CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A national telephone survey by pollster Scott Rasmussen shows that MoveOn.org's ad that slammed Gen. David E. Petraeus is not generating rave reviews from the American public. Only 23% say they approve. Even Americans who describe themselves as liberals "were evenly divided" Rasmussen reported today. The actual numbers show that the self-reported liberal approval rate was 45% versus 39% who disapproved.
The poll results are available here, and they show about half the country was following the story about the Petraeus/Betray Us ad closely in news reports.
Ohio's Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown voted against a Senate resolution last week that condemned the MoveOn ad. There is no polling available to show if Brown's vote cost him support, made him more popular, or had no impact at all. However, Rasussen's data is an indication that the stridency of the ad has made plenty of Americans uncomfortable. Inquiring minds are wondering: Does the national reaction turn into some kind of sense of disappointment in Brown's decision, a thorn that diminishes his standing with Ohioans? Republicans and conservatives are already filling the blogosphere with negative comments, talkshow lines are humming and letters are starting to turn up in the letters to the editors columns. Or is it just a lot of barking?
Still, Rasmussen said he found a sense that MoveOn may have hurt the anti-war cause.
"Forty-seven (47%) of all adults said that 'stunts like the MoveOne.org ad' hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause, while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-f0ur percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent of moderates and 57% of conservatives say these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote."
Ohio's Republican Senator George Voinovich also voted against a Senate resolution last week that condemned the MoveOn ad. You failed to mention this in your first post on the subject, and you didn’t acknowledge it when it was alluded to in the comment section. Brown voted against Cornyn’s resolution and Voinovich voted against Boxer’s resolution. Both resolutions condemned the ad. Are you unaware of this, or does it just not matter to you?
ReplyDeleteSenator Brown didn’t run the ad and he has condemned it via affirmative vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Could you please move.on?
Voinovich was not among the MoveOn 25. Brown was.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon 9:09 pm --
ReplyDeleteThe two resolutions were different, as Tom Blumer has pointed out. Sen. Brown's vote on the 2nd resolution was seen as favoring MoveOn, widely seen as favoring MoveOn's ad. Sorry, anon. Or, let me put it like this: Are you saying that Sen. Brown voted to condemn the MoveOn ad? If so, why didn't he vote to condemn it twice?
Bizzy,
ReplyDeleteVoinovich voted “nay” on the Boxer amendment. Have you read it?
The Boxer amendment specifically called out the MoveOn ad. “On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States;”
And Boxer strongly condemned “all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.”
Republicans Hagel and Specter voted for Boxer, as did 48 Democrats. Both the Cornyn and Boxer amendments condemned the ad, but both amendments were flawed. My question is, why the double standard? Brown condemned the ad in one vote and didn't in the next, and Voinovich did the reverse. Why is one so much better than the other?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteBrown did vote to condemn the ad via the Boxer amendment.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00343
As to why he didn’t vote to condemn it a second time via the Cornyn amendment, I can only speculate.
I would have voted “nay” due to Cornyn’s over-the-top language, such as the claim that the advertisement had impugned “the honor and integrity of … all the members of the United States Armed Forces.” The ad was in no way directed at all the members of the United States Armed Forces. It was narrowly focused on General Petraeus.