Gallup Polling has been the most favorable to Bush of all the polling outfits. They now show Bush at 40%, but I think they are still a little optimistic.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?”
Approve 40%
Disapprove 56%
Unsure 4%
ARG has Bush at 36%, and falling. We might not feel it here, but for the first time the Democrats are more united in opposition than the GOoPers are in support. Bush’s support among independents has fallen to about one in five.
Maybe it is Social Security. Maybe it is Terry Schaivo. Maybe it is gas prices. Maybe it is the Downing Street minutes and the war in Iraq. Maybe it is Valerie Plame and Karl Rove. Maybe we didn’t vote for him in the first place.
Whatever it is, Bush is in Nixon/Watergate territory. And I think the blogosphere has helped nudge the bad stories about Bush into the public consciousness. We need to keep on pushing. We are starting see dividends.
Santorum looks like the most vulnerable Senator up for reelection. Sen. DeWine in Ohio looks like he is in trouble. Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana is looking shaky. And our prospects of taking back the house are looking less and less hopeless every day. Do you want to see John Conyers chairing an impeachment hearing? I do.
Does anyone have any idea of how close he is to being down to just his hard-core base?
I’m wondering if he’s about 10 points from that point, but I’m just guessing based on voter turnout from the last election and a 25-25-50 Dem-Repub-Independent split. Hardly scientific.
So Booman, if Santorum is the most vulnerable senator up for re-election, why are they trying to keep the field clear for Casey? Apparently, Santorum is one of the least popular senators in the entire country; why are they running someone with similar views on women’s rights? And how successful do you think they’ll be in differentiating between the two with only economics to focus on?
Just a question I have for someone who’s active in Philly/PA politics…
The theory on Casey is that he can beat Santorum because he has the same name as his father, who was a very popular Governor. On the surface, it is the same theory that worked for George W. Bush. Dubya had no qualifications to be Governor, or President. His brother Jeb was a better bet all around, except for the name thing.
Being anti-abortion in Pennsylvania is not a necessity. Rendell is pro-choice. Governor Ridge was pro-choice. Arlen Specter is pro-choice. But, there are large chunks of Pennsylvania where it is helpful. I’m not sure how many, but I think there are at least three anti-abortion Democratic congressmen in Pennsylvania.
I think Casey was chosen for name recognition. But his anti-abortion and anti-gun control stances make it hard for Santorum to differentiate himself from Casey in his strongholds. And since Casey is strong on labor, a lot of socially conservative union members and hunters in the Western part of the state are going to have a strong incentive to vote for Casey.
Casey is going to lose some progressive voters and some women in the Philly suburbs will probably stay home. So, the strategy is not foolproof.
But with Santorum’s popularity in the crapper, his book filled with ammo, the gay community passionately motivated… it seems like he is very vulnerable.
I think the reason the field was cleared for Casey is because he asked for the field to be cleared as a condition of running. I think that was a terrible decision. He should have run and proven himself in the primaries. There is a good chance he would have won anyway. But we should have the say in who are choice is, not Rendell.
I’m supporting Pennacchio because I agree with him more on the issues and I also want to protest the field clearing. If Santorum really is so vulnerable, we don’t need to resort to silly tricks like choosing a guy with the same name as a different popular politican.
Now why would I kill the messenger, especially when he supports Chuck? 🙂
It just irks me that, in a race where the R opponent has so many negatives (and did I hear that Santorum faces a primary challenger?), Bobby Casey is the best the state Dem party could come up with. I couldn’t even vote for him for treasurer last fall, and I wasn’t the only woman who abstained from that vote.
I also am hearing that Alan Sandals is running for Senate; what do you know about him?
Looking forward to Tuesday’s mystery guest!
Alan briefly the other night. But I didn’t get a chance to do much more than say hello, because he was leaving when I met him.
I think he is a lawyer with a firm in Philly. He looks like a professor, has a beard. Nice guy. But I don’t think he has very much money and I couldn’t find much of an online presence for him.
Some of the women from my PP political action group have been talking about him this week, thinking that he is more appealing than Chuck because of his experience as a litigator. I haven’t met him yet, though.
