The Clinton Playbook

When did Clinton ever demonize the opposition the way Smirk and his crew have? Faux News wasn't the problem then that it is now. Bush has made his bed and now must sleep in it. His approval ratings will sink further into Nixon territory.

I forgot to add one thing. Smirk is a horrible public speaker. The more he talks, the more people lose confidence in him. He doesn't inspire anyone.

Clinton could take 81 minutes on any subject at whim with no notes.

Most Americans, those who aren't blind, know that Bush is bound by the talking points that he won't stumble over when reading off the teleprompter.

Tonight should be interesting. The story will be Jim Webb. Does he gently diss the President, or go for the kill?

I think the only comparisons are with Nixon and Johnson. Bush can ignore the war all he wants tonight, but he will never win the American people over again until he announces withdrawal from Iraq. Clinton was battling conspiracies, while Bush has created his battles.

This is a very poor comparison. First term approval ratings often fluctuate wildly. Morevoer, Clinton's _dispproval_ ratings were never that bad (note that during a first tem, approval plus disapproval is not 100% in most polls, since there are still a lot of undecideds).

Also, Clinton's approval rating in January of 2005 was 47 percent. It was not mired in the 30s.

Historical context with no obligatory Democratic Party bashing. Wow what's this stuff called again? My parents used to talk about objective reporting.

Thanks, Tom T. I, too, never remembered Clinton's approval ratings being that low.

If you clap harder, Carney, Tinkerbell really will live!

Liar!

Clinton's approval ratings were in the 40s at his lowest point and his disapproval ratings were never as high as Bush's are right now. The comparison should be Nixon post-Watergate, LBJ post-Tet or Carter post-Iran. In all cases, Bush seems well on his way to spending more time at bottom than any of these other presidents.

Keep spewing your rightwing lies, Jay, so that your publication will go under. We don't need any more Pravdas in the USA, you slimeball liar.

I've read two daily entries in a row from you that have absolutely no connection whatsoever with reality. Frankly, I am astounded that any person allegedly connected with the new business could become a bureau chief without some reportorial skills and ethics whatsoever. Your daily drivel is compelling me to the assumption that you value your stipend from the Republican Party more than what Time, Inc pays you.

& we have seen bush talk for 81 seconds without a teleprompter. It isn't pretty.
So Clinton was always much higher in the polls, he could speak English, & brought us the long national nightmare of peace & prosperity.
Tonight however, it will be most interesting to contrast the draft dodging bush w/ war hero Webb.

uh, Mr. Bureau Chief - exactly how did you get your job? because it seems factual reporting wasn't your career path to success.

give up jay. you cannot peddle bullshit anymore.

either learn how to do basic googling that any highschooler is capable of doing, or stop these idiotic pointless punditic pontifications.

"One of the lessons of the Clinton recovery, both in 1995 and later, during Monica, in 1999, is that Americans reward presidents who, even in the face of enormous distractions, focus on issues that matter to them."

No, Jay. One of the lessons of the Clinton recovery is that Americans reward presidents who DELIVER.

Bush can talk all he wants about whatever he wants, but the American people have lost confidence in his judgement and competence.

No speech is going to change that.

Bzzzzz. Thank you for playing!

he'll put forward what for him will be progressive and bold policy proposals on health care, the environment and immigration reform

And what for everyone else will be incomprehensible gibberish based on ideology and complex tax code revisions that reward corporations and the wealthy, while punishing the middle class.

Since when did the Senate Majority Leader sit behind the President at the State of the Union? I'm pretty sure that was Newt Gingrich and Vice President Al Gore behind President Clinton in 1995. What sort of Washington Bureau Chief wouldn't know that?

Gee, Jay, you would think with all that time spent covering the Clinton White House, as your bio so helpfully points out, that you would have your friggin facts straight. How stupid do you "people" think we are?

Mr. Carney, you just can't get away with writing garbage like this on a blog. People will not tolerate it.

Um, it's been pointed out a lot here, but shouldn't you correct your text to reflect the fact that Clinton's poll numbers were far higher than Bush's (and his negatives far lower)?

"Mired in the 30s"? Mr.Carney, I believe this is what we refer to as "truthiness." Just because you feel it to be true, that doesn't mean that it IS true.
Don't you feel the least bit ashamed for misleading your readers? Embarrassed at being so wrong, so often?

"One of the lessons of the Clinton recovery, both in 1995 and later, during Monica, in 1999..."

Sigh... why can't this myth die? Clinton didn't need to recover from Monica because he remained very popular the whole time. According to Gallup the lowest Clinton's approval ever got after Monica was made public was 57%. I know he was unpopular with the beltway elite, but the American public didn't agree with you. You shouldn't imply they did.

Jay,

Can you please provide your readers with the source for your data on Clinton's approval numbers?

"Instead, he'll put forward what for him will be progressive and bold policy proposals on health care, the environment and immigration reform."

Is there anyone left in this country -- besides Jay Carney, that is -- that honestly believes Bush to be capable of putting together bold, progressive policy proposals on the above issues? Proposals that don't involve dropping a lot of bombs somewhere, that is? If we've learned anything during the past seven years it's that (a) Bush has absolutely zero interest in policy divorced from his partisan political gain and (b) any policy that Bush does advance is guaranteed to fail spectacularly. Remember, this is the man who let an entire American city drown because he didn't want to break off his vacation.

So sure, perhaps Bush could win over the nation with a heartfelt, Clintonian address making clear his desire to address America's long-standing social and economic issues -- and Pauly Shore could win a Best Actor Oscar for a stirring dramatic performance.

My money's on Pauly.

Jay why do you have difficulty dealing with facts?

A little research checking the details you are about to write an article about, is advised.

