TMI And Not Enough Thought

NPR is wringing their hands about whether Too Much Information about a President causes us to lose respect for the man and the office.  Ann Althouse notes that NPR did not engage in similar fretting in the dark Bush days.

If the cheerleading for Obama 2012 has begun, let's just hope the quality improves - any voter dumb enough to be impressed by this will have a hard time finding his way to the polls.  Let's just pick out a howler or two:

More and more delicate details were revealed about sitting presidents — and less and less homage paid to the office — by tabloid newspapers and cable television. And then in the mid-1990s, the Internet, with its unruliness and rudeness, let the cat completely out of the bag. Bill Clinton and the two George Bushes lived in constantly scrutinized — and widely reported on — fishbowls.

We seemed to know everything — and more — about Clinton. His health, his skivvies, his sax, his sex, his Socks. The fact that Clinton had a 66 percent approval rating when he left office is an anomaly.

An anomaly compared to whom, or what?  The first Bush left office in January 1993, pre-dating the internet (their assertion notwithstanding). 

The second Bush, on the other hand, fell from 90 percent approval rating in September 2001 — at the time of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon — to just 34 percent when he left office in 2009.

Uh huh - some combination of a botched war in Iraq, a financial meltdown, and too much information about Bush's personal life probably explains that.  The anomalous Bill Clinton delivered his most sordid revelations during his second term.

President Obama's numbers, so far, have the same downward trajectory. At the start of his administration, the Gallup Poll found Obama's job approval rating at 68 percent. The latest figures from Gallup give him an average approval rating of 46 percent for the week — which is pretty much where his numbers have been since September.

...Of the seven two-term presidents in the past 60 years, only Reagan and Clinton had higher average approval ratings during their second terms. For the most part, the longer we had the chance to know our presidents, the less we approved of the job they were doing.

Here are the numbers.  Let's first note that every President gets a 'honeymoon', so the first year is likely to be higher than subsequent ones.

Regan had a miserable economy which rebounded by his second term; Clinton had a weak recovery which blossomed in his second term.

Truman and Johnson are being scored as a two-termers despite only being elected to the Presidency once.  Each man was booed off the stage and declined to seek re-election because of a difficult war.

Nixon had that little Watergate thing, which coupled with this beach photograph torpedoed him.

Bush choked on pretzels, not to mention Iraq and Goldman Sachs, so his approval rating swooned.

Eisenhower had a little second-term scandal with Sherman Adams but his lowest approval rating was about 52%, so it is not as if the public stopped liking Ike.

All in all, the theory that "the longer we had the chance to know our presidents, the less we approved of the job they were doing" doesn't have much going for it.

Comments

[Clarice]

In retrospect doesn't the Sherman Adams scandal seem like really teensy potatoes?

[anduril]

Uh huh - some combination of a botched war in Iraq, a financial meltdown, and too much information about Bush's personal life probably explains that.

TM is making progress. But instead of "a botched war" I would suggest "a botched foreign policy." Covers more ground and, after all, the war is symptomatic of the policy.

[hit and run]

TM:
Here are the numbers.

I quite enjoy http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx>Gallup's tool to compare presidents.

[Rob Crawford]

a botched war in Iraq

When the hell did that happen?

Oh, you mean the press reported about the war as if it were botched.

[hit and run]

The Gallup approval rating for presidents at this point in their presidencies (poll closest to Christmas in their 2nd year in office):

Bush 41 - 58%
Clinton - 42%
Bush 43 - 61%
Obama - 46%

[Rob Crawford]

It's amazing how hard the press works to conceal their own campaign to destroy Bush at the behest of the Democrats. If it weren't for a guy known as "Buckhead", they would have cited the "unveiling of the ugly truth of Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard" in their list of TMI about Bush. Then there's their concealment of Armitage's role in the Plame Affair, and the fact that the press created that whole "scandal" in the first place.

I fear the only thing Orwell got wrong is that MiniTru is not a formal branch of the government...

[Clarice]

I couldn't post and now I can! At least for the moment. TM, DoT, Jane and Hit.Ignore last message ,please except for the Merry Christmas art.

[Clarice]

Well, I can on this thread only. Bizarre.

[narciso]

Unbelievable, there's 'massaging the numbers,'
then there's something that can get you arrested by the vice squad

[PD]

doesn't have much going for it.

That applies to pretty much anything coming out of NPR.

[Dave (in MA)]

Clarice, it looks to me like some ad crap server is slow loading, and the comment posting thing loads after that.

