Friday, August 17, 2007

Poll Semantics, Dark Journies, and Reality

Tucson, Arizona. The press is releasing various political polls showing what everyone already knows, which is that people are upset, frustrated, and angry at levels from mild irritation to foaming at the mouth. Bush’s approval rating stinks and for good reason. Poll PDF.

We also have polls supporting my assertion that Hillary will face Giuliani.

Granted, we have a long way to go and much could occur to alter the situation. Hillary is also placing online Web 2.0 ads at various news sites.

As a poll moves from assessing an individual to assessing a group, the semantics blur. Numbers for the White House are the easiest to interpret. In general, the country disapproves of the fiasco this administration has created. For the Supreme Court, the drop in approval probably reflects its shift to the right of public sentiment, and I would speculate the public is concerned about the right to choose, and the savvy also worry about the need for progress on the right to die. In both areas, empowering the individual and loved ones to make the decision is progress. Those who stand in the way just baffle me.

Regarding Congress, your humble blogger does not see how anyone can disaggregate overall disapproval of Congress, even when language calls it the "Democratic Congress" to a single election in a single district. Perhaps if the number were low enough, incumbents have cause for alarm, but which incumbents? Perhaps one could forward an argument that incumbents perceived as "status quo" have a problem. Well, who is that? Arizona freshmen?

My radar points to a faucet metaphor. The disastrous 2000 election turned on a faucet that has spewed forth a holocaust at the hands of Lord Cheney and Darth Rove utterly unchecked and given free reign by a GOP majority in Congress. The 2006 election was a national cry: Turn it off!! Turn it off!!

My interpretation of the frustration with Congress comes from its inability to do so as quickly as desired. For the red to interpret frustration with the blue as a good thing could not be more mistaken. Mr. Red, consider that the public wants you dead. Consider that the drop in approval of Congress comes from frustration with its inability to slit your throat.

Impeaching BOTH Bush and Cheney to put Pelosi in the White House just can’t fly. Be reasonable. What is viable is turning the faucet down and starting investigations to hold the responsible to account. Congress has done this.

Only after a blue wave in 2008 can we look at how to turn the faucet off, and even then, it is going to be difficult, complicated, and time consuming. In case some aren’t following, I am talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, China, health care, global warming, poverty, China, campaign finance reform, immigration, China, globalization, North Korea, the deficit, China, social security, Iran, lobbying reform and corruption, China, corporate welfare, energy, separation of church and state, China, education, transportation and economic infrastructure, the impending mortgage crisis, China. Did I forget Al Queda?

See the news today on mortgage companies? Tipadaberg.


Blogger BHUVAN CHAND JUYAL said...

Your article on global warming is quite impressed. But you gave me more information about effect of green house projects. I had found a site which give regulary updates on global warming. This blog give have some great points like "The real heat will start after 2009, they said."

8/17/2007 5:38 AM  
Anonymous dustin said...

I'm kinda sad to see first magnus close like it did. My Home loan was through them, and the woman that was working on it was good people. This is all still kind of new to me, so I have some questions if anyone can answer them. My loan got sold to countrywide, and I heard they will likely fold up as well. What happens then?

8/17/2007 7:41 AM  
Blogger Liza said...

If I have more time later, I may write a longer response. However, for the time being, I feel compelled to note that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress elected in 2008 will provide a nearly seamless continuation of a failed US foreign policy in the Mideast. From that will emanate a continuation of most of the same problems we have now. Indeed, the Democratics would not invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003, but they will inherit the devastation. Unfortunately, their adherence to the political positions that drive this debacle will insure that a corrective course for US foreign policy in the Mideast will not be pursued.

For those who do not yet understand this, Iraq is finished. Iraq cannot be held together by a powerless US puppet regime nor can it be held together by a military occupation. The fighting now is about land (borders), water, and oil. It is about survival in a devastated and war ravaged country that will never again be a sovereign nation.

Bush/Cheney won't quit. They are still searching for that level of devastation that will quiet down the resistance and get that oil law passed. As they attempt to shift more of the focus of their failed policies to Iran, they are more dangerous than ever. The Democrats, of course, are falling in line, believing they must eject an equal amount of vitriol and threats, or else be perceived as weak.

US foreign policy in the Mideast gets down to two things: Israel and oil. There is no change on the horizon, just more of the same.

8/17/2007 8:41 AM  
Blogger Sirocco said...


In general I agree with your post, particularly regarding Israel and oil, but the claim the Dems are spewing as many threats as the Republicans is simply specious.


If Countrywide folds, I believe your mortgage then goes to one of it's creditors.

8/17/2007 9:31 AM  
Blogger thinkright said...

In re to a folding mortgage company...most likely, the firm would go into Bankruptcy & then the servicing would be taken over & the inventory would be assigned/purchased by another servicing company.

Countrywide has been run well, I hope it stays afloat. I'm a mtg broker & have used them since 1992.
The CEO cashing in his stock does concern the heck out of me. That is not a good sign.

8/17/2007 10:37 AM  
Anonymous dustin said...

Thanks for the response guys. I Thought maybe it would just get transferred somewhere else, but haven't the experience to say for sure. I just wanted to make sure I would have a place to live.

8/17/2007 11:15 AM  
Blogger Liza said...


I will agree that Republican rhetoric regarding Iran seems to be more belligerent than that of Democrats, but where are the fundamental differances? Democrats will have "diplomatic" discussions prior to the military strikes?

8/17/2007 12:22 PM  
Blogger Sirocco said...


Unless I missed it (and I may have), which Dem candidate is advocating military strikes against Iran?

8/17/2007 1:36 PM  
Blogger Liza said...

I guess that John Edwards is the latest one. From today's "Democracy Now:"

"Edwards has joined rival Barak Obama in vowing to hold talks with Iran if elected to office. In an article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Edwards says talks with Iran would come as part of an overall push for diplomacy. But Edwards also says he would not rule out a military strike on Iran, saying no option should be "off the table.""

As for Hillary, well, her new militarism is definitely getting some attention. I read this on a couple of days ago. Note that the author states that Hillary has "pledged to disarm Iran by whatever means necessary." Not surprising given that she is the AIPAC favorite.

8/17/2007 2:16 PM  
Blogger Liza said...

My link dissolved.

8/17/2007 2:23 PM  
Blogger Sirocco said...


There is a distinct difference between saying an options is not off the table and openly calling for strikes, which Giuliani has done.

8/17/2007 5:20 PM  
Blogger Liza said...

Alright, sirocco, if we are going to rank the candidates according to how threatening their Iran rhetoric is, Guiliani can have first place at least for the time being.

8/17/2007 6:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home