On another note, do you know anybody who goes to Drinking Liberally on Tuesdays? (I’m wondering if it’s pretty much strictly a boys’ club, or if us girls are welcome too…)
there are women too. Susie Madrak of Suburban Guerilla and Wendy of All Spin Zone are regulars. And I met Adam Sandals at Drinking Liberally.
Hmmm…I have class on Tuesdays in UC, so I’m thinking about stopping by afterwards.
so let me know if you are going and I’ll try to stop by. It’s at 18th and Lombard, place called Tangiers.
If Casey is anti-abortion-rights, I’d assume that grows from some Christian bullshit. So why would he be a friend of gay rights? Just asking.
Accodring to a previous questionnaire for Catholic voters, Casey favors benefits for gay partners but not marriage, whereas Santorum is rabidly anti-gay.
but I think the Caseys are coming at the pro-life thing from a Catholic angle. More of a Cuomo type of morality than a Pat Robertson type. I’m not sure of the details of his positions on the sub-issues, like late-term, or exceptions, funding etc.
As for gay-rights, the gay community hates Santorum more than any other human being alive, so they would get out the vote to put Ronald Reagan in to replace him. It’s not about Casey.
I’ll try to dig into Casey’s positions in more detail this week and see what I can ferret out.
where he’s not going to go against keeping it legal despite personal reservations, or does he preach nullifying Roe v Wade? Kerry’s level seems good enough to me, tho probably doesn’t satisfy everybody. In other words, how does he balance the right to privacy vs his religious predjudices?
he’s tougher than Kerry. Here’s a good article on the whole issue of recruiting anti-Roe Dems:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7150734/
“our prospects of taking back the house”
Whyzat? Granted the structure is changing from vertical/top-down, to horizontal/flat, but that’s been ongoing since at least the ’90’s. If – and it’s a big if – the “D”emocratic Party can focus their energized base they have a good chance.
I don’t know if Clark would be available to lend a hand, but he does know what an illegal order is and he wouldn’t be afraid of putting Generals behind bars after what they have done to our military. Somebody is going to have to line out the military rules again and heads are going to have to roll in order for our soldiers to get back to a position of being able to trust their Command and the government leaders.
I think he’d be willing to advise, but not if it means getting involved in party politics. For good or ill, people tend to confuse the message with the messenger. [Sheehan Diary this morning.]
What do you want him to do?
of the job of an American Soldier operating under the Geneva Convention and the responsibility of being an American Civilian Citizen and Human Being. The lines between those things has to exist within every single one of our soldiers. For some soldiers it is harder to keep well defined. They relate more to the soldier portion of their being than they do the Human Being Citizen portion. For those soldiers their command must clarify and hold that line for them and as soldiers they follow suit. Being an honest successful soldier representing the nation of America is complex, more than we civilians like to acknowledge. We have seen what can happen to our soldiers when the Command has no American Civilian Citizen or Human conscience……the soldier takes over and now we have torture and murder committed in America’s name in Iraq. You can’t fool Clark. Civilians may have a hard time calling bullshit when and if the top brass is held accountable, but Clark can’t be fooled and he knows what an illegal order is and he wouldn’t be afraid to hold them all accountable for carrying out illegal orders.
Tracy, this is a form letter that was sent out via e-mail just yesterday. It might help you get a perspective on how Gen. Clark is thinking.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
Dear Brenda,
As I’ve been traveling across the country and speaking out in TV interviews over the past few weeks, many people have asked me about what we should do in Iraq.
Clearly, what we’re doing there now is just not working. The American people are frustrated by the lack of progress in Iraq and looking to President Bush for leadership to clean up the mess.
In today’s Washington Post, I have written an op-ed that summarizes my current thinking about Iraq: namely, that while the Bush Administration’s elective invasion of Iraq was clearly a mistake, pulling our troops out now would also be a mistake. If we put the right strategy in place, we can still succeed — but time is running out.
So far, instead of a strategy the Bush Administration has simply demanded that the American people show resolve. But resolve isn’t enough to mend a flawed approach or save the lives of our troops. It’s time for the Bush Administration to actually do the hard work, to put a three-pronged diplomatic, political, and military strategy in place that will ultimately enable us to withdraw.