The first Bush left office in January 1993, pre-dating the internet

LOL WUT? dubya-dubya-dubya != The Internet.

[Dave (in MA)]

And then in the mid-1990s, the Internet, with its unruliness and rudeness, let the cat completely out of the bag. Bill Clinton and the two George Bushes lived in constantly scrutinized — and widely reported on — fishbowls.

We seemed to know everything — and more — about Clinton. His health, his skivvies, his sax, his sex, his Socks.

Billy Jeff's underpants:MTV, Cable TV; not the internet. His Saxophone: Arsenio Hall, broadcast TV; not the internet.

[The better to maintain the illusion.]

Remarkably sloppy thinking and writing, eh, Dave. Hey, it's what their public expects.
==========

[hit and run]

TM:
The first Bush left office in January 1993, pre-dating the internet

Wait. What?

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet"
--http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html>Al Gore
US Representative (TN) Jan 3, 1977 - Jan 3, 1983
US Senator (TN) Jan 3, 1985 - Jan 2, 1993

[Porchlight]

any voter dumb enough to be impressed by this will have a hard time finding his way to the polls.

Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case in 2008.

[PD]

I had Internet access at work in the early 80's, and ARPA was doing its thing before that. That "pre-dating" comment is laughable.

[Threadkiller]

I will stick with the info Obama provided us, prior to the election.

He said he was born a British Subject. I need dig no further.

[jimmyk]

Come now, PD, the fact that you and a few dozen others had access to this thing called the internet in the 80s does not make that comment laughable. The internet was not a mass audience medium until the late 1990s.

[Dave (in MA)]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5u4Vr-R1KitO7XJmrRDErrceYT1pG1QqSP_O9Z1IAWGjbMQtU>
Good point, jimmyk.

[squaredance]

Sad but true

[Boatbuilder]

Krauthammer is wrong. START means absolutely nothing to the voting public. The tax deal might be a step in the right direction for the economy; if it is he will benefit. It's the economy, stupid. The rest is just something for the beltway crowd to talk about.

[Danube of Thought]

"I would suggest 'a botched foreign policy.'"

Always important to get a tapeworm's judgment on US foreign policy. Stark raving cuckoo, but nice to know.

[squaredance]

Oh it means something to them now. In any event, I do not accept you conceit that you know what resonates with the American "public".

I rather suggest that this group is an imaginary one in your mind.

You can wager that they certainly understand winning and losing, and they understand that Obama got his way.

BTW, his whole notion of a "trade off" between DREAM, omnibus and the rate extention one hand and START,DADT and the Food bill disaster on the other is, of course, wholly specious for the GOP need not have compromised at all. They could have held the line.

The voter understands this as well.

They did not, and they really betrayed the country. They did this willfully, spitefully in fact. This is the clearest demonstration we have seen of the real beliefs and intents of the real GOP. Those who echo this notion of the GOP getting the better deal of a "trade off" are just engaging in sour grapes and wishful thinking.

They also miss the point.

We got rolled. We have been had by the GOP.

Likewise, these are not "trivial" matter that the Dems got through; they are of the gravest import an should alarm all who care for the future of The Republic. Those who think they matter less than Omnibus, the Bush tax cut or DREAM are not thinking very deeply and indulging in false choices and dichotomies.

Beyond that, I scarcely see how the food bill or the giveaways in the tax cut or the "cuts" themselves "help the economy" in the sense of actually radically improving it. It is wonderful that the rates have not gone up, but this is marginal in changing the economy for the rates only remain as they are. Its main contribution to a turn around is that investors may feel a little more comfortable now, but only a little. Soon it will become a major talking point in the next election cycle. The GOP now "owns" this and it will be played to the hilt by the Dems should things not improve. If they do improve, Obama will get the credit for "compromising".

No, Krauthammer hit the nail on the head. Folks here about just do not want to face it.

Te GOP has blatantly shown its true nature, and some are unwilling to face it. Yes, we have some new blood coming in next year, but these people are not in the majority in the GOP and do not control it. This group does not even control the House and have to deal with GOP old timers there too.

The Establishment GOP, part Statists, Part opportunists and part, let us be honest, infiltrating Democrats, well do their best to destroy the "Tea Party candidates" and scuttle their work.

Given the monstrous power pwoer grabs by the EPA and the FCC think does not bode well for reform. This is what the Democrats know and you do not.

In the end, Obama brief is to destroy American power, social cohesion and, above all, the white middle classes. He is a Marxist-Leninist. This is the prize, not his re-election.

