Gallup has issued the results of its annual poll of Most Admired men and women.

I find the results quite depressing and ominous for the future of the country.

My initial response after reading the list was "who in the hell answered this poll?  Where did they get these people?"  Apparently Gallup says that the respondents are equal parts cell phone users and land lines;  they are supposedly from all 50 states, and are all over age 18.  In short, it seems like a fair poll on the surface.  A total of 1031 adults were polled.

And the best we can do is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?  Seriously?

What, exactly, are we admiring Barack Obama for?  I'd be interested in a follow-up question to the Gallup respondents to see if they can cite one thing that these people did that are truly worth admiration.  Or do they just say "Barack Obama" because he's president?  Or Hillary because she's famous (infamous?).  Are these respondents political at all?  Informed on the issues?  Educated? Just breathing?

What is it that we admire about Barack Obama?

His efforts to get to the truth about the massacre in Benghazi?  Ooops, no.  Not so much.  His attempts to protect his Ambassador to Libya while stationed in Benghazi?  Nah.  Can't be that.

How about his program to sell weapons to drug cartels in Mexico?  Was that admirable?  I don't think the family of Brian Terry would think so.

Do we admire him for his absolutely relentless push to pass Obamacare, a law that is still being deciphered, its faults and foibles still revealing themselves, and the inoperable, poorly written website that accompanies it?  Do we admire him for the amateur roll out of this unworkable, giant new entitlement program?

His commitment to keep education at the state level and keep the federal government out of your child's classroom?  Not even close.

Maybe its his ability to relate to the common man, the little guy, the average Joe on the street.  Hmmm, no, it's probably not that either.

I guess it could be that people admire Obama for his commitment to the privacy of American citizens and his adherence to the Fourth Amendment.  Wait, no..., that can't be it.

His protection of the Second Amendment?  Nope, not that either.

Immigration.  That's it - protecting America's borders and saying no to amnesty.  The idea that immigrants need to follow the laws in place and follow the path to citizenship that millions have followed before.  The protection of American values and culture, the belief in American exceptionalism!  Dang it, no.  That's not it either.  Obama has just vowed to fight for amnesty (probably trying to protect the Democratic politicians on the chopping block this cycle.)

His refusal to bow to foreign leaders?  Nah.  He's done that at least eight times, not to mention chumming it up with dictators.

I don't get it.  Maybe we admire him for his golf game, his lavish vacations and White House parties, his general ineptitude and his arrogance.

As far as Hillary Clinton goes, I see nothing admirable there either.  It was on her watch as Secretary of State that four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, a situation that should never have happened given that the consulate there asked repeatedly for increased security and was denied.

On the Gallup poll Barack Obama gets 16% of the vote; runner-up to him is George W. Bush with 4%.  Hillary is at 15% with Oprah Winfrey behind her at 6%.

I just don't get it.  At best it's a dismal sign of things to come.  If we are to assume that the poll respondents are informed, educated Americans (and there's certainly no evidence of that) then all hope for conservative values in this country is lost.

At best these are people that vote.

Scary.

H/T:  Memeorandum

I tried to tell you that Gov. Bobby Jindal is not everyone's favorite governor ages ago.

Now we have the poll:

Gov. Bobby Jindal's approval rating dropped from 51 percent in October to just under 38 percent in March due to voter dissatisfaction with state fiscal and education policies, according to a poll released Tuesday. Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and U.S. Sen. David Vitter -- both possible candidates for Jindal's job in 2015 -- had approval ratings near 60 percent.

Ouch.

Where's Senator Landrieu in this poll?

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, among a group of congressional Democrats seen as highly vulnerable ahead of next year's mid-term elections, also saw her approval rating drop nearly 6 points to 56 percent. Over half of Louisiana voters polled said they would be less likely to vote for Landrieu knowing she voted for the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. 

It's true, people will be slow to forget "Louisiana Purchase" Mary".

Governor Jindal, however, is drawing fire from many areas, the least of which right now is his sales tax proposal.  Jeff Sadow has much more on that:

In essence, the plan eliminates all state income taxes in favor of an increased sales tax on more items, provides income support for individuals making $20,000 or less in earning or those drawing retirement pay at $60,000 or less, eliminates some exceptions to the tax code while retaining those designed to shield basic necessities from sales taxes, and raises taxes dramatically on tobacco consumption. The state calculates the net impact to be a small gain to the lowest-income earners with higher gains for highest-income earners, while business may end up paying more but will be advantaged by lower administrative costs and an increased amount of revenue with more money in the mass public freed up to be spent. 

