Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bush’s speeches not effective?
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, September 21, 2006

I have a long day on the road ahead, beginning within a few minutes, but before I go I'd like you to take a look at the NYT article which is headlined , "Poll finds most Americans displeased with Congress". In it, Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder make this statment (or analysis):
The Times/CBS News poll also found that President Bush did not improve his own or his party’s standing through the intense campaign of speeches he made and events he attended surrounding the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The speeches were at the heart of a Republican strategy to thrust national security to the forefront in the fall elections.
They then point out that:
Mr. Bush’s job approval rating was 37 percent, virtually unchanged from the last Times/CBS News poll, which was conducted in August. On the issue that has been a bulwark for Mr. Bush, 54 percent said they approve of the way he is managing the effort to combat terrorists, again unchanged from last month, though up from earlier this spring.
So we have a claim his approval rating is virtually unchanged and that a majority still approve of his effort to combat terrorists (and noted to be unchanged).

Two paragraphs later:
But the Times/CBS News poll found a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush has handled the war in Iraq, to 36 percent from 30 percent. It also suggests that after bottoming out this spring, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy have returned to their levels of about a year ago, both at 37 percent. The number of people who called terrorism the most important issue facing the country doubled to 14 percent in this poll from 7 percent in July; 22 percent named the war in Iraq as their top concern, little changed from July.
Huh? a rise from 30% to 36% is not a "slight increase". It is a 20% increase over the last number. And while his ratings on those issues he hasn't been talking about stayed the same, that which he has been talking about -terrorism- has seen a 100% increase in awareness among the public, going from 7% considering it the top issue to 14%.

Given those increases and the slight edge the Republicans continue to maintain as the party best able to handle terrorism, I'm not sure how anyone can give credence to the statement:
President Bush did not improve his own or his party’s standing through the intense campaign of speeches he made and events he attended surrounding the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It sounds more like the NYT is trying to talk the Republicans out of that strategy despite the numbers.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Today’s LA Times poll has Bush at 45%.

Someone email Nagourney and see if he responds.
 
Written By: Good Lt
URL: http://www.aredphishhead.blogspot.com
Mr. Bush’s job approval rating was 37 percent, virtually unchanged from the last Times/CBS News poll, which was conducted in August.
Which means that this poll- as it usually is- is an outlier, given that Bush’s approval ratings are as high as they’ve been in quite some time, mid-upper 40’s

Someone has some ’splaining to do here
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Poll finds most Americans displeased with Congress"

Poll also finds most Americans sleep at night and eat 1-3 meals a day.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
According to Gallup, Bush’s average approval rating is 37% for all of 2006. Media Matters puts that # in perspective:
Here then, is some much-needed historical perspective to put Bush’s standing in context:

* According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, he was suffering the worst job-approval ratings of his presidency — 58 percent.

* In 1968, when the war in Vietnam was claiming hundreds of U.S. casualties each week, President Lyndon Johnson was considered so unpopular that he didn’t even run for re-election. Johnson’s average Gallup approval rating for that year was 43 percent.

* When Reagan’s second term was rocked by the Iran-Contra scandal, his ratings plummeted, all the way down to 43 percent.

* This year, according to the Gallup numbers, Bush has averaged an approval rating of 37 percent.

Bush’s dismal ratings put him well within range of the country’s recent failed presidencies, like the one of his father, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. That’s the historical company Bush keeps, although you’d never know that from journalists who refuse to connect the dots and refuse to treat Bush’s second term as the failure that a majority of Americans say it is.
As Media Matters notes, this is the real story.

A failed presidency. But then we already knew that, didn’t we?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
A failed presidency.
Gosh, I guess he won’t be reelected.


BTW:
Carter = 1 term
Nixon = reelected to second term by one of the largest margins in American history, then resigns 1.5 years later.
Bush 41 = 1 term


Bush 43 will be the first failed presidency to serve 8 years?

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And the cool thing MK, is that he’s still president, because we have elections to determine who runs the country, not polls.