[daddy]

Sorry if you guys have already mentioned it, but did you see that the CIA has decided to call their unit investigating Wikileaks by the acronym WTF. (">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/22/2010-12-22_cia_forms_wikileaks_task_force_aka_wtf_to_investigate_impact_of_leaks_by_whistle.html"> Wikileaks Task Force)

[narciso]

daddy, that was a question 'they should have been aware of yesterday' or at least six months ago, talk about locking the door after
the horses have the Preakness.

[Ann]

Porchlight: I think you found what has been apparent for sometime:

Clarice: When a horse has a floppy foot or imperfect gait they call it paddling, dishing and/or winging. Any of which is a perfect analysis of Obama, imo. :)

Janet: One of my favorites at Christmas is Amy Grant. Smooches, glad you got my package.
Did you check out the back of the T-shirt that my daughter designed? "Raised Right"...(Made me very proud) :)

[hit and run]

Did it really just pass 3am central? That's like 4am eastern.

Hoooo boy. I'm just sayin'...

Good morning!

[daddy]

Morning Hit,

Kinda' nice this time of the AM ain't it. That's when I do my janitor work here, cleaning up the place, dusting the blinds, fluffing the pillows, posting the ">http://bhanks.encblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/120209-unc-cheerleader.jpg"> cheerleader pics, etc. A nice peaceful time for a beer:)

[daddy]

Speaking of TMI (Too Much Information):

Because of all that Global Warming white stuff clobbering England, the UK Telegraph has contacted a Physics Prof to teach its bewildered English readers how to make a snowball. According to Professor Peter Main, Director of Education and Science at the Institute of Physics, this is how to do it:

Step 1. Check the weather. Outdoor temperatures around 32F (0C) will ensure the snow has the correct moisture content, a key component of the perfect snowball. At lower temperatures, the snow may be too powdery, containing more air and therefore less water, making it harder to pack tightly into a ball.

Step 2. Wear gloves, not mittens. The individual fingers give gloves a larger surface area and allow more heat to escape, thereby slightly melting the snow as it is squeezed into a ball.

Step 3. Scoop up the snow with cupped hands. Typically, fresh, uncompacted snow is between 90 and 95 per cent trapped air. To reduce the air content and create a ball, slowly close your hands together while rotating the trapped snow.

Step 4. Squeeze with increasing pressure: the snow should make muffled cracking noises as the last of the air is squeezed from between the snowflakes as they compress. Avoid excessive pressure or your snowball might disintegrate under the stress. “The trick,” says Prof Main, “is to compress it enough to enable it to stick together, but not enough to form lumps of ice”.

Step 5. Make a small pile of snowballs, ensuring plenty of ammunition in case of retaliation. Setting snowballs aside will also improve them, as they recover from the melting caused by your body heat. As your missiles slowly refreeze, they will become firmer still – deep and crisp and even.

Step 6. Throw first snowball.

If you have done it properly says Professor Main, it won't "disintegrate mid-flight, but it should splatter on impact without causing damage.”

I will issue a pop quiz on this material sometime tomorrow, and for those who get a passing grade (70% correct), you will be presented with an official certificate authorizing you to engage in snowball making, so study hard JOMer's!

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

Harummph! I was hoping for the annual TM family picture - which we get about every 5 annuals.

Daddy, I take it you are home for the holiday.

[Cecil Turner]

Uh huh - some combination of a botched war in Iraq . . .

Except the guys getting the political benefit were the same ones clamoring for defeat. Better explanation: propaganda works.

[Comanche Voter]

You know the Tea Party came for the Democrats in this election; and if the GOP doesn't shape up better than this, I expect we'll have to come for the GOP in 2012. It's going to take several rinse and repeat cycles before they finish washing all the crud out of the Beltway.

[J]

The difference the internet made is that it exposed a supposedly "free" press as merely a tool of the ultra-left political class.
And, as was said in the last election, I invoke for the next VOTE THE BUMS OUT.
I consider the present republicans as aiders and abettors of the dem party/obama agenda.

[Janet]

Did you check out the back of the T-shirt that my daughter designed? "Raised Right"...(Made me very proud) :)

The t-shirt is fabulous... you SHOULD be proud. She could start a CafePress account & put up designs for conservative young people. I'll pass on links to my daughter & her sorority at VA Tech.
I'd buy some of the "Raised Right" ones now & give them to my Naomi to give out. I'd consider it part of my tea-vangelist ministry! :)

[BobDenver]

Wow, Daddy, that male cheerleader has amazing powers of concentration.

[Talk Fusion]

Look at Obama wearing a $10,000 suit... This oh country is corrupted!

Thanks