If you agree with Stuart Rothenberg, you are clueless

[ProSense]

First, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill played the issue like a Stradivarius. They forced a vote on a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, putting Republicans on record supporting the status quo and President Bush, but allowed a subsequent vote to “fund the troops.” That gave their own Members from swing districts the opportunity to demonstrate their support for the military.

Rothenberg

Poll: Approval Of Congress Lowest In Decade

By Greg Sargent | bio

A key number in the new Los Angeles Times poll: It finds that approval of Congress has sank to 27%, the lowest in a decade -- and even more tellingly, that less than one-third of liberals approve of the job Congress is doing.

The numbers would seem to suggest the possibility that the Dem leadership's decision to send President Bush a no-withdrawal-timelines Iraq funding bill may be further eroding public support for the new Dem Congress.

Yesterday, a feisty blogospheric debate erupted over the question of what impact Congress' Iraq policies are having on Congress' popularity. The argument was sparked by Stuart Rothenberg, who wrote a column arguing that Congressional Dems were playing the Iraq issue "like a Strativarius" by appealing to "swing voters." This prompted responses here and here arguing that this represented Beltway conventional wisdom at its worst.

Now we have these new numbers. Approval of Congress is at a meager 27%, down nine points from January, when the Dems took over. And less than a third -- 31% -- of liberals approve of the new Congress' performance, a precipitous drop from January, when 43% of liberals approved of it. (The 31% number is the same for moderates.)

A caveat: Approval of "Congress" as a whole -- as opposed to approval of Congressional Dems or of Congressional Republicans -- is not as fine-grained a number as we would like in gauging public support for Congress or for specific initiatives such as its Iraq policies. And other polls have shown Congressional approval dropping before Dems sent the final Iraq bill to the President. Nonetheless, the LA Times' pollsters themselves conclude that Iraq may be to blame for Congress' dip.

Indeed, it seems clear to us that if the Dems are playing Iraq "like a Stradivarius," as Rothenberg says, then the Stradivarius is badly out of tune.

Edited to add this snapshot of Ind. voters from March 2007:

[endarkenment]

1. Yes that is a brilliant strategy.

"They voted against the war before they voted for it"! brilliant. If only John Kerry's campaign had thought up such a clever maneuver to play both sides of the fence instead of staking out a clear antiwar position, why all the cheating in the world could not have stopped the electoral landslide.

excuse me, I have to go throwup now.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Sorry, but no.

In taking opinions, I'll take the guy with decades of experience and knowledge over an armchair QB like yourself. Just because people are clueless as to the inner-working over our government, that doesn't mean the Democrats, or Rothenberg, are wrong.

[Moochy]

5. 'armchair QB'

Typical. Attack the messenger.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. That's funny. The very title of the thread attacks every other messenger.

Pot, kettle. You know the saying.

[ProSense]

8. What message: "First, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill played the issue like a Stradivarius."

Really? Did you miss the PR nightmare that the vote created, not just on the blogs, in every media outlet?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. A handful of blogger and DUers does not a nightmare make.

Nor does it make the alternatives any more palatable. The Democrats played the hand they were given, and did so masterfully.

[Moochy]

12. Masterfully?

Is that measured in negative poll numbers? Is there a certain metric that captures "masterfully" tanking in the polls?

Or are the people too dumb to know why they are mad?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. People ARE too dumb to know why they're mad.

To prove general public stupidity: Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections. I needn't go much further to prove my point.

And a poll in the middle of June in a non-election year is not exactly one that shows the whole story. Another chapter in this debate is coming this fall, as was MASTERFULLY (to use the term again) written into the bill by Democrats. They also masterfully got many Republicans on record saying that if the situation doesn't improve by the time the debate is resumed that they will defect to the Democratic position.

[Moochy]

17. I got it they walk on water

Ok I see your point, they are geniuses, and the people are dumb. Oh well, I guess Mudcat Saunders is all wrong, the elites do know best?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. What do you do for a living?

Do you think just about anyone could step into YOUR job and immediately know all of the ins and outs of it?

For most people, the answer to that question is "no". So tell me, being that most Americans have ZERO experience in politics and barely watch "Meet the Press" once a month, why would you presume to know everything about THEIR jobs?

[Moochy]

23. Experienced Politicians vs. Idiot Americans

If only those Idiot Americans knew how good that mean old nasty REPUBLICAN war is going to be for their party's political chances in 2008!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Way to not address what I said in any way.