Pisses ya off, don’t it?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Oh, I forgot my personal pronoun followed by - I repeat - followed by an impersonal pronoun:


I don’t think that Bush’s presidency will be seen as a failure by most historians. It’s not surprising that MK disagrees.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
A failed presidency. But then we already knew that, didn’t we?
By what standards? A poll? WOW......this isn’t TV son. Ratings don’t make the program, not here in the real world.

I guess when the GOP retains congress, you’ll get yet another slap of reality in the face....f*cking moonbat
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It sounds more like the NYT is trying to talk the Republicans out of that strategy despite the numbers.
It does, doesn’t it?

Or perhaps they’re just trying to spin it the Democrat’s way, like any good cheerleader.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
* According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, he was suffering the worst job-approval ratings of his presidency — 58 percent.
Imagine what it would have been with 24 hour news coverage, satellite fed news bits about starving Cuban children, etc... not to mention how the scandals would have rocked his world.

* In 1968, when the war in Vietnam was claiming hundreds of U.S. casualties each week, President Lyndon Johnson was considered so unpopular that he didn’t even run for re-election. Johnson’s average Gallup approval rating for that year was 43 percent.
I’m pretty sure there was more to his decision to not run than poll numbers.

* When Reagan’s second term was rocked by the Iran-Contra scandal, his ratings plummeted, all the way down to 43 percent.
Kept old Ronny Ray Guns from running for a third term.
* This year, according to the Gallup numbers, Bush has averaged an approval rating of 37 percent.
And how p*ssed are you gonna be if those number climb back up to the 50’s and 60’s over the next month or so? I’ll just smile and wait for word that your head has imploded.

 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Talk about media cheerleading! Fudging poll-reports is just one technique.

Today, I ran into Thomas P Barnett’s post, "Who’s really cleaning up in Lebanon" (third post on page). In the post he makes the point that Hezbollah’s media-assisted campaign in Lebanon is winning it popularity, then criticizes the US military for not showing similar media skills.

He seems to miss the fact that in the first case, the media’s reportage has been overwhelmingly favorable to Hezbollah, and in the other, it has been overwhelmingly negative to the American efforts in Iraq, and to American initerests in general.

To echo your post, McQ, if our media weren’t so distracted by narrow partisan concerns, like getting the Democrats back in power, and fighting tax-cuts and "Global Warming," then they could work in tandem with our military to produce exactly the sort of helpful narrative for our mission in Iraq that Barnett says we need so badly.

Problem is, the media refuses to play along (remember the huge stink they raised over the credibility of imbedded reporters and the ethics of using pro-US "planted stories?"). And, because Barnett never suggests what our military might do to get the NYT, the AP, Reuters or CNN to get on board, I’m left to guess that that’s where his "Elect Kerry" message comes in.

Intelligent minds might ponder the question: if Kerry had won in 2004, then would the global media be assisting America’s military in Iraq, rather than hobbling its every move?

I sincerely doubt it.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Shark 10 minutes ago:
Which means that this poll- as it usually is- is an outlier, given that Bush’s approval ratings are as high as they’ve been in quite some time, mid-upper 40’s
Shark now:
By what standards? A poll? WOW......this isn’t TV son. Ratings don’t make the program, not here in the real world
McQ goes into depth about recent polls, and no one makes a peep. I throw in a little more information about polls, and suddenly they don’t matter.

The ever evolving standards of wingnuttery.
Bush 43 will be the first failed presidency to serve 8 years?
Yes. Next question. (Oh, and by the way, don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. Bet no one thought in December of ’72 Tricky Dick would be moving out of the WH early.)
I don’t think that Bush’s presidency will be seen as a failure by most historians. It’s not surprising that MK disagrees.


Unlike Bush, you are making two different points here. It is perfectly ordinary to use a personal pronoun followed by an impersonal one when you are making two different points.

Guess you missed that, JW.
I’m pretty sure there was more to his decision to not run than poll numbers.
Oh yes, there was. See Johnson had the ability to see that he was running a war that he couldn’t win. And he had the decency and the honor to step aside and let someone else have a crack at it.

