When will Bush's approval ratings be above 50 again?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

2010 or 2011. People love populist, folksly presidents even if they manage to screw over large portions of the population. Look at how many people love Reagan for example. Bush II will be regarded as one of the greater presidents of the 21st century starting in a few decade due to American obsession with style/personableness over substance.

[Dan the Roman]

I think recent developments in Iraq, will partially redeem(wrongly), what has been little short of a disastrous presidency. Especially if Obama or McCain is able to pull out completely and Maliki stay in power, it will look like things worked out in the end regardless of how much we spent and how nearly we bankrupted ourselves to turn Iraq into Egypt. The big thing will be that we won.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It'll take a while, but it will happen.  Probably after he dies.

[Chief Justice PiT]

     As Truman & Nixon showed us, any president, no matter how hated when he is in office, will be seen as at least decent in 30 years. However, Truman & Nixon were both a lot better than Bush, so I don't know if it will hold true in this case.

[Dan the Roman]

     As Truman & Nixon showed us, any president, no matter how hated when he is in office, will be seen as at least decent in 30 years. However, Truman & Nixon were both a lot better than Bush, so I don't know if it will hold true in this case.

Well both had the advantages of having redeeming qualities. Truman was arguably one of our better if not the best President, and Nixon would likely have been remembered that way had it not been for an incompetent burglary.

I mean seriously, has there ever been a President who accomplished as much as Nixon did in one term?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I mean seriously, has there ever been a President who accomplished as much as Nixon did in one term?

Polk, one of our top 10 Presidents.

[Dan the Roman]

I mean seriously, has there ever been a President who accomplished as much as Nixon did in one term?

Polk, one of our top 10 Presidents.

Yeah Polk probably comes the closest. Nonetheless, the point stands that there is a reason Nixon has recovered, and arguably his image is still heavily distorted by Watergate. His alliance with China did as much to end the Cold War as anything Reagan did. In fact it made Reagan possible.

[NDN]

2010 or 2011. People love populist, folksly presidents even if they manage to screw over large portions of the population. Look at how many people love Reagan for example. Bush II will be regarded as one of the greater presidents of the 21st century starting in a few decade due to American obsession with style/personableness over substance.

If that was true then Carter would be one of the most popular Presidents ever.

Reagan is (undeservedly) popular due to a lot of factors.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Carter was (percieved) as being a liberal defeatist so he doesn't get the automatic popularity after the fact that conservative populist hucksters get in middle america.

[War on Want]

I mean seriously, has there ever been a President who accomplished as much as Nixon did in one term?

Polk, one of our top 10 Presidents.

Oh yes because a war of belligerance and killing those damn greasers is truly a great accomplishment!

[NDN]

You mean the war LBJ basically started and Nixon almost ended successfully?

[Chief Justice PiT]

     As Truman & Nixon showed us, any president, no matter how hated when he is in office, will be seen as at least decent in 30 years. However, Truman & Nixon were both a lot better than Bush, so I don't know if it will hold true in this case.

Well both had the advantages of having redeeming qualities. Truman was arguably one of our better if not the best President, and Nixon would likely have been remembered that way had it not been for an incompetent burglary.

I mean seriously, has there ever been a President who accomplished as much as Nixon did in one term?

     Kind of why I mentioned them being much better. Truth be told, neither Truman nor Nixon deserved the hate that they got. I'm glad to see that that is getting rectified now.

[NDN]

I'm going to have to concur with PiT. Nixon may have been involved in wildly unconstitutional activities, but so were essentially all of the post-New Deal Presidents. He simply took that to new heights due to his paranoia. In terms of actual accomplishments he ranks as one of the greatest although I disagree with a good chunk of his domestic policies.

[Verily]

You mean the war LBJ basically started and Nixon almost ended successfully?

Put it this way: I have a lot of sympathy for LBJ on this. My grandfather was the head of Marine Corps Intelligence during the Kennedy administration and early in the Johnson administration. He never said a word while he was still active, but after his retirement mentioned many times that the intelligence on Vietnam given by himself and the others to Johnson's top defense advisers, especially but not only McNamara, was hidden from Johnson by those advisers in an effort to convince Johnson that elevation was the proper strategy in Vietnam. Now, you can certainly make the argument that Johnson had poor choice in defense advisers, but the decisions he made were not made with proper information, and therefore he really can't be held accountable.


Anyway, the more modern question is: Will Bush's approval ratings ever make it back over 40?

[Flying Dog]

That's like asking when will Country music ever be good?

[NDN]

You mean the war LBJ basically started and Nixon almost ended successfully?

Put it this way: I have a lot of sympathy for LBJ on this. My grandfather was the head of Marine Corps Intelligence during the Kennedy administration and early in the Johnson administration. He never said a word while he was still active, but after his retirement mentioned many times that the intelligence on Vietnam given by himself and the others to Johnson's top defense advisers, especially but not only McNamara, was hidden from Johnson by those advisers in an effort to convince Johnson that elevation was the proper strategy in Vietnam. Now, you can certainly make the argument that Johnson had poor choice in defense advisers, but the decisions he made were not made with proper information, and therefore he really can't be held accountable.

