SOTU Liveblog 2006 Posted by: Dale Franks
on Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Once again, it's time to prepare for the liveblog of the State of the Union Address. The address is set to start in another 25 minutes, and I'll be here to blog it as it happens.
Statements from the president and other speakers will appear as italicized text. Direct quotes, if any, will be additionally set off with quotation marks. I will, of course, take appropriate liberties with my paraphrasing.
My personal observations will appear in regular text. No doubt I'll be taking liberties there, too.
And, so in a few minutes, we'll begin. Don't forget to refresh the page if you're following along at home.
17:43 PST: The president is leaving the White House with Laura. It's about a 10-block drive from the White House to Capitol Hill, so it looks like the president is on time. Apparently, he's kinda freakish about staying on schedule.
17:49 PST: Dick Morris is playing talking head on FOXNews. Jebus, he's puffed up like a tick. His head looks like a large flesh-colored balloon, atop an even more massive balloon draped in a coat and tie.
Iraq is a loser for Bush. Echoes Basil Fawlty: Whatever you do, don't mention the war!
Good luck following that advice. It's the 800-pound gorilla in the living room, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. The solution, clearly, is to advocate the legalization of Gay Marriage in Iraq.
17:55 PST: Brit Hume refers to the SOTU as a Constitutionally-mandated address. That's wrong. The president has to inform the congress about the SOTU. Nothing says it has to be an actual address. The formal SOTU speech is a relatively modern innovation. It's a minor point, but it bugs me.
17:58 PST: Dick Cheney is taking charge of the chamber. Always good to see The Big Dick running the show, huh?
17:58 PST: Laura Bush enters. Ovation. Nobody can really dislike Laura, no matter how much of a dork her husband might be. Who's sitting with her? Someone in a scarf. Other than that can't tell. Scarf-lady is probably some Iraqi Womyn's Rights pest. Although, in Iraq, she's probably less of a pest than she is a vital necessity.
18:01 PST: Sam Alito is joining the Chief Justice and other members of the Supreme Court. Wow. That was fast. Can't tell if Judge Sandy is there or not. Having Alito there is a poke in the eye to the Kennedy-Kerry Axis, or, as I call it, the Axis of Irritating.
18:05 PST: Apparently, Cindy Sheehan was in the chamber as a guest of some Lib-Dem peacenik House member. Being Mother Sheehan, she started to cause a problem, at which point she was wrestled to the ground by alert Secret Service Agents, and dragged off to Guantanamo for interrogation under torture.
18:08 PST: The President enters, and is promptly swarmed by Red-State Democrats who need a picture of them soul-kissing the prez for their re-election campaigns.
18:10 PST: Nancy Pelosi accompanies the president, and shakes hands with the Joint Chiefs. Hope she has time to run off to the ladies room and wash the blood off before the speech starts.
18:12 PST:Tonight the nation mourns the loss of Coretta Scott King, who called the nation to live up to its highest ideals. RIP, Mrs. King.
18:13 PST:"We must act in a spirit of goodwill towards each other, and I will do my part." Heh. Yeah. Good luck with that, George. The state of the union is strong. No president ever starts a SOTU with, "Dudes, we're f*cked." Well, except Jimmy Carter.
18:16 PST:"Far from being a hopeless dream, the march of freedom is the story of our time." Why, just last week, even the Palestinians had a free election. Gotta love that democracy. Radical Islam is the perversion of a noble faith. Because real Islam is so, you know, tolerant.
18:19 PST:Isolationism is not the answer. There is no peace or honor in retreat from these Islamofascist animals. "America rejects the false comfort of isolationism." Standing O, except from some Dems, who apparently think isolationism is a pretty good deal.
18:21 PST:We're getting it done in Iraq! Hmm. Clearly not a bipartisan agreement on that one. I'm confident in our ability to win, and we are winning. Democrats disagree, obviously. He's getting no love at all from their side of the aisle. What else do you expect, though, from the party of "Retreat, Withdraw, Surrender"?
