Wow Joe Mama! You really showed us something. Two polls, taken five months apart, with significantly different sample sizes and questions…
Maybe we could take a look at some Gallup “State of the Country” Polls from the last twelve years, if we want to start throwing “random” numbers around.
Wow Joe Mama! You really showed us something. Two polls, taken five months apart, with significantly different sample sizes and questions…
I know I did, thanks. In particular, I showed you the most recent poll numbers I could find on the two subjects from the same source (as opposed to whatever made up poll you mentioned in your silly attempt at a rebuttal). If you can point to more recent polls showing the same information, or something specific in either of those Rasmussen polls I cited to show that the favorability ratings given for Rove and Congress are somehow flawed, then of course I’m all ears. Your mere conclusory statements unsupported by facts, however, won’t cut it.
Uh Joe Mama, it would have made a HUGE difference because without Rove its likely Bush wouldn’t have been elected. As much as I can’t stand the man i give him full credit for his excellence in getting the man into office with effective (albeit slimy) campaigns.
It may not have made a difference to the Bush-haters (who, for you, seem to be comprised of anyone who is critical of the president), but it would have made a difference to a lot of people like me who aren’t knee-jerk Bush-haters and want to see any president succeed for the sake of the country - especially with terrorism and war going on. I simply can’t find any good reason to defend Bush/Rove right now.
Throwing up “gotcha” survey results smacks of desperation.
Uh Joe Mama, it would have made a HUGE difference because without Rove its likely Bush wouldn’t have been elected.
I now see what you were saying, David, which I erroneously (albeit understandably) read to be just a knee-jerk, “can’t stand the man” comment.
It may not have made a difference to the Bush-haters (who, for you, seem to be comprised of anyone who is critical of the president), but it would have made a difference to a lot of people like me who aren’t knee-jerk Bush-haters and want to see any president succeed for the sake of the country - especially with terrorism and war going on.
Um, for me, a Bush-hater is someone who is reflexively and unreasonably critical of the president, of which there are many on this blog. You’re not the only one who wants to see any president succeed for the sake of the country.
I simply can’t find any good reason to defend Bush/Rove right now. Throwing up “gotcha” survey results smacks of desperation.
I don’t know what a “gotcha” survey even is, but I was merely showing poll results that were pretty interesting because they were counter-intuitive, at least to me, given the press Rove gets.
Um, for me, a Bush-hater is someone who is reflexively and unreasonably critical of the president, of which there are many on this blog. You’re not the only one who wants to see any president succeed for the sake of the country.
The big problem here Joe Mama, is that you have erroneously catagorized people into this group. Myself for example, I dislike Bush BECAUSE of what I (and many others) percieve to be as his repeated failures. I critique him as harshly as i do because I see him continuing down a path that I feel is even WORSE for this country. But you and others like you have assumed that any/all harsh criticism of Bush is motivated by a personal dislike, rather than the other way around, i.e. that we dislike him BECAUSE of the things we criticize. Does that mean i’m less likely to trust anything he or his administration does based on my perception of him? Of course it does, but it would be stupid NOT to feel that way. Its entirely normal, in fact prudent to take into account previous experience with a person based on your past experience.
On top of that you imply that many of us who are highly critical of Bush WANT him to fail because we don’t like him. I will readily admit that there are some people on the left who feel that way (just as there are those on the right who feel the opposite towards say Clinton or GOre back in the day). Instead we point out when he DOES fail as proof of what we have been saying allready, i.e. his strategies are flawed. I’m not happy, for example, that things are going poorly in Iraq, but I DO point it out because I would hope it would convince people to change their opinions and hopefully change the course we take in the future.
I and many others like me, who yes, are highly critical of Bush wouldn’t have had a problem if we felt his choices had been succesful. I was more than willing to put aside my doubts about him after 9/11 for example and give him the benefit of the doubt, but that slowly erroded over time. The idea that we should not hold him to a high stadard and be critical because it some how demonstrates that we don’t want the President to suceed is, frankly, crazy. Instead its the exact opposite, for the sake of the country we want the President to succeed but based on his current and past performance do not believe his current actions enable that to happen and rather than letting him, as i mentioned before, continue down the wrong path, we try and change the path. If you were in the woods, and you lost your map, if someone in your group started going down what you had a high confidence was the wrong path, wouldn’t you try and stop them, and get them to reconsider, rather than going the wrong way, especially if it meant your life? I know I would.
