Copyright © 2010 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2010 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings.
Email:
|
Update on Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index. This morning's numbers are completely post State of The Union address, and Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index is significantly less negative than it was even yesterday, when a third of the included respondents had been interviewed before the address. Yesterday it stood at -12%, this morning it stands at -7%. That's as good as it's been since early November. (For more context, see what I wrote yesterday.) I'm glad abortion isn't mandatory. Frankly, I never undestood why anyone got upset over the upcoming Tim Tebow ad. I haven't seen it yet, but from what I've read of its content, it's "pro life" in the original sense, that if you have a choice, you might want to choose life. So far as I know, although its backers are fundamentally anti-abortion and want to eliminate that alternative, Tim Tebow's mom's story doesn't make that case: it says think twice. And if you think about, the "risk of the mother's life" is kind of a side issue. A mother of any famous child could do the same ad: sure, I knew abortion was available, but if I'd chosen that, I'd have been aborting fill-in-the-blank. And they could choose some mother who wasn't wed, or facing economic hardship at the time, too. What I wonder is whether CBS would have refused an ad where a widower talks about his wife who died after choosing to try to bring a child to term, knowing that her life was at risk. I hope their new revised position on advocacy ads doesn't pivot like a windsock. We know they've rejected an ad for a gay dating service, but perhaps its commercial purpose gives them justification (I don't think so, myself). 
Uncle Earl. The things you become aware of while doing the laundry and draining quark. Don't ask me how. State of the Union polling lift for Obama. Generally I don't get too excited about Scott Rassmussen's daily Presidential tracking poll. Well, not as excited as some others do, anyway: sometimes the day to day swings seem oddly large given that he provides three day rolling average and from day to day only one third of the sample has changed. Meaning, if the numbers change by two percent, that basically means there was a six percent difference between the newly-added interviews and the newly-dropped interviews. Shifts like that would make you wonder. Although Rasmussen notes daily shifts, he wisely doesn't usually write about them; he pays more attention to averages for an entire month. I think his analysis today is especially intelligent however. The advantage of continuous trackers like his is that you have the opportunity to cut the data pre and post specific events, because you're continually collecting the data. And he takes advantage of that in his results today, with two-thirds of the data collected after Obama's State of the Union Address. Here's a link, but it's not a "permanent" link (he doesn't seem to provide one) and tomorrow's content there will be different. So I'll copy more of his text than I typically want to. A little explanation first: he conducts his poll among likely voters, and discusses what he calls an "approval index," which subtracts the percent that strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from the percent that strongly approve. That difference went negative last July (more strongly disapproved than strongly approved) and it's been in the negative teens pretty consistently since mid-October. So what happened with the SOTU? A very positive shift for Obama, coming from his own supporters. In a week it's gone from -19% to -12%, with shifts both in strong approval rates and strong disapproval rates. Moreover, Rasmussen writes:
A 15% shift in approval among your party is huge. I think it remains to be seen, however, whether or not Rasmussen is short-changing Obama on the "reaching out for support from unaffiliated voters." His analysis makes no mention of Obama's question time yesterday. I have difficulty looking at yesterday's even with the GOP as anything other than that sort of reaching out. If yesterday's event has no impact on unaffiliated voters, I think it's more a case of no one listening for the sound of the falling tree in the forest.
Republicans for Higher Deficits! Given the choice between fiscal responsibility and another opportunity to say No, guess what all 40 GOP Senators chose. No, guess. Okay, you're right, they opted for obstructionism. This was the "Pay As You Go" plan, an idea which John McCain (R-MAV) supported back when there was a Republican in the White House. How things change: they all held ranks against it, even though they were unable to stop it, not having any Democrats to vote with them. Now Senator McCain: you used to support this, and now you don't. How's that "Country First" slogan working out for you? All of a sudden it doesn't apply, now that you're not running for President??
Sure! It was a stunt! That's the ticket! That right wing I don't want to love you, but you got me anyway. This will sure show Ben Bernanke: Senators give him a good scolding and then approve his renomination to the Fed. That sure was some finger wag! (Oh la dah n dah dah n dahdah n day now...)
Investigative journalist arrested. Well, I suppose you could question whether or not the guy who did those spliced, hidden camera ACORN exposés really deserves to be called a "journalist," but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. And note that he was only arrested for a plot to tamper with a Democratic Senator's telephones, so let's give hime the benefit of the doubt there. But I don't think I'm under any requirement to give him the benefit of the doubt in the wisdom category. That part of him seems to have left the building.
Bush didn't keep us safe. Ron Suskind said in his Cheney book that al Qaeda aborted an attack on the NYC subways because it wasn't gruesome enough. Here's a little back up for that, in today's Washington Post: they changed plans for "something better." You should read the WaPo article... No one expected AQ to go off gently into that night, but it looks like their vigilance and patience portend disaster. What on warth made Bush ever say he wasn't concerned about finding OBL?
Samuel Johnson on perfectionism. I just had opportunity to post this at FDL over the Democrats in the House:
It's suicide to maintain that "not without a public option" pledge at this point. If they're smart, the House will pass the Senate bill as it is. Apparently my representative isn't keeping to her pledge on the public option. Good for her. But for her aides to forget she made it? Not exactly the gutsy way to do it. A story curiously lacking in Good Guys. Regarding the swing at LGF and the events before and after. I knew much of the outline, but accusations of guilt through association? As if every conference attendee knew in advance who the other attendees (not the speakers) would be? I always knew there was a lot of pettiness on the Internet, a medium where people pride themselves in being more extreme and First!, but some of this was beyond my imagination. What. A. Sandbox.
Guess whose hunnerth birthday is today? Reinhardt's, not Grappelli's. Enjoy all of this clip, and then go pull out some of his music. (And imagine what he'd have sounded like with a whole left hand.) End game. Tom Toles has a valid perspective on how not to finalize health care reform. My representative in the House signed on to the public option pledge, but that was under a different situation, back when the Democrats had that fragile 60 seat super majority in the Senate. I truly hope she'll reconsider that pledge — using that bargaining power now would be devastating.
Jan Akkerman.
Our God can whoop your god, buster. I'd love to know what fool thought it was a fitting tribute to Jesus to put biblical verses on rifle scopes. Yes, I'm glad they won't be doing that any longer for the ones they sell to the US military — what with stench of the Crusades, and sends the wrong message. But beyond that, I should think that everyone would be offended by this; do they really want to confuse Jesus and Mars? The government did this once with a submarine, but thankfully came up with a way not to.
|
|