18:24 PST:Criticism is not a strategy. But, strategery is hard! Which explains why the Democrats haven't actually got one. Although, technically, retreat is a strategy. Or, at least, a tactic.
18:25 PST:Our military guys don't want to quit. They know what the stakes are. The president introduces a family that lost their son, USMC Sergeant Daniel Gray. I hate that we have to lose so many good men. I'd hate even more losing thousands of innocent civilians.
18:28 PST:We support democracy, but democracy is only a beginning. You gotta have the rule of law and stuff. Oh, and Hamas needs to wise up and reject terror. Democracy is great and all, but it's a means, not an end, e.g. Hamas.
18:30 PST:Iran. Man, those Mullahs are whack. We can't let those freakoids have nukes. To that end, we're gonna talk to them very sternly. To Iranians: We respect you, and we hope to be your friends, when you'e free and all. But, apparently, we aren't actually gonna do anything to make them free. He drops the "friends" platitude and moves on.
18:34 PST:Yeah, I spied on communications with Al Qaeda via the NSA. I have the authority to do so, and I'm not gonna sit around like before 9/11 and do nothing. Congress knew I was doing it, and I'd do it again. Clearly, he's not gonna back off the NSA spying deal. And, assuming the program is as outlined, he shouldn't. Democrats appear to disagree. Although they didn't mind when Pres. Clinton used the same rationale to conduct warrantless physical searches.
18:38 PST:"We hear that immigrants are bad for our economy, even though this economy could not function without them." Really. Where does he hear that? No one claims "immigrants" are bad for the economy. What we claim is that essentially unrestricted illegal immigration is bad for both our security and our culture. The president is throwing out strawmen that have nothing to do with arguments about illegal immigration.
18:41 PST:We've been cutting non-defense, non-discretionary spending every year of my presidency. Even if true, irrelevant. Overall spending has mushroomed.
18:42 PST:By 2020, Social Security will absorb 40% of the Federal budget. Congress did nothing about this last year. At this, the Democrats give a standing O. Dicks. Social Security and Medicare isn't going away. If we don't reform those programs, we'll be flat broke. So, go ahead, Dems, "defend Social Security". Our kids will freakin' despise you for it, but who cares? As long as you get re-elected now, who gives a f*ck, huh?
18:45 PST:We need affordable health care. Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor. Funny, I don't see that in the Constitution. I guess I'm misreading that revered document.
18:48 PST:America is addicted to oil. We need the technology to move away from it. We are gonna increase research at the DOE by 22%, and look into alternative energy sources, including nuclear. Gotta look into hybrid and hydrogen, too. Because government is required for these breakthroughs, I guess. Still, he's got a point. Oil has to go. Let the Mullahs and Shieks bathe in the stuff. Then we won't care about their freakish enthusiasms, any more than we care about those in Africa. Unfortunately, technology doesn't magically appear via government fiat.
18:52 PST:We have to make our young people smarter. There are those of us, alternatively, who think we need to get the government out of education, so that private education markets can actually educate kids, rather than spending money on bureacratic mandates and engorged administrative costs. The children getting smarter would then ineluctably follow.
18:55 PST: Chief Justice John Roberts isn't wearing the four gold stripes on his robe. I kinda miss that. I like the traditional flavor of the gold stripes. The president commends Justice O'Connor who is not, in fact, in attendance.
18:57 PST:No cloning, or selling of embryos. It's just wrong. Well, there goes my plan to use my clone as a slave organ donor when I'm rich and old and need a new pancreas. I guess bionic replacement parts are my only hope, now. Damn.
18:59 PST:We're rebuilding New Orleans. Yes, we are. But, unfortunately, he expresses no preference for the appropriate dessert flavor that this unhappy city should reflect. I'd prefer cappuccino mousse, myself.
19:02 PST:Times are troubled, but we are the masters of our own destiny. Well, we can be. Whether we will is a different question.
