Interestingly, the numbers for military, and military connected, are only different from the population as a whole in degree. Much of the military and "military-connected" has diminished confidence in Bush, some none at all. I treat their opinion as somewhat more informed, as the reflexively anti-military are removed from the pool, and there is increased understanding that complicated events are complicated - a tautology often overlooked back home.

The solutions approved by the military (and connected) show more support for timelines and conditions than I would have expected, though less than the population as a whole.

The current oversimplified conventional wisdom is that "we have more confidence in a military success, less confidence that the Iraqis can form a stable government." I very tentatively assent to that, while recognizing that I am an expert at judging neither.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at August 3, 2007 08:38 PM

AVI, you make such good and expanded points to our posts, as evidenced by this and others in posts below. In fact, they're good enough for us to say, "Yeah, that's what I meant." Thanks.

Posted by Woody at August 4, 2007 09:12 AM

But Woody, remember that until this year, the congress that has such an abysmal rating has been the congress that people like you have elected.
Lets see, how does this work? continue to do the same idiocies, and expect different results?
Paul Krugman had it right this morning, when he exposed the core philosophy of the Bush/Republicanism.
Just as in 1994 when William Kristol warned against the passage of the Clinton Health care plan, "in any form," because its success would signal the rebirth of centralized, welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas.
Perceived being the operative word.

Posted by James S Melbert at August 4, 2007 09:21 AM

That 3% consist entirely of John Murtha, Harry Reid and their staff.

Yes, Jimbo, the Republican Congress didn't get great ratings but it took the Dems to pull Congress to the bottom.

Posted by DADvocate at August 4, 2007 03:03 PM

James, James... the most "Ethical Congress in History" You jumped all over Woody and me when some of DeLay's shenannagans were "outed" by the MSM... now that the Dems are proving to be far more corrupt and the public is catching on where are you tossed brickbats now? Or, were they as I always thought merely partisan posturing reading from the uber-liberal manual?

Posted by GM Roper at August 4, 2007 08:44 PM

Wow. THREE percent? Now that's LOW. I would think a random poll would end up with more than 3% of people connected to politicians -- so even the politicians themselves must think they're doing a bad job.

Can we just fire every last one of them and start over? Picking random people off the street would probably get a higher rating than THREE percent!

Posted by Ogre at August 6, 2007 07:47 PM

Who was it (Wm F. Buckley?) that said he would rather go with the people from first page of the Boston phone book than the people who were elected?

Posted by Woody at August 6, 2007 08:07 PM