---
Let's go out and bash Israel today. (See 1 below.)
---
As various committee hearings continue it is becoming more and more evident Obama is probably among the worst hypocrite presidents ever elected. Obama basically embraced the entire Bush program against terrorists all the while attacking GW for it.
I have maintained for years Obama is a consummate liar, was shoved down our throats by the press and media and most American voters bought whatever he said hook line and sinker.
Now that the truth is coming out I sincerely doubt it will make any difference because Republicans and Fox are the enemy and facts will not dissuade .
Perhaps one day Americans will wake up, look in the mirror and be embarrassed how duped they allowed themselves to become but then that requires discernment, intelligence and integrity. Lamentably far too many are incapable of rising to these standards.
We are increasingly becoming a nation of blind followers and dependent sheep of whatever we are fed, and/or hear.
If they ever make a sequel movie to "Liar Liar" I suggest Obama be hired to replace Jim Carrey! (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
For those who love charts, statistics and polling analysis. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Not a Mistake, Misunderstanding, or Well-Intended Criticism But a Deliberate Campaign to Bash Israel
By Barry Rubin
The first, most important thing to understand about the Western and especially American debate on Israel is this:
Never before in history has there been such a concerted, systematic, and vicious campaign to discredit and demonize Israel, especially seeking to undermine its support in the Jewish community.
Without comprehending this fact, the massive attacks from academia, mass media, groups, and even in mainstream political and intellectual debate cannot be understood. We aren’t dealing with lots of mistakes but with the mass production of hate speech.
Obviously, one should always judge based on the specific people and places involved. Yet a good point to keep in mind is this:
Don’t believe that they may have gotten it right this particular time. Many of them aren’t trying to get it right; most of them are incapable of getting it right.
These assaults cannot be taken in isolation and with naivete as if this time a wild accusation is accurate. Some are obviously outrageous—the British politician accusing Israel of genocide; a cartoon showing Ariel Sharon eating Palestinian children; Egypt’s president calling Jews sub-humans; the Swedish newspaper claiming Israel murders Palestinians to steal their organs—but even better-constructed items are equally fallacious.
The craziest stuff is just the most incautious end of far more apparently credible lies and distortions. And the key “mistake” made is to use the word “Jews,” unacceptable, rather “Israel,” “Israelis,” or “Zionists.”
In other words, “The Jews want to take over the world.” No. “Israel wants to take over the Middle East.” Okay. “The Jews use children’s blood in Passover matzoh.” No. “Israel deliberately murders Palestinian children.” Okay.
Not all are aware, of course, of what they are doing, especially those originating or spreading the more “moderate” hate speech. There are dupes as well as demonizers, though dupes often seem all too credulous to be wholly innocent.
Here are two more aspects:
Once having been defined as the “bad guy,” Israel can be accused of anything, as in a film narrative in which the villain is, well, always villainous.
Second, Israel is one of the few categories that can be attacked with unbridled vituperation, though some limits still apply in American political life at least. You cannot say the slightest thing against other nations or nationalities, as well as races, religions, or genders. One wrong word, even if uttered carelessly, and the person’s career is finished. With Israel, the bile can flow unbridled.
Equally, there are so many lies—new ones appear each day–and so many facts to counter them with that it is partly a waste of time to counter each offensive in itself. What’s necessary is to understand that this is all based on lies, ignorance, and conscious bad faith.
The categories include, but are not limited to, falsification of photographs and fabrication of events; distortion of history; making up of quotes; publishing disproportionate numbers of anti-Israel books and articles; indoctrination in schools; refusal to mainstream Israeli views and overwhelming emphasis of radical, critical ones; excessive credibility to hostile sources for outlandish tales (a worldwide story on an alleged, since proven false massacre in Jenin based on a single mysterious informant is just one example).
There is also the creation of new categories of sin designed specifically as part of the anti-Israel campaign and applied only to Israel, i.e., “pinkwashing” (talking about the good treatment of gays as a cover for other crimes!) or the idea of “disproportionate force” in wartime or the idea that causing any civilian casualties at all is a war crime (in sharp contrast to the previous and current wars of every other country in the world).
Aside from obsessions and double standards is the eagerness, uncontrollable hatred, self-righteousness, unconcern for fairness or balance, and passion that shows the hidden agenda of those involved. They are indifferent to real war crimes, intolerance, and oppression by others in the world. Their behavior should have destroyed their credibility but they are protected instead.
