Brooks falsely claimed Clinton and Reagan approval ratings "were in the 20s"
On the November 4 broadcast of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks falsely claimed that during their presidencies Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan saw their job approval ratings fall to "the 20s." During a discussion with nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Brooks argued that President Bush's recent slide in the polls is "not irreversible. Clinton was much lower than Bush is now. Reagan was lower." When Shields countered, "Not in the job ratings," Brooks replied, "They [Clinton and Reagan] were in the 20s."
Bush's lowest approval rating to date was a 35-percent mark in a CBS News poll from October 30-November 1 (with a margin of error of +/-3 percent). According to the polling archive of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Reagan's lowest approval rating was also 35 percent, in a Gallup Poll from January 28-31, 1983. The Roper Center lists Clinton's low at a 36 percent, according to a Yank/Time/CNN Poll from May 26-27, 1993.
From the November 4 broadcast of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
SHIELDS: And George Bush was to be this pillar of integrity. He is now seen as morally and ethically inferior to Bill Clinton.
BROOKS: Yeah, but it's not irreversible. I mean, Clinton was much lower than Bush is now. Reagan was lower in Iran Contra.
SHIELDS: Not in the job ratings.
BROOKS: Well, they were in the 20s. But the point is, you've got to make some changes. And when you go back and read about the Reagan administration, you realize how fluid it was. They really did make big changes.
Brooksie, you're gonna lose those sweet gigs if you keep being an apologist for BushieCo. Or are you?
How is Brooks apologizing for Bush? By saying that his awful current 25 approval rating is "not as bad!" as Clinton's and Reagan's? Brooks, at least in this case, is getting farther to the truth than most in the media.
And besides, as MM points out: Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all had around the same lowest approval ratings: 35-36, give or take a few (literally: +/-3)
People like Brooks (and there are way too many of them) must believe that their lies and distortions are safe from discovery.
Why? Who knows.
Maybe the Brooksites believe that those listening to and/or reading their crap listen to and/or read only the media outlets the Brooksites use to spread it.
Luckily, that seems to be true for something like 35% of Americans.
If you examine what had just happened when Clinton garnered a 36% approval rating (WTC bombing and the Waco massacre), it's easy to understand. As for Reagan's 35%, it could be due to a sluggish economy. As for Bush's 35%, it’s everything. But there’s no excuse lying down Clinton/Reagan's ratings in a feeble attempt to make Bush look “no so bad”. Even worse, these lows were during FIRST terms not second. That puts Bush in rare company with Nixon, that comparably liberal pinko with a tape recorder fetish.
Good points, fantagor, but don't confuse the Bush apologists. They don't DO context.
Oh, why bother looking up facts when you can just pull stuff out of your butt to make a point that supports your pre-supposed conclusion? In this case, Bush is a very popular president, much moreso than that nasty Bill Clinton, or the deified Ronald Reagan.
It's so much easier to say stuff than do actual work.
Mark Shields had the responsibility to stop the conversation and challenged Brooks on the "20s" approval rating since he knew it wasn't true. Shields just got done stating that Clinton's and Reagan's weren't lower than Bush's (mid 30s) yet he allows Brooks to follow up with a statement "in the 20s" that completely contradicts what Shields just said.
Another disinformation example of a "he said/she said" type of discussion which leaves the viewers confused. 'Need to keep feeding the minds of the followers with disinformation so they can continue rationalizing why they are supporting Bush.
What has happened to the New York Times? After the Judy Miller incident I thought maybe they would clean the liars out, but I guess they run the same policy as the White House.
Partisans on the right tend to make up any "fact" they need to support their cause - and they do it with a clean conscience since they know that any statement that supports what they believe to true must itself be true - even if it's completely made up.
BROOKS: Well, they were in the 20s.
---------------------------------------
20's, 30's, who cares. These numbers flat out suck for any C in C. It's almost like being Validictorian(sp.) of your summer school class and proud of it.
The difference between Reagan and Clinton having 20% or ~35% ratings is the difference between them being "worse" than Bush or "just as bad" as Bush. So it does matter. Brooks is trying to say Bush isn't as bad as Clinton and Reagan.
That is dishonest on Brooks' part not just because it isn't true, but also because it is a lame attempt to change the subject and thereby avoid holding Bush accountable for the reasons which earned him such a low approval rating.
When Bush's approval ratings drops into the 20s, Republicans will then say Clinton's approval rating were in the teens.
Let's all write to the NY Times Public Editor about the gross distortion of fact that Brooks used in this TV appearance. The Public Editor was apoplectic about Paul Krugman needing to apolgize for a small error in a column. I would guess the Public Editor would also be concerned about NYT columnists, introduced as such on TV, making such a whopper of a mistake. The address is: public@nytimes.com
I sent an e-mail to the editor reminding them that New York Times is already in hot water with the american public as well as their own collegues in the industry for telling lies.I them asked the editor if he or she would be able to handle a mass boycott of The New York Times.I may or may not get a response.
Enough is enough. Where does the misinformation, a.k.a., Republican spin BS end? Now. This is not little BS. This is major BS. Let's demand a retraction!
That's just halarious.The Right Wing has gotten so desparate that they have resorted to telling out blatent lies.The truth is,not only does George Bush have the lowest approval rating compared to the "elected" presidents,he spent more money during his time in office that ALL presidents COMBINED ! And don't try to blame it on the war either.
"The Right Wing has gotten so desparate that they have resorted to telling out blatent lies."
-----
They haven't "resorted" to it, it's been their policy from the beginning. Remember the lies about Clinton's staff trashing the White House? That lie was put forth the second W got into office. The GOP lies as easily as others breathe.