On the October 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson featured a segment with Republican strategist Frank Donatelli and New Republic editor-at-large Peter Beinart about whether President Bush or former President Bill Clinton will “do his party any good” by campaigning for their parties' respective Senate candidates in Virginia, incumbent Sen. George Allen (R) and Democratic challenger James Webb. While Carlson initially asked whether the American public will begin to “tire” of “the total domination of national politics by the Bushes and the Clintons,” he quickly turned to bashing Clinton as a “sanctimonious jerk” while ignoring altogether the public's negative view of Bush. Indeed, not once during the segment did Carlson mention that Clinton had a job approval rating of 70 percent in the most recent poll, while Bush's approval ratings hover in the high 30s, or that Clinton's most recent favorability rating was 60 percent, whereas only 43 percent of respondents had a favorable impression of Bush in the most recent poll.

Carlson teased this segment as a comparative evaluation, asking earlier in the program, “Will either one of them do his party any good?” and “But are -- are they the best the parties can do?” On-screen text during the segment read: “Who's Worse for Their Party?”; “Who's Worse: Bush or Clinton?”; “Are Pres. Bush and Bill Clinton 'the Kiss of Death' for Their Party?”; and “Are Pres. Bush and Bill Clinton Helping or Hurting Candidates?”

But at no time during the segment was Bush evaluated, nor were the respective approval and favorability ratings of Bush and Clinton mentioned.

As Media Matters for America noted, recent surveys demonstrate that more people have negative views of Bush, and that more people -- over 50 percent in major October polls -- give Bush an unfavorable rating. For example, a October 13-16 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that a majority -- 52 percent of respondents -- answered that they held “somewhat negative” or “very negative” feelings toward Bush, while 39 percent felt “very positive” or “somewhat positive.” An October 10-11 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 54 percent of respondents gave Bush an “unfavorable” rating, while 43 percent had a “favorable” opinion of him. An October 6-8 Gallup poll (subscription required) showed a 55 percent “unfavorable” rating for Bush, while 42 percent of respondents gave him a “favorable” rating. Additionally, an October 5-8 CBS News/New York Times poll showed Bush with a rating of 52 percent “not favorable” and 34 percent “favorable.”

The most recent polls on Clinton's favorability showed a majority favoring Clinton. A September 24-27 George Washington University Battleground poll showed Clinton with a rating of 54 percent " favorable" and 42 percent “not favorable.” A September 22-24 CNN poll showed Clinton with a rating of 60 percent “favorable” and 37 percent “not favorable.” A July 20-23 Diageo/Hotline poll showed Clinton with a rating of 53 percent “favorable” and 41 percent “not favorable.”

Moreover, recent polls have also shown a higher disapproval rating than approval rating for Bush. An October 9-12 Gallup poll (subscription required) found that 37 percent of respondents approved of Bush's job performance, while 57 percent disapproved. An October 10-11 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 40 percent of respondents approved of Bush's job performance, while 56 percent disapproved. In contrast, 70 percent of respondents in a July 13-17 Time poll approved of Clinton's presidency and 27 percent disapproved. A June 1-4 Gallup poll (subscription required) found that 61 percent of respondents approved of “the way [Clinton] handled [his] job as president” and 38 percent disapproved.

Additionally, discussing Clinton's decision to campaign with Webb in Virginia, Donatelli compared Clinton to Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terrell Owens because “it's always about him. There is no immediate need why he needed to get involved in this election.” Donatelli suggested that Clinton would not be helpful to Webb because he “lost Virginia twice.” Carlson responded by calling Clinton a “sanctimonious jerk.” Bush's standing in Virginia was never discussed; as Media Matters noted, polling indicates that more respondents in Virginia disapprove of Bush than approve. Most recently, SurveyUSA released a new Virginia poll, conducted October 12-15, showing Bush's approval rating in Virginia at 39 percent. Additionally, a Washington Post poll, conducted October 10-12 among likely voters in Virginia, found that 43 percent of respondents approved of Bush's job performance, while 56 percent disapproved. The Washington Post poll also asked, “Will one reason for your vote for U.S. Senate be to express (support for) Bush, to express (opposition to) Bush, or is Bush not a factor in your choice?” Twelve percent of the respondents said their vote would be in “support” of Bush, 25 percent in “opposition,” and 63 percent said it would “not [be] a factor.” Media Matters could not find any recent polls on Clinton's popularity in Virginia.

