.
Only a simple-minded fool would think liberals are "blaming Bush for the weather" when they point out the mistakes made.
Brian,
Are you serious about discussing issues? I noticed a litany of opinions in your note. (Go back to the second to last paragraph.)
Would you care to provide documentation or links backing up your assertions?
IMO without that, it is simply a rant.
Huh? You must be new here, to Earth, that is. Brian is simply summarizing what many of us have been talking about for weeks. Actually, we've been talking about the neocon's failures since before the election. No one I know has blamed dubya for Katrina!