If the Administration won’t adopt such a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that our brave men and women in uniform come home. It’s up to President Bush to put the strategy in place, without delay.
I hope you’ll read the full op-ed here, which fleshes out my thinking about this three-pronged comprehensive success strategy in much greater detail.
Then, at 2:00 pm ET / 11:00 am PT today (Friday), I hope you’ll join me at http://www.washingtonpost.com for a live online discussion about my op-ed. I look forward to your questions and our discussion.
Finally, I just wanted to let you know of a few important upcoming events. Next week, Josh Marshall has graciously invited me to be a guest blogger at TPMCafe.com, his new online political discussion forum. I’ll be discussing a wide variety of topics there, and I hope you’ll stop by frequently over the course of the week to join in the discussion.
Also from Tuesday through Thursday next week I’ll be traveling to Wisconsin and Iowa, meeting and talking with people across those two states. I’m really looking forward to the trip and to sharing my experiences with you while blogging on TPMCafe.
Thanks again for your continued friendship and support. I look forward to talking with you about Iraq and many other important issues facing our country during Friday’s online discussion at http://www.washingtonpost.com and all next week at TPMCafe.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark
for another presidential run. I guess it would be foolish in the extreme to expect him or any Dem to finally say what’s obvious: there is no “winning strategy”. To me, his letter is just more pandering to all the Americans clinging to denial for all it’s worth (which is nothing).
of people who hate each other living along side of each other and tending to kill each other, so if anybody could really pull Iraq off I’m sorry, but if it can be done at all I would have to say that Clark could do it. I have to hear him out before I pass judgement that Iraq is lost. Iraq is lost though under the Bush Admn, so I guess technically Iraq is lost because by 2006 I would say that it is going to be too late. I believe that Clark is sincere though in his words, it is the soldier in him……he won’t quit or give up until he is dead. Our soldiers are dying over there and Iraqi’s are dying over there, Clark won’t quit and my husband would go back defective to stop it!
from the first day of the invasion.
Dave, if you were to listen to the Generals statement before the Senate commity prior to the war and about 3-4 month ago, you would understand his stance. It was all a “I told you so” to the senators. [ref: last time in front of them}. He even said that while dubya was in-country for that famous Thanksgiving dinner, he should have talked to Sistani {sp?} and started right then on getting things squared away. But no, ppl think cuz he is a General he wants war…well, in fact he doesn’t if you were to really listen to his stance on things.
The General comes from my war…VN and knows the difference…just cuz he is career military does not make him a warmonger like others are. There are some career ppl who think just like he does and I happen to be one of them even tho I am not career. If I could have been tho, I would have been.FYI…Just give him a listen and see what he is saying…just give him a chance….oh yes, I voted for him in the primary…that is the only time I ever did vote in one and it was cuz of him I did. You see, he an dI were independent before we had to choose the party of voting to make a difference. BTW, his wife is a jewel!!! and so is his son and daughter-in-law.
I guess I ought to have outlined specifically what illegalities I was speaking of. I was speaking of the torture and murder investigations. As for Iraq I am willing to hear the man out and even though my husband has returned home on anitdepressants he said angrily about two days ago if there was an honest to goodness PLAN for success and pullout and they asked to him to go over there for six months and REALLY DO SOMETHING and end this thing, he would pack his bags today and go. My husband is tired of people needlessly dying and it sounds like he is willing to risk his life for something that will really stop it. I think Clark knows his soldiers well. If Clark becomes anything at all like President or Secretary of Defense I don’t think my husband will retire at 20 years if he can stay in. Truly my husband is a SOLDIER, it is what he does and loves and is priceless at doing. I think he would do all he could to heal from Iraq and he would carry on under Clark until he keeled over and died one day. When they were told they could shoot looters in Iraq in 2003 my husband told his Commander that he was pretty sure that under the Geneva Convention that was illegal. He also told all of the pilots in his unit that right to their faces before they went anyplace to do anything and he was a W3….he carried a little bit of weight opinionwise. I truly love my husband.
