Wash. Times inflated Bush's approval ratings, falsely portrayed unemployment rate under Bush
SUMMARY: In an editorial, The Washington Times asserted that President Bush "had very high poll ratings (80 percent to 90 percent) throughout his first term" and went on to say that during his tenure, he "reduced unemployment to still record-levels." In fact, Bush's approval ratings peaked between 80 percent and 95 percent in September 2001 before trending downward through the end of his first term, which he finished at around 50 percent. Additionally, the unemployment rate under Bush after the 2001 recession bottomed out at 4.4 percent in March 2007 -- a higher level than when Bush took office in January 2001, when the rate was 4.2 percent.
In an August 7 editorial headlined "Bush isn't the bad guy," The Washington Times asserted that the president "had very high poll ratings (80 percent to 90 percent) throughout his first term" and went on to say that during his tenure, he "reduced unemployment to still record-levels." In fact, according to an "estimate of approval trend" provided by University of Wisconsin professor Charles Franklin, Bush's approval ratings were between 50 percent and 60 percent prior to September 2001, at which point they did indeed peak between 80 percent and 95 percent before trending downward through the rest of his first term. Bush finished his first term with approval ratings around 50 percent.
Additionally, the Times' assertion that Bush "reduced unemployment to still record-levels" is false. According to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate climbed to 6.3 percent in June 2003, and then bottomed out at 4.4 percent in March 2007 -- a higher level than when Bush took office in January 2001. At that time, the rate was 4.2 percent. In a February 5, 2001, post on its website, the BLS further reported that before it increased to 4.2 percent in January 2001, "[t]he jobless rate had ranged from 3.9 to 4.1 percent since October 1999." Moreover, according to the BLS, the "record" for lowest unemployment rate since 1948 is 2.5 percent, reached in both May and June of 1953.
From the August 7 Washington Times editorial:
The popularity of a president is notoriously fickle. Put your stock in polling and you can get a good sense of how the general public feels about the nation's 43rd president right now. But is he really the boogeyman he has been portrayed to be? The arbiter of all things evil and wrong with our country? Is there nothing good to his credit? History will be the ultimate judge, but we would argue that despite the "all-time low" ranking, it is not reflective of what this "unpopular" president has really accomplished during his eight-year presidency. Furthermore, politicians on the right and left who continue to capitalize on the president's mistakes for political fodder could do so to their detriment.
For a little perspective, consider that Mr. Bush had very high poll ratings (80 percent to 90 percent) throughout his first term. This is a president who inherited a recession, was rocked by corporate scandal, led in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on our nation and went to war. He also grew the economy, reduced unemployment to still record-levels, increased literacy rates, grew minority homeownership and small businesses, kept terrorists at bay, toppled a sadistic regime and reformed Medicare.
Well then, must be time for a Bush victory tour!
Straight from WA DC to Crawford, TX on Jan 21, 2009 in a high mileage U-Haul.
Good post, oh great Beagle.
;)
Hey Oscar, I may not have been quite clear last night, but the link to federal and state incentives covers more than just solar. You can find things in there about higher rated insulation, water heaters, heck, even windows. It's worth your time to take a look!
I don't know whether it's a "right wing view" or not. People like Science, etc (and some of the talk radio group) seem to be dismissive of a lot of the things that make common sense. To me, the only problem is the mandating of CF bulbs (and other things) when it should be an individual choice based on personal research, preferences, etc. I don't like the CF light in certain areas in and around the house, so I want to retain the choice of only using them where I wish and not where the government mandates. Until the industry came out with those that look more like regular lightbulbs and not the spiral tubes showing, my wife wouldn't have one of them in the house (and she at least talks a "greener" lifestyle than I do).
you can buy the cf bulbs that give off "soft light". i do a lot of reading and have no problem. i understand not wanting things to be mandated, but we're worked ourselves into a corner with our energy waste. we're killing our economy, adding to global warming, and sending money to foreign regimes that are not friendly to us. i think there was too much of a tendency to dismiss nuclear by some on the left [although it costs a whole lot to build a plant], but mainly it's the right that for thirty years has tried to cast wasting energy as some american birthright.
Private industries and other countries have made significant progress in stem cell research.
Typically this is science that is funded in large part by our government. That's one of the reasons our nation is so great and has done so well, that our government gives industries seed money that later helps industries grow and gives most of our nation a rising tide that lifts all boats.
With SCR, they stopped that pattern for moral issues! That's wrong.
It's an issue of non-cooperation. That's why it's a partisan issue. They don't cooperate.
They try to claim to be willing to compromise, but they aren't. That's why they wanted a permanent Republican majority. That's why they're in the House of Representatives right now, stomping their feet because they aren't getting their way. Never mind that at times our representatives need to act like intelligent people and do not what the majority of Americans think will be beneficial, and this is one of those times. A reasonable Congressman would know that extra drilling isn't going to add to our supply today and even when it adds to the supply years from now it's not going to have a significant impact on gas prices. They're willing to lie to their constituents though because they won't cooperate.
I dont' think anyone on here is going to challenge that I am a conservative. For the record, our home has a geo-thermal heat pump for HVAC, my husband converted all three of our vehicles to run on propane (so that's only about 2.75 a gallon), we use mostly CF bulbs except where the fixtures were already flourescent to begin with or the mercury vapor out side lights. We were going to put in a small wind generator (we live right on the CA coast so the prevailing breeze is pretty constant year round) to cover running the pool and exterior lighting, however, our VERY liberal tree hugging, "march against anything" neighbors objected so we haven't done that yet...