Some details of interest:
–This campaign’s intensity and one-sidedness has relatively little effect on the actual Middle East situation or on Western government policies.
–The main single issue is to try to portray Israel as responsible for the lack of peace, just as Jews were historically blamed by those hostile to them for antisemitism. Since the experience of the 1993-2000 “peace process” era, the fact that the conflict continues because of the intransigence of Israel’s enemies should have been obvious. Yet this history has been forgotten and its impact on Israeli thinking buried or censored.
–Much of the new antagonism stems from Western intelligentsias’ sharp turn to the left. The question, of course, is why Israel is such a prominent issue among the many causes available to them.
–What is important is not so much to define specific things as “antisemitic”—which generates distracting debates—but to explicate the creation of a situation equivalent in effect to pre-1945 antisemitism. Since about 40 percent of the world’s Jews live in Israel and most of the rest support Israel, the resulting slander and demonization is also a slur and hatred against the vast majority of Jews. The irrationality, obsession, intimidation, and slander is quite equivalent to what Jews suffered under historic antisemitism.
–Israel, Israelis, and their supporters are portrayed—as in classical antisemitism–as irrational creatures involved in incomprehensible behavior. Removing from public consciousness their experiences, attitudes, and sufferings leaves the conclusion that their behavior is evil, racist, bloodthirsty and seeking total power.
For example, as a country under assault, Israel has to act militarily at times. The army and government have no interest in wasting credibility and resources by injuring Palestinians for fun or out of pure meanness. Yet this is how Israeli behavior is often portrayed.
Similarly, Israel has lots to gain from peace since, if secure and lasting, it would provide such benefits as fewer deaths, less time and money spent in the military, beneficial trade with neighbors and higher living standards, etc. To believe Israel doesn’t want peace is to believe it is aggressive and has devious ends.
And again, if Israel really doesn’t face an existential threat—or only an easily defused one—then its acting otherwise is psychotic behavior.
A major and new theme of this campaign is to convince American Jews that either Israel has become illegitimate or must be bashed for its own good. Undeniably, this campaign has enjoyed success on that front. Others are temporarily taken in by nonsense like the Western expert/media spin on the last Israeli elections as headed toward fascism or some individual event.
What exists here on the surface as disproportional insanity is actually ideologically determined and politically intentional. The result is an environment in which the virulently antisemitic, genocidal, anti-Christian, anti-American, and pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood is the beneficiary of apologetics while Israel is “bad.”
A nut from an extremist cult spit on a teenaged Jewish girl in a small town in Israel and the next thing you know there is a serious Western debate over Israel losing its soul. A few fans from Israel’s most nationalist football team don’t want Muslim players—Arabs already play for all the other teams and are never harassed—and the next thing you know the New York Times compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
Or the Israeli election was widely presented as the impending triumph of neo-fascist forces even though the far-right party received less than 10 percent of the vote, what that category usually receives. The New Yorker gave us a hitherto unknown professor at a university in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as its expert on Israeli politics. Or the New York Times article claiming that many Israelis were complaining that the Iron Dome system shot down Hamas missiles because it would be better–the reporter lied–if more Israelis were killed or wounded since that would impel the country to change its evil, hard-line ways and seek peace.
One thing comforting about this campaign is that its activists so often have to resort to lies and exaggerations, showing how little genuine material they possess.
How much effect is this all having in the real world? Ironically, it is less damaging to Israel itself (attempts at economic boycotts, for example, have yielded no real damage) but on Western Jews who live in the societies so affected. The growing pressure will result in some running for cover—or even joining the assailants—but far more will ultimately wake up.
Yet again this situation can no longer be dealt with as an ordinary, though rather spirited and emotional, debate. It is a massive, often conscious and deliberate, campaign of defamation. No longer on the margins, this campaign has penetrated into using the commanding heights of the Western mass media, intellectual, and academic institutions.
The reason for pointing this all out is that there are millions of well-intentioned, honest people who would be shocked if they had the paradigm shift between taking a good portion of this material as honest and well-intentioned and understood that they are being subjected to a concerted propaganda campaign of lies. If they comprehend that, they are far more likely to reject these lies as well as having their eyes opened to wider disinformation campaigns going on today.