Nice post. :eyes:

[Moochy]

29. Thanks!

Keep working at it, your posts will be good someday too! :P

Actually I decided to avoid your off-topic tangent and highlight your seemingly elitist attitude about the public who are too stupid to know that the Iraq war needs to end now. Stupid Sheeple! :eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. You know - I'd prepared a nice long response to this.

But I'm not participating in this childishness any further. If you want to believe that you know more about politics than someone that has been very successful in studying and practicing politics for his entire career, be my guest. But realize that you're only proving my point.

[Moochy]

33. I'm not claiming this

You presumed to know what I believe:
"...want to believe you know more about politics than someone that has been very successful in studying and practicing politics for his entire career"

I think the author of the article is a hack, and is just plain wrong. But you can continue with your unflinching, paternalistic praise for career political hacks spouting opinions about a strategy that conflict with the evidence. (polls) But that's OK, you'll just continue to prove my point.

One doesn't need to be more intelligent or more knowledgeable to recognize the article as clumsy spin.

[PassingFair]

28. When we find out how many senators did not bother to read the NIE...

before giving the chimperor the power to blow-up the MiddleEast,
then YES, I presume that they DO NOT know WHAT they are doing.

They need to be shitcanned.

[ProSense]

14. Did you miss the part that about "every media outlet?

Harry Reid's favorables fall to 19%

The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. And since when has DU considered the media to be even neutral?

[ProSense]

19. When they

make sense.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Ahh, selective criticism.

The best kind! :sarcasm:

[ProSense]

24. Anyone who agrees with Bush is clueless.

Or how about: Anyone who agrees with Lieberman on Iraq is clueless?

Selective hypocrisy, the best kind. :sarcasm:

Agreeing with someone when they make a rational point (the war must end) and disagreeing with them when they don't (the war must continue) isn't about being selective.

[Moochy]

10. So Rise Above?

That is funny, but not funny in the way you meant.

[Zodiak]

26. I have been thinking about this issue

Many like to hurl the accusation that your average blogger doesn;t know anything about politics.

I disagree.

What can be supported from looking at the strategies of those in the "know" is that they are consistent with one thing...losing elections, over and over again.

I think that people sitting on compputers are FAR more knowledgeable about what America wants. They are the People, after all, and work, eat, converse with, and otherwise interact with a whole lot of other people. Their ears are to the ground.

Politics is driven by People, not advisors. It is about high-time the leadership of the Democratic party learned that. It would save us a whole lot of money, too.

[ProSense]

7. No it means, I think they're wrong:

To truly understand how ignorant this is, just take a look at this pretty graph put together by the Washington Post last week.



more

edited title

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. The polls say nothing about alternatives.

Here are some questions they don't ask:

1) Do you support removing funding for the war altogether as a means for ending it?
2) Do you think Democrats should have sent the same bill to the President?
3) Do you think the same bill would be passed by Congress a second time?
4) Should the President have vetoed the bill with timetables?

Especially with regard to the last question, the inherent bias in the poll is amazing. They don't care about the fact the Democrats DID exactly what the public wanted, only that the end result wasn't what they hoped for. Why does everyone forget this? Simply put, because the media allows them to. They don't put the requisite, "A bill that contained timetables was vetoed by President Bush," in every column the way they would if they had any integrity.

But more to the point, no one bothers to offer up any alternative options. The chances of sending the exact same bill to the President were slim and none. It barely passed the first time around, and would likely not see the same number of Republican defectors. It likely would not have survived a filibuster. The American public does NOT support taking all funding away from the troops. So, you tell me - what options were we left with?

None. And yet given that, taking the entire scenario as a whole, the Democrats DID play their role masterfully. They passed a bill with timetables, which the President vetoed. They got Republicans on record. And they passed a bill that would re-open the debate in September, while forcing many Republicans to go on record saying that if the situation isn't improved by then, that they will withdraw their support and defect to our side.

Once again, just because the average American doesn't have a clue as to how our government works, that doesn't make what Democrats accomplished on the issue any less masterful. People are considering the work in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that the final page on this debate will not be written until the fall.

[ProSense]

18. What does any of this have to do with an 11 point to 12 point drop?

But more to the point, no one bothers to offer up any alternative options. The chances of sending the exact same bill to the President were slim and none. It barely passed the first time around, and would likely not see the same number of Republican defectors. It likely would not have survived a filibuster. The American public does NOT support taking all funding away from the troops. So, you tell me - what options were we left with?

