Parsing the Numbers

Is is surprising to anyone that the pathologically liberal New York Times would put the worst possible spin on any rise in President Bush's poll numbers? Bush's poll numbers have "improved markedly" since the last New York Times/CBS News Poll, but far be it for the Times to let that stand unchallenged.

According to the NY Times:

Despite his gains, Mr. Bush's 40 percent approval rating remains among his lowest, and is still substantially lower than that of Presidents Clinton (who was at 58 percent) or Reagan (who was at 68 percent) at comparable points in their second terms.

But is that entirely accurate?

According to the 10/17 USA Today story that I've noted in the past:

Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings at one time or another that were lower than Bush's current rating. Those ratings include Lyndon Johnson's 35%, Richard Nixon's 24%, Gerald Ford's 37%, Jimmy Carter's 28%, Ronald Reagan's 35%, the elder George Bush's 29% and Bill Clinton's 37%.

A magical difference between the two polls is the highly subjective phrasing "at comparable points in their second terms." Had Bush been higher in the more polling, is their any doubt that the NY Times would change their definition of what comprises "comparable points?"