Update: The New York Times editorial claims (as its lead no less!), in what is starting to look like an antisemitic pattern (I’m not accusing the paper of antisemitism but merely of using such a theme) that Hagel’s only problem is that he isn’t sufficiently servile to Israeli interests: “One dispiriting lesson from Chuck Hagel’s nomination for defense secretary is the extent to which the political space for discussing Israel forthrightly is shrinking.” The man showed himself to be an embarrassing fool and this is their claim–that it’s the Jews’ fault? Let’s be clear here. If Hagel said everything he ever said about Israel and had no other problemmatic statements or if Hagel said everything he ever said about Israel and had done a mediocre to minimal job at the confirmation hearings, no one would be talking about his not getting an overwhelming majority in the Senate. A sign of antisemitism: Blame the Jews first. By the way, Obama, Kerry, and Brennan don’t have a sterling record on Israel but they had no problem getting elected, appointed, and confirmed.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)DERELICTION OF DUTY: OBAMA DID NOTHING TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES IN BENGHAZI--AND LIED ABOUT IT
2)DERELICTION OF DUTY: OBAMA DID NOTHING TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES IN BENGHAZI--AND LIED ABOUT IT
Nothing. That is what President Barack Obama did on the night of September 11, 2012, as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, among them Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama’s inaction was revealed in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday by outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
Under direct questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Panetta admitted that he had no communication with President Obama after their “pre-scheduled” meeting at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The attack on the consulate had already been under way for 90 minutes at that time. Neither the president nor anyone else from the White House called afterwards to check what was happening; the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.
Panetta’s testimony directly contradicts President Obama’s own claim to have issued “three directives” as soon as he learned “what was going on” in Benghazi. As he told a Denver reporter in October:
I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.
That same claim was subsequently repeated by other Democrats, including Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, who came to the president’s defense. But if those directives were indeed given--and proof has never been produced--they were given long after the attack, not while the attack was going on, during which time the president did nothing.
Panetta and Dempsey also admitted, under questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), that they were not in touch with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the attacks, and did not receive a request for help from the State Department. Dempsey also testified that he had been “surprised” at Clinton’s testimony last month that she did not know of an urgent cable from Ambassador Stevens last August about the dire security situation.
To borrow a metaphor from the 2008 Democratic primary campaign: when the 3 a.m. call came (at 5 p.m. in the afternoon), neither Clinton nor Obama were there to respond.
Panetta was also forced to admit, in the face of vigorous questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that no military action at all had been taken to intervene in Benghazi after the attack had begun, promising only that a similar lapse would not happen again.
Later, on Thursday afternoon, during Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan’s confirmation hearing to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)demanded to know why the administration failed to interview a suspect in the attack.
Brennan’s response was merely that the Tunisian authorities who had arrested him “did not have a basis in their law” for allowing the U.S. to question him about the attack.
In sum: President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth. Because there was an election to be won.
2a)Chuck Hagel is still hiding
2a)Chuck Hagel is still hiding
President Obama shakes hands with former Sen. Chuck Hagel (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press)
Chuck Hagel and the White House seem to be playing switch-and-bait with the Senate Armed Services Committee. First, he couldn’t possibly provide information on donors and speeches. Then he said, well, maybe. Now it appears that he will stiff the Senate.
The Atlantic Council, the organization Hagel chairs, is one of the entities at issue. Its Web site lists a subset of its donors, some of which are foreign governmental entities. I have received no answer to my request for a complete list. (I am certain the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn’t have one, either.)
Hagel and/or the Atlantic Council could release the complete list of foreign governments and the names of foundations, religious charities, religious leaders and businessmen with ties to foreign governments, or other individuals associated with foreign governments or organizations. They have not. Hagel has withheld the identities of those who paid for speeches and foreign travel over the last five years.
Likewise, we don’t know the foreign investors in McCarthy Capital, Corsair Capital, Wolfensohn & Co., MIC Industries, National Interest Security and Elite Training and Security.
A disgusted Senate staffer e-mails: “The fact that the Atlantic Council is unable to simply release the Schedule B from their Form 990s over the last five years suggests they are concealing donors that could sink this nomination.” The list of foreign governments, even if that would be provided, is of little use by itself. The staffer explains, “Anybody in Washington who deals with foreign governments will tell you that the way they steer money to groups like the Atlantic Council is not through direct payments – it’s via business groups, foundations and wealthy individuals with close ties to them (ties that would be a simple Google search away from putting together).”
It is ironic that in the 2010 election President Obama decried the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claiming it had undisclosed foreign donors who were trying to hijack the election; now he and Hagel are trying to do the same with the Pentagon.
Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is complaining that the Republican members of the committee are asking for too much data, beyond what is usually requested. But when nominated for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and her husband provided voluminous information. Others have pointed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s own information request regarding Henry Kissinger’s appointment to the 9/11 commission. He refused to provide the material and was forced to withdraw from service.
At this point it is obvious that Hagel, with the White House’s indulgence, is intentionally withholding information from the committee that is easily accessible but apparently controversial. Levin may be compelled by the White House to hold his committee vote next week, but Republicans have every reason to do whatever is needed to prevent a nominee this unfit and uncooperative with the legitimate demands of the Senate confirmation process from reaching a position where he can do real damage (by incompetence, at the very least) to our national security and provide access to a host of shadowy figures whose identities Hagel is so insistent on concealing.
He has the votes, but not much else. His big problem is that no one much wants him running the Pentagon. Congressional Republicans consider him a traitor. Congressional Democrats see him as anti-gay and anti-abortion, undercutting their support for him. And Northeastern Democrats (and some others) worry about his stance on Israel. Democratic support in the Senate appears more dutiful than passionate.
That said, I don’t think that a Hagel exit would hurt President Obama much. SecDef nominees have blown up on the launch pad before: Remember John Tower (picked by the first President Bush) and Bobby Inman (picked by President Clinton to replace Les Aspin)? Interestingly, both were succeeded as nominees by men who went on to be very successful stewards of the military establishment: Dick Cheney and William Perry. Calling Michèle Flournoy? … Every business day that the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn’t vote to send the nomination to the full Senate, I think the likelihood of Hagel becoming defense secretary declines by about 2 percent.
Withdrawal would be the graceful way out. Otherwise, Republicans will be obliged to use every means available to stop him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
| February 8, 2013 - Hillary Clinton Is Most Popular National Figure, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Obama Approval Sinks After Reelection | |
President Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, but today the former Senator and Secretary of State is more popular, with a 61 - 34 percent favorability rating among American voters, compared to the president's 51 - 46 percent favorability, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. | |
| President Obama has a split 46 - 45 percent job approval, according to the independent Quinnipiac (KWUIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll, down from 53 - 40 percent approval among registered voters in December, a month after his re-election. Today's figure is closer to the president's negative 45 - 49 percent job approval in July, in the middle of his reelection campaign, and similar to his job score for much of his first term. | |
| Ms. Clinton's favorability is higher than those measured for other national figures: | |
| |
| "Hillary Clinton ends her term as Secretary of State and the bruising inquiry into the Benghazi murders as easily the most popular actor on the American political stage today," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. | |
| "After an initial burst of reelection enthusiasm for President Barack Obama, we may be seeing a return to the age of the polarized electorate." | |
| "The difference in favorability ratings for the two leaders lies in Clinton's ability to win thumbs up from many more independent voters and Republicans than does the president," said Brown. "The lower approval numbers for the president could be because once the election afterglow is gone, governing inevitably requires decisions that make some voters unhappy." | |
| A total of 68 percent of American voters are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the way things are going today, while 31 percent are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied." | |
| In an open-ended question, where respondents can provide any answer, a total of 45 percent of voters with a favorable opinion of Clinton said the main reason is her job performance, experience and competence. Among those with an unfavorable opinion, 21 percent cite the Benghazi controversy, followed by 13 percent who cite her political philosophy, 11 percent who say she is not honest or trustworthy and 7 percent who list poor job performance. | |
| A total of 30 percent of voters with a favorable opinion of Biden cite the main reason as job performance, experience and competence, with 7 percent who say he is straightforward or direct and 5 percent each who say he is a good negotiator and, that he cares about people and that he is honest and trustworthy. A total of 24 percent who don't like Biden cite job performance, experience and competence, with 7 percent each faulting his political philosophy and policies in general. | |
| American voters approve 49 - 20 percent of the president's choice of John Kerry to replace Clinton as Secretary of State. But voters are divided 21 - 20 percent, with 58 percent undecided, on the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. | |
| From January 30 - February 4, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,772 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. | |
| The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research. | |
| For more data or RSS feed- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml, call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter. | |
| 1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 46% 7% 87% 40% 40% 52% 38% 87% 64%
Disapprove 45 87 7 47 50 39 53 3 28
DK/NA 9 6 6 13 10 8 9 11 8
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Approve 51% 32% 31% 44% 35% 41% 20% 44% 37%
Disapprove 44 57 60 52 56 50 72 49 56
DK/NA 5 11 9 4 9 9 8 7 7
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Approve 55% 43% 49% 46% 45% 43% 46% 49% 47%
Disapprove 39 47 40 47 50 39 48 44 45
DK/NA 5 11 11 7 5 18 7 7 8
| |
| TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President? (*High also 59% Mar 2009) | |
APPROVE.......
High Low
Feb 08 Dec 06 Jul 11 Apr 19 Nov 23 Jun 04 Oct 06
2013 2012 2012 2012 2011 2009* 2011
Approve 46 53 45 47 44 59 41
Disapprove 45 40 49 48 50 31 55
DK/NA 9 8 6 5 6 10 4
| |
| 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 19% 41% 11% 15% 19% 20% 20% 13% 27%
Disapprove 72 51 83 76 74 70 72 74 68
DK/NA 8 8 6 10 7 10 8 13 5
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Approve 18% 21% 24% 22% 19% 21% 27% 19% 18%
Disapprove 77 69 68 71 74 70 63 73 75
DK/NA 5 10 8 7 7 9 10 7 7
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Approve 17% 20% 22% 20% 14% 24% 21% 17% 17%
Disapprove 78 70 68 73 80 58 70 78 74
DK/NA 5 10 10 6 6 18 9 5 8
| |
| TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job? (*High also 34% Mar 3, 2011 & Mar 2010, **Low also 19% Nov 2011) | |
APPROVE.......
High Low
Feb 08 Dec 06 Jul 11 Apr 19 Feb 23 Mar 31 Feb 08
2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2011* 2013**
Approve 19 23 24 23 22 34 19
Disapprove 72 69 68 66 71 55 72
DK/NA 8 8 8 11 6 11 8
| |
| 3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 33% 5% 67% 23% 28% 37% 26% 68% 48%
Disapprove 59 90 25 66 64 54 66 21 41
DK/NA 9 5 8 10 8 9 8 11 11
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Approve 30% 23% 22% 29% 23% 28% 15% 30% 26%
Disapprove 63 68 69 66 70 63 76 64 67
DK/NA 7 9 8 5 7 9 10 6 8
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Approve 33% 33% 39% 30% 26% 33% 32% 36% 30%
Disapprove 59 58 50 64 66 50 60 60 60
DK/NA 8 9 11 7 7 17 8 5 10
| |
| TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job? (*Low also 24% Sep 2011, Oct 2011) | |
APPROVE.......
High Low
Feb 08 Dec 06 Jul 11 Apr 19 Feb 23 Mar 4 Nov 23
2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2009 2011*
Approve 33 37 29 27 26 45 24
Disapprove 59 54 62 63 67 45 69
DK/NA 9 9 8 10 7 10 7
| |
| 4. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in the nation today; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Very satisfied 3% 1% 6% 2% 3% 4% 2% 10% 8%
Smwht satisfied 28 5 50 24 26 30 23 51 38
Smwht dissatisfied 28 25 29 32 30 27 29 26 22
Very dissatisfied 40 68 14 41 41 39 46 12 30
DK/NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 2
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Very satisfied 2% 2% 2% - 2% 2% 2% 1% 3%
Smwht satisfied 30 19 20 27 22 24 13 29 25
Smwht dissatisfied 30 28 24 29 31 27 22 27 21
Very dissatisfied 38 50 52 44 45 47 60 43 51
DK/NA - 1 1 - 1 1 2 - 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Very satisfied 2% 4% 4% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3%
Smwht satisfied 33 25 30 25 27 32 29 25 28
Smwht dissatisfied 30 27 26 31 28 29 28 29 25
Very dissatisfied 34 42 37 42 43 33 41 41 42
DK/NA 1 1 2 - - 3 - 1 1
| |
| TREND: In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in the nation today; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? | |
VERY+SMWHT SAT
High Low
Feb 08 Dec 06 Jul 11 Apr 20 Feb 23 Dec 11 Nov 13
2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2001 2008
Very satisfied 3 3 4 3 4 21 2
Smwht satisfied 28 32 25 28 26 47 14
Smwht dissatisfied 28 26 29 29 28 19 38
Very dissatisfied 40 38 41 40 42 10 44
DK/NA 1 1 1 1 1 3 2
| |
| 5. Is your opinion of John Kerry favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 43% 17% 67% 42% 41% 45% 41% 55% 46%
Unfavorable 33 57 11 35 39 28 36 14 27
Hvn't hrd enough 22 23 20 21 18 25 21 29 27
REFUSED 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 52% 36% 37% 44% 38% 44% 28% 46% 38%
Unfavorable 32 38 38 37 42 30 47 33 44
Hvn't hrd enough 15 24 22 17 18 24 23 19 16
REFUSED 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 53% 39% 45% 43% 41% 30% 39% 47% 51%
Unfavorable 29 35 28 37 39 32 37 34 26
Hvn't hrd enough 16 25 25 19 18 37 22 18 20
REFUSED 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3
| |
| 6. Is your opinion of Chuck Hagel favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 14% 4% 26% 13% 16% 13% 15% 11% 9%
Unfavorable 18 28 6 20 23 13 20 7 16
Hvn't hrd enough 67 65 68 67 60 72 64 80 75
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 23% 11% 13% 16% 16% 14% 8% 17% 14%
Unfavorable 21 19 19 23 26 14 23 19 23
Hvn't hrd enough 54 69 67 60 57 71 67 64 62
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 23% 11% 13% 13% 17% 9% 7% 17% 23%
Unfavorable 20 17 14 19 25 10 17 20 20
Hvn't hrd enough 56 71 72 66 57 81 74 62 55
REFUSED 2 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1
| |
| 7. Is your opinion of Paul Ryan favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 34% 63% 11% 34% 39% 29% 39% 11% 25%
Unfavorable 36 9 62 34 35 37 34 46 35
Hvn't hrd enough 29 26 27 30 26 32 26 43 40
REFUSED 1 2 - 2 1 2 1 - -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 37% 39% 43% 45% 42% 36% 50% 39% 39%
Unfavorable 47 28 27 33 34 34 19 38 34
Hvn't hrd enough 14 31 29 21 23 28 29 22 26
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 33% 34% 28% 39% 39% 25% 38% 34% 33%
Unfavorable 49 30 32 38 41 31 36 37 38
Hvn't hrd enough 17 35 38 22 19 42 25 28 27
REFUSED 1 1 2 1 - 2 1 1 2
| |
| 8. Is your opinion of Marco Rubio favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 27% 45% 12% 28% 32% 23% 29% 11% 25%
Unfavorable 15 4 25 14 18 12 15 17 18
Hvn't hrd enough 57 50 61 57 49 64 56 69 57
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 36% 26% 31% 38% 31% 27% 34% 31% 33%
Unfavorable 19 12 11 11 19 10 10 12 18
Hvn't hrd enough 44 61 56 50 48 62 55 55 48
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 34% 24% 21% 28% 40% 22% 25% 27% 31%
Unfavorable 20 13 14 17 18 11 13 18 16
Hvn't hrd enough 44 63 65 54 41 66 62 53 52
REFUSED 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
| |
| 9. Is your opinion of John Boehner favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 20% 40% 10% 19% 22% 19% 23% 9% 12%
Unfavorable 42 24 55 44 46 39 42 45 37
Hvn't hrd enough 36 35 34 35 31 40 33 46 50
REFUSED 2 2 - 2 2 1 2 - -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 26% 22% 25% 27% 24% 22% 30% 22% 23%
Unfavorable 53 37 38 43 45 40 33 43 46
Hvn't hrd enough 20 40 36 28 30 36 35 32 29
REFUSED 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 23% 19% 18% 22% 21% 10% 20% 22% 26%
Unfavorable 55 37 35 47 55 29 40 49 43
Hvn't hrd enough 21 43 45 30 22 60 39 28 28
REFUSED 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3
| |
| TREND: Is your opinion of John Boehner favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Feb 08 Sep 01 Nov 17
2013 2011 2010
Favorable 20 22 20
Unfavorable 42 31 19
Hvn't hrd enough 36 46 61
REFUSED 2 1 1
| |
| 10. Is your opinion of Jeb Bush favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 25% 46% 11% 24% 27% 23% 28% 11% 18%
Unfavorable 29 7 50 26 30 29 26 44 35
Hvn't hrd enough 45 46 38 48 42 47 45 45 45
REFUSED 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 32% 26% 30% 37% 30% 26% 32% 30% 30%
Unfavorable 29 24 20 22 27 24 20 25 28
Hvn't hrd enough 37 48 47 40 41 48 46 43 39
REFUSED 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 31% 22% 19% 28% 34% 7% 23% 29% 31%