This is a rationalization that has nothing to do with Rothenberg's claim that this was a brilliant move, "played the issue like a Stradivarius."

Want to talk about bogus poll questions:

"One proposal would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to withdraw all its troops by March 2008. Would you favor or oppose that bill?"
5/4-6/07
Favor 39%
Oppose 60%
Unsure 2%

Which bill before Congress would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq?

"Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Congress should block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what. Congress should allow funding, but only on the condition that the U.S. sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government are meeting those goals. OR, Congress should allow all funding for the war without any benchmark conditions."

Block All 13%
Fund With Benchmarks 69%
Allow All 15%
Unsure 3%

Which bill before Congress cuts funding for the war immediately, no matter what?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. The one that seemingly half of DU proposed.

Which is to say pass no bill at all. That would effectively de-fund the war, would it not?

I'm quite dumbfounded by your post, as the polls you just cited prove my point EXACTLY. The one poll says that the American public does NOT support withdrawing all funding for the war and the other says people favor the exact bill that was vetoed by the President. Which is to say that Democrats really had no options left that made sense. So why are those polls bogus?

[Tempest]

4. Actually, Rothenberg is right

Repugs are on record as supporting Bush in Iraq when 70% of the people are opposed. That will hurt the GOP in 2008.


The reason for the low approval rating Congress has is because most Americans are idiots and don't understand the Democrats do not have a veto proof majority, and as yesterday proved, don't have enough votes to bring closure to a debate.

But it doesn't mean Americans support Repugs, since their approval rating is lower than the Democrats. Also, look at the data that shows that voter registration in the last two years has heavily favored Democrats and Independents over Repugs. Less than 40% of Americans are registered as Repugs now when it was almost 48% six years ago.

[hfojvt]

9. 'has sank'??

sink-sank-sunk
drink-drank-drunk
think-thank-thunk

What is it 'Strativarius' or 'Stradivarius'?

That does not say if the public would feel even worse about the alternatives. No minimum wage increase, no increased funding for veterans, and still sending the same bill to be vetoed.

[leftchick]

27. Arianna agrees...

and so do I!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/democratic-dinosaurs-turn_b_51691.html

<snip>

The latest proof that Tyrannosaurus Democrat is not an extinct species comes in the fossilized thinking of Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report. Writing in Roll Call, the Cro-Magnon pundit waxed ecstatic over Congressional Democrats' handling of the war funding issue, spinning the Dems' capitulation as having "played the issue like a Stradivarius," and proclaiming: "From a purely political point of view, Democrats had their cake and ate it too."

Rothenberg's piece is so confounding, it might have been written by David Chase. But the screen abruptly going to black would be preferable to a mindset that completely and totally (and even gleefully) buys into the Republican framing on the war -- namely, that pushing to bring the troops home is somehow not supporting the troops.

This sclerotic framing is wrong on every level: moral, strategic, and psychological.

You want a snapshot of immorality in action? Look no further than this bloodless analysis of the ultimate political question of life and death as nothing more than a question of tactics. "Why take a chance alienating swing voters," ask Rothenberg, "when the party already made its point by sending the president a deadline bill that he voted?" How about because a deadline bill is the right bill for the country -- and without it there will be hundreds more dead young Americans, and a less safe future for our children?

Instead, Rothenberg lauds the spineless positioning that led Democrats to defeat in 2000, 2002, and 2004: "The Democratic House and Senate leaders wisely played things safe by allowing a bill to pass that Bush could sign." Memo to Democrats interested in winning in 2008: from now until the next Election Day, do not use the words "wisely" and "play things safe" in the same sentence. Or paragraph. Or even the same speech.

Unfortunately, Rothenberg's timorous, realpolitik rationalization for giving the president another book of blank checks on Iraq has been adopted -- along with the Republicans' "support the troops" framing -- by many in Congress, including heretofore anti-war stalwarts Carl Levin, Jim Webb and Jack Murtha. All three voted for the war spending bill, and all offered some variation of Webb's claim, "I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Funny how she leaves out 2006 in that list of defeats.

Funny how she also leaves out that we gained Congressional seats in 2000 and that 9/11 happened somewhere in between.

Arianna's made a living on saying outrageous things to get attention. She's not exactly an expert herself.

[Perky]

31. He pretty much nailed the middterm results

he should stick to polling.