According to Gallup, President Bush's approval ratings are 37%, a "long term" increase since his 31% rating in early November. Is 4-5 weeks long term? Gallup also states:
"The poll does not provide specific insights into what might be behind improved perceptions of Bush. One possibility is that Bush's role in jump-starting Middle East peace talks late last month cast him in a more positive light."
I've no idea why Gallup's writer gave President Bush credit for "jump-starting" peace talks: Bush intensely tried to build a case for bombing Iran while others spent months calling for diplomacy. This reminds me: at the end of an article about six mortar- and bomb-attacks in Iraq on Monday the New York Times reported:
"Also on Monday, Iraq’s foreign minister announced that the United States and Iran would meet next week to discuss ways of stabilizing Iraq. Delegates from both countries have met in Baghdad three times since May.
"The Americans have accused Iran of training and financing Shiite terrorists who attack here, but last month they said Iran appeared to have reined in extremists and had stopped the flow of weapons over the border into Iraq." (NY Times)
This is crucial information. The Bush Administration has been calling for war with Iran based on two things: 1) that Iran reportedly has nuclear weapons, and 2) that the Iranian government helped arm U.S. enemies in Iraq.
According to the Times article, American officials now believe that Iran's government has stopped the flow of weapons into Iraq. Not 10 days ago, Bush faced fire for beating war drums against Iran on the grounds that Iran had nukes -- even after Bush reportedly learned that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Are the president's reasons for hostility toward Iran eroding?
Back to Gallup: it reports that Congress's approval rating is also climbing: it's at 22% now, up from 18% in August. That's pretty much all it says about Congress.
Why didn't Gallup report on differences in approval ratings between congressional Democrats and Republicans? This is odd, given that Gallup did report on those differences in September. The ABC/Washington Post poll reported on those differences in October. In both polls, incidentally, approval ratings were solidly lower for Republicans.
Does Gallup think that congressional Republicans' and Democrats' differing approval ratings simply don't matter to the public now -- though a new election year starts in just three weeks?
Another (unrelated) issue bothers me regarding Gallup's approach. As quoted above, Gallup implies that Mid-East peace talks might be the reason for Bush's higher approval ratings -- in the same paragraph that the writer admits that the poll didn't provide insights about why more people approve of Bush now than way back in early November.
If the poll didn't ask questions about why some people like Bush better now, why did Gallup suggest suggest any reasons at all?
That seems like an un-scientific and un-objective approach to data analysis.
People regard Gallup as a reporter public opinion, not a shaper. To avoid being accused of manipulating public opinion, Gallup writers should be careful to avoid putting thoughts in readers' heads that Gallup, itself, has not substantiated.
Thanks to Publius Endures for tracking back. Memeorandum has other bloggers' comments.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Why Democrats Beat Republicans in Gallup Poll
* Polling Data Inadequately Reported
* CNN Poll: Bad News for Dems, No News for Republicans?
* New Poll: Record Low Approval of Bush & More
* Approval Ratings: What do the Numbers Mean?
* Hoping for More Careful Polling Analysis
* Poll: Republicans Bombed re: War, Healthcare, Economy, Terrorism....
* Is Violence Down in Iraq, Despite Attacks & Human Rights Violations?
* More Confusing Statements about the War
* Defense Secretary Says Military Can't Protect U.S. Interests Worldwide
Comments