"Can you please provide your readers with the source for your data on Clinton's approval numbers?"

Yeah, I'd like to see the link for that as well.

Next time try google.

There are so many errors in this post that I cannot cover them all. But perhaps you might take a moment to remember that Bob Dole never sat behind President Clinton when he gave the State of the Union. The Vice-President and Speaker sit behind the President. Al Gore sat behind Bill. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

....and the Iraq war is not an "issue that matters" to the people? Oh yeah, better showcase those hotly debated topics like No child left behind.

I hope you are in fact advising the Bush WH.

Fluffer!

"One of the lessons of the Clinton recovery, both in 1995 and later, during Monica, in 1999, is that Americans reward presidents who, even in the face of enormous distractions, focus on issues that matter to them."

No, the lesson is that Americans reward presidents who focus on issues that the American people SUPPORT. Issues that make life better, not worse, for the average American.

Since the issues that matter to Bush -- escalating the war on Iraq, expanding the war to Iran, destroying Social Security, expanding the wealth gap, giving tax breaks to the wealthy, eliminating protections for the ordinary worker, etc. -- are issues that the American public overwhelmingly oppose, it's not too likely that focusing on these will do much to increase his popularity.

And, nota bene, Clinton did not have to "recover" from the Lewinsky story. He remained extremely popular throughout.

Any commentary that includes sports metaphors (the "playbook") is generally the most superficial kind of pablum. The vacuity of this entry doesn't depart from the rule. The chance of Bush reclaiming his popularity is the same as the chance of "victory" in Iraq. Bush no longer matters, just as our army no longer matters in the end.

As a competent blogger, Brad DeLong, put it the other day: Why would I pay someone to tell me how things aren't when there are so many people trying their hardest to tell me the way things are?

Look, Bush is unpopular. A very substantial majority of Americans in the real world disapprove of Bush, his policies, and the job he is doing. A majority of Americans believe him and his administration to be incompetent in the domestic arena as well as the foreign policy arena.

You may wistfully wish that weren't so and you may be doing all in your power to force those rating up over Nixonland, but frankly, Carney, I think that is pathetic.

You people in DC live in a narrow little dreamworld where you suffer no consequences from the gross incompetence that is the Bush presidency.

Jay Carney = hacktastic idiot liar. And that's why he shares blog with Joke Line and Anna Marie's Cocks...

There is a glaringly inaccurate statement at the very center of this comment. You need to correct it, obviously. Please do so.

A couple of days ago, Karen Timulty noted that she doesn't have much blogging experience, and then had a post up called Journalism 101.

It's time for a blogging 101 lesson. There are two elements of this medium that make it unique. First, when you write in this medium, you show your work. From this link: http://ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton

you'd have seen numbers that are hardly consistent with "free fall." His January 1995 approval rating was in the mid to high 40s, with approvals sometimes higher than disapproval.

See, if you put up a link, then we can check and see whether your story is accurate.

The other beautiful thing about this medium is that your commenters, and other bloggers, will note that you've put up an inaccurate post as you have in this case.

"Um . . . well that would be a lie, Alan."

"Correct! Tell him what he wins, Bob!"

"A NEW CAR!"

Jay, one of the useful aspects of blogging is to use the hyperlinks to reference citations. This connecting of information is the main utility of the Web.

Of course, you'd have to FIND cites to support your position. It's called research, and Google is quite handy in this regard.

Perhaps you should consider hiring a journalism student to ease your transition from celluose-based media.

Did Joe Klein buy you a latte for this?

I suggest that your next post be about how THE DEMS NEED TO SEEM TOUGHER ON SECURITY. Then, one on how THE DEMS NEED TO SEEM MORE PRINCIPLED AND SERIOUS.

Then, if there are any more cliches left, Cox can just vomit them up with some anal sex jokes.

Maybe your company wouldn't have to lay so many people off if you focused on being less mind-numbingly predictable.

I think most of the commentary on this thread is entirely misplaced, and a tone of greater civility is warranted.

After all, Jay Carney is an extremely well paid Washington Bureau Chief. It isn't necessary for members of the Aristocracy to provide links to back up for their assertions; Jay can and should be able simply to rely on his authority in these, and all other, matters.

We owe Jay, and his carefully mussed hair, all the deference due his position.

Let's be reasonable, here, people.

Let's investigate Jay Carney.

Iraq is bleeding this president dry metaphorically, because it is bleeding our bright young soldiers to death, literally.

The Iraq 'gambit' (as you spin it) was a complete fiasco because we never should have played the occupation game there in the first place.

Wake up, Jay. For the last 12 years this country played our fears and hijacked our reason. Hopefully we'll get an adult in the White House in 2008!

What a bunch of hooey. I never cease to be amazed at how disconnected the "Beltway" is from the country.

Bush is NOT going to turn anything around.

He is far lower now than Clinton was at any point in his Presidency. Further, Clinton was never as low as you blithely suggest he was.

Finally, Bush has been at this 40 or lower point in the majority of polls since his Katrina performance in the Fall of 2005. That's nearly a year of 40% or lower ratings. Few if any Presidents have ever suffered such a prolonged and thorough repudiation by the public.

And yet you pretend as if he can somehow win people back. He is a fraud, a demonstrable fraud with absolutely no accomplishments to show for his second term -- only failures. We all know it out here, maybe you should realize collectively we are smarter and more perceptive than you folks inside the Beltway Bubble.

Key phrase in this post: "But the public didn't agree with the Beltway assessments..."

Hmmm...I think there might be a lesson there Mr. Carney. Think hard now, what might it be...?

That's nearly a year of 40% or lower ratings.

That should be nearly a "year and a half"

I said collectively smarter, not individually. ;-)

But there's a chance he will be rewarded by viewers for finally addressing an issue that matters deeply to Americans

You have got to be kidding. Most Americans know by now that this president is snake-oil salesman.

