Go Home

rating

36 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

CBS Poll: Bush hits all time low. Obama widens lead.

Congress isn't doing very good either, but Broder's boy is at 22%

Overall, the president's approval rating has dropped five points from last week and is now the lowest of his presidency. Only 22 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing, while 70 percent of Americans disapprove - a new high.

It's still way too early, but this is encouraging.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama leads GOP rival John McCain 49 percent to 40 percent among registered voters in a new CBS News poll. The nine-point spread marks an increase of four percentage points in Obama's lead from a CBS News/New York Times survey taken last week. Obama also leads by nine points among likely voters, 50 percent to 41 percent.

Here's all the latest polls. Obama is on an upswing, but still close.

And here's the latest on the battleground states.

The latest Quinnipiac polls show Obama crossing the 50 percent threshold in all three of those states:

Florida: 51 - 43

Ohio: 50 - 42

Pennsylvania: 54 - 39

I'd expect some wild stuff to come out of McCain's camp soon. That's after the Biden-Palin debate of course. I'd say moments after it ends.



Factcheck.org catches the RNC in another lie.

Factcheck.org catches the RNC in another lie.

How Liberal is John Kerry?

A new RNC ad claims Kerry is "the most liberal man in the Senate." Actually, his lifetime rating is 11th or lower, depending.

A Republican National Committee ad released Oct. 16 claims that Kerry is "the most liberal man in the Senate." It's true that vote rankings by the politically neutral magazine The National Journal rated Kerry "most liberal" in 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990. But over his entire career the Journal ranks Kerry the 11th most liberal Senator. And by other rankings he's only a bit left of his party's center.



Put It On The Turntable, See If It Spins

How's this for spinning Bush's humiliating climbdown in accepting an Iraqi timetable for withdrawal and McCain's poor judgement in wanting a 100 year presence where the US isn't wanted? According to the WSJ's Yochi Dreazen says that Bush was right all along - the timetable can only happen because the Iraqis finally stood up so we can stand down! Wingnuts like the American Power blog are lapping it up. No mention at all of Bush's words from May, 2007:

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

However, the Iraqi Army has no artillery, no airpower, no logistical capacity, no field hospitals and little else that a modern armed force needs. It's a glorified internal security paramilitary police force. And it has other problems too. Even Dreazen has to admit that:

Some U.S. officials warn that the army also is still vulnerable to internal sectarian tensions. Baghdad recently ordered a Kurdish brigade operating in Diyala to move elsewhere, but the Kurds refused, saying they would only take orders from the semi-independent Kurdish government in northern Iraq.

So if the Iraqi Army are standing up, it is only a bit - and the important question is "who for?"

No, this timetable is all about Noor al-Napoleon believing his own hype and really thinking his Shiite and Kurdish factions can keep a lid on Kurds, Sunnis and the Sadrists long-term. It's unlikely to be true, but if Iraq is a free and sovereign nation then it should get to sort such questions out as it wishes to and on its own.



I know they're making it harder for vets to get disability, but this is outrageous:

The VA rejected an Afghanistan veteran's disability claim for PTSD last month, citing his membership in VoteVets.org as a reason for the denial.

Staff Sergeant Will King retired from the Army in late 2003, after serving in both the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. As one of the first troops into the Afghan theater after 9/11, Will had been awarded a Bronze Star after participating in fierce fighting in the Shah-e-Kot Valley in March 2002. I know, because I was there with him.

As the months turned to years after his retirement, however, Will started having problems as the Iraq War dragged on. Depressed and unable to sleep, he thought it might be PTSD. Because, as those who study PTSD know, this is perfectly normal: The symptoms of PTSD frequently have a delayed onset that can take months or years to fully materialize. That's why, in April 2007, Will filed a claim with the VA for combat-related PTSD. The VA eventually agreed with Will and diagnosed him with mild PTSD. But Will felt like his condition was worse than that. And to boot, he thought it was getting worse. So Will appealed, and filed another disability claim with the VA in November 2007: He felt his symptoms were serious enough to warrant an increase in his disability rating from "mild" to "moderate."*

Unfortunately for Will, the VA denied his claim six months later, in May 2008. And while I won't challenge the VA's ultimate decision (I'm not a doctor), I find it repulsive that they cited Will's membership in VoteVets.org as a reason to deny his claim.

