On July 31st  SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from July 17th through the 19th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

47% – approve

47% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]

69% – approve

26% – disapprove

5% – not sure

republicans [27% of sample]

24% – approve

68% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Independents [26% of sample]

39% – approve

55% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Compared to June Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have dropped.

Senator McCaskill’s approval numbers among Democrats and Independents have dropped when compared to June. The July disapproval numbers from liberals are on the high side:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

Ideology

Conservative [34% of sample]

32% – approve

62% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Moderate [36% of sample]

53% – approve

40% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Liberal [18% of sample]

62% – approve

36% – disapprove

2% – not sure

As for those conservative republicans?:

…They’re pissed that Obama is president. They’re pissed that McCain isn’t. They’re pissed that Jim Talent isn’t their senator. They probably voted for George W. Bush twice (and probably his daddy twice). They’d probably be pissed if you pointed out that dubya is and was a monumental screw-up – it reminds them that they made that particular choice. They didn’t vote for Claire. They’ll never vote for Claire….

….No matter what anyone does they’ll be pissed and stay pissed. And they ain’t voting for any Democrats. Ever…

The numbers for Democrats and liberals are striking. More on that later.

The July numbers for Kit Bond:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

53% – approve

37% – disapprove

10% – not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]

44% – approve

45% – disapprove

11% – not sure

republicans [27% of sample]

74% – approve

17% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Independents [26% of sample]

47% – approve

46% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Heh. A sure sign that pork and lame duck reign supreme.

Back to those party affiliation and ideology approval numbers for Claire McCaskill:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

July 2009

Democrats [41% of sample]

69% – approve

26% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Liberal [18% of sample]

62% – approve

36% – disapprove

2% – not sure

June 2009

Democrats [41% of sample]

74% – approve

22% – disapprove

4% – not sure

Liberal [19% of sample]

79% – approve

18% – disapprove

3% – not sure

May 2009

Democrats [42% of sample]

67% – approve

25% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Liberal [16% of sample]

64% – approve

24% – disapprove

13% – not sure

April 2009

Democrats [39% of sample]

72% – approve

23% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Liberal [15% of sample]

79% – approve

13% – disapprove

7% – not sure

March 2009

Democrats [41% of sample]

68% – approve

25% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Liberal [14% of sample]

77% – approve

9% – disapprove

14% – not sure

February 2009

Democrats [33% of sample]

83% – approve

14% – disapprove

3% – not sure  

Liberal [12% of sample]

80% – approve

16% – disapprove

4% – not sure

January 2009

Democrats [43% of sample]

78% – approve

18% – disapprove

4% – not sure  

Liberal [17% of sample]

68% – approve

22% – disapprove

10% – not sure

There’s a lesson in here somewhere. You got to dance with them what brung you.

The crowd got so stirred up when this gentleman urged them to stand up and get angry that I could scarcely hear him proclaim above the uproar:

I don’t want Obama in my house telling me what I can and cannot do, what I can and cannot drink, what I can and cannot eat, what kind of car I can drive, what I can put in my car.

And don’t forget, he’ll want your guns! Probably shoot you with one of them.

Seriously, though, the gentleman pulled these fears out of a magician’s hat, because Obama has no interest in what this citizen drinks or which kind of car he drives. But the fervor of the crowd–one man yelled “Heil Obama!”–told me they believed, in fact gloried in, facing these baseless charges.

I wondered why.

Perhaps their paranoia about Obama derives from an assumption that he is as willing to break the law as they are. They approve of leaders overextending their authority–IF those leaders are Republicans. So they assume that those on the left think the same way as themselves and will break the law when it suits them.

Setting aside all the Bush/Cheney offenses I could cite as examples, let me offer something current: the Republican sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona. Polls show that Joe Arpaio is the most popular politician in the state. The July 20, 2009 issue of The New Yorker, pp. 44-45, has this account:

The biggest part of the sheriff’s job is running the jails, and Arpaio saw that there was political gold to be spun there. The voters had declined to finance new jail construction, and so, in 1993, Arpaio, vowing no troublemakers would be released on his watch because of overcrowding, procured a consignment of Army-surplus tents and had them set up, surrounded by barbed wire, in an industrial area in southwest Phoenix. “I put them up next to the dump, the dog pound, the waste-disposal plant,” he told me. Phoenix is an open-air blast furnace for much of the year. Temperatures inside the tents hit a hundred and thirty-five degrees. Still, the tents were a hit with the public, or at least with the conservative majority that voted. Arpaio put up more tents, until Tent City jail held twenty-five hundred inmates, and he stuck a neon “VACANCY” sign on a tall guard tower. It was visible for miles.

(…)

“I know just how far I can go,” Arpaio told me. “That’s the thing.”

His deputies, particularly his jail guards, seem to have less sense of how far they can go. Thousands of lawsuits and legal claims alleging abuse have been filed against Arpaio’s department by inmates–or, in the case of deaths in detention, by their families. A federal investigation found that deputies had used stun guns on prisoners already strapped into a “restraint chair.” The family of one man who died after being forced into the restraint chair was awarded more than six million dollars as the result of a suit in federal court. The family of another man killed in the restraint chair got $8.25 million in a pre-trial settlement. (This deal was reached after the discovery of a surveillance video that showed fourteen guards beating, choking, and suffocating the prisoner, and after the sheriff’s office was accused of discarding evidence, including the crushed larynx of the deceased.) To date, lawsuits brought against Arpaio’s office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers forty-three million dollars, according to some estimates. But the Sheriff has never acknowledged any wrongdoing in his jails, never apologized to the victims or their families. In fact, many of the officers involved have been promoted.

Other jails get sued, of course. The Phoenix New Times found that, between 2004 and 2008, the county jails of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston, which together house more than six times as many inmates as Maricopa, were sued a total of forty-three times. During the same period, Arpaio’s department was sued over jail conditions almost twenty-two hundred times in federal district court.

All those dangerous jails and wasted money slide right off the teflon sheriff, and anyone who criticizes him will face retaliation. The Phoenix New Times ran an investigative series on his corrupt real estate deals and found itself on the receiving end of “impossibly broad” subpoenas.

Outspoken citizens also take their chances. Last December, remarks critical of Arpaio were offered during the public-comment period at a board of supervisors meeting, and four members of the audience were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct–for clapping.

I’ll give you any odds you want that last Monday night’s crowd would love Arpaio. They would despise anyone who fretted about 2200 lawsuits, about housing convicts in tents with temperatures of 135 degrees, or about crushing a restrained prisoner’s larynx. The Cruel and Unusual provision of the Constitution be damned. They’d be fine with impossibly broad subpoenas and arresting people for clapping. Understand, of course, that they want to be able to clap and yell at Claire’s staffer, but they wouldn’t judge Arpaio for clamping down on his opposition.

So Americans for Prosperity and its adherents rant as if Obama is bound to behave like Arpaio or Cheney. And yet, the man in the video and those who raised the roof in approval of his defiance, probably know–paradoxically–that no consequences will have to be paid for their rebellion. As WillyK put it, they have a “certain mock-heroic and very self-righteous militancy.” Conservatives have a history going back many decades of glorying in faux victimhood. You can only comfortably relish your bravado if you know in the back of your mind that no real reckoning will follow.

And none will. Because they’re dealing with a party that doesn’t have the same history of waving citizens’ rights aside. However much they rant, they know that in some corner of their mind.

Ain’t rebellion fun in a democracy?

At the Monday evening town hall, Claire’s staffer Michelle Sherod listened politely as the wingers sent their message about why they hate health care reform. They lined up at the mike and spoke cogently, sometimes wittily, one after another. As it turned out, they were there to complain about health care, not the energy bill. And did they ever complain. It was fascinating.

To give them as much benefit of the doubt as I can muster, I’d say they were … passionate. Unfortunately, for many of them passion is indistinguishable from rudeness. Basically, every time Sherod opened her mouth, regardless of what she had to say or how tactfully she expressed it, several people in the crowd of–I don’t know, 400?–shouted at her. (The organizers planned for 150 attendees, by the way, and had to move us to a larger area when the crowd overflowed the meeting room.)

In the clip below, with Carl Bearden of Americans for Prosperity (aka tea baggers) standing behind her, Sherod opens the meeting. That hissing you might be able to hear at the end of the clip was a noise we heard often–the more civil ones in the group trying to shush the rowdies.

The crowd was passionate to the point of high dudgeon. Though they deny it, it’s no stretch to think they’d have pounded on the doors and windows of Claire’s office, yelling so loud that the owner of the business on the second floor flipped them the bird.

They’re frustrated, because McCaskill and Michelle Sherod may “listen”, but Claire’s not their gal. And what good does it do to whine to Bond about it? He has little power on this issue. They need for her to oppose the bill, and they know she won’t. So they’re pissed.

And paranoid. Hoowee, were they paranoid. More on that in a later posting.

The Monday evening town hall meeting between McCaskill staffers and tea party types who want to talk about what’s wrong with the energy bill and with health care reform is the upshot of an incident at McCaskill’s St. Louis office on the 17th. Protesters showed up that day to complain about Democratic efforts to overhaul health care.

The door to that office is kept locked, but her staff will come out into the foyer and talk to protesters. That day, though, they had only two people working, as opposed to the usual six, and the phones were ringing constantly, so they didn’t respond quickly. The protesters began yelling and banging on the windows–to the point that the tenant of a business on the second floor got angry enough to flip them the bird. (They thought it was a McCaskill staffer, but that got sorted out.)