By Johnson's own admission for all he knew we were shooting 'at whale' over in the Gulf. But nonetheless he went forward with information he himself was doubtful of. And he did so in large part to maintain his image as a staunch anti-Communist. Granted he also believed firmly in the domino theory but we can't deny how much he stood to gain politically (at least initially).

However my point wasn't to criticize LBJ so much as point out the previous administration were at minimum just as culpable in the war and subsequent devastation in the region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up in the low 20s.

[NDN]

That's like asking when will Country music ever be good?

No to that too.

[Dan the Roman]

You mean the war LBJ basically started and Nixon almost ended successfully?

Put it this way: I have a lot of sympathy for LBJ on this. My grandfather was the head of Marine Corps Intelligence during the Kennedy administration and early in the Johnson administration. He never said a word while he was still active, but after his retirement mentioned many times that the intelligence on Vietnam given by himself and the others to Johnson's top defense advisers, especially but not only McNamara, was hidden from Johnson by those advisers in an effort to convince Johnson that elevation was the proper strategy in Vietnam. Now, you can certainly make the argument that Johnson had poor choice in defense advisers, but the decisions he made were not made with proper information, and therefore he really can't be held accountable.

By Johnson's own admission for all he knew we were shooting 'at whale' over in the Gulf. But nonetheless he went forward with information he himself was doubtful of. And he did so in large part to maintain his image as a staunch anti-Communist. Granted he also believed firmly in the domino theory but we can't deny how much he stood to gain politically (at least initially).

However my point wasn't to criticize LBJ so much as point out the previous administration were at minimum just as culpable in the war and subsequent devastation in the region.

Regardless of how we got in, the fact remains that in 1968 we were losing the war with 500,000 troops in the field. By 1972 we were winning it with 35,000 troops, and none of them in combat. Had you asked any observer if that was even possible in 1968 they probably would have said no.

Nixon was a victim of the irrationality of the anti-war movement that turned ending the war into a matter of political principle rather than a rational response to events on the ground. The tragedy is that they won in 1974 and ended killing 4 million people for their principle.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You mean the war LBJ basically started and Nixon almost ended successfully?

Put it this way: I have a lot of sympathy for LBJ on this. My grandfather was the head of Marine Corps Intelligence during the Kennedy administration and early in the Johnson administration. He never said a word while he was still active, but after his retirement mentioned many times that the intelligence on Vietnam given by himself and the others to Johnson's top defense advisers, especially but not only McNamara, was hidden from Johnson by those advisers in an effort to convince Johnson that elevation was the proper strategy in Vietnam. Now, you can certainly make the argument that Johnson had poor choice in defense advisers, but the decisions he made were not made with proper information, and therefore he really can't be held accountable.

That sounds to me too much like the conservative arguments defending Bush as to why he didn't lie about Iraq.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If Obama wins?  Mid-2010
If McCain wins? 2012 or later

[Smash255]

If Obama wins?  Mid-2010
If McCain wins? 2012 or later

Thats absurd.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If Obama wins?  Mid-2010
If McCain wins? 2012 or later

Thats absurd.

Alright, whatever you say

[Smash255]

If Obama wins?  Mid-2010
If McCain wins? 2012 or later

Thats absurd.

Alright, whatever you say

Ok so your explanation on why Bush will become popular again about a year and a half into Obama's administration is.....

[DownWithTheLeft]

If Obama wins?  Mid-2010
If McCain wins? 2012 or later

Thats absurd.

Alright, whatever you say

Ok so your explanation on why Bush will become popular again about a year and a half into Obama's administration is.....

The American public lives in a what's happening now world.  After two years of Obama screwing up badly, the American public will think having Bush was better, they'll forget what they didn't like about him.  And if Iraq turns out succesful, they'll think Bush was right to go there and his approvals will jump.  After he leaves office, people will go back to having opinions of Bush the person rather than Bush the politician, so I see a 10-pt bump as soon as he leaves office.

[Smash255]

If Obama wins?  Mid-2010
If McCain wins? 2012 or later

Thats absurd.

Alright, whatever you say

Ok so your explanation on why Bush will become popular again about a year and a half into Obama's administration is.....

The American public lives in a what's happening now world.  After two years of Obama screwing up badly, the American public will think having Bush was better, they'll forget what they didn't like about him.  And if Iraq turns out succesful, they'll think Bush was right to go there and his approvals will jump.  After he leaves office, people will go back to having opinions of Bush the person rather than Bush the politician, so I see a 10-pt bump as soon as he leaves office.

The idea that Bush will become popular again a year and a half after leaving office has to be one of the most hackish posts this board has ever seen (and the board has seen quite a bit)