Americans starting to like George W. Bush: Poll

[webfact]

Poll: You're starting to remember Bush fondly

(CNN) - For the first time since 2005, more Americans have a favorable view of former President George W. Bush than an unfavorable view.

According to a new Gallup poll released Tuesday, 49% have a positive opinion of the two-term Republican president, while 46% feel the opposite.

The survey was conducted entirely before reports emerged last week of U.S. government surveillance programs, some of which began under the Bush administration.

As time goes by, presidents generally see their numbers improve the longer they are out of office. Gallup numbers show presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all had favorable ratings over 60% when last measured.

Full story: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/11/poll-youre-starting-to-remember-bush-fondly/?hpt=hp_t3

-- CNN 2013-06-12

[Ulysses G.]

The president in office now has kept many of his programs and expanded on them, because he was right in the first place. The public owes him an apology.

[Credo]

And the US owes the world an apology for having elected Bush.

His image will only rehabilitate itself as long as he keeps his mouth shut.

[anselpixel]

The US Presidency isn't what it used to be. The reason they're all beginning to look the same is that they're simply figureheads for a much larger, unelected entity. Bush made an easy target because he played the part with more obvious relish than the current actor.

[Publicus]

Tis better to be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth to prove one to be a fool.

Bush has benefitted from the unwritten rule strictly observed by former presidents not to speak on public issues facing the successor incumbent president. This is a strict unspoken and unwritten rule pertaining to the presidency. It leaves no doubt in the mind of the world, to include the enemies of the United States especially, that there is only one president, the incumbent president, and no former president would creatw societal divisions or diversions by speaking out critically of the incumbent successor.

Bill Clinton never said a bad word against G.H.W. Bush, the incumbent prez he defeated, nor did Bill Clinton question G.W. Bush's credibility as president after the 2000 election which had included the Florida vote count fiasco, further complicated by the Supreme Court, which no one openly criticized either. It's a matter of respect of the institution.

It so happens that as Bush observes this rule, i.e., keeps his public mouth shut, the less the fool he looks. The more silent Bush is, the better he looks to some people.

Certainly not to me.

[Credo]

It is good he is keeping his mouth shut. What is quite disappointing is that as a former president he is doing a lot less than some other presidents for charitable causes.

[Wavefloater]

I'm shocked to hear this and frankly disappointed.

[Wavefloater]

And the US owes the world an apology for having elected Bush.

His image will only rehabilitate itself as long as he keeps his mouth shut.

I really don't think the second election was legitimate, so I've never blamed the US citizens for such awful judgement.

But as has been mentioned here, Dems or Republicans -- it doesn't matter. These guys are just figureheads. In essence, nothing changes whether it's a Dem or Rep in office.

[glegolo]

And the US owes the world an apology for having elected Bush.

His image will only rehabilitate itself as long as he keeps his mouth shut.

The US does not owe THE WORLD anything. The WORLD does not care that much....

Vote your presidents and do your things no problem...

I have seen threads being closed here many times due to the NON having anything to do

with Thailand at all......

This is an american "thing" nothing for the rest of us. That is my belief anyhow...

close it..

Glegolo

[Scott]

This forum is the World News Section. Articles do not have to be related to Thailand.

[glegolo]

This forum is the World News Section. Articles do not have to be related to Thailand.

OK I am sorry, sloppy of me... will not happen again I am sure..

Glegolo

[jobsworth]

If these people are just figureheads then who is really running the country?

[samran]

It is good he is keeping his mouth shut. What is quite disappointing is that as a former president he is doing a lot less than some other presidents for charitable causes.

I think you'll find that he and Bill Clinton struck up a genuine friendship in their post presidential days and have done a bit of stuff together. It has been written that Clinton even looks upon George H.W. Bush as the father he never had. Clinton and the Bushes are quite close these days.

But for me, if a former President wants to hang up their boots an sit on their buttocks then they have well and truely deserved it.

Edited June 12, 2013 by samran

[starkey_rich]

Just shows how many Americans are mentally unstable voting for a warmongering idiot.

[bri1guy]

statistical comparison of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama shows a series of devastating results for the current White House tenant.

A study suggests that Bush was more successful in 14 of the 16 categories chosen by the conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API).

For instance the number of Americans on food stamps was 19.2 million under the 43rd president, but now stands at 39.5 million. The increase in the national debt was 28.6 percent under Bush and 50.6 percent under Obama.

Other figures show the three-year average cost for a family’s health insurance was a little over $8,000 under Bush, but a little over $14,000 now.