Stay the course, Baby.
And how p*ssed are you gonna be if those number climb back up to the 50’s and 60’s over the next month or so? I’ll just smile and wait for word that your head has imploded.
So when are you and the rest of the gang here gonna relocate to Guyana?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
This recent polling data tells me that voters have a clear perspective on the war in Iraq...perhaps more cogent than either Party. They feel it is being handled poorly, they know what a civil war looks like, they believe Congress has failed to do its part in guiding and overseeing the executive branch, and they realize that the notion of exporting democracy to the Middle East is a Bush Doctrine that fails to recognize the realities in the region. Finally, they believe that Middle East stability is important and that a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos may well be detrimental to the United States.

That, my friends, is one spot on analysis and suggests that voters have discerned fact from fiction with an impressive demonstration of acuity. Perhaps both parties will someday learn that the truth is, in the final analysis, the most powerful campaign strategy available. Don’t hold your breath.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com
 
Written By: Daniel DiRito
URL: http://www.thoughttheater.com
"Moonbats."

I love that word and laugh every time I see it! Especially when it’s used by people who actually believe that the corporations which hold a monopoly on the American airwaves are conspiring to slant the news to make a president totally beholden to corporate power look bad!

LMAO - You guys are hilarious!
 
Written By: War4Sale
URL: http://
Well, Mr. Dirito, a few may think it’s a "spot on analysis", though I disagree. But regardless of that, but don’t you think you’re overusing it a little?
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
McQ goes into depth about recent polls, and no one makes a peep. I throw in a little more information about polls, and suddenly they don’t matter
Nope, they don’t.....not by the standards you want to use them by anyway.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Unlike Bush, you are making two different points here. It is perfectly ordinary to use a personal pronoun followed by an impersonal one when you are making two different points.
Bush: "If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just, I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison..."


JWG: If MK ever makes an analysis, it’s full of cartoon-like simplicity and usually wrong. I’m not surprised about that. It’s just not surprising that MK posts comments that belong in a cartoon world.


Keep digging. I like this game.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
By the way MK, has Rove been indicted yet? (And now I’m wondering where fellow traveler Glasnost is to take up the torch for MK)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
He seems to miss the fact that in the first case, the media’s reportage has been overwhelmingly favorable to Hezbollah, and in the other, it has been overwhelmingly negative to the American efforts in Iraq, and to American initerests in general.
Steve, while your larger point holds, I don’t think Barnett is too far off the mark with that. This adminstration has done a horrible job of getting it’s message out even domestically, let alone globally. I think the recent dramatic improvement in that is largely due to Tony Snow’s influence, and I hope they continue on this path.

The media may slant things against us, but not everything can be slanted and when they take their message directly to the people, the media can’t help but cover it. We need a lot more of that, and we’ve finally started to get it.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Especially when it’s used by people who actually believe that the corporations which hold a monopoly on the American airwaves are conspiring to slant the news to make a president totally beholden to corporate power look bad!
Ah...but that’s how they disguise their servitude, by reporting negatively. It’s ingenious. Rove, you magnificent bastard!
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
"I throw in a little more information about polls, and suddenly they don’t matter."

Operative word "I" because it refers to you, MK, and you are perceived as an idiot around here.

I’m guessing that had someone produced poll data over the course of several decades that put your argument in a bad light, you’d be quick to point out (correctly and coincidentally) that comparing poll data over 40 years is d*mn tenuous analysis. But hey, whatever you need to prop up your ego. We’ll play along.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Mk - tell ya what, when the year ends, come back and tell us what the final numbers are on the polls - till then, you don’t get to make ’history’ of a year that hasn’t ended, umkay?

But, hey! I love they way Johnson handled the war in your version of history.
He escalates the damn thing and then bows out when he realizes it’s outta control.
Nobly recognizing he can’t win it, he steps aside to let someone else deal with the problem, like he didn’t cause 70% of it in the first place.
And best of all, leaves it to failed, evil, Republican Nixon to conduct the war, and ultimately bomb them back to the peace table to end the war the Kennedy/Johnson Democrats involved us in.
Wow!

The phrase "the North Vietnamese aren’t going to attack Washington" was at least fairly accurate. Try and say that about Islamic fundamentalists.
Find a Democrat willing to do the hard job of beating these guys down, it’s just not ’in’ your parties makeup at present. Guys like Lieberman, who might actually consider that answer, are booted out.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Thanks for your reply, Pablo.

