Kurtz falsely implied in a column that Reagan left office a more “popular figure” than Clinton. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz falsely suggested that former President Ronald Reagan, unlike former President Bill Clinton, “left office a popular figure” — overlooking Clinton’s higher final approval rating; higher average approval rating; higher second-term average rating; and higher average rating than Reagan’s for their final two years in office.

Kurtz wrote in his June 21 “Media Notes” column:

Reagan, despite the Iran-contra scandal, left office a popular figure; Clinton’s departure came two years after he was impeached and was clouded by his wave of last-minute pardons.

Reagan’s final Gallup job approval rating before leaving office was 63 percent. Clinton’s was 65 percent — the “highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling.” [USA Today, 1/17/01]

Over the course of his entire presidency, Reagan had an average Gallup approval rating of 53 percent — not bad. But not as good as that of Clinton, whose average approval rating was 55 percent.

Further, Gallup recently noted, “Clinton’s overall second-term average was substantially higher than his first term, at 61%. (Reagan’s second-term average was 55%.)”

This chart of Gallup approval ratings for the last five presidents shows that Clinton was consistently much more popular during his last two years in office than Reagan was during his last two years as president.

Kurtz also quoted “Fox commentator Oliver North,” who “scoffed at ‘the idea of infidelity being something you just dismiss, and that his lying before a grand jury isn’t worthy of impeachment or a resignation.’”

Kurtz didn’t mention the irony of Oliver North (who was convicted of lying to Congress) criticizing Bill Clinton (who was never convicted of anything) for “lying before a grand jury.” (North’s conviction was later overturned.)

It’s filled with outright fabrications. They even use the phony “love canal” “quote” that Gore never used. The members of the class he visited protested to the Washington Post that the writer got it completely wrong – and National Review prints the wrong one! And, Gore had visited 22 separate disaster areas with James Lee Witt. He states that he went to a Texas flood with Witt when, in this one instance, he actually went with Witt’s assistant – and this is one of the “lies” National Review cites to demonstrate Gore’s vile character. It’s a joke and the jokes not only on you, it’s on all of us, because instead of Gore, we got the worst president in U.S. history. Nice going, stupid.

You are a completely useless American!

How is it you are still on the air? CNN!? That says it all.

CNN SUCKS!!! And Howie you lead the parade!!!

Comment by bg — September 14, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

I didn’t bring up the subject of anyone’s lies. I merely responded to a question about why people believe what they believe. I seem to remember hearing quite a bit about Bush’s questionable comments and activities during both campaigns. As I noted in a previous post, I believe most politicians are less than forthright. As for where we would be had Gore been elected, most of our soldiers would still be alive, agreed. And I don’t think we should still be in Iraq either. I suspect we would be having other problems from lack of a response to 9/11, though. (And, no I don’t mean Iraq was responsible for 9/11.)

Comment by marcus robinson — September 14, 2007 @ 3:19 pm

And I had to cancel my New Republic subscription because of all the kneejerk liberal reporters. ;)

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 14, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

Gore:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmExMjFlNzFmNWM5YWYwYzBiNWFmOTMzNmExOTkzZDU=

Clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

This is why people think what they do about Gore and Clinton. I disagree with their political views, but I don’t think they are significantly more or less corrupt than the average politician. With the possible exception of Clinton’s choice to use his postion to take advantage of a starstruck young woman, disregarding the effects such a thing could have on her future.

As for Bush, put a rich man on a ranch in a cowboy hat, and everybody thinks he’s Ben Cartwright. ;)

You’ve got to admit that media plays a major roll in public opinion. How is it that many of us got the idea that Gore was a liar or a “serial exaggerator” if not though the media. How is it that people got the idea that Bush was a “regular guy” and “plain spoken.” Who gave Americans the idea that Bush was a “compassionate conservative?”

Why did people think that Gore said he invented the internet? Why did people think that Clinton had done something wrong with his Whitewater land deal?

You would be correct if the liberal media chose the president and decided whether he should be impeached. ;)

Better watch the clip one more time. Kurtz disagrees with olbermann’s comments and says he doesn’t subscribe to the view of Fox as cheerleader for the Bush Admin. Nice try, TP. Some of us are actually paying attention.

Comment by paul — September 14, 2007 @ 11:29 am

Good job trying to redirect. Listen again. He clearly says that he does not agree with Olbermann’s assessment, but then he says “but, you know what? they are entitled to do that!” See it’s the “but” there that makes him actually say “I don’t agree, but even if they do, they are entitled to.” He’s certainly not saying Olbermann is a “they” and he’s certainly not saying he was quoting Olbermann saying “but they are entitled to do that” so that leaves only the logical conclusion that he’s a conservative market-corrects-all fundy (aka the misguided poor saps who call themselves “Libertarians”) who may not personally believe Fox is deceiving, but even if they were, it’s their “freedom” to do so, under the law.

YOU try again.