Perhaps, David, but I think the reason we end up talking past each other so heatedly and often on this topic is that you are just as guilty of erroneously catagorizing those of us who take issue with your criticisms of the President — many of which are unreasonable, unwarranted, or based on flawed premises IMHO — as people who think “Bush can do no wrong,” which is simply absurd. Using your same logic, I’m less likely to take your arguments at face value based on my perception of you because “it would be stupid NOT to feel that way” since “it’s entirely normal, in fact prudent to take into account previous experience with a person based on your past experience.”
There is a principle of reciprocity in holding others’ arguments in good faith, just as there is with impugning their motives.
Joe Mama, that might have merit if you and Alasdair and others didn’t do the following:
1) Accused us of hating Bush and everything he does because we hate him
2) Refuse to acknwoledge our citicism as anything but #1
3) Resort to ad hominem attacks at the get go
4) Admitted that its actually POSSIBLE that Bush is wrong sometimes or atleast coudl be wrong
5) Addressed what you felt were the flaws in our arguments, not just stated that they are wrong
Frankly you have never given me one chance as anything but a “bush hater’ and from the first time you criticized my comments you based them on personal attacks based on me “hating bush”.
Likewise, David, that might have merit if you, A&A, Mad Max and others didn’t do the following:
1) Accused people like me of mindlessly following whatever Bush says because we love him and think he can do no wrong.
2) Refuse to acknowledge our disagreement with your criticism as anything but #1.
3) Resort to ad hominem attacks at the get go.
4) Admitted that its actually POSSIBLE that Bush is right sometimes, or wait at least until he is out of office until proclaiming him the WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.
5) Addressed what you felt were the flaws in our arguments, not just stated that they are wrong.
6) Accused us of being a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden.
Frankly, you have never given me one chance as anything but a blind Bush supporter, so cry me river…
As much as I can’t stand the man i give him full credit for his excellence in getting the man into office with effective (albeit slimy) campaigns.
David, I’d love for you to provide an example of a non-sleazy winning campaign in a close election. And the Republican primary in the 2006 Nebraska gubernatorial race doesn’t count.
Karl Rove and Joe Mama can both shampoo my _ _ _ how’s that for a silly rebuttal?
If you’re having a difficult time comprehending why these polls can’t be compared to one another, then maybe you should hit up the library for a book on Political Research and Statistics.
But I’ll give ya a hint: It is essential for attribute data (like the two polls you provided) to be collected simultaneously when comparing two variables, for it has to be converted to discrete data, taking into account a standard deviation, if you want it to actually mean something. (if not it’s just apples and oranges with % signs). And since your polls don’t disclose the sd we can’t even work out a t-test in regards to adequate sample size.
If there was some Mosaic Plot out there with both variables (Rove & Congress) used, I am sure you would have posted it to hammer home your point…but I’ve yet to see it.
So, you want us to look at two separate categorical variables with different set values, taken from different samples, at different times and conclude that Rove has a higher approval rating. Sorry no dice. Hell, Rove’s poll question doesn’t even use language establishing job approval. It simply asks what is your opinion of Pig Face? Want to know mine?
David, I’d love for you to provide an example of a non-sleazy winning campaign in a close election. And the Republican primary in the 2006 Nebraska gubernatorial race doesn’t count.
So its ok as long as it works? Ends justify the means? Why am i not surprised that you take that attitude.
Joe Mama - more significantly, while you and I can observe that political campaigns seem to attract sleaziness, the D-list folk immediately jump to the strawman that you and I and others approve of that …
Reasonable folk recognise that certain things simply *are* … and we can discuss them without having to either approve of them or disapprove of them …
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:22:46 pm
If only he had done this years ago…
August 13th, 2007 at 12:52:52 pm
Yeah, ’cause that would have really made a bit of difference to the Bush-haters.
FYI - Karl Rove’s approval rating is higher than the Congress’.
Just sayin’…
August 13th, 2007 at 1:57:23 pm
Wow Joe Mama! You really showed us something. Two polls, taken five months apart, with significantly different sample sizes and questions…
Maybe we could take a look at some Gallup “State of the Country” Polls from the last twelve years, if we want to start throwing “random” numbers around.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:04:10 pm
Karl Rove is responsible for the current make-up of congress. Maybe that accounts for the high approval rating.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:14:56 pm
Wow Joe Mama! You really showed us something. Two polls, taken five months apart, with significantly different sample sizes and questions…
I know I did, thanks. In particular, I showed you the most recent poll numbers I could find on the two subjects from the same source (as opposed to whatever made up poll you mentioned in your silly attempt at a rebuttal). If you can point to more recent polls showing the same information, or something specific in either of those Rasmussen polls I cited to show that the favorability ratings given for Rove and Congress are somehow flawed, then of course I’m all ears. Your mere conclusory statements unsupported by facts, however, won’t cut it.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:17:07 pm
Karl Rove is responsible for the current make-up of congress.