There is a lot I agree on with Barnett...until he begins prescribing policy. That’s where he loses me.

I agree with you that the media is comin’ around, but, the correllary to that comment is the admission that they had ranged so far from reality since 2000’s recount that, six and three-quarter years later, they needto be reeled-in.

As a result, it’s hard for me to put the blame for Bush’s poor message-making in his first six years on his administration, when the message carriers are so openly antagonistic to his administration. The massed media made it their job to ensure he failed on that count.

Which brings me to Barnett’s complaint that the US military lacks media savvy and is paying for it in the Iraqi theater. He doesn’t contemplate that if the anti-American global media won’t play along, then it is not our military’s fault.

Sadly, it seems as if a media oligarchy decided that since Americans won’t vote for John Kerry, then the media will delegitimize the president we do choose in every way they know how (for example, compare MSM anecdotal reports on Bush’s "sluggish" economy to Paul Krugman’s glowing editorials about Clinton’s late-90’s bubble).

I just wish we’d all get on the same team here (that includes you, too MK), get the job done in Iraq, then bring our troops home. If the military had been successful at enlisting CNN, CBS, MSNBC, the LAT and NYT, AP and Reuters to its cause back in ’03 (as Barnett’s post suggests it should have), we’d probably have wrapped-up OIF by now.

And we’d be back to discussing tax-cuts, Hillary’s hairstyle, and disappearing blondes on Caribbean islands.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://

And we’d be back to discussing tax-cuts, Hillary’s hairstyle, and disappearing blondes on Caribbean islands.
I note with some degree of irony, Steve, that those are issues that the democrats actually stand some chance of winning on.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Ha! So true, Bit, and irony noted.

I think Hillary’d look great in natty Dred-locks for ’08. Bill Clinton was our first black president. With a new hairdo, and a the media playing defense, Hillary could be our first Rasta President.
-Steve

 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Hey Steve!
As a result, it’s hard for me to put the blame for Bush’s poor message-making in his first six years on his administration, when the message carriers are so openly antagonistic to his administration. The massed media made it their job to ensure he failed on that count.
They know this, and they did a lousy job of addressing it. When you look at what they’ve been doing lately, you can see they’re starting to get it. What they’re doing that they didn’t do before is get lots of people out there on camera and attacking/debunking the crap that’s being poured on them (and us) by the MSM. Rummy, Cheney, Condi, and Bush himself have been popping up in all sorts of places you just didn’t see them 3 years ago. Bush just did the Today show of all things! We know they’re not going to get a fair shake from the media, but they can’t use that as an excuse for clamming up and failing to get their message out there. And the media really can’t refrain from covering them when they decide to take the podium. Or sit with Matt Lauer. They command the face time they get, even if they have to enter the lion’s den to get it.

This is an information war as much as any other kind, and they’re finally beginning to see that they can’t concede it. The media is only coming around because Bush has decided to drag them along whether they like it or not.

I’d like to see the numbers on how many press conferences Bush has done overall, and how many of them he’s done since Tony Snow showed up at the White House.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I think you are right, Pablo.

Mike McClelland’s resignation, and Tony Snow’s hire signaled a sea-change in the way the administration was fighting the "info-wars."

But, did they bumble earlier chances to make a better case for their policies? Perhaps.

Or, did the administration just stay hush, and allow their antagonists enough rope to hang themselves (like Chavez did at the UN this week) and then simply make the requisite visits to the "lion’s den" to point out this self-mutilation?

More than perhaps.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Bush on CNN: "They’re coming. They’re coming!"
And, of course, the scared sheep fall for the gimmick and run to daddy for protection.

Of course, Bush’s poll numbers are rising.

It’s too bad, though, that he can’t use this gimmick in the international arena, because there are people out there actually able to think. Worse yet for us, many of our old allies turn away in embarassment or in fear of being associated with us.

Terrorism really scares me. I wish we had a wise daddy to run to, one that understands the limits of military power and how important the respect of the world community is in these dangerous times.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider