Sometimes it gets real hard to figure this country out. Sometimes it doesn’t. The Gallup Poll started tracking the abortion issue in 1995. At the time, we had a pro-choice president. From 2001 until 2009, we had a very pro-life president. Since then, we’ve had a president who very strongly pro-choice. So, go figure this data from Gallup:
During the first pro-choice president’s term, Pro-choice dropped 8%. During the pro-life president’s term, pro-choice increased 2%. During the current pro-choice president’s term, pro-choice has dropped 8% already.
Maybe there’s something else out there affecting this issue, I don’t know. I don’t really follow it all that much. I just find it interesting that even on a hot topic such as abortion, people appear to change their opinions just to reject “authority”.
The story in this is that for the first time since Gallup has been doing this poll, more people are pro-life than pro-choice. That kind of surprises me as well.
In the form of a resolution, Congress took a hard slap at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Basically, it goes like this. The United Nations formed a council to look into human rights violations and do what it can to assure human rights are respected all over the globe. With the continuing genocide in Africa, the extremist Muslims butchering people in the name of Allah, the extremist Muslims terrorizing the world by attacking innocent people, and basically a whole slew of egregious acts against humanity all over the planet, this is what the United Nations Human Rights Council came up with:
Israel is the only PERMANENT member on their list of violators.
Can you believe that?
I mean, can you seriously believe that?
I really can’t.
I mean, I just really can not fathom what these members of the United Nations Human Rights Council were thinking.
Israel.
Sheez.
Yesterday Iran’s president announced to a live American audience that killing homosexuals isn’t really an issue because there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Yeah, right.
Israel.
Last week the United States caught Iraqi terrorists with Iranian ammunition. Again.
Israel. Right.
Darfur continues to be a human rights travesty as millions are dislocated and starving to death because of Muslem extremists.
Israel. Right.
With such an incredible display of arrogance, bias, and ignorace, the Human Rights Council ceased to be anything of value to mankind. As usual, good idea shot to hell by politics within the United Nations.
The United Nations as a world police force is useless. It just needs to be dissolved and use that money for actual human rights efforts.
What’s even more amazing to me is that when Congress voted on this amazing display of arrogance and bias by the United Nations, two members actually voted against it. They’re both running for President. They are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Needless to say, I don’t think either of these guys have what it takes to be president. Even if they don’t like Israel, what the United Nations did is wrong, wrong, wrong and in no way humanly possible can it be right. Defending that council at this point is stupid. Here’s the context of the resolution:
H. Res. 557 In the House of Representatives, U. S., September 25, 2007. Whereas Article II of Chapter I of the United Nations Charter states that `[t]he Organization is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members’;
Whereas the former United Nations Human Rights Commission was widely discredited for its incessant attacks against Israel and for granting membership to Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that were notorious human rights violators;
Whereas the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution establishing the United Nations Human Rights Council, stating that `members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’;
Whereas the resolution also stated that `the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner’;
Whereas China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are members of the United Nations Human Rights Council;
Whereas in the past year that the United Nations Human Rights Council has been in existence, the Council has held four special sessions to address pressing human rights situations;
Whereas of the four special sessions, three sessions were held for purposes of condemning Israel for alleged human right abuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and in Lebanon, and the fourth session was a non-condemnatory expression of `concern’ regarding the situation in Darfur, Sudan;
Whereas the United Nations Human Rights Council has failed to condemn serial abusers of human rights throughout the world, including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and others;
Whereas, on June 19, 2007, a Department of State spokesperson specifically identified Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Belarus as countries that merit consideration by the United Nations Human Rights Council due to their `serious human rights violations’;
Whereas during its fifth special session, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted to make Israel the only country permanently included on its agenda; and
Whereas United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated he was `disappointed at the Council’s decision to single out only one specific regional item, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world’: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) strongly condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in other countries, while choosing to unfairly target the State of Israel;
(2) strongly urges the United Nations Human Rights Council to remove Israel from its permanent agenda;
(3) strongly urges the United Nations Human Rights Council to hold special sessions to address other countries in which human rights abuses are being committed, adopt real reform as was intended for the Council when it replaced the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and reaffirm the principle of human dignity consistent with the original intent envisioned at the Council’s establishment;
(4) strongly urges the United States to make every effort in the United Nations General Assembly to ensure that the United Nations Human Rights Council lives up to its mission to protect human rights around the world, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/251 establishing the Council; and
(5) strongly urges the United States to work with the United Nations General Assembly to ensure that only countries that have a well-established commitment to protecting human rights are chosen to serve on the Council.
I agree with this resolution 100%. It doesn’t support Israel, it simply states that there are abuses all over the planet and those countries that have at least attempted to respect human rights be allowed to judge those that don’t.
I would REALLY like to know what Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were thinking. I know they both basically like to oppose everything just for the sake of opposing everything, but this is just stupid.
I started a poll a while back, I think it’s still relevant:
18
Sep
Apparently Barry Manilow decided to take a stand. He will NOT perform on the same stage as Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Apparently he’s afraid he will suffer the same fate as Rosie. I find this tactic kind of strange considering he performed before Hasselbeck twice last year. He apparently stated something to the effect he felt Hasselbeck was dangerous. Now, he didn’t elaborate what was so dangerous about her. I’d like to know. Maybe the way she slew Rosie and tossed her off the show? Dunno. However, I’ve never been too terribly convinced Manilow was ever up for a good fight. So, hearing he’d rather run than face Elisabeth Hasselbeck face-to-face, mano-et-womano, doesn’t surprise me. And, is probably a smart move on his part. However, if I had wimped out like that, I think I would have kept it very quiet else people like me would be speculating about semblence of manhood Barry might have had. However, I’d hate to think I am the only person who ever got this impression. So, let’s take a poll, shall we?
Congress passed a resolution establishing September 11th as a day of rememberance. It honors those who died on September 11, 2007. It also honors those that eventually served in Afghanistan and Iraq. 334 Congressmen voted for it. 1 voted against. That one, was Dennis Kucinich, candidate for president. His reasoning is this:
“It is important that Congress wake up to the truth and exercise its obligation under the Constitution to save our nation from being destroyed from the lies that took us into Iraq, the lies that keep us there, the lies that are being used to set the stage for war against Iran and the lies that have undermined our basic civil liberties here at home,” Kucinich said in a statement.
OK, so go figure this one out. In order to protect us from the lies, he wants us to forget it ever happened. That makes no sense at all. However, it falls in line with his rabid anti-war stance he’s always had. If Congress had honored those who died September 11, 2001 for no reason at all and ignored those who have died since trying to prevent it from happening again ( and it hasn’t, coincedence? ), I’m sure this bill would have passed his muster just fine. As lonely as it must seem to be the only person in Washington to be so enlightened, it must be equally lonely to have been running a national campaign for a year as an established Washington figure and be running in BARELY single digits. That seems to be the thing with Progressives. The fact that practically everyone disagrees with your point of view is completely irrelevant.
Dennis Kucinich is nuts. The sooner he exits the stage, the better off we’ll be. It’s one thing to be opposed to something. It’s completely another to be so paranoid about a topic you’re willing to insult the victims just to make your point. I really expected nothing from the Kucinich campaign. I got even less.
Trick question I know. It’s a tie.
From Rasmussen:
Surveys of 800 Likely Voters June 4-5, 2007 and June 6-7, 2007
This Week’s Favorability Ratings
- Harry Reid – 19%
- Scooter Libby – 19%
Actually it’s a double-trick question. Scooter Libby’s not elected.
And, I know a lot of people would suggest it’s a triple-trick question as there is no difference between the two.
Gallup came out with their most recent polls on the candidates, and non-candidates who are polling. Here’s the dirt:
Democrat:
- Hillary Clinton, 35
- Barack Obama, 26
- Al Gore,16
- John Edwards, 12
- Bill Richardson, 2
- Joe Biden, 2
- Al Sharpton, 1
- Christopher Dodd, 1
- Wesley Clark, 1
- Dennis Kucinich, <1
- Mike Gravel, 0
- Other, 1
- None, <1
- All/any, 0
- No opinion, 4
And the Republicans
- Rudy Giuliani 29
- John McCain 23
- Fred Thompson 12
- Mitt Romney 8
- Newt Gingrich 6
- Sam Brownback 2
- Tommy Thompson 1
- Mike Huckabee 1
- Tom Tancredo 1
- George Pataki 1
- Duncan Hunter <1
- Jim Gilmore <1
- Chuck Hagel <1
- Ron Paul 0
- Other 2
- None 5
- All/any 0
- No opinion 8
As it stands now, 65% of Democrats will be dissatisfied with their nominee, and 71% of Republicans dissatisfied with theirs. Now, the long term problem this presents to me is X number of people will cross over after the primaries to support their party’s nominee, but X number will do so grudgingly. And, even worse, X number won’t at all. They may vote for their nominee, but they won’t necessarily support them. When hard decisions have to be made or something bad happens, those people are the first to jump. IMO, that’s what we’re seeing now in spades. Neither candidate really excited their party during the last election, with the main thrust of the public and media being which one was less capable of leading the country. When things got tough, those un-excited non-supporters jumped ship. It doesn’t take much for that to happen either. The result? 65% negativity ratings regardless of how good or bad things might be going. The second result is media constantly whining about the polarization of the US without having a clue how it got that way.