I thought it was the Republican Congress’ “culture of corruption” that was responsible. Whatever fits the needs of the moment, I guess . . .
August 13th, 2007 at 2:26:01 pm
Uh Joe Mama, it would have made a HUGE difference because without Rove its likely Bush wouldn’t have been elected. As much as I can’t stand the man i give him full credit for his excellence in getting the man into office with effective (albeit slimy) campaigns.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:43:47 pm
“FYI - Karl Rove’s approval rating is higher than the Congress’.”
“Karl Rove is responsible for the current make-up of congress. Maybe that accounts for the high approval rating.”
“I thought it was the Republican Congress’ “culture of corruption” that was responsible. Whatever fits the needs of the moment, I guess . .”
Indeed, I do choose my sarcastic lines by the needs of the moment.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:57:52 pm
It may not have made a difference to the Bush-haters (who, for you, seem to be comprised of anyone who is critical of the president), but it would have made a difference to a lot of people like me who aren’t knee-jerk Bush-haters and want to see any president succeed for the sake of the country - especially with terrorism and war going on. I simply can’t find any good reason to defend Bush/Rove right now.
Throwing up “gotcha” survey results smacks of desperation.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:53:08 pm
Uh Joe Mama, it would have made a HUGE difference because without Rove its likely Bush wouldn’t have been elected.
I now see what you were saying, David, which I erroneously (albeit understandably) read to be just a knee-jerk, “can’t stand the man” comment.
It may not have made a difference to the Bush-haters (who, for you, seem to be comprised of anyone who is critical of the president), but it would have made a difference to a lot of people like me who aren’t knee-jerk Bush-haters and want to see any president succeed for the sake of the country - especially with terrorism and war going on.
Um, for me, a Bush-hater is someone who is reflexively and unreasonably critical of the president, of which there are many on this blog. You’re not the only one who wants to see any president succeed for the sake of the country.
I simply can’t find any good reason to defend Bush/Rove right now. Throwing up “gotcha” survey results smacks of desperation.
I don’t know what a “gotcha” survey even is, but I was merely showing poll results that were pretty interesting because they were counter-intuitive, at least to me, given the press Rove gets.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:52:28 pm
Um, for me, a Bush-hater is someone who is reflexively and unreasonably critical of the president, of which there are many on this blog. You’re not the only one who wants to see any president succeed for the sake of the country.
The big problem here Joe Mama, is that you have erroneously catagorized people into this group. Myself for example, I dislike Bush BECAUSE of what I (and many others) percieve to be as his repeated failures. I critique him as harshly as i do because I see him continuing down a path that I feel is even WORSE for this country. But you and others like you have assumed that any/all harsh criticism of Bush is motivated by a personal dislike, rather than the other way around, i.e. that we dislike him BECAUSE of the things we criticize. Does that mean i’m less likely to trust anything he or his administration does based on my perception of him? Of course it does, but it would be stupid NOT to feel that way. Its entirely normal, in fact prudent to take into account previous experience with a person based on your past experience.
On top of that you imply that many of us who are highly critical of Bush WANT him to fail because we don’t like him. I will readily admit that there are some people on the left who feel that way (just as there are those on the right who feel the opposite towards say Clinton or GOre back in the day). Instead we point out when he DOES fail as proof of what we have been saying allready, i.e. his strategies are flawed. I’m not happy, for example, that things are going poorly in Iraq, but I DO point it out because I would hope it would convince people to change their opinions and hopefully change the course we take in the future.