The two staffers called the cops. I couldn’t say for sure whether they did it because the obnoxious protesters were annoying them or whether they felt threatened. In any case that apparently wasn’t what Claire would have wanted them to do. She issued an apology for the mixup and agreed to have her staffers meet with the protesters this Monday night. She did promise last fall to listen to all her constituents, whether they voted for her or not, and she’s making good on that.

But this situation is typical.  Democratic office holders extend courtesy even to yahoos acting like five-year-olds. Republican legislators? Not so much. Billinmidmo, for example, wrote here in August of 2007 that a number or voters and organizations requested that Kenny Hulshof (ninth district) attend a town hall forum about the occupation of Iraq. He didn’t come because, according to Hulshof and his staff:

the Iraq War is only important to Columbia. The rest of the district, according to them, does not care about the occupation of Iraq.

A letter writer in the KC Star described how Kansas Republicans ignore Democratic protesters:

For contrast, we called Brownback’s office to set up an appointment to talk about his ridiculous animal hybrid bill and were told that since we had met with a staffer a month ago to discuss health care we couldn’t come back quite yet. We have been routinely protesting outside Pat Roberts’ OP office for a couple years now. His staff has NEVER even bothered to come out and talk to us. But since they have yet to call the cops I guess we should feel fortunate. Of course, we haven’t banged on the door and created a disturbance either.

And contrast Russ Carnahan’s treatment of hecklers with the way Todd Akin had someone who disagreed with him escorted from the room.

Looks like a pattern to me.  

About 35 people showed up at noon Thursday to Claire McCaskill’s St. Louis office at a rally organized by MoveOn. (There was another event at Bond’s office at the same time. Lotsa luck, folks, making inroads there.) After some of the attendees told the group their own hard luck health care stories, we presented a petition with about 2,000 signatures gathered online to Michelle Sherod, one of Claire’s staffers. The petition urged McCaskill to stand strong for a public option and resist letting it be watered down.

Ironies abounded in two of the stories that people had to tell. LaDonna Appelbaum works in the health care industry. And has no health care. This is a woman who’s not afraid to let her feelings show on the subject. She wants health care NOW.

As we head into the final two or three months of the push to get health care reform, here’s the message I’d like to convey to Claire: Do more than plan to vote for a strong public option. Be active. Beat the drums for it. Speak up at every opportunity. And make opportunities to speak up.

Because a strong public option is a foot in the door that might eventually open onto single payer. A strong public option–none of this co-op nonsense!–is the minimum. Once we have that, perhaps it will be–as it has been for other nations–just the starting point.

When traveling in Europe while studying abroad in college, I would occasionally run into people in hostels who had a strange view of traveling. I would ask them where they had just arrived from, and they would reply something like, “Oh, we just did Budapest.” Anyone who said they had just “done” a city was hard-pressed to be able to tell me precisely what they had done, other than a pub crawl. Which was annoying, because I liked to find out about travel experiences from other travelers – what was worth the trip, what was nice enough but too crowded or expensive, etc. The “I just did…” response gave me zero information on how great or terrible destination was.

That’s the way this article left me after an initial giddiness about the CBO score of $600 billion over 10 years to cover 97% of Americans, including a government-run public health insurance plan. Sure, I’m glad to find out that leading Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee included a public option, glad that they had the CBO score the health care plan with the public option this time, and I’m elated that the CBO scored the bill as much cheaper than the incomplete plan submitted back in May. But I still feel like the reporter just “did” the public option.

From the article, all I know is that there’s potentially going to be a $60 billion a year government-run health insurance plan. I have no idea from the article whether a trigger will be put in place, a threshhold that will need to be crossed in order to activate the public option. I don’t know if the plan will be offered nationally or state-by-state. I don’t know if it will be accountable to Congress. I don’t know if it will be available to all Americans, or just those who can’t currently get coverage. All of these points would make a big difference in whether I would support such a bill or oppose it.

So I’m begging reporters to ask about what a public option would entail when you write about its inclusion in a health care reform bill. And fortunately, dear reader, we don’t need a reporter to help us find out where our Senators, at least, stand on these very important questions. Please ask Senators McCaskill and Bond for specific responses.

Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?

If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?

Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?

Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?

Still haven’t heard back from either Bond or McCaskill after two weeks of asking the question.  