Tracy et al, I really feel like listening to Gen. Clark and see what he has to say. At first I was very saddened by the statement that he would stay and try to get us in the VICTORY mode and to have Iraq a stable and democratic country, if I have understood him correctly.
I do think if I were stillin the military, I would follow the General and do what he asked of me. I might be willing to debate some issues with him, but one thing I am sure of, he would listen to me. This is what I like about him. Saw him 3 times last year. Was very impressed with his stance aub tsimply saw he did not have enough of the political backing that he was needing to get ahead of the pack.
I know you love your husband. We all love him too. That is what this is all about! We love them all…each and every one of the troops. I would venture to say we love the Iraqis as well. This is about them and how they can be brought to the table of reason and get them back to being a country….at least that is what I thought this was about from our premise. [not dubys ways]
Just let your husband know we are behind him for what ever his decision would be. I am so serious about saying this….I AM VERY GLAD I AM NOT IN RIGHT NOW..I COULD NOT FOLLOW THIS CiC ANYWHERE!!!!! I am very sorry for that feeling. I am very prudent as to how my country is run. I would fall in behind Paul Hackett in this respect. And I understand there is another Iraqi vet running by the name of Murphy…not sure but is he not in Pa??!!!
Tracy, hang in there, Babe, things are a fixin to change, I think…..and when it does, hang on to your boot straps for it will be a wild ride.
That Clark could make something work, I know my husband would step behind it fully. If we pull out completely right now the dead innocent Iraqis will continue to tally up. They are facing civil war now. My husband is willing to risk his life for a real plan of action if it could/would stop that. I’m still not sure what the Bush Admn currently hopes to gain from Iraq. An at peace democracy isn’t it, they place no real effort into having that come about, it’s probably oil related. The Bush’s have done well with oil business and theocracy the fuckers. I think it is hard for Clark to watch the Army he worked to rebuild after Vietnam along with many others take it in the shorts, leave Iraq after setting it up for civil war and leave Iraq after they have tortured and shat upon the Geneva Convention. I know he wants to redeem the Army and our military in general and not leave Iraq in a world of shit. I can’t fault him for his vision either. No matter what the Bush Admn has said publicly though, they haven’t worked for a safe, happy, democratic Iraq. Really they care less, their real agenda in Iraq is something else.
and his op ed and following online chat at WaPo.
I found the chat very interesting, and recommend a read. Two comments in particular stuck out to me:
We’ll never know if Senator Kerry would have been able to create significant change, and bring a coalition of NATO partners as well as groups such as The Arab League and particularly Iraq’s neighbors. What I do know is that the Bush Administration refuses to admit one mistake, ever, and will never change course, ever. On this particular issue, I think we have suffered greatly from the decision on day 1 to not share in the bounty of rebuilding a country that we have bombed for 3+ years. Halliburton (Cheney?), etc. just had to have every last dime, and I just learned yesterday that they are headquartered offshore, so don’t even pay taxes. Also, not even close to the $24 billion allocated for rebuilding has been spent.
I like tell a story of Bush mismanagement when it comes to the rebuilding of Iraq. If we needed a trench dug, whoever makes these decisions (Bremer early on?) would have called Halliburton/Bechtel/whoever to fly in the most advanced equipment possible, and for $1 million would have that trench dug exactly to specifications in record time. If someone that had any diplomatic skills or long range thinking in these sorts of things, had offered $100 to 10,000 Iraqis willing to dig a hole for a day, the trench would have been dug, probably also in great time — but those 10,000 Iraqis would have a purpose in supporting their country and supporting the American rebuilding process. But guess what? Outside of maybe Home Depot selling shovels, USA Inc. would not have been able to PROFIT as much.
So here we are at $200 billion and counting, and the people have less electricity, less clean water, and less proper sewage systems. And you think you will be able to kill all the “insurgents”? Can the Bush Administration not see over the pile of money to see that these aren’t Saudi jihadists pouring over the borders (certainly there are some), and that these “insurgents” have quite a bit of popular support? Or do they not choose to see this, and think they will get away with it? (I tend to think the latter.)
