Media Bias? What media bias?
My new jarhead friend Donnie over at the Katrinacrat blog links to a fairly amusing amusing post from Radar Online about Bush's popularity ratings (or lack thereof, at 28%) as compared to the popularity of such things as the Dentist (45% popularity), in-laws (at 68%? hard to believe that one), and getting kicked in the balls (41% popularity - just who are the 41% of numb-nuts that actually enjoy a swift jolt to the nads??).
The CBS News story that generated these posts says that the low rating indicates Americans are "deeply unhappy with his performance as president", and that the public is "strongly opposed to his plan for increasing troops in Iraq" (29% favor, 66% oppose). Fair enough - but take a look at the raw data from the poll (taken pre-SOTU, Jan. 18-21), which is linked as a PDF file from the story.
Dig around the file and you will find some interesting things - for example, only 16% of people believe that "Democrats have a plan for Iraq", or that 83% of Americans believe "a stable Iraq" is at least somewhat or very important to U.S. security.
And take a look at the job approval rating for the Democratic Congress - it registers barely above Bush at 33%. It appears that folks like a kick in the balls better than either Bush or Congress. Funny how those parts of the poll never made it into the CBS news coverage...
The CBS News story that generated these posts says that the low rating indicates Americans are "deeply unhappy with his performance as president", and that the public is "strongly opposed to his plan for increasing troops in Iraq" (29% favor, 66% oppose). Fair enough - but take a look at the raw data from the poll (taken pre-SOTU, Jan. 18-21), which is linked as a PDF file from the story.
Dig around the file and you will find some interesting things - for example, only 16% of people believe that "Democrats have a plan for Iraq", or that 83% of Americans believe "a stable Iraq" is at least somewhat or very important to U.S. security.
And take a look at the job approval rating for the Democratic Congress - it registers barely above Bush at 33%. It appears that folks like a kick in the balls better than either Bush or Congress. Funny how those parts of the poll never made it into the CBS news coverage...
posted by Garry at
10:55 AM
4 Comments:
I agree that we need to stay in iraq.
Like I said before, I think that our motives for getting into iraq are the questionable ones-- now, we need to fix things (if that's even possible) before we leave, if we have even a modicum of social responsibility.
Actually (and this may shock or not shock you and jeff) I'm for the troup increase. Pelosi came back from her tour of iraq and said that most people thing it's the only possible option left for getting anything productive done over there, for saving face, etc--
and so we're voting against it? Huh??
That part I don't get.
Anyway, Yeah. The end.
GO MITT!!!
By
Unknown, At
6:19 PM, February 08, 2007
Garry,
I'm not sure you want to throw out the Dem congress number to prove your point. In December, with the Republican congress still in power, the congressional approval rating was 16%. So, the Democrats basically doubled that rating just by taking office a few weeks ago. Are you sure you want CBS to analyze that in depth? I think that shows a disturbing trend for Republicans, and those biased folks at CBS just left it out.
Nosurf,
If I thought that the troop increase would help, I might favor it. I think that it's too little too late. It was bad policy to go in, and it's been bad policy and bad strategy since we got there. I think most of the poor strategy blame falls on Rumsfeld who rejected the "Powell Doctrine," but I'm sure there's enough blame to go around.
That's why I get so frustrated when I hear "Dems don't have a plan for Iraq." The truth is that the Republican plan is what got us in this mess in the first place. Now, the media expects the Dems to come up with a wonderful solution. Sorry, there is no wonderful solution anymore. They're all at least somewhat bad. So, do dems have a plan? Yes. Is it wonderful? Nope, but neither is Bush's plan that's been a debacle from the start.
For an excellent summary of the situation in Iraq, you ought to read the transcript of this CNN piece. It's grim, but informative.
BTW, why Mitt?
By
Anonymous, At
7:14 PM, February 09, 2007
urgh...
I guess I just want to hang onto a strand of hope that we're going to be able to keep from pulling out before won't happen to lots of innocent people.
We'll see, right?
By
Unknown, At
12:17 AM, February 10, 2007
Pelosi was for a troop increase, nosurf, until Bush also said he was for it - now, suddenly she's against it. Mitt's an interesting candidate, but I don't know much about him yet...
Jeff - the metrics in the CBS poll show that the Congressional approval rating in their most recent previous poll was 29% (Oct. '06), an insignificant difference, statistically speaking, from 33%. The number you cite is from Zogby - comparing polls is a tricky thing, given variance in sample sizing, phrasing of questions, weighting of party identification, etc. Sometimes it's not even comparing apples to oranges, more like comparing apples to spoons.
You think a surge is "too little too late" - based on what? I've talked to who have been & are currently serving in Iraq, who believe the new strategy - coupled with the increase in boots on the ground - can work, but only if the cretins in Washington don't undermine the effort, that is.
By
Garry, At
9:12 AM, February 12, 2007
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home