So, to sum up. No isolationism. No withdrawal in Iraq. No nukes for Iran. No terror for Hamas. No clone slaves. In return, hydrogen for everyone, and reform of social security.
The section on Iran was...well...pointless. OK, so we can't let Iran have nukes. Fine, but what are we gonna do to prevent it?
Overall, it was a fairly conciliatory and conventional SOTU. He wasn't as pugnacious as he's been in the past.
By the way, who's this Nina Easton from the Boston Globe that talking heading on FOXNews? She's kinda hot.
OK. Well, now let's see what the Dems say in response.Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine will give the Democratic response. I'm giddy with anticipation with what this rising political star will tell us.
19:16 PST: Live from Richmond, Virginia! Do you know me? I'm a governor! Good for you.
19:17 PST:We need to bring people together. You expect government to do good things. You expect good police, fire and schools. Yeah, but that's really a state deal, not a federal one.
19:20 PST: We've been spending money like a drunken sailor in Washington! Heh. Because that's always been the hallmark of the Democratic party: lower government spending, huh?
19:24 PST: In the states, we're doing a bang-up job in education and stuff. Yeah, maybe, but the states have different governments. States do different stuff. So what does Gov. Kaine's experience in Virginia have to do with the price of tea in China? I mean, good for Virginia and all, but, really, who cares?
19:27 PST:We have to defeat the terrorists! We are comitted to winning the war on terror! But the administration is going about it all wrong. Bad info on Iraqi WMDs. Cuts in spending for troop welfare. That's not the way. There's a better way! We need to help veterans access their benefits. WTF? I mean, what the f*cking f*ck! This is just a complete non-sequitur!
19:30 PST:The feds are just completely screwed. There's a better way! We have to concrentrate of providing good service to people! Because, you know, lack of efficient government services are at the very root of all our troubles.
Judas H. Priest! What rocket scientist picked this guy to give the Democratic reponse to the SOTU? To the extent his response wasn't absolutely incoherent, like the section on Iraq, it had no relevance whatsoever to national issues. I mean, I'm sure we're all keenly interested in how state and national governments work out political issues, but that doesn't really have anything at all to do with responding to the president's SOTU proposals.
It's as if he wrote a speech without even looking at the the president's SOTU address. It's probably a wonderful thing for the people of Virginia that they have a governor who thinks so deeply about state v. federal issues, but as a SOTU response, this was a complete failure. For instance, I generally support the president on the GWOT, but even I could've come up with a more effective critique of the president's policy than this guy.
Meybe the whole purpose was to present a Democrat to the American people who doesn't come actross as a whack-job. if so, then Gov. Kaine's response was a success. But if the intent was to hit back hard with a rebuttal of the SOTU, it was a complete miss.
What was the whole, "There's a better way" deal about? The implication of Gov. Kaine's speech was that the administration's policies aren't wrong. It's just that the administration is incompetent at carrying them out. That's not a rebuttal. That's an implicit aceptance whose only argument is about effectiveness.
I can't imagine the Kos/Atrios/DU crowd was happy with this pathetic response. Hell, even I think it sucked. They'll probably strangle in their own vomit.
Well, there you have it. Once again, our annual celebration of the SOTU is over. See you next year.
We support democracy, but democracy is only a beginning. You gotta have the rule of law and stuff. Oh, and Hamas needs to wise up and reject terror. Democracy is great and all, but it’s a means, not an end, e.g. Hamas.
Interesting on the economy. Not really trumpeting the performance, per se. Rather, he’s comparing it to other economies in the world - in which light we look pretty good.
Talking, again, about alternative energy. It is around this point that the Dem’s hearing fails - either that or they’re minds have collectively wandered and so aren’t paying attention.
Kaine is brand new as governor. I can’t figure out why he was chosen, except that it kept the rest of the Democrats off camera. Maybe nobody wanted to step up to be the big star this early in the 2008 engine-warming season. Maybe the Democrats knew they had to keep the likes of Dean and Kerry off camera in order to be taken seriously - are they that aware?
I don’t see why Kaine was there, other than the fact that he’s none of the other Democrats.
As for "there is a better way", the Democrats showed they still don’t know how to be against both the terrorists and George Bush.
Being Mother Sheehan, she started to cause a problem, at which point she was wrestled to the ground by alert Secret Service Agents, and dragged off to Guantanamo for interrogation under torture.
Yay!
Oh. Wait. You’re just pulling my leg, right? Curses!
George Bush is a small man. Regardless of your political stripe, wouldn’t you want someone more cunnning and curious as President? Anytime Bush makes a speech, I am reminded only of how incredibly dim-witted he is. But what really bothers me - as it should most Americans, is how incredibly average he is. I suppose that makes him marketable. But goddammit, I would prefer Nixon. Nixon was a criminal. But he was smart. He was bright, analytical, and curious. And foreign powers respected him.
If conservatives are going to run government, then so be it. But is it too much to ask that a smart conservative run the government? Bush is so dumb - he is really dumb.
I don’t ask for much. If the government is going to be run by wingers, is it too much to ask that it be run by someone who is smart? Bush is an idiot.
Although they didn’t mind when Pres. Clinton used the same rationale to conduct warrantless physical searches.
If I recall correctly, Clinton conducted those searches in 94. They were not added to FISA and made illegal in the same way that warrantless domestic surveillance is until 1995. The two cases are substantively different.
19:24 PST: In the states, we’re doing a bang-up job in education and stuff. Yeah, maybe, but the states have different governments. States do different stuff.
What’s more, the States have statutory, even constitutional, prohibitions on deficit spending. Virginia had to cut about a billion dollars out of the budget — a massive single year cut in the smaller state budgets — when the economy was tough. And yet we still accomplished what was mandated.
My kingdom for similar percentage cuts at the national level.
A discouraging speech, very Carterlike. The answer to all our problems is big government. Spend nore taxes. New energy boondoogle. If he wants independence open ANWR it will not take any taxpayer money and will reduce dependence on OPEC. It may totally eliminate OPEC from our energy needs. More big brother medling in education! How far to the left he has gone in 13 months. He needs to study what a conservative President did and said; "Government can never solve our problems ... Government *is* the problem!"
As for MK’s comments, my irony meter just went all the way to the right and wraped itself around the peg a half a dozen times.
As for the rest... only one comment thusfar..(Other than good job, Dale)...
America is addicted to oil. We need the technology to move away from it. We are gonna increase research at the DOE by 22%, and look into alternative energy sources, including nuclear. Gotta look into hybrid and hydrogen, too. Because government is required for these breakthroughs, I guess. Still, he’s got a point. Oil has to go. Let the Mullahs and Shieks bathe in the stuff. Then we won’t care about their freakish enthusiasms, any more than we care about those in Africa.
and The fact of the matter is, even assuming we were able to move our entire fleet every car in the nation off of oil, we’d still be importing it. What’s in America’s driveway is not the problem.
Further, yes we would be concerned about their freakish enthusiasms, oil or not, a nuclear bomb has a tendency to mess up your summer vacation. The suggestion that oil is funding a lot of the terrorism we see is true. However, that’s already been accomplished!! That money’s already in their pocket. Our moving away from oil within the next ten years, even if possible in terms of our transportation systems, isn’t going to solve the issue of the money they have and thereby the mischief they’re able the cause. It’s progressed to the point now, where our moving off oil is not a solution to the middle eastern problem. it should still be accomplished, but spare me the platitudes about how it will help the peace process and the Middle East. It won’t.
The short term answer to oil of itself, is domestic drilling and increased refinery capacity in diversified locations around the country... and bypassing the NIMBY crowd.
The solution to the middle eastern problem is to continue doing what we are doing.
Just for the record: if entitlements go unreformed, they’ll eat up 60% of the federal budget, not the 40% you listed. (Confirmed this with the SOTU transcript.)
But you’re dead-correct about the Democrats being "dicks" with their applause. We should put that video into a mayonnaise jar and take it out again in 20 years when taxpayers are swimming in debt because of Medicare and SS spending.
“... to prevent another attack - based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute - I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America.” I had the distinct feeling that I was in on a big secret when Bush said this. I have been watching Glen Greenwald’s blog launching the movement to impeach the President for his actions in authorizing that surveillance Bush refers to above. The above comment is Bush saying: “I know what you are up to....come and get me.” I must admit that I am taken by the concept of the "everyman" attorney with the blog single handedly bringing about the impeachment of the POTUS. Sort of the embodiment of Glenn Reynolds’ new book about the interned making each of us David (you know, able to slay “Goliath”). I am just too cynical, I guess. I tend to think that movements like this have a beginning in strategy sessions by paid advisors. Then they recruit the actor to carry out the scheme. On Glen’s blog a commenter named Hypatia is a nice touch. She is presented as the opposition right winger. However, “even she” wants the President impeached. Get it? Glen started out on a high plain with heavy concern for the role of the president in our form of government. Hypocrisy is apparently part and parcel of every impeachment movement. Now he has cranked it up a notch. Tearing our political fabric apart with an impeachment proceeding without being credited with the “credit” for bringing it about is much to be desired. Glen’s impeachment crusade against the “scandal” of Bush is, of course, not a grubby DNC political ploy, but instead a noble grassroots effort caused by the transgressions of the Bush administration. It is very noble. Even Hypatia can see that.
An entertaining read. But no surprise, an analysis of the Republican president’s speech shouldn’t be any reason not to bitch-slap the Democrats.
Clearly, he’s not gonna back off the NSA spying deal. And, assuming the program is as outlined, he shouldn’t. Democrats appear to disagree. Although they didn’t mind when Pres. Clinton used the same rationale to conduct warrantless physical searches.
Clearly, Bush apologist’s won’t let facts get in their way to defend the “Terrorist Surveillance Program”. I’ll give you this, though; you at least attempt to veil your apologies with satirical jabs. You’re a Great President, Mr. Big Ears.
Dicks. Social Security and Medicare isn’t going away. If we don’t reform those programs, we’ll be flat broke. So, go ahead, Dems, "defend Social Security". Our kids will freakin’ despise you for it, but who cares? As long as you get re-elected now, who gives a f*ck, huh?
Unlike the principled Republicans in Washington; who throw electoral caution to the wind to ban gay marriage, interfere with family affairs, and pass pork laden spending bills.
We’ve been spending money like a drunken sailor in Washington! Heh. Because that’s always been the hallmark of the Democratic party: lower government spending, huh?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I guess?
Indeed, He wasn’t as pugnacious as he’s been in the past. And that’s no reason for us not to be.
Well, there you have it. Once again, our annual celebration of the SOTU is over. See you next year.
I’ll be there, thanks.
(Now comes the part where Dale tells me to “go fuck yourself.” Only with asterisks. Because, with asterisks, n*body has to w*rry about being off*nded. And I’m sure that will be an entertaining read, as well.)
Pouge obviously hasn’t been reading the wire services much of late. Bush’s approval rating was at 50%, last I looked, and will likely climb higher as a result of last night given the traditional bump.
I mean sorry to burst your bubble with mere fact and all, but...
Rassmussen’s poll has consistently been an outlier from every other poll on the Presidents favorability rating. Of recent polls, the results favorability ratings have been: (favorable/unfavorable)
Problem with the polls you cite, Jon, were the slanted samples, (More Democrats than Republicans in the sample) ...as has been reported on many blogs, Michelle’s being among them. Which, in turn is why I quote the poll I do; it suffers no such lack.
“... to prevent another attack - based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute - I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program...”
...I’m not saying its right or wrong since the POTUS hasn’t given specifics (which does make me uneasy), but ...