The only folks imagining his SOTU could bolster his positives are the ones who got stuck a franchise.
.

Despite the rumor that has been floating around the internet, I am not Anna Marie Cox.

Reasonable? Naw, he's been given all the deference his P.O.S. article is due.

Jay, Congrats!

You are really putting those George W. Bush autographed kneepads to good use!!

Really the most pathetic part of all this is that he should not have to use google to have a basic idea of where Clinton's numbers were for an entire year. His general knowledge of recent political history should tell him that. Anyone with even a passing interest in politics knows Bush's numbers are historically low. Where do they find these people??

does this guy know what the term "research" means? It took less than 3 seconds to see that Clinton's approval ratings were never in the 30s. What a crock!
Here, I did the work for you...asshat!
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

Ana Marie:

Jay seems to be a good guy and a straight shooter (unlike CNN) so no ill intentions are assumed on this one. So he does not get himself sucked through the good will shredder, I trust you will make sure he provides a more accurate historical account next time.

Atrios points out Jim Carney's inaccuracies:

In this edition, Jay Carney demonstrates he doesn't know, or that he hopes you don't know, recent history.

He writes:

In late 1994 and early 1995, President Clinton was in free fall. His aides despaired. They worried he might never recover from the shellacking the Democrats took in the 1994 mid-term elections. His approval ratings were mired in the 30's, and seemed unlikely to rise.

As we can see from this handy chart, Clinton's approval ratings were not "mired in the 30s." "Mired in the 40s," with a couple sub-40 and 50+ outliers would be an accurate description.

In addition, Clinton's disapproval ratings were much lower than Bush's, hovering at around just over 50.

Compare the above chart to this one.

Try again, Jay.

(ht reader T)

...other errors noted by various commenters:

The Vice President (otherwise known as the President of the Senate) and Speaker of the House sit behind the president at the SOTU, not the Senate Majority Leader.

Clinton never had to "recover" from Monica, unless polls in the high 50s and 60s are something you have to recover from.

Carney asserts that Bush, instead of talking about Iraq, will please voters by talking about "issues that matter to them." 48% of people, way above any other single issue, say Iraq is the most important issue.

It is worse than sad that you are being paid to write for a blog yet you trip over easily verified facts. As the saying goes, you're either stupid or liar. Which is it?

You compare the Lewinsky scandal (a completely engineered scandal) to Bush's complete failure called Iraq? Laughable. Hundreds of thousands of dead civiliand and 3000+ dead soldiers do not equal a blowjob, son.

This Clinton was so unpopular meme is interesting. No one who was paying attention at the time believes it because it wasn't true, but the far right Clinton haters "know" its true because they hated Clinton, all their friends hated Clinton, and Rush was on the radio every day telling them how much everyone hated Clinton.

What the Conservatives fail to understand, however, is that they were not, are not, never have been and never will be a majority in this country, and it was only the right that hated Clinton with such passion. (Yes I know the same is true of Liberals.)

And frankly even if Carney's claim of Clinton's unpopularity in 1995 were true, the comparison is still a bad one. When Clinton gave his SOTU address in 95 he was just starting his second year in office, and despite the vocal dislike coming for the Right most Americans were still willing to give the guy a chance. Bush has been in office six years. Most Americans had given him the benefit of the doubt following 9/11 but he is now a known quantity. One speech is not going to turn around the last two years of his Presidency.

The notion that Washington DC was built on a swamp is one of those historical canards - like Nero fiddling while Rome burned or George Washington chopping down the cherry tree - that just won't die even though they are not true. That is why "Swampland" is such a fitting title for this (cough, cough) blog. Nothing you'll find here resembles historical reality, either, yet the dimwits who write it seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that plain fact.

Did Mr Carney compare the horrific disaster in Iraq to a "distraction" like the media-driven Monica-gate?

You know, for some people outside the Beltway, the worst strategic blunder in our nation's history, which is continuing to cost the lives of our friends and neighbors in uniform, is a bit more important than a stained blue dress.

Mr Carney's comparison was shameful and appalling.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with the folks who say Jay is a liar. Either that, or he's just totally incompetent.

"Mired in the 30s"???

Clinton's approval ratings in January 1995:

1/25/95 NBC/WSJ 51 40 9 851
1/25-26/95 Yank/TIME/CNN 46 46 8 800
1/16-18/95 Gallup 47 45 8 1002
1/16-18/95 USA Today/CNN 47 45 8 1002
1/14-17/95 NBC/WSJ 45 43 12 1003
1/11-12/95 Yank/TIME/CNN 49 41 10 1000
1/10-20/95 CBS/NYT 45 45 10 4943
1/5/95 Yank/TIME/CNN 47 44 9 600
1/3-4/95 ABC/WP 44 51 5 1024
1/2-3/95 CBS/NYT 42 46 12 931

The low was 42 approval, the high was 51 and the average was 46.3%. His disapproval rating average was 44.6%. Doesn't that sort of disprove your point about Clinton's approval ratings?

Lay off Jay, he's making his own reality and besides, he's not a reporter, just a blogger. Facts are not as important as the overall effect of the piece on the reader. It's kinda like impressionism brought to print.

What kind of HACK are you ??
This is TIME MAG for crying out loud?
How could you get the Approval ratings SO WRONG ??
Did FOX buy you guys and it's been kept a secret ??

Extra bonus hackery:

'Americans reward presidents who, even in the face of enormous distractions, focus on issues that matter to them. Which is why, according to leaked previews, Bush won't spend much time tonight talking about surging troops in Iraq or the Global War on Terror..."

