Over at Political Arthmetik, there is an interesting post that seeks to answer the now common question, "just how low can Bush's approval go?" It is probably the best post to date on the topic, so I definitely recommend that you read the whole thing. However, I wish pick a bone with one part of the piece:

Truman, 22%, 14 Feb 1952 *All time low.
Eisenhower, 48%, 1 Apr 1958
Kennedy, 56%, 17 Sep 1963
Johnson, 35%, 12 Aug 1968
Nixon, 23%., 7 Jan 1974
Carter, 28%, 2 Jul 1979
Reagan, 35%, 31 Jan 1983
Bush (GHW), 29%, 2 Aug 1992
Clinton, 37%, 6 Jun 1993
Bush (GW), 37, 13 Nov 2005

We can look at the structure of support that presidents draw from partisan supporters and opponents when they hit the low point of their presidencies. The figure above plots the approval rate in each partisan group against the overall low points in approval for each president. The trend lines show what "par" for each group has been.

The problem I have with this is that by only listing the low approval rating achieved by each President over the last fifty years, this and many other discussions of historical Presidential approval rating in relation to Bush's current low point mute just how bad Bush's situation actually is. The reason for this is that a list like this ignores the other side of any approval polls: namely, disapproval. When both approval and disapproval are used in such a list, look at how it changes the perspective (I am also only using Gallup data):

Worst Net Approval / Disapproval Poll
Prez     Low Approval        High Disapproval     Gap
Bush 2         37            60         -23
Clinton      36            50         -14
Bush 1         29            60         -31
Reagan         35            56         -21
Carter         28            59         -31
Ford         39            45          -6
Nixon         24            66         -42
Johnson      35            52         -17
Kennedy      56            30         +26
Ike            48            36         +12
Truman         22            65         -43
FDR            48            43          +5

Whereas the first list makes Bush look pretty good, because his low is the same as Clinton's, and actually higher than every other President except Eisenhower and Kennedy, the second list shows that Bush is actually the fifth worst, behind only his father, Carter, Nixon and Truman. This list also shows that Bush's low is nine points worse than Clinton's.

Any proper historical perspective of Bush's job rating must take both his job approval and disapproval into account if it is to provide full and proper historical context. After all, I could simply have posted a historical list comparing Bush's disapproval rating tot hat of past Presidents, which would have made him look even worse:

Worst Disapproval Poll
Bush 2: 60
Clinton: 50
Bush 1: 60
Reagan: 56
Carter: 59
Ford: 45
Nixon: 66
Johnson: 52
Kennedy: 30
Ike: 36
Truman: 65
FDR: 43

As you can see, if the "approval" side of Bush's job rating is removed, he looks as though he is doing worse than Carter, is equal to his father, and is nearly as bad as Truman and Nixon. Of course, he isn't doing as poorly as any of those past Presidents, because his job approval remains higher than Truman's, Nixon's, Carter's and Bush I's were they reached their lows.

The point is that neither Bush job approval on its own, nor his job disapproval on its own, put his current job rating in full historical perspective. Ignoring either side of the equation results in an incomplete and inaccurate analysis. However, it probably won't come as a surprise to anyone here that the side that is often ignored is the one that makes Bush look worse (his disapproval), and the side that most historical analysis often focuses on is the one that makes Bush look better (his approval). I, for one, would like to see that change, not only because it would put an end to a positive spin on Bush's job approval, but simply because it would be the more accurate and appropriate historical measurement. Some people say that statistics can tell you anything you want them to tell you, but I would say instead that statistics, like anything else in life, will tell you what you them to tell you if you willfully choose to ignore specific parts of an equation. If you are willing to look at the entire picture at once and not favor certain aspects over others, the truth will come forward.