...where does the Constitution provide this authority and why then would a statue be needed if the Constitution does indeed provide the authority?
Problem with the polls you cite, Jon, were the slanted samples, (More Democrats than Republicans in the sample) ...as has been reported on many blogs, Michelle’s being among them. Which, in turn is why I quote the poll I do; it suffers no such lack.
Oh, of course. Every single poll except Rassmussen had a slanted sample, and you know this because ... well, because you don’t like the results.
I’m well aware that a few polls occassionally have sample problems. You’re just making up the all-encompassing (except for Rassmussen!) polling sample problems. You are, to be blunt, lying to us or to yourself.
The Rasmussen poll you site is 48%, not fifty. But yeah, that’s better than 39%.
Pouge, once again, you get tripped up on the facts. The 50% is THEIR words... a direct quote... not mine.
Aparently, they’re re-using the link I posted. I was unaware of this.
Proof is easy enough to provide, and it’s something you should have seen;
Note the date my link was originally posted is several days PRIOR to the date on the story it links to.
Note also, down the right hand column from the Rasmussen page, and you’ll see the numbers are tracked over time. What is the figure posted for the day I linked the page... January 30th? 50%.
What a shock! We re elected Jimmy Carter in 04. The solution to all our problems is more government intervention and less individual initiaive. We are too dumb to solve our problems on our own; we must have omnipotent DC do it for us.
Mr. Bush was just pugnacious enough when he hit the opposition with, "Hindsight is not wisdom and second guessing is not a strategy." I normally view hostile partisan sniping as decidedly un-presidential. But, when the president refuses to answer the harshness of his critics for so long, he starts to look spineless. He has to hit them back occasionally. They needed a good verbal spanking from the national leader.
It’s also great to see that he lost the smarmy smirk.
Did y’all notice the icy glares Leibermann got from his Democratic teammates whenever he stood to applaud?
RealClearPolitics has a 9-poll average approval of 42.9% Rasmussen and Cook/RT Strategies both have about the same number. They may both be outliers. But if you call them outliers, you should also call the NBC/WSJ poll an outlier, since it’s the only poll showing an approval rating below 40%.
Bithead, do you have a link that shows the sample breakdown of these polls? It’s your claim the sampling is biased, show some data to support it.
President George W. Bush - Job Approval Ratings Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread RCP Average 1/20 - 1/30 42.9% 52.9% -10.0% Rasmussen 1/28 - 1/30 48% 51% -3% NBC/WSJ 1/26 - 1/29 39% 54% -15% Time 1/24 - 1/26 41% 55% -14% ABC News/Wash Post 1/23 - 1/26 42% 56% -14% FOX News 1/24 - 1/25 41% 51% -10% Cook/RT Strategies 1/22 - 1/25 47% 50% -3% LA Times/Bloomberg 1/22 - 1/25 43% 54% -11% CBS News/NY Times 1/20 - 1/25 42% 51% -9% CNN/USA Today/Gallup 1/20 - 1/22 43% 54% -11%
Every single poll except Rassmussen had a slanted sample, and you know this because ... well, because you don’t like the results.
Nice try, Jon.
At what point did I say "every one"?
The points I’m making... and the facts back me on this.... is that there’s certainly enough of it going on so as to cast at least SOME doubt on the accuracy of the polling. Even you can’t deny that slant on these polls exists. Or are you going to tell us now that they’re all without bias? Or are you going to tell us that only the ones showing Bush doing fairly well are biased?
Comon, Jon, you’re better than this.
And of course, the numbers themselves are only half the story. The reporting on them is the other half.
Steverino asked for evidence of problematic methodology in the polls listed. You have yet to provide him with that. The links you do provide are criticisms specific to polls from about 3, 6 and 16 months ago.
Nor have you substantiated that Rassmussen’s outlier results have better methodology.
Or are you going to tell us now that they’re all without bias?