 Jindal's school voucher plan is before the Louisiana Supreme Court right now; the teacher unions as plaintiffs have multiple appeals in place.

Speaking of teachers, Jindal's new Compass evaluation system kicked in at the same time teachers are trying to implement a new Common Core curriculum, and both are fraught with problems.

Gov. Jindal has also infuriated groups with his cuts to higher education.

In a Salon piece, Joan Walsh mocked Gov. Jindal's Republican convention speech and noted the criticism against him:

Yet Jindal’s other cruel cuts are set to stand – cuts to battered women’s shelter programs, to higher education, preschool programs, anti-truancy efforts and a range of other efforts to make life better for low-income people. Meanwhile Jindal wants to replace the state’s income tax with more regressive sales taxes. 

Jindal is getting it from all sides these days.

But when your numbers are lower than Obama's?  Well, that's baaaaaad.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

The latest poll from Gallup is out and for the sixth time in a row, Romney is 50% or over:

You can download the complete trend here.

That said, I'm notorious for saying that I don't pay attention to the polls.  Much.  I mean, I don't think that we can dismiss them when they don't report what we want them to, then suddenly applaud them when they do.  I think they're just a snapshot of what is happening at the moment and that is all.

Yet then there are trends.

You can play with the electoral map here.

Rasmussen has it Romney 49%, Obama 47% today.

Donald Douglas breaks down the WSJ/NBC poll here:

Mr. Romney has pulled abreast of the president for the first time all year in the Journal poll, erasing a three-point lead among likely voters that Mr. Obama had in late September and a five-point lead earlier that month. Mr. Romney's surge followed his strong debate performance in Denver early this month and a contentious second debate with Mr. Obama last week. 

Donald rightly points out that this election will probably come down to "state by state efforts to get out the vote."

Doug Ross is feeling pretty good about Ohio:

Ohio represents a make-or-break state for both campaigns. And Hamilton County is the bellwether for the state, if the experts are to be believed. Using the 2010 results, Ohio's old District 1 very well could be a lock for Mitt Romney. And if the old OH-1 results hold, Mitt Romney is going to win Ohio by a very safe margin. I'm not in the prediction business, but I'll put a guesstimate in the comments. 

And making my point that polls really can't be trusted all that much, Clifford Thies reports that Nate Silver has gone apoplectic over the Gallup poll:

Nate Silvers, the New York Times poll guru, has gone apoplectic over the Gallup Poll. It - the gold standard of polls - is an outlier poll, he says. Suddenly, the Rasmussen Poll - that tool of the Republicans - is to be preferred. Oh, wait, not really, as it also is pointed toward a Romney win, although not as strongly. No, the new standard is this: polls that show Obama to still be ahead, they are the gold standard, no, wait, can't refer to the gold standard, I mean, the "consensus," and those that show Romney to be ahead are outlier polls.

I have a friend at work who remains flabbergasted that at this point in the election, and with the economy the way it is, why Romney has not widened the gap by now.  That this race remains close is beyond comprehension to him.  I have another friend who sees conspiracy in all the polls and all the media and believes that Romney HAS in fact pulled way ahead and that these latest polls showing a Romney trend simply reflect what can no longer be hidden.

Keep this in mind, too:

The Rasmussen Reports Senate Balance of Power rankings project that Democrats will end up with 48 Senate seats, the Republicans 47, with five remaining Toss-Ups—Massachusetts,Montana,  Ohio,  Virginia  and Wisconsin. New polling in the Florida Senate race  shows incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson with a five-point advantage. Democratic Senator Maria Cantwellremains comfortably ahead in her reelection bid in Washington. 

If Romney wins the White House he will certainly need the Senate if he intends to repeal Obamacare.

And so it goes, back and forth...until election day.

I'm trying to get back into the school groove.  I just want to come home every afternoon and take a nap.  I don't, though.  Then I'd be up all night.  I don't remember it taking this long to get back into the swing of things last year,though.  Oh wait.  It's only been a week.  Damn.  Seems like longer.