Perhaps the most startling is that, the gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product — 61.6 percent under Bush, but 98.7 percent under Obama — and total job creation which was plus 440,000 in the Bush years but minus 2,760,000 under Obama, according to the Institute’s figures.

Also showes the average length of unemployment had gone up from 5.3 weeks in the Bush years to 9.6 weeks now, while average per capita income had gone down by nearly $5,000 from $31,644 to $26,727.

"It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison," the institute’s policy director and general counsel, Cameron Smith said.

"Since President Obama's first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Bush's full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush administration."

The two items that Obama came out ahead of Bush on were the number of new government regulations, which AMI said stood at 11,017 under the current president and 13,615 under his predecessor, and in the change in the S&P 500, up 74.3 percent under Obama, but down 32.6 percent under Bush.

[KuhnPaen]

I seriously hope that one day America will stop paying for Europes defense and will just let whatever happens happen. Must be nice having the world's most powerful military protecting you and bash it at the same time.

[samran]

statistical comparison of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama shows a series of devastating results for the current White House tenant.

A study suggests that Bush was more successful in 14 of the 16 categories chosen by the conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API).

For instance the number of Americans on food stamps was 19.2 million under the 43rd president, but now stands at 39.5 million. The increase in the national debt was 28.6 percent under Bush and 50.6 percent under Obama.

Other figures show the three-year average cost for a family’s health insurance was a little over $8,000 under Bush, but a little over $14,000 now.

Perhaps the most startling is that, the gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product — 61.6 percent under Bush, but 98.7 percent under Obama — and total job creation which was plus 440,000 in the Bush years but minus 2,760,000 under Obama, according to the Institute’s figures.

Also showes the average length of unemployment had gone up from 5.3 weeks in the Bush years to 9.6 weeks now, while average per capita income had gone down by nearly $5,000 from $31,644 to $26,727.

"It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison," the institute’s policy director and general counsel, Cameron Smith said.

"Since President Obama's first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Bush's full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush administration."

The two items that Obama came out ahead of Bush on were the number of new government regulations, which AMI said stood at 11,017 under the current president and 13,615 under his predecessor, and in the change in the S&P 500, up 74.3 percent under Obama, but down 32.6 percent under Bush.

Well, it would be hard to imagine the "conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API)" coming out in favour of a Democrat President now, would it?

The API's amnesia however is truely impresive. It has clearly forgotten three letters of the alphabet. G, F and C.

Edited June 12, 2013 by samran

[chuckd]

statistical comparison of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama shows a series of devastating results for the current White House tenant.

A study suggests that Bush was more successful in 14 of the 16 categories chosen by the conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API).

For instance the number of Americans on food stamps was 19.2 million under the 43rd president, but now stands at 39.5 million. The increase in the national debt was 28.6 percent under Bush and 50.6 percent under Obama.

Other figures show the three-year average cost for a family’s health insurance was a little over $8,000 under Bush, but a little over $14,000 now.

Perhaps the most startling is that, the gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product — 61.6 percent under Bush, but 98.7 percent under Obama — and total job creation which was plus 440,000 in the Bush years but minus 2,760,000 under Obama, according to the Institute’s figures.

Also showes the average length of unemployment had gone up from 5.3 weeks in the Bush years to 9.6 weeks now, while average per capita income had gone down by nearly $5,000 from $31,644 to $26,727.

"It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison," the institute’s policy director and general counsel, Cameron Smith said.

"Since President Obama's first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Bush's full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush administration."

The two items that Obama came out ahead of Bush on were the number of new government regulations, which AMI said stood at 11,017 under the current president and 13,615 under his predecessor, and in the change in the S&P 500, up 74.3 percent under Obama, but down 32.6 percent under Bush.

Well, it would be hard to imagine the "conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API)" coming out in favour of a Democrat President now, would it?

The API's amnesia however is truely impresive. It has clearly forgotten three letters of the alphabet. G, F and C.

Which of the statistics are incorrect?

Attack the message, not the source.

[samran]

statistical comparison of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama shows a series of devastating results for the current White House tenant.

A study suggests that Bush was more successful in 14 of the 16 categories chosen by the conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API).

For instance the number of Americans on food stamps was 19.2 million under the 43rd president, but now stands at 39.5 million. The increase in the national debt was 28.6 percent under Bush and 50.6 percent under Obama.

Other figures show the three-year average cost for a family’s health insurance was a little over $8,000 under Bush, but a little over $14,000 now.

