The New York Times quotes Sen. Reid as saying, "I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." The Mystery Pollster points out that "Perhaps that was a bit of rhetorical excess, because while Cheney's ratings are low [29-34%], they are a long way from 9%."
Well, yes, but it's a form of "rhetorical excess" that probably fits in the category of "joke." My sense is that 9% for a sitting President or Vice-President is so ridiculously and obviously low (at least setting aside extraordinary scandals not present here) that Reid is using it as a jocular way of saying "very low" -- rather like someone might say "Jane Schmane is a thousand years old" to mean "Jane Schmane is very old." True, "thousand years old" is physically impossible while "9 percent approval rating" is just extremely improbable, but the improbability is so extreme that they seem to be in the same ballpark.
I realize that some laypeople might miss the jocular hyperbole, but I suspect it will be very few. And Reid was apparently speaking to reporters, and in that context even someone who realizes he may be quoted might be pitching his off-the-cuff comments at the sophistication level of the audience that is present.
Related Posts (on one page):
- This Sen. Reid Statement, on the Other Hand, Is Likely Just a Joke:
- Did Gen. Petraeus Say "The War Can't Be Won Militarily"?
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1604916,00.html
I'd actually be interested to know if Reid enjoys 9% recognition among the American people. Maybe, but it can't be too much higher than that.
The most recent poll I could locate gave Reid a 46/33 approve/disapprove rating.
The most recent poll I could locate (NYT/CBS, March 13, 2007) gave Cheney an 18/48 approve/disapprove rating. But what's Cheney going to say, "Hey Reid got it wrong, actually my approval rating is 18%?" Reid has a sharper stick.
No, polls at such a rock-bottom level reflect the public's judgment of Cheney's character. Reid is tacitly acknowledging he doesn't have to convince anybody, except blinded die-hards, that Cheney is an unprincipled liar.
(Here the attack dog comment is listed separately.
I guess he does have a sense of irony, if not humor.
I think the press reported the sound bite, but Reid did say more. He said, “We believe the troops should get every penny they need and we have put our money where our mouth is with supplemental appropriations, but we believe there must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq.”
By putting a timeline on military action, Reid and the Democrats are trying to force Bush into working on a political solution, which even Gen. Petraeus says is necessary. So far, Bush has done nothing to change his losing game.
And that the fact that 70% of Americans are fed up with the way Bush/Cheney have handled the war.
Randy wrote:
"And considering the fact that several retired military generals and other mucky mucks support the Democrats on this issue hardly means that Reid is off kilter".
Would like to point out that those same general's are losers and presided over creating the current mess in Iraq. They did not seem to know what they were doing while they were in Iraq so why should anyone listen to them now?
I doubt if Lincoln listened to any of the generals he fired after he fired them; just wondered why he hadn't fired them sooner. I wonder the same thing re Bush and not firing the nitwits a whole lot sooner and I wonder that Reid thinks we should listen to the idiots now.
Heaven help our troops in Iraq caught in the middle of this mess in DC, one which Reid et al voted FOR, by the way.
No, because they were forced to adopt the strategy of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who were actually the ones who "presided over" this awful disaster. Bush and Cheney's decision to start the war placed the generals in a terrible position because it was going to be exteremly difficult to "win," if winning meant more than removing Saddam. Rumsfeld, supported by Cheney, insisted that the generals pursue it in a way designed to make the situation even worse. The "losers" as you call them, are unfortunately, our President, Vice-President and Secretary of Defense. And of course, those who blindly believe in them.
General Grant couldn't pull anything out of this fiasco.
Which is what, exactly, other than fixing a withdrawal date?
I would also like to know what Reid and the Democrats are doing in Iraq. So far they have advocated a pullout, on a timetable that is either too fast for victory or too slow to end the death of our troops as the Dems sound retreat … in slow motion.
The other thing I hear mentioned is a change in “direction” the specifics of which are conveniently vague. That can cover virtually anything from a withdrawal are some rate specified by Congress (either too fast or too slow) to what?
Just curious Dave. What is it that Reid and the Dems are doing in Iraq?
I’m not convinced. Harry Reid has a habit of mischaracterizing other people (see his comment regarding General Patraeus (“the war can’t be won militarily”) or simply lying about things like his land deals. His numbers seem so be taken at face value by many who are repeating them. After all, who remembers how a vice president polls?
So, wait, is the argument that Bush was Right about the Iraq war, wrong about the Nitwit Generals (else why would he go in to this Very Serious War with boobs in charge?), and is still wrong about them? So Bush/Cheney are merely incompetent, in your estimation, but the bloodthirsty little men had they're hearts in the right place. Or am I misreading you?