I only point out that the bulk of the evidence is consistent with Pogue’s statement. Which anybody who has been "reading the wire services much of late" knows.
Either way, Pouge, it’s clear you were quicker to jump to the defense of your BDS than you were to actually READ the bloody thing.
And Jon; As I suggested, I’m a little bandwidth (and time) limited here at work. I’ll get to looking some of those instances up this evening as time permits.
The links I provided were simply close to hand, and I think, are enough to raise some question in a fair-minded person. And they’re hardly unique, as you know.
Regardless of what your opinion is about the fairness of the polls, not one, including the poll you cited, support your initial assertion.
Incorrect, Bruce. The poll I cited was the one for the 30th. The link posted here was clearly posted on that day, and the rating on the day cited was 50%. Which, by the way, was in fact the last I’d checked it, or I’d have SAID 48. Follow?
Hermit;
Yeah... I had visions of Clinton and the 100,000 cops.
Incorrect, Bruce. The poll I cited was the one for the 30th.
That was not at all clear in your assertion (coupled with the fact we’re not mind readers), and, of course, it’s below that on both 31st and today, the same day your comment was made.
Whatever... We’re talking about two percentage points, here...It’s within the margin,I suppose.
And either way, it’s substantally higher than the poll Pouge rattled off... speaking of which....Do we know what date that was, and what the source was? I’m not a mindreader, ya know....
(oops, someone else already used that phrase...does that mean I can’t use it? Oh, well)
And Pouge not being a mindreader isn’t at issue. Pouge not even bothering to read what I actually POSTED before implying I’d twisted the facts, OTOH, is.
And either way, it’s substantally higher than the poll Pouge rattled off... speaking of which....Do we know what date that was, and what the source was? I’m not a mindreader, ya know....
Dude!? Scroll up a bit.
The poll I reflected was taken between January 26 – 29 by that bastion of liberal propaganda, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
(sigh) And Pouge not being a mindreader isn’t at issue. Pouge not even bothering to read what I actually POSTED before implying I’d twisted the facts, OTOH, is.
Again,… Dude!? This is from your blog…
Monday January 30, 2006 -Rasmussen- Fifty percent (50%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.
The President earns approval from 82% of Republicans, 25% of Democrats, and 41% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Interesting. Were those not the numbers he was originally elected by?
I read the post... clicked on the link... ... 48% ... !?! What more do you want from me?
Incorrect, Bruce. The poll I cited was the one for the 30th. The link posted here was clearly posted on that day, and the rating on the day cited was 50%. Which, by the way, was in fact the last I’d checked it, or I’d have SAID 48. Follow?
Well… First, we are forced to translate before we can “follow”.
Pouge, once again, you get tripped up on the facts. The 50% is THEIR words... a direct quote... not mine.
Aparently, they’re re-using the link I posted. I was unaware of this.
Equals…
Yeah, Pogue. I was wrong… and you should have known about it.
,
Comon, Jon, you’re better than this.
Equals…
Come on, Jon. Tow the party line.
,
And Jon; As I suggested, I’m a little bandwidth (and time) limited here at work. I’ll get to looking some of those instances up this evening as time permits.
Equals…
I cannot back up my claim. Therefore, I’ll buy some time and hope everyone forgets about it.
,
Whatever... We’re talking about two percentage points, here...It’s within the margin,I suppose.
Equals…
I only like facts that support my opinion.
Look, Bithead. Just admit you were wrong. It’s really not that painful. I do it all the time here. That’s why McQ loves me.
Because… “bandwidth” ??? Dude, until a few weeks ago, I was using dial-up… and even I never used that as an excuse. Mia Culpa, Baby… It’s a soul builder. Cheers.
BTW, Are you writing "Pogue" as "Pouge" intentionally, or is that a typo. For the record, and since I know all of your real names, my name is Eamon McMuir.
I would, if I was. I wasn’t. If you do it all the time, why not simply admit that the you simply didn’t note the spec’d date was the 30th?