Since I'm too tired to come up with much original material, lets hit some links that caught my eye.

I broke faith with Peggy Noonan after she waxed rhapsodic about Obama in 2008 but she does have an interesting idea for a new Republican ad:

Republicans should do their own spot, now—one that's comic and sweet. Grandma in the wheelchair is speeding on a downward slope toward a cliff. She looks terrified. Suddenly a young guy who looks like Clark Kent—that is, like Paul Ryan—springs forward, puts his body between the wheelchair and the edge, and stops it. She looks up at him, smiles, touches his face with her hand. He smiles, turns the chair around and begins to push her back to safety. "Romney-Ryan. Trying to get things back on firm ground." 

That's pretty good, I think, except I'd change the catch line to "Romney-Ryan.  We can turn this around."   Something to that effect.  More forceful.

I like it.

Elsewhere, Bride of Rove got a giggle out of me today.  I love it when she gets on those rants:

This is embarrasing. You’ve got Biden setting new lows with the ethnic dialect and crazy-eyed babble speak. Wasserman who has no idea if Democrats are, in fact, part of the party she is in charge of, the head of the Senate accusing Romney of not paying taxes citing a rumor he heard … Holy mother of god, people! Did Romney kill his dog? Obama freaking ATE HIS DOG. 

Her overall point, of course, is that this whole election business has run off the rails and people are acting, as she would say, "sprayed roach crazy."

I can't recall ever seeing this country so polarized.  (I wasn't born during the Civil War - that might have been an exception.)  Obama's class warfare and demagoguery has divided people into the Obama camp, the Romney camp, and the I-Hate-All-Of-Them camp.  There are still some folks who are blissfully unaware of an imminent election but most of them will snap out of that soon as the airwaves become flooded with political ads.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, about 7% are still undecided.

Speaking of polls, what's up with these polls.  I can't believe it's this close.


It's a good thing I don't pay any attention to polls.  That's damn depressing is what that is.

I can't believe anyone would consider giving this guy four more years, much less "four more beers."

Speaking of that, Politicaljunkimom has this:

Wonder if he has an Oktoberfest brew?

A friend of mine expressed concern today that there will be a Christian backlash against Romney and Mormonism.  I thought we got past all that when Kennedy was elected but maybe across the country there is still some lingering mistrust.  In this day and age where we're all supposed to be so tolerant of everything, I can't believe Romney's faith would be a big issue, but you never know, I guess.

Pretty heady stuff.  Head over to Andy's Place for a brain break.  I know Michelle Obama has been branded as the second coming of Jackie Kennedy and the epitome of style but I don't see it.  This looks like she made a dress out of the tablecloth on the picnic table.


"A renewed sense of glamour,"?  Nope.  I don't see it.

Finally, Charles Krauthammer reflect on the Paul Ryan pick:

Image. Ryan, fresh and 42, brings youth, energy and vitality — the very qualities Obama projected in 2008 and has by now depleted. “Hope and change” has become “the other guy killed a steelworker’s wife.” From transcendence to the political gutter in under four years. A new Olympic record.

In Peggy Noonan's piece, referenced above, she suggested that Romney-Ryan go against convention and campaign together as the seem to complement and balance each other.  No question that their appearances last weekend were dynamic.  I don't think they'll do it, but Ryan's presence next to Romney adds a vitality to Romney that he sometimes otherwise lacks.



More Krauthammer:

Ryan’s importance is enhanced by his identity as a movement conservative. Reagan was the first movement leader in modern times to achieve the presidency. Like him, Ryan represents a new kind of conservatism for his time. 

I think we'll be watching Paul Ryan for years to come.

And that's just fine with me!


The election is still months away and much will unfold between now and then.  The debates, for one.  That'll be interesting.

Hang in there folks.  As will I.

School starts for me on Sunday - summer is over.

We have open house Sunday afternoon and then I'm back to work on Monday.  Doesn't it seem to get earlier every year?

I'm spending this week getting ready to go back to work, hitting those doctor appointments I put off during the school year (and have put off all summer), doing some back to school shopping, and finishing a few books that were on my summer reading list.

Going back to work will be good; it's always overwhelmingly busy those first few weeks but to be honest, the political news cycle has me a little disgusted and burned out right now.  The hate speech, hypocrisy and vitriol (from both sides!) has me more than a little sick and the state of things in this country right now, frankly, has me more than a little frightened.