Perhaps the most startling is that, the gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product — 61.6 percent under Bush, but 98.7 percent under Obama — and total job creation which was plus 440,000 in the Bush years but minus 2,760,000 under Obama, according to the Institute’s figures.

Also showes the average length of unemployment had gone up from 5.3 weeks in the Bush years to 9.6 weeks now, while average per capita income had gone down by nearly $5,000 from $31,644 to $26,727.

"It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison," the institute’s policy director and general counsel, Cameron Smith said.

"Since President Obama's first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Bush's full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush administration."

The two items that Obama came out ahead of Bush on were the number of new government regulations, which AMI said stood at 11,017 under the current president and 13,615 under his predecessor, and in the change in the S&P 500, up 74.3 percent under Obama, but down 32.6 percent under Bush.

Well, it would be hard to imagine the "conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API)" coming out in favour of a Democrat President now, would it?

The API's amnesia however is truely impresive. It has clearly forgotten three letters of the alphabet. G, F and C.

Which of the statistics are incorrect?

Attack the message, not the source.

I doubt that many of the statistics are incorrect. That wasn't my point, and I'm sure you know it. A global fiancial crisis (not of his making) got in the way. It is natural that those numbers are where they are as a result. Whether you want to sheet home the blame to Bush, Clinton, Congress, or a bunch of investment bankers, it is up to you.

On the health insurance side of things, well, unless you want government control over private insurers, then I'm not sure why he is to blame for premium rises?

Edited June 12, 2013 by samran

[Lancelot]

After a few years out of office. Mr. Obama will be kindly remember as well.

Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president was widely despised during his time in office. Now he is revered (and rightly so)

70+ years ago Germany and Japan were not so highly regarded; now they are highly respected nations with strong economies.

Time heals a lot of, em, ah stuff

Better still I'm going to enjoy a nice cold San Mig Light

[impulse]

I doubt that many of the statistics are incorrect. That wasn't my point, and I'm sure you know it. A global fiancial crisis (not of his making) got in the way. It is natural that those numbers are where they are as a result. Whether you want to sheet home the blame to Bush, Clinton, Congress, or a bunch of investment bankers, it is up to you.

On the health insurance side of things, well, unless you want government control over private insurers, then I'm not sure why he is to blame for premium rises?

And they seem to forget that the biggest issue during the 2000 presidential campaign was how to spend the budget surplus. What, exactly, was the surplus after 8 years of GWB?

[simple1]

I seriously hope that one day America will stop paying for Europes defense and will just let whatever happens happen. Must be nice having the world's most powerful military protecting you and bash it at the same time.

Trade is crucial to national security. One of the reasons for the US "Pivot to Asia" is to secure trade routes. Half the world trade in dollar value is currently conducted between the US & the EC. You believe the US support for NATO is altruistic? However, a quote from James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser.

"No one knows where the next crisis will emerge, Mr. Steinberg said, but it is useful to have NATO there, even acting as a limited coalition, as in Libya. If the United States represents 75 percent of NATO spending, “that’s a modest price to pay when the next crisis comes along.”

[HUAHIN62]

If these people are just figureheads then who is really running the country?

Follow the money and you will find the power, the real power.

[borisloosebrain]

statistical comparison of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama shows a series of devastating results for the current White House tenant.

A study suggests that Bush was more successful in 14 of the 16 categories chosen by the conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API).

For instance the number of Americans on food stamps was 19.2 million under the 43rd president, but now stands at 39.5 million. The increase in the national debt was 28.6 percent under Bush and 50.6 percent under Obama.

Other figures show the three-year average cost for a family’s health insurance was a little over $8,000 under Bush, but a little over $14,000 now.

Perhaps the most startling is that, the gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product — 61.6 percent under Bush, but 98.7 percent under Obama — and total job creation which was plus 440,000 in the Bush years but minus 2,760,000 under Obama, according to the Institute’s figures.

Also showes the average length of unemployment had gone up from 5.3 weeks in the Bush years to 9.6 weeks now, while average per capita income had gone down by nearly $5,000 from $31,644 to $26,727.

"It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison," the institute’s policy director and general counsel, Cameron Smith said.

"Since President Obama's first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Bush's full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush administration."

The two items that Obama came out ahead of Bush on were the number of new government regulations, which AMI said stood at 11,017 under the current president and 13,615 under his predecessor, and in the change in the S&P 500, up 74.3 percent under Obama, but down 32.6 percent under Bush.