Cindy Sheehan is a wonderful woman, and this morning I awoke to a beautiful diary about being exhausted, yet humbly overwhelmed. Never wanting anything more than to keep the promise she made to her son. Never having suggested that she speak for anyone else. I think what she has done (and what all of us who have supported her in all of our different ways) are history-making, and changing this country probably forever (and finally, for the better).
Now, back to the WaPo chat with General Clark:
How big is the credibility gap from the man that made that statement to Bush saying “we must honor those who have died by staying the course” (Cindy is really railing on that false hope)?
I liked what I saw from General Clark before the 2004 election, but feel he didn’t have a ground team up and running very well. I am far from selecting my choice for the Democratic ticket in 2008, and it is not like California gets to make much of an impact anyways (at least not with our primary vote.) I think General Clark is an honorable man, who walks the walk. Many questioned his going on Fox News as an analyst (“gives Faux News credibility”, etc.). I can’t watch Fox News, but I’ve read that he holds himself quite well there, and gets out complete thoughts and ideas, not allowing himself to be shut-off at the 30-second soundbite.
<<<<applauding you with all my might>>>>>
<<<<hugs and kisses>>>>>>>
<<<<<<jumping up and down>>>>>>>
That is exactly my point but put more gracefully. Thak you so very much….
hehehe … thanks for the reaction, especially from someone like you, Ms. Brenda Stewart of hotmail.com! lol
I’m not sure about the grace part — but, I think Clark carries himself like a true leader. And, not in a focus grouped sorta way. I think most general’s have large egos, I think Clark channels his well.
With every position of power comes responsibility and accountability, even the military – from the Commander-in-Chief down
is the high disaproval rate. Undecideds are down to 4 percent, so there is now a solid majority opposed to a wartime president. I think we’re seeing the effect of this turn against Bush in the administration. While they were riding high, I can’t imagine they’d have screwed up the Cindy Crawford confrontation so pathetically, for example.
IOW, things will continue to slide, and absent some engineered catastrophe or threat, so will Bush’s status. This should be good news, except our only hope of capitalizing on is the equally pathetic Dems, still running DINOs for Congress, still failing to grab the golden rings that are dangling right in front of their faces.
For example, we should be seeing video all over the country of Robertson and Bush, Robertson in the Bush White House, Robertson campaigning for Bush, Bush honoring Robertson. We should be hearing from every Dem on the TV how Robertson, the assassin wannabe, the bareassed liar, is the real face of the GOP, the point man for Bush’s dreams of an Iran-style theocracy of the kind he sacrificed so many lives to bring to Iraq. But no, we hear little timid murmers.
It really is time to destroy the so-called two party system. (And no, I didn’t vote for Nader.)
If you saw Dean a couple of Sundays ago on one of the talk shows you would be clapping. If you hear John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, Feingold, Reid and others. My Congressman Mike Michaud was banging it home just the other night..Dems are a big party, there’s room for us and besides, as someone above just saud..Dems in control of Congress in ’06 and watch the investigations roll in ’07.
As for Bush’s recent slide into the treacherous upper 30’s. Cindy Sheehan’s simple approach and message is getting thru. Americans are going Enuf is enuf.
in my frustration with the Democratic Party, and their lack of leadership, clearly stated opposition, mealy-mouthed talking points that do anything but convey a strong, minority party opposition.
I’m an eternal optimist, and want to make the Democratic Party right by the American people, as opposed to support for a third party. I am encouraged by the handful that have spoken out, and think that there will be more to come after Labor Day.
For a rare moment of a conspiracy theory being perhaps on the positive side, maybe the Democratic Party is served well by letting the Republicans self-destruct. They are doing one helluva job so far, from Social Security thru Schiavo thru those that pay attention to such things as Bolton nominations. And that doesn’t even bring Iraq onto the table. It has gotten to the point where Santorum tries to claim he HAS distanced himself from Bush — but he can’t even cite ONE example where differing from Bush or his policies. That’s quite an accomplishment! I would think his own mother would be able to find something!
So, while I search and I search inside my left wing echo chamber, often disappointed by the lack of a clear opposition as mentioned above, I wonder how well the Democratic Party is doing locally (well in Montana, apparently, and looks like Missouri too) and how well the 50-state strategy of Dean will play out (too soon to call on that one, but I like the idea.)