Emotions are high right now with so much on the line in November.

And for the life of me I can NOT figure out why the polls are even close.  You mean to tell me that half of the country is prepared to turn us over to European style socialism?  That half of the country thinks that Fast and Furious was okay?  That half of the country thinks that this record unemployment was really all George Bush's fault?  Half of the country thinks that big government can just spend us out of the crisis we are in?  That cutting defense and raising taxes is the answer?

Or are there just that many uninformed people out there?  As K. Carl Smith said in Runaway Slave, voter apathy comes in two forms.  Those who don't vote and those who don't care how they vote.

Those people better start caring.  They better pay attention.

You can't vote for Obama just because you think he's "cool" or "hip."

Four more years of Obama's policies will kill this country as we know it; this is the real deal, people.  This is not a drill.  It's time to do your research and pay attention.  Do not rely on the media (or blogs!) to tell you what to do.  Read.  Research.  Look at the issues in an historical context and figure out where you want this country to go.  Look at the future as well as the past.  Read the Constitution.  If you haven't looked at it since your middle school civics class, it's time to read it again.

There's too much on the line.

Meanwhile, I'm going back to my reading list.

I'm still here.  Never quit.

Run!  Run Harder!

Herman Cain's momentum continues.  In today's Rasmussen poll, Cain takes the lead over Obama by a narrow margin:  43% to 41%. 

Can he get elected?  Do we really want him to?  There are doubts about that 9-9-9 plan.

CNN reports in their poll that two-thirds of Republicans and independents are undecided.  Two-thirds?!  I believe it, actually.

I'm undecided.

I'm reluctant to completely write off Perry.  There's another debate tomorrow night; while Perry has already said (and demonstrated) that debates just aren't his thing, I'm still hoping he'll do something brilliant. 

Stacy McCain is seemingly on The Cain Train and Stacy has good instincts.  He's the one who first pointed out Rubio to me.  And, Stacy is off to Las Vegas to cover tomorrow's Republican debate. 

But, still...

I have concerns about Cain.  I like him.  I think he'd be great in a Cabinet position.  I'm just not completely on The Cain Train yet.

So many Republicans are undecided.  It just reaffirms what I wrote a couple of weeks ago.  Republicans and conservatives in general are not completely content with the field; we'd like an amalgamation of qualities to create the perfect candidate! 

Pundette pines for Mike Pence.

I'm still wishing Marco Rubio was ready.

Meanwhile, Obama ramps up his Anybody But Obama efforts by climbing back on his Canadian made bus for a non-political tour in which he bashes Republicans for killing his jobs bill in the Democratically controlled Senate.

So.  Who's your pick?  Are you on The Cain Train?

So who is going to watch Obama's speech Thursday?  Several Republican aren't.

If you ARE going to watch, why?  I mean, I'll probably watch so I can blog about it and you won't have to suffer through it.  But, do you expect to hear anything new from him?  What are you anticipating he will say?  More of the same? 

Exit question:  What will his speech to do the markets on Friday?

Via Hot Air, PPP has a very interesting poll coming up:

11:34 (CT): Our national GOP poll, out tomorrow, is better for Perry even than the Iowa one. Double digit lead.
11:36: Nationally, if it came down to a 2 person race: Perry 52, Romney 36. Mitt needs to try to wrap it up before it gets to that point.
11:40: More evidence Bachmann has maxed out support- down 9 to Romney, 30 to Perry in national heads to heads.

And this is certainly interesting:


And Gallup, down to 39%.  Tsk, tsk.

Fore!


Meanwhile, the weather is lovely out on the Vineyard. 

It's been a while since I posted one of these but somehow it just fits right now:


Obama's detachment while "Rome burns" is beyond belief.  Long ago I concluded that nothing this putz did would shock me and he consistently proves me wrong.

As yet another CR is passed with no real resolution to the budget issues, (you'll remember, it was the Dems that kicked that can down the road last year...), as Libya continues to disintegrate, as the news from Japan gets worse and worse with each passing hour, what is Fearless Leader doing?  Well, his NCAA brackets, of course!  Not only that, he's taping a spot with ESPN about his picks.  Does anybody really CARE? 

I'm rather worried about the kind of person who cares more about who Obama has picked in his brackets that what happens to Japan, Libya or the United States. 

And lest we sound repetitious at SIGIS, I must ask once again, can you just imagine if GWB had diddled like this? 

We watched helplessly as Obama golfed his way through the Iranian protests last year.  In fact, during those protests for freedom, Obama planned a luau, grilled with Bobby Flay, and invited the Iranian ambassadors over for hot dogs.  We sat by as he made little or no comment on Egypt.  He's ignored one world crisis after another while concentrating primarily on his golf game under the pretense of not wanting to interfere with the business of other nations.  And it a "let them eat cake" moment, he jokes about this at the Gridiron Dinner. 

Yet now, with Japan, when Obama has an opportunity in his Saturday address to plea for funds, for donations, for aid, what does he do?  He votes "present."  He runs a pre-taped spot on Women's History Month.  Hunh?  It's as if he didn't even know the world was in a meltdown.  With Libya, he has now, now, directed his staff "to fully engage in the discussions" with NATO and the UN.  Were we not "fully engaged" before?

I'm sorry, but I have less respect for this jerk as each day goes by.  I don't respect him as a leader, much less as a man.  My goldfish has bigger gonads than this putz.

Please.

Politico is headlining a new GWU/Politico poll  this morning which indicates a "rocky road" ahead for Obama.  This is news to no one, but there are things in the poll that I found interesting.  This, for example:

Obama's numbers, for whatever it's worth, are in the cellar as they have been for much of his presidency.  I'm at a loss to understand how anyone at all still supports him, but I know some who do.

I don't think the nonchalant way he handled the BP oil spill helped his standing any.  It's not that anyone expected him to "suck it up with a straw" or personally invent the engineering miracle that would cap the well, but he displayed a total lack of leadership over the whole thing.

I don't think that this latest round of vacations will help his standing either.  As conservatives point out that the Obama family will be taking three vacations in August, the liberals will point backwards to all the times George W. Bush went to Crawford or took a vacation.  They'll say that it doesn't matter where the president is, he is always at work.

I disagree.  This president has tossed public perception to the wind in an "in your face" attitude with expensive date nights, parties, bar-b-ques, picnics, concerts at the White House, and a steady stream of vacations getaways.  Golf every weekend.

Then he has the nerve to say, "So important to Michelle and myself is we're just not that far removed from what most Americans are going through."

"...not that far..."  Pretty far, dude; pretty far.

In context, he's lamenting the hit his investment accounts have taken, as well as that of his mother-in-law.  He's explaining that he feels your pain in watching your accounts dwindle.

Meanwhile, he's planning on spending some ten days in Martha's Vineyard next month, following a weekend stay on Florida's Gulf coast.  Add to that Michelle's trip to Spain where she has reserved thirty rooms in a five star hotel.  Columnist Lynn Sweet wants you to know, however, that "Mrs. Obama always flies on a U.S. government plane; she pays personal expenses herself. Her friends are not flying with her. She will travel with 'minimal' staff." 

I don't begrudge the Obamas a vacation; seriously, I don't.  But don't tell me you feel my pain when you're reserving thirty rooms in Spain in a five-star hotel.  I'm not buying it.  Don't tell me you understand my suffering when you're sitting out on Martha's Vineyard for ten days on a 28-acre estate. 

If the Obamas want to live like royalty and let the little man eat cake, so be it.  November 2012 is coming.  But just don't expect me to believe that he actually feels my pain.  He has no idea.

As the famous line says, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."  I'm not buying it.

A new low.

After Obama's speech last night pundits said he would probably get a bump or two in the polls.  I can't see how.  It was a terrible speech by all accounts.  But, we'll see.  Today, Rasmussen has him a -20, close to his all time low.  This number does not reflect his speech. 

I have no further enlightening things to say about the speech.  Others have covered it better that I possibly could.  We had a gleeful time live-blogging at Potluck and reading back through the commentary this morning reflects exactly how the speech was.  Bleh.

Memeorandum has all the commentary and more that you could possibly need.

All in all, it just leaves me depressed this morning.  We're rudderless.  Adrift.  At least during the campaign Obama gave his supporters "Hope!" but last night he didn't even offer that. 

This isn't an all time low, but it is indicative, I think, of how people feel about Obama's handling of the oil spill.  He's planning on using his bully pulpit Tuesday night to press for his new energy plan which, I suspect, won't go over well with the folks.  Most rational people understand Obama isn't Aquaman (he reminded us of that, just in case) and can't part the waters and plug the damn hole.  But we do want a leader, someone to move us out of this crisis and reassure us that it will be okay.  We don't need another angry, thin-skinned speech by this guy.

Rasmussen also reports in this poll that 58% of those polled want Obamacare repealed.  Now that the details are coming out and the complaints from the critics are being proven true, the health care bill is more unpopular than ever. 

I wish they'd ask how many people think Obama should play another round of golf.

It's all about the numbers. Obama's "passion index" today matches his lowest ever. More telling, though, to me, is that only 42% of Democrats strongly approve of his performance.

57% believe that that Obamacare will hurt the economy.

42% of those polled support Obamacare. 53% are opposed.

55% of those polled say "Start over!"

Meanwhile, Obama is off to another rally today in St. Louis. Because maybe if he blathers about it one.more.time somebody will decide it's a good plan after all.

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham wants Obama to pay more attention to immigration reform - because hey!, he's not low enough in the polls already. I mean, that's such a popular topic, no?

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers; thanks Professor Reynolds for the link!

Obama is back down to -19 in the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll; the only time his rating has been lower was on December 22, 2009 when he hit -21.

Part of this trend can be attributed to Obama's continuing loss of support from independents. The Des Moines Register explored the downward spiral:

A sharp drop in approval for President Barack Obama from Iowa's political independents has pushed the Democrat's approval further below 50 percent in the state and below the national average, according to the latest Iowa Poll. Approval among Iowa independents has dropped 10 percentage points since November, to 38 percent.

It is quite a shift from his position in November:

Forty-six percent of Iowans approve of Obama's handling of his job, according to the poll taken Jan. 31 to Feb. 3. That's down from 49 percent in November. It is also 22 percentage points lower than Obama's Iowa approval of 68 percent around his inauguration last year.

And on domestic issues:

In Iowa, views of Obama's handling of key domestic issues remain a problem for him. No more than 40 percent of Iowans approve of his performance on the economy, health care and the budget deficit, although the rates are essentially unchanged since the Register's last poll, taken in November. What has changed: The fractions of independents who support Obama's handling of all three of these issues have shrunk in the past three months.

Not so good.

The comments that follow the Register's article are particularly entertaining. A sampling (names removed):

It took a poll to tell you this?

I agree with that one!

I switched to Independent when the Republicans went squishy as compassionate conservative. When a party and it's [sic] candidates get serious about significantly shrinking the size, scope and power of federal government I'll support it and them.

I think that's why some folks are looking at The Tea Party as a third party or registering as Conservative. So many people are just sick of both major parties.

Independents are pulling away from Obama and the democrats just like they pulled away from the republicans and for the same reasons. Party politics and special interests both subscribe to the theory that enough money will purchase any election. Maybe they are going to learn that money is not necessarily votes. Independents are not allowed to participate in the selection of party candidates but they can and do pick the elected official. They are the votes that swing the election. So Dems and Reps if you want to win and keep it get off your far left and far right positions and run a moderate candidate.

Some folks are slow learners, fella. Don't get your hopes up.

It is quite embarrassing that Iowans are perhaps responsible for electing Obama to the presidency. I implored my fellow Iowans to look beyond flowery speeches devoid of substantive content. I will always believe that Hillary was the smart choice despite the media's brutal attacks upon her. Unfortunately we will have the choice of Obama or probably an extreme right winger in 2012. Here is hope that the Republicans or moderate minded independents will deliver a candidate that is a real alternative to Obama that common sense moderates can support-- someone who does not just talk about hope and change but can deliver change.

Another one looking for a moderate.

Oh and one more:

Obama is failing because he thinks we need to be herded not heard.

There are about 217 comments on that article when I last checked. It's interesting to see what Iowa voters are thinking right about now. I sifted through a large number of them - a lot of it is snarking back and forth, as one might expect in such an open forum, but many of those who left comments are looking for a true moderate, which is what, it seems, that they thought Obama would be.

He isn't.

(Graphic: The Des Moines Register)

The Washington Post article this morning about Obama inserting himself into the debate over where the KSM trial should be held (finally) quoted a statistic that has been puzzling me. It seemed off the wall to me when I read it this morning but I didn't question it too much at the time because I was more focused on the bigger issue, it seemed to me, which was that Obama is now paying attention to matters of national security.

The Post said this morning that Obama is more trusted on matters of national security than Republicans, which is so very odd to me (emphasis mine):

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 55 percent of voters say military tribunals should be used to try suspected terrorists, compared with 39 percent who say the civilian court system should be used. In November, there was an even split on this question. Still, Obama has an advantage on national security, with a majority of Americans continuing to approve of the way he is handling the threat of terrorism -- his highest-rated issue -- and 47 percent saying they mainly trust Obama on the issue compared with 42 percent who trust the GOP.

Yet according to Rasmussen on February 10:

On national security, Republicans are trusted more by a 49% to 40% margin after leading by 17 points in January. This marks the first poll to show Republicans earning less than 50% of voters’ trust on the issue since August of last year.

And in the War on Terror (still Rasmussen):

Recent polling shows that voter confidence in U.S. efforts in the War on Terror is near its lowest level in recent years. Only 36% of voters say the United States is safer today than it was before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, marking the lowest level of confidence since Rasmussen polling first asked the question in 2002.

So where does the Washington Post come up with these numbers?

The closest I can get is this Washington Post - ABC News poll dated Jan. 12-15, 2010 in which Obama does have more favorable numbers.

When asked if respondents approved or disapproved of the way Obama is handling terrorism, the results were:

b. The threat of terrorism

      -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------     No
      NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
1/15/10    55       31         23      42       14         28         4
11/15/09   53       31         22      41       14         27         6
9/12/09    55       31         24      34       12         23        11
6/21/09    57       NA         NA      36       NA         NA         7
4/21/09*   57       NA         NA      26       NA         NA        17
*Pew

It's interesting. Curious, but interesting. The number of those who disapprove has climbed from 26 to 42 yet those who approve has stayed pretty much the same - from 57 to 55.

The sampling for the latest poll is supposedly:

          Democrat  Republican  Independent  Other  No op.  Dem.  Rep.  Lean
1/15/10       32         23           38        7      *      17    20     9

When asked how much confidence one has in (item) to make the right decisions for the country's future, 47% trusted Obama to 24% who trusted Republicans in Congress and 32% trusted Democrats in Congress.

And on preventing another terrorist attack in the U.S.:

a. Preventing further terrorist attacks in the United States

      -Excellent/Good -   -Not so good/Poor -     No
      NET   Exc.   Good   NET   Not so   Poor   opinion
1/15/10   58      8     50    41      30      11       1
9/7/06    66      9     57    33      24       8       1
1/18/04   74     14     61    25      19       6       1
9/7/03    80     19     61    19      16       3       1
9/8/02    75     13     62    23      21       3       2

Obviously that number has changed since Obama took office.

At any rate, I can't find the numbers WaPo refers to in their article today and they don't link to the poll. This January poll is the closest I can find.

I just don't believe more people trust Obama with national security than they trust Republicans, although I guess it could depend to which Republicans one refers. The Democrats, after all, is the party who just charged a man with explosives in his undies on an airplane in Detroit with nearly 300 people as a common criminal rather than an Al Qaeda trained enemy combatant.

I'm not trusting them. No way.

The flight of independents continues. From Rasmussen:

The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.


November 24
August 23
July 26
July 25
July 9
July 7
June 30
June 23

My goodness! This is interesting!

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.
But what does it mean?

Ed Morrissey puts it in perspective:

The middle class, which Barack Obama successfully wooed in 2008, have become very disenchanted with the current leadership. Middle-aged people have also gotten angry. The big problem for Democrats beyond the anti-incumbent tilt going into 2010 is the massive anger among independents, which we have tracked for several months. Democrats appear to have completely alienated a key voting bloc, and furthermore, motivated them into action. At the same time, they’re demotivating their own base.

You remember the Tea Parties that exploded this summer? That's them. Those middle class, average folks. Sick and tired of massive government explosion and spending. That's them.

A new low:


Previously:

August 23
July 26
July 25
July 9
July 7
June 30
June 23