The new, kinder, gentler, Nancy Pelosi led Congress.
When the new Democrat controlled Congress took over in January, they got a reprieve, with about a 15% jump in approval ratings just for being there. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of the Senate came in with guns firing. They passed all kinds of major legislation including raising the minimum wage. The approval rating increased. Things were looking good. However, starting a month or so ago, they got hung up on Iraq. They started inserting all kinds of pork into the military bill, which got it killed. They started setting deadlines for Iraq, which got the legislation killed. The result? A nearly 10% drop in favorability since they started their attack on the war in Iraq. The result on the President during this same time?
Largely unchanged.
Now, if the person supporting the war remains largely unchanged, and the people opposing the war are dropping like flies, that should tell ya something. What it tells me is that since the people opposing the war are living and dieing on that one issue right now, and they’re ratings have dropped BELOW the person supporting it, the answer is obvious. A couple of days ago I did a thingy on how I felt media was mis-representing the US sentiment by how they presented their polls. I think this is more evidence that I’m right.
A clue here to Nancy, Harry, and the Dems. Most people don’t like the war. However, they understand what’s going on. The more the Dems undermine our soldiers, and that’s what it LOOKS like, the worse it’s gonna get and the very apparent take-over of the White House in 2008 will be squandered exactly the same as it was by Kerry in 2004. They’ve read this situation totally wrong by relying on the extreme left caucus within their party and basically nothing but push polls in the media. And unless they start looking at the situation realistically instead of personally political, they’ll lose the White House in 2008 and probably Congress as well. You heard it here first. ( Well, maybe, I haven’t seen anyone else going out on this limb yet. )
President Bush’s favorability rating has hit traditional lows for a lame-duck president. Congress’s approvals are pretty much where they always are, which is pretty miserable. However, a LOT of people are saying this proves we need to be out of Iraq whether it means cutting and running, handing an entire country and military over to terrorists, or allowing chaos to totally overwhelm the entire Middle East.
I got a real problem with all this assuming.
I subscribe to a polling service called Vizu. Basically anyone can make a poll for any reason they like. I make them all the time. I love polls. However, polls are dangerous. Vizu IMO very clearly illustrates why. If you search on Vizu for “the war in Iraq”, you’ll get about 40+ polls. Some worded differently, many worded exactly the same. The most commonly worded one is “Do you support the war in Iraq?” Now, before I get to the result, think about how it’s worded. Who really wants a war anywhere? Pretty stupid question if you ask me. There’s only a hand full of people on this planet who really “want” a war. There are some who want to support out troops, so they’ll read the question a little differently. There are some who understand why we’re there, so they’ll support it. But, in order to justify answering that question positively, you have to add something to the question. So, actually I’m kind of surprised that that question merits only on average about 70% of the respondents “against” a war. Any war. The way it’s worded, Iraq is “just” a war.
Then there are polls worded a little differently, “Is the war pointless“. Now, along with that 71% that are against “the war in Iraq”, 72% think the war in Iraq is pointless. What that tells me is 72%, which is amazingly similar to 71%, don’t have a clue what’s going. And, I’ll bet, 72% don’t want to. Because if they did, they’d probably feel more compelled to support the war in Iraq. And, most people don’t want to support a war. Any war.
I think those numbers are fairly constant across the US. No one wants to support a war. So, the media, and some vested political interests, take each and every single poll they can, and connect the dots that since Bush’s ratings are so low, it’s BECAUSE people are against a very specific war. In order for that to be true, those 70% would have had to have been neutral at some point, and switched their minds at some point. That’s not what’s happening here folks. Sure, some have, but IMO what is happening is the media in general have appealed to a prevailing sentiment of people not wanting to “support” any way, and applying that to a specific circumstance that is Iraq. They’re push-polling and trying to affect national issues with the results they push.
Now, what would happen, do you think, if that question were asked a little differently? It applies to the exact same circumstance, only it’s more specific.