Carlson also mischaracterized Clinton's October 18 speech at Georgetown University, asserting that Clinton “contrasted his party, the Democratic Party, with the Republican Party by saying that we're the party of the common good. They're the party of evil.” Clinton said nothing of the sort (referring to a speech he gave in 1991):

CLINTON: I believed then, based on the experiences I had here, that not everyone who disagreed with me was my enemy, that I might be wrong ... that in the interplay -- the dialectic -- between my position and another, the searching for more facts, the searching for better arguments, and, frankly, just facing the evidence of what did and didn't work and what the consequences of various courses were, that I would come to a better place as a public official. I believed that then; I believe that now.

From the October 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: Still to come, the battle of the lame ducks. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are hitting the campaign trail in Virginia. Will either one of them do his party any good?

[...]

CARLSON: Still to come, Mr. President, meet Mr. President. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton cross paths on the campaign trail. But are they the best the parties can do?

[...]

CARLSON: President Bush and former President Bill Clinton are both in Virginia today, campaigning for their party's candidates in the U.S. Senate race there. Both incumbent Republican George Allen and Democratic challenger Jim Webb have called in their party's top fundraisers to help boost their campaigns.

Allen and Webb are neck and neck in the polls. It does make you wonder, Frank, how long the total domination of national politics by the Bushes and the Clintons is going to continue. If you are going to be 49 years old this next election cycle, that means that you have never seen a presidential ballot, or voted on a presidential ballot that did not have a Clinton or a Bush on it. Twenty-eight years you've had a Clinton or a Bush on the presidential ballot. Are people going to tire of this after a while?

DONATELLI: Well, I think '06 -- this '06 election will turn the page, Tucker, and we'll be into 2008 election. And there'll be a lot of new candidates that people can get excited about. It does interest me, you know, Bill Clinton injects himself into the political debate again. He's the Terrell Owens of American politicians, in the sense that it's always about him.

There's no immediate need why he needed to get involved in this election. He's lost Virginia twice, number one. And number two, Democrats are already more excited about this election than are Republicans. So I think what he does more than anything else is remind Republicans why they need to get out and vote.

CARLSON: He certainly reminded me what a sanctimonious jerk he is, Peter, I have to say. I mean Clinton, sort of, gets -- the farther away you get from him the more you like him, and then you hear him speak. Here's what he said yesterday at Georgetown. First, he contrasted his party, the Democratic Party, with the Republican Party by saying that we're the party of the common good. They're the party of evil.

Then he said, quote, “The more ideological right-wing element of the Republican Party has been building strength, partly in reaction to things that happened 40 years ago.” He's basically saying segregation created the Republican -- or the end of it, rather, created the Republican Party, and they're riding racism to success.

That's such an awful, unfair, stupid, and wrong thing to say. Why does he get away with that, and does it help Democrats when he says stuff like that?

BEINART: Well, as a historical matter, the fact that the Republican Party benefited immensely from the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights, I think, is virtually incontrovertible fact. And the fact that the Republican Party used coded, racial language in a whole series of races in the late 1960s, early 1970s.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his campaign and, you know, famously in Mississippi, in the town where the three civil rights workers were killed. That's no -- there's no question; historically, that's a fact. I think the Republican Party, to its credit, has been much less crude in its use of racial symbolism and imagery today than it was, for instance, in George W. Bush's father's election in 1988 against Ron-- against Michael Dukakis.

[...]

DONATELLI: It's just interesting about Bill Clinton, it's -- you know, Peter, just one more thing. It's interesting what Bill Clinton says about the common good. You know, when he was president for eight years, the only thing he did was for the common good was raise everybody's taxes. But he was also known primarily as the president of triangulation, which meant that he had no governing philosophy. He was the most puny eight-- two-term president we ever had because he would never use his reputation and his popularity to accomplish great things.

BEINART: That's really, really, not true at all, with due respect. Clinton had a very coherent philosophy in 1992. It was called the politics of reciprocal responsibility. It means government helps you more than Republicans would help you, but government demands responsible behavior. That's what the Earned Income Tax Credit was about, which lifted a lot of people out of poverty. It's what welfare reform was about. It's what being tough on crime was about. And it's the reason that poverty rates declined dramatically in Clinton's administration.

CARLSON: Well, I mean, that -- that -- that's one interpretation.