According to Gallup's website (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1633) "Iraq typically ranks at or near the top of the list when Americans are asked to assess the importance of various issues to their votes. Along with the economy, Iraq consistently ranks at the top of Gallup's open-ended "most important problem" question."

There you go Jay - a concise example of journalistic practice and ethics - support your claims with facts and provide sources for your audience. I'm charging for the next lesson...

Private blow jobs vs. thousands dead in a botched military adventure sold on lies.

To jay, there is no difference at all. It's all a game.

Republicans hated Clinton because he was successful.
Democrats "hate" Bush because he's arrogant, out-of-touch, and incompetent.

Jay, since your own knowledge of the Clinton administration is so poor, you might want to utilize some of the power of this new phenomenon called the Information Superhighway. I've seen on TV how you can type words into a thing called "The Google" and you can learn things. They say you can find a lot of facts there. I'm as suspicious of facts as you seem to be, so I'd stick just giving your opinion without trying to sound so smart with so many facts.

Why do conservative commentators hide behind a curtain of disinformation?

Look, when the Monica scandle finally broke I was angry at President Clinton. He lost some of my confidence. In the end I thought it was an outrage that he was impeached beccause fo a sex scandle, but that did not change the fact that I was very disappointed in him.

Like most of my democratic friends, I never felt the need to hide behind some fabrication in order to feel better about my guy. He screwed up...lets get back to governing the country. Why can't the Republicans do the same?

As long as Bush fails to own up to the mistakes his administration has made he will never regain the American people's confidence. His failure to admitt mistakes is why he continues to insist 21,000+ troops is what we need in Iraq right now. It is a fools errand.

Tonights SOTU will simply be more curtains for the president and his allies to hide behind.

Correction: You did refer to the 1995 State of the Union. My mistake.

See, it isn't that hard to do.

According to the UN 34,452 civilians were killed in Iraq in 2006. If Bush speaks for just over an hour on average four people will have been killed during his speech. How can some crappy health care plan (that in no way can be called progressive) make people forget that?

FACT: In January 2006, Bush approval ratings have been in the 20s in exactly the same number of polls that had Clinton in the 30s in January 1995 (one poll for each).

Therefore, if Clinton was mired in the 30s, then Bush is mired in the 20s.

Good God.. Mr. Carney do you think you could blog on the apparent desperate need of so many journalists to bend over backwards and create "facts" out of thin air to put lipstick on the pig that is the Bush presidency? What exactly is the issue? Are you all so afraid of the vocal, rabid rightwingers? Reporting reality is so much easier than creating your own - isn't it?

I'd love to pile on Mr Carney, but I don't want to be a mindless follower from the "fever swamp". Rather, I'd like to amplify a comment from upthread by a Mr Lambert Strether:

I think most of the commentary on this thread is entirely misplaced, and a tone of greater civility is warranted.

After all, Jay Carney is an extremely well paid Washington Bureau Chief. It isn't necessary for members of the Aristocracy to provide links to back up for their assertions; Jay can and should be able simply to rely on his authority in these, and all other, matters.

We owe Jay, and his carefully mussed hair, all the deference due his position.

Let's be reasonable, here, people.

Mr Strether for the win!

Although, it should be noted, that Mr Strether is actually a fictional character from *gasp* Massachusetts, so it is likely that he's a socialist. And he's probably being ironic, to boot.

Such is life in the fever swamp.

Jay "WingNut" Carney,

I guess you get talking points from Fox?

Once again, Pajama media feasts on people with your talents. In real world, you would have a job.

Dealing with facts is not something you are used to. Outright lies about Clinton's sub 30 approval ratings are straight form Fox's mouthpiece.

Right wing machine continues. Here is an idea for next column: Obama is related to Osama. Should be easy for you. Just dream it and it will happen.

Note to his bosses: Cant you fire this guy just because he is incompetent. Most places would do that.

I will admit to not reading all the comments, because they seem to reflect my own. Therefore, let this just be another vote AGAINST "journalists" who lie.

I am ashamed that James Carney has no idea how unique our Constitution treats him... so that he may bring unfettered, the TRUTH to the nation. Instead, he brings us LIES.

May I see the DATA on this assertion?
"In late 1994 and early 1995, President Clinton was in free fall."

Good Job, sincerely, Joeseph

Jay

Are you willfully ignorant or ignorantly blissfull?

What does the Bush administration have on you that you don't want the public to know?

Perhaps a little J. Edgar Hoover/Clyde Tolson action in the side closet? Victoria Secrets Pink undies? Frist Felching? Gannon goo?

Jeez -- I don't think the Tubes are for you, especially if you can't find the directions to drive your truck to Google-ville.

How dumb do you think we are?

Coach Hed

I don't think Jay Carney understands what is wrong with George Bush. If you notice, Bush did better back in his first term when you never saw him in public. Then his aides decided he really needed to stop hiding and go out and do more press conferences and such. Ever since then, his approval rating has been trending downwards.

It's like his Social Security agenda he unveiled in 2005. The more he talked, the less popular his idea was.

If Bush wants to improve his ratings tonight, he ought to keep the speech down to about 5 minutes. Maybe apologize for everything he's done, and acknowledge he's firing the entire senior Whitehouse staff and calling for the VP's resignation.

Then maybe he can improve. But the more he talks, the less people like him.

I'm predicting 25% approval the day after the speech. That is, if people even bother to listen.

Carney, you need to reach a much higher standard. Fact checking would help you tremendously.

It's Time and CNN crawled out of the pig sty of unprofessionalism as well. America has enough slop journalist these days. It seems to be over populated.

I'm looking forward to the day when the corporate media's constant inaccuracies, drivel and spinning lead to its self destruction.