See what I mean? Although 70% of the people might be against supporting a war, any war, 100% of the people don’t want to “support” Al Qaeda. Not too many people would respond to that question tho. Because, if they did, they’d be supporting a war. A war in Iraq.
I dissed Hillary when she faked a Southern drawl in Alabama. That was just stupid and belittling. I dissed Obama for repeating heresay and screwing up simple numbers. This weekend Tommy Thompson blamed a bad hearing aid along with a cold, and a desperate need to pee for flubbing a gay rights question. Not to be outdone, Sam Brownback spoke of the greatness of Peyton Manning, in Wisconsin.
None of these issues are world issues, to say the least. However, it shows an overwhelming lack of common sense. Pretty much across the board. McCain’s aggrevating people all over the place, Giuliani’s slipped up several times as well.
I have offered a couple of alternatives in the past. Condi Rice, and Jessica Simpson.
I’m still waiting. If they do decide to jump in, either or both will get my vote. I’d like to think I’d be the first to suggest they run as a ticket. Talk about a powerhouse!
I watched MSNBC this weekend for no other reason than my wife really wasn’t able to watch Bill O’Reilly. I’m not sure how she came to the conclusion MSNBC was less offensive, but we wound up there anyway. Anyways, they were harping incessantly on the latest presidential approval rating which had Bush at 28%. And repeatedly mentioned the fact this was the lowest in a generation. And, because of that “fact”, what the Republicans and others were doing in response to that “fact”. Well, we need to take that “fact” with a grain of salt. Namely, something called “perspective”. Let’s look closer, shall we?
First of all, MSNBC very liberally uses the term “generation”. Now, according to most definitions, a generation is about 30 years. I’m gonna argue that due to longer life expectancies and people putting off kids longer, let’s make it 35 years ( that also tosses in the most unpopular presidents of my lifetime ). This is how they all stack up at their lowest:
- Ford, 37%
- Clinton, 36%
- Reagan, 35%
- GHW Bush, 29%
- GW Bush, 28%
- Carter, 28%
- Nixon, 23%
That’s right folks, in our “generation”, two other presidents were more unpopular than Bush is right now. More importantly, according to MSNBC, since this is such a critical issue, it must mean Gerald Ford was the greatest president of our lifetime. Of course, it still didn’t get him re-elected.
Now, what I really don’t like is how they are skewering historical perspective by defining presidencies as being a “generation”. Presidents normally serve at the very least four years. More often than not, eight years. It’s possible, by MSNBC’s definition, to have four presidents in a person’s “generation”. That’s not much of a comparison considering these polls have only existed since Franklin Roosevelt in any shape at all. When looking at the big picture and putting a president’s all time low in true perspective, this is how things look:
- Kennedy, 56
- Eisenhower, 48
- Roosevelt, 48
- Ford, 37
- Clinton, 36
- Reagan, 35
- Johnson, 35
- Bush (G.H.W.), 29
- Bush (G.W.), 28
- Carter, 28
- Nixon, 23
- Truman, 22
Low, but not the lowest. Kennedy of course deserves an asterisk because he was still in his first term and falling fast. The ONLY one in the bottom five that was not in their second term was Carter.
Now, the other side of that equation.
- Bush (G.W.), 92
- Bush (G.H.W.), 89
- Truman, 87
- Roosevelt, 84
- Kennedy, 80
- Johnson, 80
- Eisenhower, 79
- Carter, 75
- Ford, 74
- Clinton, 73
- Reagan, 68
- Nixon, 67
Dubya at one point was the most approved president of all time. “All-time” being of course the very limited period of time this “stat” has been kept.
One more quick stat and I’ll end this rant:
As of this point in time, according to the latest Mooned poll, “most Americans” have slept with Anna Nichole Smith:
That’s why I think opinion polls are meaningless in the universe of politics. At one point 93% of the US thought Bush was doing a good job while the economy was tanking and we were being attacked by terrorists sponsored by foreign countries. We have relative peace within our homeland and the economy is prospering and that same president’s “approval” tanks to 28%.
All these polls show is people get tired of a president over time. That’s it.
To put it in its proper perspective, compare it to the “approval” of Congress during the same time. People generally disapprove a lot more than they ever approve of politics. Period. Only during crisis do most people look to politicians for leadership and “approval”. Other than that, historically it appears, about 70% of the people polled just disapprove of about anything. I think that’s about normal historically.