No matter for either. Look, what cheesed my sandwich was your implication that I’d somehow twisted the facts, when clearly that wasn’t the case.
It’s a soul builder.
We walked 5 miles, up hill.... both ways... and we LIKED it. (LOL)
Seriously, I have a situation here at work that I’m working on. That aside, maintaining a link to my home system from here is a real problem for some reason today... slow, and it keeps dropping. And, that’s where a lot of my research stuff is, I’m afraid. Makes it a bit harder than it needs be. Since my router at home is reporting no issues (Either intenal net or external), I’ve gotta assume the problem is on this company network.
And yeah, it’s a typo... and one apparently that got into the spell checker on this one, somehow. (Shrug) Thanks.
No matter... as I’ve said I’ll look at it tonight.
That said, someone e-mailed me this link a short time ago, and I think it bears on this to a large degree. One or two polls, I can see as noise level... and I might give you long odds on. Three, though.....
Interestingly, someone ELSE sent me this, which indicates last night’s polling was sample-skewed in the opposite direction.
Bithead, your primary mistake wasn’t really the 48% vs. 50% thing; it was in "correcting" Pogue, quite snarkily, with polling info that was simply taken from a different polling organization (one that consistently measures Bush’s support several points higher than the average). The fact that your own info turned out to be outdated, after your snarky comment about Pogue not reading the latest wire services, was just an added bit of irony.
Anyone who shoots from the hip like you do is going to miss the target and hit the tree next to it once in a while. When this happens, it’s best to own up to the bad shot, rather than to try to paint a bulls-eye around the hole in the tree.
As I said to him; what cheesed my sandwich was the implication that I’d somehow twisted the facts, when clearly that wasn’t the case.
As for owning up to an error, what do you call: "Aparently, they’re re-using the link I posted. I was unaware of this", hmmm?
Of course, since I think Bush is occasionally worth the air he breathes, that’s ol’ Bithead twisting the truth to support his boy, right? ANd when I use mere fact to defend my actions against a charge of truth twisting, it’s MY fault?
Bull cookies.
Now, as for the numbers in question....(Excuse typos, please, this many raw links makes the editor harder for me to read...)
First, I’ve never suggested that Bush’s numbers weren’t low, such is to be expected Republicans poling number are invariably so given who reports them. What’s at issue is when they get what I would consider abnormally low.
Well, now, let’s see here.
NBC/WSJ 1-26 No data (Again, a PDF...careful) On page 33, we find that the polling data is of a population that is of 41 Democrats and 39 Republicans. More balanced than most, I suppose, but who knows the leanings of the 20 "Strictly independants" they list? Time 1/24 Neat story, but no population data.
ABC/WaPo 1/23 Their report contains no data on whom they’re asking.
Fox News/(OD) 1/24 - Warning, PDF... Percentage of those polled: 43% Democrats, 36% Republicans. (Scroll all the way down to see it)
Cook/RT 1/22 This one shows the population of respondants skewed conservative... 43% to 22%. Note it doesn’t say Republican and Democrat... The population breakouts also show the largest percentile in the south. It’s not overly clear how that meshes or doesn’t with the remainder of the polls listed, but it does seem clear taht differences can happen. That idea would seem to be reflected in the higher rating for the period.
LAT 1/22 no data
CBS/NYT for 1/20 at least had results tabbed by party. Thos numbers are available here, (Warning;PDF) Notice that the number of Democrats polled outweighs the number of Republicans polled, (412-D/360-R). No, that’s not slanted, is it? Funny how they don’t mention that in their story or their summary. Again, you’ve gotta scroll all the way down to the very bottom of the report to see this little tidbit.
CNN/Useless Toady: Both the story and the result contain no data as regards to who it is, that is being ASKED the questions. and I don’t have Gallup’s subscription.
Add those to the links I’ve already provided and one begins to get the picture very clearly; With that kind of population skew, the data is slanted from the get-go. Guess which way.