Now please ask Mr "Gore-bal" warming to cut his electrical usage at his mansion, if logic can get you past your hatred of conservatives and see his hypocrisy for what it is? LOL.... (doubt that's gonna happen!)
The hypocrite would be you.
He's under no obligation to live in a smaller home/office than what he feels he needs. The fact that he balances all the energy he uses with carbon credits, and that he uses green energy, is good.
Why do you have a pool? That's not something you need, ya know! You're the hypocrite because he's being a better caretaker of our world than you are, and you're berating him for the nice home he lives in while you have a pool.
VERY liberal tree hugging, "march against anything" neighbors objected...
I know you usually post and run, dee, but I'd like to know how you know your neighbors are liberal tree-huggers. Did you ask them? What exactly did they do that stopped your progress?
Frankly, I find the whole post hard to believe.
I dont' think anyone on here is going to challenge that I am a conservative.
I dont' think anyone on here is going to challenge that you are an uninformed, hypocritical wingnut, either.
Straight from WA DC to Crawford, TX on Jan 21, 2009 in a high mileage U-Haul.
I'd rather see him shipped over to The Hague to face trial for war crimes.
Thanks for the link , Snoop. I haven't been making it over to the Onion enough lately.
The most disturbing thing about the video is that The Onion's phony reporters have surpassed most of our MSM chuckleheads as convincing journalists. The tip-off was that they were being critical of Bush.
I'll be wishing the same for Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi. And if the congressional approval ratings are any indication, then much like Bush, those two will be gone as well.
I think more people bought Nancy's book than would vote her in office again anyway.
If the Republicans hadn't been obstructionist, then the Dems would have a lot better approval rating. If Bush and his administration hadn't given Washington a much worse name than what they already have, Congress would have a much better approval rating. If politically active Dems didn't want the Dems in Congress to be even more anti-Bush than what they've been, damn the costs, then they'd have a better approval rating too. If Republicans would stop being so partisan, and would evaluate the Congress on what they've done instead of who they are, their approval would be higher.
So, 3 of the 4 reasons for a low approval rating are directly a result of the Bush Administration and the likes of Karl Rove, and other one is a result of strong-willed Democrats thinking that the Dems haven't done enough to punish the criminal Republicans.
And you want to blame the Dems for the low approval ratings Congress gets?
Some Democratic voters are mad at Congress because they haven't punished the screw-ups on the right as much as they think they should have.
3 out of the four reasons that Congress gets a bad rap are entirely due to the Republicans, and the other reason is due to the Republicans being screw-ups and the Dems aren't hare enough on them.
I didn't say the Dems deserve no blame. You're the one who stated that they deserve half the blame.
You'd think you'd figure stuff like this out on your own one of these days.
Great post.
Actually, the cons would like everyone of us to blame all our current problems (energy crisis, the war, economic, health, car breakdowns, disobedient kids, not-winning-the-lottery, math deficiencies, hair balls, you name it) on the two-year slim-majority of democrats in the congress. But this kind of logic only works on dedicated republicans.
I guess it's better than having to listen to another screed about "yeah, but the Clintons, the Clintons, for Christ's sake!"
I'm betting that the Pelosi detestation won't have the same staying power.
And again, national opinion polls about Congress mean, absolutely nothing.
It is more dependent on what their polling numbers are in their home states / districts. Such as, Pelosi's approval ratings were well above 50% in her home district.
That's not true either.
Voters overall don't hate their own representatives, despite their party affiliation.
Of course, Republicans are much more party loyal and much more dismissive of Democratic representatives regardless of their capabiities and qualities. It's a sad but undeniable fact that Republicans have a much harder time appreciating another party's good Congressman or Senator that Democrats do.
I think more people bought Nancy's book than would vote her in office again anyway.
At least she's written a book. There's no evidence that you have ever even colored one.
BWAHAHAH......Choke!
Fortunatly I was not facing the monitor directly.
I find it hard to believe bush's ratings were ever high. So Bush stood on a pile of rubble with a megaphone,and the press drooled all over themselves, as if this was some wonderful moment. Everything has to be made for television no matter how different behind the scenes reality.
The paragraph in the Wa. Times had so many distortions in it about this dunce, including the opening bit about "inheriting a recession."
This is a president who inherited a recession, was rocked by corporate scandal, led in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on our nation and went to war. He also grew the economy, reduced unemployment to still record-levels, increased literacy rates, grew minority homeownership and small businesses, kept terrorists at bay, toppled a sadistic regime and reformed Medicare.
This needs fixing:
This is a president who presided over a recession, enabled corporate scandal, panicked and froze in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on our nation and abandoned a necessary war in order to start a war of choice. He also failed to grow the economy back to the levels it was at before 9/11 and the recession, had minimal impact on unemployment levels, increased literacy rates by finally learning to read himself, temporarily grew minority homeownership through unwise and later catastrophic deragulation of the mortgage industry, kept small time terrorists with no chance of success at bay, toppled a sadistic regime and replaced it with violence and chaos and poisoned Medicare.
All hail the mighty dunce!
Hey now. While that whole crazy "deregulation of the housing market" has had disastrous results and put the country in a real bind, what's important is that it looked good for awhile. And creating the illusion of safety is one of the things neo-cons do. It's like with Saddam Hussein -- sure it's been proven that he wasn't ready to destroy the world, but dang, we're all much safer because a dictator is gone!
I can't believe the Times was dumb enough to actually include something that would directly lead a wise reader to question deregulation.
''ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY DUNCE''. I love that. I believe that this administration will go down as one of the worst in our history. It will rank right there with the NIXON and CARTER administrations. In fact,I'd say that this aministration has the combination of the arrogance of NIXON's people and the incompetence of CARTER'S people.