On June  25th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from June 12th through the 14th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator? (June 2009)

All

52% – approve

41% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]

74% – approve

22% – disapprove

4% – not sure

republicans [27% of sample]

19% – approve

71% – disapprove

10% – not sure

Independents [25% of sample]

54% – approve

40% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Compared to April Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have remained roughly the same. The approval numbers among Democrats, republicans, Independents are also similar to the April numbers.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator? (June 2009)

Gender

Male [48% of sample]

55% – approve

42% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Female [52% of sample]

50% – approve

41% – disapprove

9% – not sure

The June numbers for Kit Bond:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator? (June 2009)

All

55% – approve

35% – disapprove

10% – not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]

45% – approve

49% – disapprove

6% – not sure

republicans [27% of sample]

75% – approve

13% – disapprove

13% – not sure

Independents [25% of sample]

52% – approve

36% – disapprove

12% – not sure

SurveyUSA posted the results of a 600 sample poll taken from May 28th to the 29th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). There is no release date. The margin of error is 4.1%. The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator? (May 2009)

All

49% – approve

43% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Democrats [42% of sample]

67% – approve

25% – disapprove

8% – not sure

republicans [32% of sample]

30% – approve

62% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Independents [25% of sample]

48% – approve

46% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator? (May 2009)

All

50% – approve

41% – disapprove

10% – not sure

Democrats [42% of sample]

44% – approve

49% – disapprove

7% – not sure

republicans [32% of sample]

63% – approve

24% – disapprove

13% – not sure

Independents [21% of sample]

42% – approve

51% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Overall, when compared to the bracketing April and June polls respondents had a darker view of the universe. What is striking in this particular poll is the relatively smaller polarization (it’s still there, though) among self identified republican respondents when compared to the April and June polls.

On May 1st SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from April 24th through the 26th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

51% – approve

40% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Democrats [39% of sample]

72% – approve

23% – disapprove

5% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

21% – approve

71% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Independents [27% of sample]

53% – approve

41% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Compared to March Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have improved slightly. The approval numbers among Independents has improved significantly. The numbers among Democrats and republicans remain essentially unchanged. It appears that whatever Claire McCaskill does, those republican numbers ain’t gonna budge.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

Gender

Male [48% of sample]

55% – approve

38% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Female [52% of sample]

48% – approve

43% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Hmmm. There appears to be something of a gender gap.

Let’s look at the April numbers for Kit Bond:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

48% – approve

39% – disapprove

13% – not sure

Democrats [39% of sample]

36% – approve

51% – disapprove

12% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

73% – approve

19% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Independents [27% of sample]

41% – approve

46% – disapprove

12% – not sure

The senior senator’s overall approval numbers continue their decline. So much for a legacy, eh? When you’re in the party of only “NO” it tends to have a deleterious effect on your likability. There is a decline in approval among Democrats when compared to the March numbers. When you’re not “bipartisan” and things suck, apparently you lose support among the folks that you’ve previously sold on your “bipartisanship” (well, that and pork delivery, too). No matter what Kit Bond doesn’t do, his republican numbers remain rock solidly unchanged.

There’s no gender gap for Kit Bond. The numbers are almost identical.

On March 26th SurveyUSA [link fixed] released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from March 20th through the 22nd showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

49% – approve

44% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]

68% – approve

25% – disapprove

7% – not sure

republicans [31% of sample]

23% – approve

72% – disapprove

4% – not sure

Independents [20% of sample]

46% – approve

46% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Compared to February Claire McCaskill’s approval numbers have dropped. There is significant erosion among Democrats and republicans. The approval among Independents remains unchanged (an even split).

Let’s look at the March numbers for Kit Bond:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

53% – approve

39% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]

42% – approve

50% – disapprove

8% – not sure

republicans [31% of sample]

73% – approve

21% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Independents [20% of sample]

40% – approve

46% – disapprove

13% – not sure

The senior senator, he of pork and earmarks, has also had a significant erosion in approval numbers. The decline in approval among Independents when compared to the February numbers is remarkable.

On March 3rd SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from February 20th through the 22nd showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error is 4% for the results on Bond and 4.1% for the results on McCaskill.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

54% – approve

40% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Democrats [33% of sample]

83% – approve

14% – disapprove

3% – not sure

republicans [33% of sample]

35% – approve

62% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Independents [27% of sample]

44% – approve

44% – disapprove

12% – not sure

Compared to January Claire McCaskill’s overall numbers haven’t changed much. There is some improvement among self-identified republicans. This month’s survey sampling has a lower percentage of Democrats and a higher percentage of republicans.

Let’s take a look at the numbers for Kit Bond:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

59% – approve

33% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Democrats [33% of sample]

46% – approve

47% – disapprove

8% – not sure

republicans [33% of sample]

76% – approve

17% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Independents [27% of sample]

57% – approve

34% – disapprove

8% – not sure

There are fewer “undecideds” overall when compared to the January numbers. Other than that Bond’s overall numbers haven’t changed much. There is an increase in disapproval among Democrats and an increase in approval among Independents. Maybe it’s the pork earmarks. There’s nothing like a local news story trumpeting that your senior senator brought home the bacon yet again.