Clinton had the uncanny ability to recover from any negative situation, no matter how dire it might have looked. He first displayed this ability when the Gennifer Flowers story hit shortly before the New Hampshire Primary in 1992. He recovered enough to finish second behind Paul Tsongas and declare himself the "Comeback Kid." The rest, as they say, is history.

It looks like my post was bumped because I didn't finish my e-mail address.

Here's the brief version:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/nixonbushchart_files/BNCapp_12756_image001.gif

Clinton: 40% or below in only six polls ever, the last time in late 1994. Steady rise to the high 60s until late 1998, when they fell to a steady 60%.

Bush: Record high approval on 9/12/01, with no sustained rise of more than two or three months. Ever. Has seen the sunny side of 40% only twice in the past 13 or 14 months.

Who's mired in the 30s?

Regarding my "historical context" complementt above. Forget it. After checking the facts, as pointed by the posts above, you had no historical basis. I feel burned for praising what turned out to be your inaccuracies. I was an idiot to trust you.
I hope that this Swampland blog enlightens you. DC reporters are not smarter than the general public just because they report from DC.
The general public is as capable of analysis as are reporters. Fact check your posts. Reporters are supposed to be in command of the facts, but they no longer pay attention to detail.
I really should have known better from a prior experience. During MLK Day, I got into an online discussion with a conservative about Sen Robert Byrd and his Klan membership. The conservative felt Blacks should avoid the Democratic Party because Byrd was in a leadership position. My initial response was to bring up the Congressional Black Caucus, committee chairmanships, and other in-roads made by Blacks in the Democratic party. I did this because my initial impression of Byrd was based on what had been transmitted by MSM, former Klansman now being tolerated by the Democratic Party. I didn't feel Byrd could be defended.
I then did my own research and found the following: Byrd wrote a book in 2005 describing his transformation regarding issues of race. He previously wrote a book in 2004 warning about GW Bush's imperial Presidency. Byrd voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He wanted an additional $10M to go towards the MLK memorial in DC. Byrd has a 100% rating from the NAACP regarding civil rights voting. He and MLK may have wound up as friends.
I make this lenghty post because 1) No reporter has ever brought up other aspects of Byrd's life when his Klan membership was mentioned, because they have no command of the facts. 2) Citizens have to do their own journalism. 3) I'm kicking myself for not fact checking you. 4) I will remind myself never, ever take a reporters word as truth for anthing. Thanks for a major advance in my education.

Anything's possible, but I don't think its an apt comparison. Most people's frustration with the Clinton administration in 1994 stemmed from a continuation of the frustration that swept the first President Bush out of office. The stock market had started its recover in 1994, but jobs had not bounced back from the early 90s rescession, and that rescession was the first to hit white collar workers hard.

There as a lot of economic insecurity, and the President (first Bush, then Clinton) always take the heat for that. But the economy bounced back strong, and Clinton became wildly popular.

In contrast, Bush's unpopularity has to do with the war, not the economy. So the war has to turn around hard to save him. How likely is that?

you are stupid.

bush will not see the hi side of 50 again.

Ouch. That Gingrich/Dole thing is particularly embarrassing. On top of "John" Tester a few days ago? Methinks you need someone proofing your entries. Blogging is harder than it looks!

Hey! They're cutting comments out of this thread as we speak!

They're scrubbing criticism of the article!

Whos' doing it? Time or L'il Jay?

They're cowards. Idiots. Losers. Partisans. Hacks.

Bush embracing environment... So makes you wonder what next embracing abortion rights, gay rights and stem cell to save the presidency..
Or will it about providing the Oil companies and the rich more tax exempts in the name environment

I beleive Clinto spoke for 81 minutes about what his administration had already accomplished and where they were headed from there. The policies he outlined had credibility because he was able to point to a record of achievement.

Bush, on the other hand can promise the mercan people whatever he wants (or whatever he thinks we want to be told) and it won't matter because he lacks credibility. To what accomplishments can he point to back up his promises? Deficit reduction? A smaller government? Social Security reform? Iraq???

Remember all of the hoopla about his "addicted to oil" bit in last year's SOTU and his promise to seek greater energy independence? How did that turn out again??

Instead, he'll put forward what for him will be progressive and bold policy proposals on health care, the environment and immigration reform.

Talk about setting the bar low.

I haven't really heard about the global warming aspects of this, but I'm not holding my breath and the dithering that has already taken place on immigration reform speaks for itself.

That leaves health care, and from what I've heard so far, there's just not much to what he is proposing.

Another thing, In 1995 Clinton addressed the issues that were on people's mind's at the time, welfare reform, education, and crime are three big ones, but, if you are correct, Bush is not going to address the biggest issue of the day. How can people be expected to take him seriously, and by extension doesn't that make your comparison of the situation even more off base?

As far as I can tell you start this post with a false premise (Bush 2006 = Clinton 1995) and proceed to write a bunch of gobbledygook based on it, and conclude that the fantasy solution Bush's increasingly meager cast of supporters (Please note I do count you among those) hope for will not occur.

There had to be a better road to that conclusion, why not take it?

Hey buddy! Yeah, you, Jay. Post your correction. Now. No cred. Laughable tool.

Hey buddy! Yeah, you, Jay. Post your correction. Now. No cred. Laughable tool.

Is Jay Carney going to correct his obvious error regarding Pres. Clinton's approval ratings? Or, if he's convinced he's correct, provide source material to back up his assertions? Are the editors of TIME so lazy they don't fact check anymore? President Clinton was NEVER in the same situation that President Bush presently faces and to intimate that he was is misleading at best. This is why the mainstream media gets a bad name. Check out atrios at blogsport for links to the correct polling numbers for President Clinton at the time in question.

Hey--where's the blog thread for people who SUPPORT Jay Carney? Cause unless I'm looking at the wrong web page, it seems that Carney's even more unpopular than Bush is.

