Jan 21 2009

Bush Not So Bad – Historically

Published by at 8:44 am under All General Discussions

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting graphic showing the popular support of US Presidents dating back to Harry S Truman. Historically Truman is considered one of our best Presidents, but interestingly enough his tough choices, like Bush’s, did not sit well with the public at the time. It was in hindsight that America got over its self interest and realized how good they had it under Truman. 

Click image for larger original. The graph is also interesting in that all Presidents seem to lose favor as they stay in office – probably because the reality of the stump promises starts to settle in. Bush and Truman have some of the highest support levels (as does Bush senior). Clinton’s anomalous rise over time is because his personal numbers were tanking after he lied under oath about his peccadilloes in the Oval Office. Truman and Nixon have lower levels of support during their terms. All in all, Bush looks like your classic two term President of the United States.

It will be interesting to see where President Obama’s support levels will be after a year of liberal risky schemes and no economic relief in sight. Unless of course the Dems do something crazy like lower taxes or keep them where they are now.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Bush Not So Bad – Historically”

  1. Neo says:

    “I’ve found that credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions, half of them by banks and broker dealers,” Roubini said at a conference in Dubai today. “If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion. This is a systemic banking crisis.”

    Ouch !!

    Every member of the House and Senate banking/Financial Services committees should resign.

  2. Terrye says:

    It is the second term that usually gets them in trouble. Well except for Carter. It did not take him that long. And I think outset events have a lot to do with it. Truman and Bush both had to deal with a lot of things that some other presidents were lucky enough to avoid.

  3. GuyFawkes says:

    Truman’s numbers are simply fascinating. He was higher than anybody else, as well as being lower than anybody else.

    How does a President manage to reach the upper 80’s, then fall to the lower 30’s, THEN get back to almost 70, and THEN fall back to the lower 20’s? That’s insane.

    Plus, I had no idea that W. Bush’s decline was so linear – the R-squared on a straight line from his 9/11 high down to the last few months low has got to be over 0.9. (Yes AJ, that’s what a 3rd grade math education can get you nowadays.)

    And not only is Clinton the only one with an upslope on their best-fit line, but he also left with the highest rating of anyone. That has to stick in a few gourds around here.

  4. The Macker says:

    The point is that contemporaneous ratings are a poor indicator.

  5. Frogg says:

    One of Truman’s lowest points was the Marshall Plan. Interesting. It is now considered one of his great achievements.

    I think historical perspective on Bush will look similar to Truman’s.

  6. KauaiBoy says:

    Here’s another interesting trend for y’all:

    After each of the last Democrat presidents it took a Republican to clean up the mess and restore public confidence—and I’m of neither political camp:

    Kennedy / Johnson — gave us the Viet Nam conflict
    Nixon got us out

    Carter gave us hostages in Tehran, 18% inflation and gas lines
    Reagan/Bush—restored our credibility and order in the world

    Clinton—sexual predator that lied to Congress and weakened our national security
    George W. Bush — made Americans feel safe again and proud to be a citizen of the USA

    Next week’s episode—famous Democrat governors of the past 10 years

  7. GuyFawkes says:

    Nixon was able to “restore public confidence”? Nixon? Watergate Nixon? Are we talking about the same guy here?

    How can you write a comment filled with that many partisan GOP talking points, and then have the audacity to claim that you are “of neither political camp”?

  8. The Macker says:

    There you go again.
    •You misread Kauai.
    •And “Watergate Nixon” betrays your lockstep marching to a propaganda press.