Obama at 38% in Gallup Daily

Eh.

54% disapproving.

He's had slightly lower disapproval numbers, hitting 56 percent earlier this year, but his approval's never been below 38 percent in Gallup. He sunk that low twice in August 2011, during the dog days of the first debt-ceiling standoff, but never dipped below it.

Nevertheless, as Allah points out (and poll watchers have noted), Obama's approval is stuck pretty consistently in the 38%-45% range. No matter how bad it gets, he doesn't go below 38%. (So far...)

No matter how great a job he does... um, well, we don't know what would happen if he did a great job and secured great results for the country. But anyway, he doesn't go above 45%.

So he's not in ratings free-fall... he just kinda sucks and remains at a low level.

Like NBC.

I'm writing a long-ish post, so let me link some other crap from Hot Air while I finish it:

In Kansas, the Democratic candidate for Senate has withdrawn from the race in order that the more-popular independent candidate can have a unified voting block and therefore be better positioned to beat Roberts.

However, there are some legal problems with this maneuver.

Here's one: The guy's name will have to stay on the ballot, thus attracting a lot of low-information Democrat votes:

Incidentally, let this dispel the myth that the Democrats will "never" compromise on their ideology for the sake of a partisan political victory. I keep hearing this, how Republicans must never do this, because the Democrats never do and the Democrats win with this strategy (supposedly).

Well they do. They cut losses, they back a different horse. They have their eyes on the prize and they're not too proud to like like the devil to the voters.

You may object to this sort of cynical strategy, but you can't say "the Democrats never waver in their ideological fidelity."

Meanwhile, Rand Paul says he's no isolationist and would be much tougher on IS than Obama.

And, incidentally, Mitt Romney has penned an op-ed for the WaPo slamming Obama on foreign policy, too.

Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat "beyond anything that we’ve seen," according to the defense secretary ) threatens -- and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.

Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.

The president asserts that we must move to "a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity." The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.

It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place -- if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to "common humanity" as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good....

Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world -- get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.

No, we would not.

I take that as positioning against Rand Paul, though Rand Paul seems to claim he doesn't believe that.

Drew tweeted this out as "Okay, so Mitt's running." I don't know if he was joking about that, but he has since posted this:

Update: Some of Joan Rivers' jokes.

posted by Ace at 05:23 PM

| Access Comments