Of course, his website is getting a lot of traffic, so I guess that's good for advertisers.

I guess.

Bush is NOT mired in the 30's, NO he is sliding through the 30's on his way to the 20's, and hopefully he will slide through the 20's as well to the territory Dead Eye found himself in during the shoot the gut in the face episode, the teens his real base.

Is this called Republican Statistics? I believe McCain did something similar this week, saying only 15 percent of people approved of going into Iraq for the first Gulf War when it was actually 15 percent who DISapproved.

"mired in the 30's..."

Jay, go back to school. Get a Phd or an Mres. Your job performance will improve and your arguments wiil be more accurate. At no point was Clinton ever mired in the 30s. Furthermore he had unnaturally high polling during the Monica flap.

Mr Carney go back to school; you may love Jesus but that does not mean you get to lie at will.

wow!

Jay is anyone here defending you?

apologize like a man

Jay boy:

Henry Luce would have pink-slipped you for your sloth.

In the blurb about him, he says he hope to report for Sports Illustrated in his next life. Why not rewind the tape, skip this life and start him off in Sports Illustrated. It would be a better fit, or would it, could he report scores accurately?
Dad

He will be known for:
-Shredding the Bill of Rights
-Starting a war over a Lie
-Spending 1+ Trillion and countless lives on Lie
-Creating Civil war and not listening to Generals at onset of War
-Spending us from 5 Trillion (Clinton) to 10 Trillion (est) in debt.
-And a tax cut amounting to 1/3 of their annual energy price increases.

Clinton nevr did anything without a cigar!

I left out:
-starting a war with Iran (est)
- Outing a CIA agent(!)
-Stalling investigation on 911
-Whitewashing outcome of 911 and NO ONE LOST their job because of 911!!!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_01_21_atrios_archive.html#116956193137825120

this blog completely debunks this post. why does this guy even work for time?

Funny you all arguing about Bush's approval ratings.

The only people supporting him now are the right wing neo-con, oil execs, and big biz. LOL! Their fat checks are all they care about, so it is only natural.

What about the health of the economy, the nation, and the world?

Tonight is going to be a disaster! I makes me so upset to see the death pole i Iraq is steady rising and we don't know what we're fighting for. He says one thing but if they want to kill each other why do we have to stick our nose in it where it dooesn't have to be. It all started because he wanted power over the oil & we see that result in gas prices, then the story was Bush's father told him to get Benloti, have we seen him? I bet none of his family is over in that war. We didn't have that problem when Clinton in office. I don't care what nobody says he's a better President than Bush can ever be!! Bush wasn't even elected by the people's vote. I wonder how he got in office??

Hey Carney!
When did Clinton's ratings drop into the 30s? Please state the facts when you write.

It's time to start thinking about 2008, I say. Get someone courageous in the white house. ( http://www.chml-srucnoc.net )They've got 8:5 odds on John McCain... I'd be loving that.

Jay doesn't need to compare Obama with Osama - Insight already did that by sending him to a "terrorist training camp." These right wing clowns will never get it, and it is scary how many of the rest of us don't fact check.

But why is a reputable journal paying a bureau chief that is this incompetent? Now i can't trust anything Time says, and i used to think it was relatively reliable, if biased. Oh well.

Bush is only up to one thing and that is to keep Iraq's oil sabatoge (the 4th largest oil resource in the world) another words to keep it hostage so that his oil rich friends can up the anti on oil prices

Jay, this rhetorical turn does not seem to work.

First:
"When George W. Bush takes the podium in the House tonight, he will peer into an audience of scowling, hostile faces. He will see lawmakers made bitter by the failure of his Iraq gambit..."

Then:
"Then he'll look at the Democrats, who will be smiling."

Are you therefore saying that only Republicans and Independents will comprise the scowling, bitter lawmakers? I doubt this is what you intend given the hearty support this President's policies has received from a Republican Congress.

Wow! Finally embracing the obvious. He must have finally got to that chapter in his bible that says all people deserve better. Not just the ones with oil on their hands.

OK, class

That's all for today!

Jay - you get an 'I' for Incomplete

Mom

Then he proceeded to deliver what may forever be the longest State of the Union address in history -- 81 long minutes of policy prescriptions large and small. It was interminable, a seeming embarrassment.

I don't get it. Why should 81 minutes spent in serious discussion of how best to deal with the issues facing a nation of 280-odd million people be considered an "embarrassment"?

"Then he'll look at the Democrats, who will be smiling."

that's right, mr. carney -- all us democrats are just crazy and drooling for our great leader to fall on his face and the country to roll into the gutter. that's right, we really are the hate-america-first crowd.

if nothing else, you are doing your bit to keep that vacuous meme in motion.

I'm voting for Hillary, does that tell you anything?

I thought Time fired a bunch of folks. Why is the deadwood still there?

Don't lump us all [Republicans] in with Jay. We aren't all the same. Since you guys have majority in congress, we *should* expect some balance for the next 2 years or so. Just make sure to hold up your end with your 100 hours, and don't forget that you have at least 4,100 hours to go.

Since we are big into facts here, I ballparked the average amount of time spent in a year by congress...

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/464_u_s_congress_measures_introduced_and.html

Iraq war is mistake, and Mr President should apologize like a man to American public and ask for support. Amrican people have big heart and they will support him. we are there and now is a natinal pride and we can not run away.
No dout, Suddam was bad a man, but was a snake with broken back, now we created many new sankes , with in Iraq and out side like IRAN. Iraq can not have democratic government. Democracy for Irqies, just like teaching English to a dockey.

Jay, get a new job as Bush's new false information director.