I and many others like me, who yes, are highly critical of Bush wouldn’t have had a problem if we felt his choices had been succesful. I was more than willing to put aside my doubts about him after 9/11 for example and give him the benefit of the doubt, but that slowly erroded over time. The idea that we should not hold him to a high stadard and be critical because it some how demonstrates that we don’t want the President to suceed is, frankly, crazy. Instead its the exact opposite, for the sake of the country we want the President to succeed but based on his current and past performance do not believe his current actions enable that to happen and rather than letting him, as i mentioned before, continue down the wrong path, we try and change the path. If you were in the woods, and you lost your map, if someone in your group started going down what you had a high confidence was the wrong path, wouldn’t you try and stop them, and get them to reconsider, rather than going the wrong way, especially if it meant your life? I know I would.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:26:19 pm
Perhaps, David, but I think the reason we end up talking past each other so heatedly and often on this topic is that you are just as guilty of erroneously catagorizing those of us who take issue with your criticisms of the President — many of which are unreasonable, unwarranted, or based on flawed premises IMHO — as people who think “Bush can do no wrong,” which is simply absurd. Using your same logic, I’m less likely to take your arguments at face value based on my perception of you because “it would be stupid NOT to feel that way” since “it’s entirely normal, in fact prudent to take into account previous experience with a person based on your past experience.”
There is a principle of reciprocity in holding others’ arguments in good faith, just as there is with impugning their motives.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:28:44 pm
Joe Mama, that might have merit if you and Alasdair and others didn’t do the following:
1) Accused us of hating Bush and everything he does because we hate him
2) Refuse to acknwoledge our citicism as anything but #1
3) Resort to ad hominem attacks at the get go
4) Admitted that its actually POSSIBLE that Bush is wrong sometimes or atleast coudl be wrong
5) Addressed what you felt were the flaws in our arguments, not just stated that they are wrong
Frankly you have never given me one chance as anything but a “bush hater’ and from the first time you criticized my comments you based them on personal attacks based on me “hating bush”.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:02:55 pm
Likewise, David, that might have merit if you, A&A, Mad Max and others didn’t do the following:
1) Accused people like me of mindlessly following whatever Bush says because we love him and think he can do no wrong.
2) Refuse to acknowledge our disagreement with your criticism as anything but #1.
3) Resort to ad hominem attacks at the get go.
4) Admitted that its actually POSSIBLE that Bush is right sometimes, or wait at least until he is out of office until proclaiming him the WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.
5) Addressed what you felt were the flaws in our arguments, not just stated that they are wrong.
6) Accused us of being a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden.
Frankly, you have never given me one chance as anything but a blind Bush supporter, so cry me river…
August 13th, 2007 at 9:51:46 pm
My God, children, get over yourselves!
As much as I can’t stand the man i give him full credit for his excellence in getting the man into office with effective (albeit slimy) campaigns.
David, I’d love for you to provide an example of a non-sleazy winning campaign in a close election. And the Republican primary in the 2006 Nebraska gubernatorial race doesn’t count.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:46:11 am
Karl Rove and Joe Mama can both shampoo my _ _ _ how’s that for a silly rebuttal?
If you’re having a difficult time comprehending why these polls can’t be compared to one another, then maybe you should hit up the library for a book on Political Research and Statistics.
But I’ll give ya a hint: It is essential for attribute data (like the two polls you provided) to be collected simultaneously when comparing two variables, for it has to be converted to discrete data, taking into account a standard deviation, if you want it to actually mean something. (if not it’s just apples and oranges with % signs). And since your polls don’t disclose the sd we can’t even work out a t-test in regards to adequate sample size.
If there was some Mosaic Plot out there with both variables (Rove & Congress) used, I am sure you would have posted it to hammer home your point…but I’ve yet to see it.
So, you want us to look at two separate categorical variables with different set values, taken from different samples, at different times and conclude that Rove has a higher approval rating. Sorry no dice. Hell, Rove’s poll question doesn’t even use language establishing job approval. It simply asks what is your opinion of Pig Face? Want to know mine?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:49:37 am
Pig face? Shampoo your _ _ _? You do indeed sound just like a Bush-hater, Bush Hater, and you are self-discrediting.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:00:53 pm
The Mosaic Plots . . . how could I have forgotten about the Mosaic Plots!
August 14th, 2007 at 2:13:47 pm
David, I’d love for you to provide an example of a non-sleazy winning campaign in a close election. And the Republican primary in the 2006 Nebraska gubernatorial race doesn’t count.
So its ok as long as it works? Ends justify the means? Why am i not surprised that you take that attitude.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:43:38 pm
Translation: There are no such examples.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:29:31 pm
Joe Mama - more significantly, while you and I can observe that political campaigns seem to attract sleaziness, the D-list folk immediately jump to the strawman that you and I and others approve of that …
Reasonable folk recognise that certain things simply *are* … and we can discuss them without having to either approve of them or disapprove of them …