The API is hardly a credible source to quote - bunch of right wing religious nutters "we were called by god to create this institute'. Of course they will come up with whatever statistics suits their cause.

[TheGhostWithin]

After a few years out of office. Mr. Obama will be kindly remember as well.

Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president was widely despised during his time in office. Now he is revered (and rightly so)

70+ years ago Germany and Japan were not so highly regarded; now they are highly respected nations with strong economies.

Time heals a lot of, em, ah stuff

Better still I'm going to enjoy a nice cold San Mig Light

Japan is highly respected by the west, for being a shining star in a sea of nationalist countries looking only to further their own agendas at the expense of everyone else.. some of which now undertake invasion by immigration on its' enemies who are asleep at the wheel. Japan has earnt its' place for the risk it has taken on its' position whilst remaining the neighbors of two of the most nationalist countries in the world to their north west and west.

Germany is a more debatable claim, some in the periphery of Europe who have seen Germany and her true agenda on the European union as a tool to lower its' exchange rate to increase exports whilst "lending" money to countries which lose industry (generally services and lower grade exports) due to an exchange rate higher than what they enjoyed pre-Euro. Germany wins twice and other countries (including the US and China, and even Thailand when we consider that Germany can export cars cheaper under the EU than they could under the Deutschmark) while others pay the price twice for Germany. Germany, although they do assist in international assistance programs abroad, do seem as prevalent or as consistent as the French (particularly in Africa or the Brits (who have given a hell of a lot to Afghanistan), who make a lot of effort to try to shape the world into being a safer, better place for everyone.

[borisloosebrain]

George Bush seems like a very personable guy, someone I wouldn't mind have a beer and a bbq with, but he'd have been better running a bar than a country.

[heybruce]

statistical comparison of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama shows a series of devastating results for the current White House tenant.

A study suggests that Bush was more successful in 14 of the 16 categories chosen by the conservative Alabama Policy Institute (API).

For instance the number of Americans on food stamps was 19.2 million under the 43rd president, but now stands at 39.5 million. The increase in the national debt was 28.6 percent under Bush and 50.6 percent under Obama.

Other figures show the three-year average cost for a family’s health insurance was a little over $8,000 under Bush, but a little over $14,000 now.

Perhaps the most startling is that, the gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product — 61.6 percent under Bush, but 98.7 percent under Obama — and total job creation which was plus 440,000 in the Bush years but minus 2,760,000 under Obama, according to the Institute’s figures.

Also showes the average length of unemployment had gone up from 5.3 weeks in the Bush years to 9.6 weeks now, while average per capita income had gone down by nearly $5,000 from $31,644 to $26,727.

"It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison," the institute’s policy director and general counsel, Cameron Smith said.

"Since President Obama's first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Bush's full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama's administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush administration."

The two items that Obama came out ahead of Bush on were the number of new government regulations, which AMI said stood at 11,017 under the current president and 13,615 under his predecessor, and in the change in the S&P 500, up 74.3 percent under Obama, but down 32.6 percent under Bush.

Take off your blinders and do a true comparison.:.

George Bush took pffice with the country at peace, an economy in a mild recession and a government with a record budget surplus.

Obama took office with two unresolved wars, a record buget deficit (the Fiscal Year 2009--October 2008 to September 20, 2011--record breaking trillion dollar plus deficit was a Bush deficit driven by the federal budget plan he signed into law in the fall of 2008), and with an economy in economic free-fall with legitimate fears of another great depression.

In short, Bush screwed up the nation and the world, Obama is slowly attempting to repair the damage, but it takes a lot longer to fix things than to break them.

[Scott]

George Bush seems like a very personable guy, someone I wouldn't mind have a beer and a bbq with, but he'd have been better running a bar than a country.

I believe he doesn't drink and I've read somewhere that he is a recovering alcoholic.

Probably best not to have a beer with him, but the BBQ sounds rather nice.

[drdoom6996]

The president in office now has kept many of his programs and expanded on them, because he was right in the first place. The public owes him an apology.

I am in the minority. I thought Bush was the right man at the time of 2001, Sept. However the man that is president now told us he would balance the budget. 17 Trillion or down the road he has increased the debt by 10 times or more. Maybe they don't like him as much as they used to and gave Bush the thumbs up this time.

[winstonc]

I seriously hope that one day America will stop paying for Europes defense and will just let whatever happens happen. Must be nice having the world's most powerful military protecting you and bash it at the same time.

protecting your INTERESTS you mean,not very bright are you,making silly comments like this,,did well in vietnam i recall,,,,byeee,,,,