You can't compare Bush to Clinton. Bush is looking to squeeze the US's resources such as money, military, education, health care, social security and oh I almost forgot it's political capitol which is on negative. clinton did what he did with Monica but that only affected him personally and not the country, he always made sure that what he did we the people would actually see the changes in our life time unlike bush wannabes future reference 2025. I dont know how is it that the American people could sit back and watch this rotten president just ruin us the way he has and is continuing to do. He is stealing our money and giving it away to his friends. He has it so made that 10 Billion dollars has disappeared without a trace in the funds that was suppose to be for the wars and noone dare to question him to see if maybe Haliburton has something to do with it. I'm glad the Dems. are controlling both the senate and the house hopefully this will keep everyone at the white house in check. After everything that we've learned since 2001 how come noone has impeached this jerk and his drunk buddy dick c. Lies after lies and it's now that everyone is catching up to it. He blames everything on Osama but in reality it was the Hamas group that really had alot to do with 911. Conspiracy or not Bush has been barking up the wrong tree in Iraq. What about N.Korea and Iran? He tool his eye off the ball and now look, no one has respect for the US military, and now since he is beintg forced to get out of Iraq he is claiming that he is boosting troop levels to quell the insurgence in Iraq and Afgan But in reality he is getting ready to assault Iran from both sides coming from Iraq and Afgan. Here we go with another war!!! Thanks Bush and everyone who voted on a pack of lies!!! He is an ambarrassment to the United States.

Bush can't speak articulately for 8 minutes let alone 81, Drew Bledsoe can take a page out of Michael Vick's playbook but that don't mean he can run it with the same precision. Bush's speech is doomed for failure because he doesn't work well underpressure right now taking a page out of Jay Leno's playbook would do us all more good.

Of all the reckless and vitriolic columns you have very written, your most recent work is the most treasonous, heretical rubbish I have ever had the mispleasure to read. You should be jailed for such baseless and irrational statements against a leader, which if we were without certainly would spell the end of this great nation as we know it. In the face of darkness, this president has been a beacon of light, a man of high upstanding moral compass, and a great leader against the denigrators of democracy, the haters of freedom, and the usurpers of progress that threaten to destroy the fabric of America. He has empowered each of us against all threats, both foreign and domestic to live peacefully in this great nation without fear of those conspiring to put an end to our American way of life. He has done what has been necessary to maintain the American dream as the imperitve that it is.

For a moment, just think of the leadership that was in place before this president took office. Prior to his inauguration, the presidency was the butt of jokes worldwide. We were regarded as a nation preoccupied with vice and self serving dishonorable and dispicable pursuits. This president has put an end to this ill repute, and brought high moral standards and leadership to the office. Have you ever considered the sacrifices this man makes day in and day out ? Did you consider that this man had to end his working vacation two days in advance to attend to the concerns of the hurricane afflicted ? Did you ever consider that this man selflessly works essentially all hours of the day and night defending freedom ? - and not just for this great nation, but also for the whole world ? Did you ever consider that he has succesfully diminished the threat of terrorism worldwide ? Did you ever consider that New York city might not exist if it weren't for this man ? Quite frankly, you should bow down and kiss this mans feet, and show a little appreciation.

But not you .... YOU should be ASHAMED .... of YOURSELF. And if you want to know the true meaning of disgraceful, just look in the mirror.

May God continue to richly bless the United States of America and the George W. Bush administration against the new perils of this century, especially against those members of the axis of evil.

Won't anybody stand up for Jay Carney? Anybody?

Bueller?

Bueller?

I don't care what he has to say, he already accomplished what he set out to do. Destroy the United States of America for his portion of the American dream.

Liar!!

Iraq war is a mistake, and Mr President should apologize like a man to American public and ask for support. Amrican people have big heart and they will support him. we are there and now is a natinal pride and we can not run away.
No dout, Suddam was a bad man, but was a snake with broken back, now we created many new sankes , with in Iraq and out side like IRAN. Iraq can not have democratic government. Democracy for Irqies, just like teaching English to a dockey.

Get some new material! There are 2 parts to this tired cliche narrative, both of which run counter to the facts:

1 "Clinton was really unpopular" - We kept hearing through his presidency and beyond even though the polls contradicted this.
2 "Bush is wildly popular" - kept getting pounded with this all through 2005 while his rating went into a tailspin.

Thanks Commander in Thief!!!

Ricky wrote "Bush can talk all he wants about whatever he wants, but the American people have lost confidence in his judgement and competence."

Did you expect any better from a C grade, draft dodging student?

I wonder how Daddy feels now after conning his cronies into supporting "my boy" to become President. What a world wide disgrace!

President Johnson had to decide to not run for another term because he was so embroiled in the Viet Nam debacle he couldn't back out. Bush is not only so embroiled in Iraq he's going deeper in an effort to save face and, just as with Johnson, he believes he has no other choice. He is gambling with the lives of American soldiers as well as with the lives of the Iraqi people, and the odds are greatly against him. He and his henchman know so well at this point that the gambit of the troop surge cannot possibly work.

History is repeating itself because we haven't learned the lessons of Viet Nam. We cannot and do not win guerilla wars. We can blast tanks to kingdom come but we lose badly every time we try to take on the hidden enemy.

But why are the people blaming Bush? Who got him into office the first time? More importantly, who elected him the second time. Could it be we, the people, who are to blame?

How did someone who reads on a fourth grade level graduate from Yale and become a ONCE elected president of our country?
Why should we even be surprised we are in such a mess?

You liar.

Calling you a douchebag is disrespectful to douchebags.

Bush is the worst president I've ever known in my entire existence. He's even worse than Sadam Hussein and any dictator in the world.The truht is what's is he doing better than the lies he manufactured to toppled Sadam's regime. We need a regime chance in this country too. Enough is enough.