This is what the VA told Will in his denial letter:

The examiner states your PTSD symptoms are still present but you do not report symptoms at a degree or level which appears to suggest more severity. The examiner concurred with the previous diagnosis and assigned Global Assessment of Functioning Score of 52, stating you have occasional suicidal ideation but are able to cope with these symptoms and continue to function. The treatment reports from Memphis show you are currently involved with VoteVets.org, an advocacy group for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. You indicated involvement with this advocacy group makes you feel coping with your symptoms is worthwhile. The treatment note of March 10, 2008, indicates no homicidal or suicidal ideation and no thought disorder.



28%er

Bush hit his lowest approval rating ever:

President George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 28%, the lowest of his administration. Bush's approval is lower than that of any president since World War II, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter (who had a low point of 28% in 1979), and Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered ratings in the low- to mid-20% range in the last years of their administrations.

How does it feel. How does it feel. To be on your own...When I saw Bush's poll number, these words crept into my brain. No disrespect to Bob Dylan.



So much for the post-SOTU bounce

Historically, presidents get a little boost in the polls after a State of the Union address. It makes some sense -- the nation gets to hear a president's pitch, while seeing him get rounds of applause.

Bush, however, manages to see his popularity drop after his SOTU.

It's almost as if people can barely stand the thought of President Bush and Congress anymore. Bush reached his lowest approval rating in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on Friday as only 30 percent said they like the job he is doing, including an all-time low in his support by Republicans....

Bush's acceptance by his own party is at bottom in the AP-Ipsos poll. Just 61 percent of Republicans gave Bush positive reviews; his previous low was 65 percent last month. Only 28 percent of them expressed strong approval.

About one in 10 Democrats and three in 10 independents gave Bush positive marks.

A couple of weeks ago, White House officials were "predicting a remarkable poll shift to about 45 percent favorable by the time he leaves office next year."

They're off to a bad start.



When the RIAA loses its mind

I appreciate the fact that the music business is in the midst of considerable turmoil. CD sales are abysmal, record companies are losing a lot of money, and music pirating has become fairly routine, prompting thousands of lawsuits from the RIAA against consumers. It’s an industry facing major, system challenges.

But if the music business wants to get back on track, this definitely isn’t the way to do it.

[I]n an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

“I couldn’t believe it when I read that,” says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. “The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation.”

It’s as if the industry is anxious to destroy any remaining goodwill it may have left.



Attorneys Call Anti-Terrorism Efforts a Total Failure

terrorism poll results ABA ABA Journal:

...we asked 50 defense attorneys who’ve worked on federal terrorism cases since 9/11 their opinions of the legal war on terror. (We also asked 50 prosecutors, but U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd told assistant U.S. attorneys across the country not to participate. He declined to tell us his reason.)

Memo to Mr. Boyd, Esq.: This is the American Bar Association asking you. Remember? The ones who gave a unanimous "well-qualified" rating to Samuel Alito? We're not talking those commies at the National Lawyer's Guild, radical journalists at Mother Jones Magazine or some Nazi/KKK blackmailing leftwing blog, heh. What exactly are you afraid of? That attorneys supposedly working FOR you might express the same common sense opinions shown above?



Open Thread

Answer: 13

Question: What is

A) universally recognized as an unlucky number;

B) the title of a movie starring Holly Hunter and Evan Rachel Wood

C) Vice President Dick Cheney's approval rating

D) all of the above.



Mike's Blog Round Up

Shakesville: Bush trys to re-ignite the Cold War

Rising Hegemon: Like a "Smokeless" Klan rally.

TPMCafe: The Associated Press' crappy reporting makes Obama's remarks sound really threatening  Here's some more shoddy newspaper work

The New Editor: Winnie Mandela, Nelson Mandela's wife, is barred from Canada

Feministing: Feminists want to have sex without getting pregnant and therefore are murdering whores.  Scott has more...

Boozhy: American soldiers patrol Afghani marijuana fields (sound track gets an X rating)

If, like me, you're having trouble keeping track, go over to Lies from the Bush-Cheney administration