Unfavorable 31 28 32 31 24 28 33 30 26
Hvn't hrd enough 36 48 47 40 41 65 43 40 39
REFUSED 2 2 2 1 2 - 1 1 4
| |
| 11. Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 51% 7% 92% 46% 45% 56% 42% 92% 71%
Unfavorable 46 90 7 49 51 41 55 5 25
Hvn't hrd enough 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3
REFUSED 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 53% 36% 35% 43% 39% 44% 23% 47% 40%
Unfavorable 45 60 61 54 58 52 72 51 56
Hvn't hrd enough - 2 2 1 2 2 3 - 2
REFUSED 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 57% 48% 56% 48% 46% 53% 50% 52% 48%
Unfavorable 40 48 40 50 51 41 48 45 46
Hvn't hrd enough 1 2 3 1 1 4 1 1 2
REFUSED 2 2 2 1 2 2 - 2 4
| |
| TREND: Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
FAVORABLE.....
High Low
Feb 08 Jul 11 Apr 19 Feb 22 Nov 22 Nov 12 Oct 05
2013 2012 2012 2012 2011 2008 2011
Favorable 51 45 45 47 47 67 42
Unfavorable 46 48 49 48 46 19 53
Hvn't hrd enough 2 4 3 2 4 11 3
REFUSED 2 4 3 2 4 3 3
| |
| 12. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 61% 27% 91% 59% 53% 68% 54% 93% 72%
Unfavorable 34 68 5 35 42 27 40 4 22
Hvn't hrd enough 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 6
REFUSED 1 2 - 2 2 1 2 - -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 64% 50% 50% 57% 46% 62% 37% 62% 51%
Unfavorable 32 44 45 39 48 32 57 35 44
Hvn't hrd enough 3 4 4 2 4 4 5 2 4
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 67% 58% 63% 59% 59% 58% 61% 60% 64%
Unfavorable 28 36 29 38 39 29 35 35 32
Hvn't hrd enough 3 4 5 3 1 10 3 3 3
REFUSED 1 2 2 - 1 3 1 1 1
| |
| TREND: Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her? | |
Feb 08 May 14 Oct 31 Aug 15 Jun 13 May 3 Feb 21
2013 2008 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
Favorable 61 47 46 48 47 44 46
Unfavorable 34 44 46 43 45 46 45
Hvn't hrd enough 4 7 6 6 6 7 7
REFUSED 1 2 2 3 2 3 2
| |
| 13. Is your opinion of Joe Biden favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 46% 11% 78% 41% 40% 50% 41% 78% 37%
Unfavorable 41 79 11 41 47 37 48 13 32
Hvn't hrd enough 11 8 11 15 12 11 10 9 31
REFUSED 2 2 - 3 1 2 2 - -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Favorable 53% 35% 34% 47% 37% 44% 24% 47% 41%
Unfavorable 42 51 55 44 52 44 64 42 48
Hvn't hrd enough 5 13 9 7 10 10 10 8 9
REFUSED 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Favorable 56% 41% 46% 45% 45% 40% 42% 49% 48%
Unfavorable 38 43 36 46 48 41 44 42 38
Hvn't hrd enough 5 14 17 8 5 18 13 9 10
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
| |
| TREND: Is your opinion of Joe Biden favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? | |
Feb 08 Nov 12
2013 2008
Favorable 46 50
Unfavorable 41 23
Hvn't hrd enough 11 25
REFUSED 2 2
| |
| 14a. (If Clinton favorable q12) Thinking about Hillary Clinton, what is the main reason you have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton? | |
CLINTON FAVORABLE Q12 Doing/Has done a good job total 45% Good job/Experience general 11 Good job as Secretary of State/Working with Obama 16 Good job other 3 Smart/Capable/Competent 15 Strong person 7% Hard worker 4 Leader 3 Cares about people/The country 4 Effective/Gets things done 3 Policies general 3 Bill Clinton reference 3 Just like her 3 Straight forward/Direct 2 Honest/Trustworthy 2 Potential President 1 Political Philosophy 1 Other 18 DK/NA 2 | |
| 14b. (If Clinton unfavorable q12) Thinking about Hillary Clinton, what is the main reason you have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton? | |
