There is a large margin of error in the CBS poll. Perhaps some statisticians can check me on this, but I believe the moe means that the true opinion score--the place where the public actually is--has a two-thirds chance of being within an eight point range centered on the score.

If the above is true there is probably very little--or no change BP-AP. The changes are mostly within the moe. With one exception. Those wishing for a troop increase in Iraq. These americans are likely Bush's biggest fans, at least until Attila the Hun returns from the dead, or Joe Lieberman changes parties.

In other words, the only measured change shown in the poll is in the hardcore republican base, and it's going the wrong way, if you're a GOP operative.

This makes one wonder if--in the case of the GOP noise-machine types--they are in desparation mode. They've given up on the general public, and are now simply focused on keeping some fraction of their base intact.

Moveon crossed the Rubicon with their ad, in my opinion. They can not go back--that would equal surrender and be an admission that they had no point as an organization.

Similarly, they should not simply sit there, on the far bank of the river, acting as if the criticism was effective.

Since they've chosen this route, they should continue. Pick their next target, and hit'em again. Hard.

Pick a media figure, pick Bush or Cheney, or hit Petraeus again. But don't just stand there. You've invaded. don't tell me you had no plans for the occupation.

Congress has the power of the purse. The Democrats are in the majority. They can pass reductions to the funding for Iraq and the military in general.

Yesterday John Murtha spoke at length at the National Press Club. Some of it was excellent--like when he got mixed up and referred to Cheney as the secretary of state. Great stuff. For Murtha, it is all troops, all the time, and nothing but the troops. This is what he says, anyway.

But one thing he said in Q and A brought me up short. He said that in the last appropriations bill they had drastically raised funding for "bonus pay" for enlistment/reenlistment. I believe he said they had raised funding--the democratic congress had--from 140 million to 2 BILLION. A huge increase in bonus money, in order to keep soldiers coming in (or staying in) the ranks.

Think about this for a moment. Webb is pushing his amendment again, to greatly increase the troop 'downtime' interval, as a way to both reduce troop stress, but very importantly to reduce the number of troops available for deployment. A de-facto means of troop reduction.

At the very same time, this same democratic congress has drastically increased funding for troop bonuses (I believe I've heard some bonuses are $20,000 bucks).

Why are they doing this. If they were truly interested in finding creative ways to draw down the troops--because they don't have the guts to do it in a straight-forward manner--why are they allocating these huge funds to get troops to sign up. We know where the vast majority of these bonus recipients are going. They're going to Iraq.

There were those of us, like me, who SCREAMED that we would be in trouble if we had to fight a two-front war...and that we would NEVER be able to fight a three-front war...in the condition we were bein left in.

Anon, were you one of the first ones cut by the military back then? And did they blame it on the deep funding cuts?

Based on what I'm reading here, I take it that Sveden will be one of the fronts in the "three-front" war.

Massachusetts would be the second, clearly. Perhaps Canada third? The northwest passage has opened up (warming, you know), and they have those intriguing tar-sands up there.

Anon, I know you have Timberman in your vice-like grip just now, but can you tell me why the heck I should care if we're a superpower or not?

I mean, what the heck do the american people get out of this deal?

Anon,

but what do we get out of it? everything you've said so far seems more like a burden than anything else. If there's no benefit in it for our country, why do we even want to be a superpower?

or, actually they refused to show up. But author Scahill was there, beating an "industry spokesman" about the ears and head. It was a pathetic performance by "the industry". See it if you can...

or, actually they refused to show up. But author Scahill was there, beating an "industry spokesman" about the ears and head. It was a pathetic performance by "the industry". See it if you can...

USA today also has one out--they all seem to come up with the same "no-change" result. But there are some smaller dynamics in the pew study that are of interest.

Regardless, the contrast between the polls and the pundits (GG's main observation) seems inescapable.

...which provides, I think, that re-consideration can be requested only by a Senator voting "no," so it's common where the majority will lose a vote for one Senator who supports it to vote "no").

Reid has done this on several votes and bills, as leader. Exactly as Glen says, in order to table the vote--so it can be brought up again.

They came pretty close this time. Sad day in the senate. One of many.