Bush created the terrorism that exist today. You're going to tell me that we're safer today than we were prior to the wannabe war on terror? Come on I understand that Americans always backs our country but this Bush is just feeding us Bush$#*t. Now he is to afraid to get us out of Iraq for fear that he'll be seen as being wrong in the first place. He'll leave it to the next President to clean up his mess. Just like a draft dodger. Must be nice to have a father as an ex prez.....

Iraq war is a mistake, and Mr President should apologize like a man to American public and ask for support. Amrican people have big heart and they will support him. we are there and now is a natinal pride and we can not run away.
No dout, Suddam was a bad man, but was a snake with broken back, now we created many new sankes , with in Iraq and out side like IRAN. Iraq can not have democratic government. Democracy for Irqies, just like teaching English to a dockey.
Bush made "members of the axis of evil" stronger, look today IRAN, North KOREA " showing us middle finger".
I voted for Bush, and that was a mistake.

It's nice to see the lunatic fringe is hard at work again today.

Clinton was is and always will be a joke.

Bush should call in sick with Laryngitis, and have Cheney call Bill to do a stand in for the night!

This would at the very least insure that there was an audience out there!

Really, what is this President going to say about the State of our Union!!

Bush: the man who thinks Americans have made a huge war sacrifice by watching bad news on t.v. is OUT OF TOUCH! There is no way he will ever recover. He doesn't care about anyone but corporations. His bold proposals will be the same as everything else that spews from his mouth-LIES! And speaking of lies, I do believe pres. Clinton's approval ratings were NEVER in the 30's.

Hmmm, what has Bush done for our nation? death of our nation's young men and women, the constitution being shredded, alienation from countries that used to be our allies, ignoring global warming, dividing our nation into those who are good Christians and those who are evil? As if being president means your fighting some fictious battle between good and evil. Perhaps Bush (and anyone else contemplating running as a Family Values candidate in '08) should consider running for pastor instead, and spare our nation the pain and suffering. Anyone qualified to actually run a country need only apply.

Not any where on earth except here in the U.S can this many idiots without a clue as to what is really going on make such a collection of statements. I'm sure if we wre to be attcked again, all of you would cry out, why didn't our government protect us instead of falling to the sissy's that wanted our troops home. Be ready to cry out folks, you just might get what your asking for. The bad guys are on the outside looking in and enjoying everything you say.

I wasn't planning on watching Bush show how stupid he is again, but there just aren't any good movies on tonight. So I guess I watch "blab-trap" make an ass out of himself again. Wouldn't do any good to impeach him, then we would be stuck with "wild dog " Cheney. Hang in for 2008, if any of us are left.

Good Grief!!! No wonder our great country is going to hell in a handbasket!!!!
Bill Clinton had charisma - but infortunately he had little to no character. The Clinton's got dirt on all who worked for them or those who would oppose them - so when the time came - they could discredit them. I pray we don't see another Clinton in the White House.I couldn't bear it.To hear all the comments above - you'd think Bill Clinton walked on water. What a farse -and may God have mercy on you all.

I never voted for him and won't vote for him, even if the constitution allows him to run for 3rd term. We all make mistakes and if he owns up to his (the debacle in Iraq) and promise to to do the right thing to get us out of that area, he approval rating will begin to inch upward

For those of you who hated Clinton because of lying to the American people for having an affair. Isn't what Bush and his administration did, by lying to all of us into beleiving that there were weapons in mass detruction in Iraq and getting us into this mess worse than lying about receiving a B--Job?

Maybe bush's determination to privatize EVERYTHING, from guards at local Social Security centers, guards in the war zone, training, prescription drug policies, and now, health care policies, and even some of hte fighting force, is the core problem. Quote Paul Krugman: The administration's ineptitude, all the places it has revealed itself, is "a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good."

Folks must be buying Time for the pictures because if they cared about accuracy, they'd be cancelling their subscription in droves.

Dana,

BOO!

Posting from Iraq, are you?

The real question here isn't how you got your job. The real question is: when presented with actual historical fact, do you respond to it in a similar fashion as Dracula responds to a crucifix?

Troop Splooge!

Best comment by moron:

"It's nice to see the lunatic fringe is hard at work again today.

Clinton was is and always will be a joke.

Posted by: MPW"

More like material for Jim Carrey than Jim Carney. Bush is a joke of a President and I voted for him in his first election. At the same time there is a perfect biblical reference for Bush -> 1 Samuel 8:18. How true. How true.

In all fairness, it would be really nice if Jay Carney, the author responds to the comments posted. Will you, Jay?

Hey no need to get all fret up, folks. Some journalists were just being a bit less attentive in Journalism 101, thats all. The topic was "fact check" and they heard "fat check". Can't blame them - darn, the two things sound SOOO similar...

I am deeply saddened by the undercurrent American theme that both gives rise to this blog, and to the idea of a Clinton/Bush comparison. The bottom line is, Americans have sunk to a level of
self-degradation in which Clinton could be favored, despite his deference of global issues into the hands of his successor, his absence of moral conscience, and the "fluffing" effect of his policies on an economy bound for recession, over a President who made numerous mistakes, but lead with conscience, and did make vital improvements to the country. Bush was elected, and then was dumped on with the holes from the Clinton administration. The recession, 9/11, Al Qaeda - doesn't anyone realize the fault in these disasters is shared? Alas, the voting public does not realize that. I do not fully agree with Bush, but he works for a lesser of four evils (Clinton, Gore, Kerry). I would fear to see our country in the hands of a president whose moral tone, and executive philosphies were in concert with the dangerous legislators who are now in the majority. This is not an issue of partisan games. It is an issue of (I believe) the most crucial era of our country that will ultimately decide its fate