CLINTON UNFAVORABLE Q12 Doing/Has done a poor job total 7% Poor job/Experience general/Not qualified 2 Poor job as Secretary of State/ Working with Obama 3 Poor job other 1 Not smart/Capable/Competent 1 Benghazi 21% Political Philosophy 13 Not Honest/Not Trustworthy 11 Policies general 9 Just don't like her 6 Bill Clinton reference 4 Doesn't care about people 3 Political aspirations/Wants to be president 1 Ineffective/Doesn't get things done 1 Democrat 1 Political insider 1 Not straight forward 1 Obama administration reference 1 Other 14 DK/NA 5 | |
| 15a. (If Biden favorable q13) Thinking about Joe Biden, what is the main reason you have a favorable opinion of Joe Biden? | |
BIDEN FAVORABLE Q13 Doing/Has done a good job total 32% Good job/Experience general 8 Good job as VP/Working with Obama 14 Good job other 3 Smart/Capable/Competent 5 Straight forward/Direct 7% Unifier/Good negotiator/Works with Reps 5 Cares about people/the country 5 Honest/Trustworthy 5 Down to Earth/Regular guy 4 Policies general 4 Gun laws 4 Effective/Gets things done 3 Good person/Personality 3 Just like him 3 Upbeat/Positive/Funny 2 Political Philosophy 2 Hard worker 1 Strong person 1 Democrat 1 Debate performance 1 Other 13 DK/NA 6 | |
| 15b. (If Biden unfavorable q13) Thinking about Joe Biden, what is the main reason you have an unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden? | |
BIDEN UNFAVORABLE Q13 Doing/Has done a poor job total 24% Poor job/Experience general/Unqualified 3 Poor job as VP/Working with Obama 6 Poor job other 1 Not smart/Capable/Competent 14 Political Philosophy 7% Policies general 7 Gaffes 6 Just don't like him 6 Ineffective/Doesn't get things done 3 Not serious/Jokester 5 Gun laws 5 Not Honest/Not Trustworthy 5 Democrat 2 Doesn't care about people 2 Indecisive 1 Political insider 1 Debate performance 1 Not straight forward 1 Other 18 DK/NA 5 | |
| 31. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, or don't you have an opinion on that? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 21% 6% 40% 17% 21% 21% 20% 33% 19%
Disapprove 20 37 4 20 23 17 24 2 10
No opinion 58 57 55 62 55 61 56 64 71
REFUSED 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Approve 28% 16% 20% 18% 21% 20% 13% 22% 22%
Disapprove 22 24 23 32 27 21 30 23 27
No opinion 50 59 56 49 52 59 57 54 51
REFUSED - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Approve 28% 18% 21% 19% 26% 17% 13% 25% 27%
Disapprove 20 20 16 21 25 10 19 22 24
No opinion 52 61 62 60 49 72 68 53 48
REFUSED - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 1
| |
| 32. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's nomination of John Kerry to be Secretary of State, or don't you have an opinion on that? | |
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 49% 25% 71% 49% 47% 51% 47% 68% 54%
Disapprove 20 40 4 21 23 18 24 5 11
No opinion 30 34 24 29 29 31 29 28 35
REFUSED - 1 - 1 1 - - - -
WHITE..............................................
COLLEGE DEG BornAgnEv Mltry
Yes No Prot Cath Men Wom Yes No HsHld
Approve 57% 42% 44% 50% 43% 50% 34% 51% 43%
Disapprove 20 26 27 21 25 22 34 21 28
No opinion 23 32 29 30 30 28 31 28 27
REFUSED - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS..............
Yes No <50k 50-100="">100K 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+
Approve 58% 45% 49% 49% 51% 33% 45% 54% 57%
Disapprove 18 21 17 22 24 22 20 20 20
No opinion 23 33 33 29 26 44 34 26 22
REFUSED - - 1 - - 1 - - 1
| |
Demographic Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
No comments:
Post a Comment