.... we are only a year away from when Webb won an extremely close election. When that's compared to the fact that Warner's been in office for decades and is often portrayed by the media as a person who's willing to reach across party lines.

If Webb continues to stand up for what's in the best interest of his constituents -- like he has been -- then I imagine his poll numbers will continue to increase.

At the end of the first paragraph it should read..."When that's compared to the fact that Warner's been in office for decades and is often portrayed by the media as a person who's willing to reach across party lines," it shouldn't be too surprising that Warner's approval rating is currently higher than Webb's.

What does the average Virginian know about what Jim Webb does day to day, or what Webb has done in the Senate? Probably nothing much at all.

Jim Webb hasn't had time to create an image or portrait of himself thus far. Also, he hasn't really been involved with too many controversies, which would cause people to talk about him.

So, as Webb's had a relatively quiet term so far, his approval ratings reflect this activity level.

I definitely have mixed feelings about Webb. He's certainly been out in front in supporting veterans. But he voted for suppression of speech (the MoveOn vote), against the fourth amendment in his vote for expansion of the Patriot Act earlier this year, and so on. His words sound great, but his votes are what really count.

In short, I've been disappointed. I contributed to and worked for his campaign, the first in recent memory where I was "for" someone rather than against his opponent. Webb shows great potential, but the proof is in his votes.

While most people support ending the War like MoveOn says, most people ALSO did not approve of the MoveOn ad.  Call it a result of media if you like, but there it is.  Personally, I also was not a big fan of the ad, thinking that it went too far.  I'm glad Webb voted the way he did.  

Webb is not a Kossack.  He's not an OpenLefter.  He's a Virginia Democrat in a Statewide Office, which usually means a Centrist view of things.

he will be a centrist Senator. So where are the other Democrats stepping up to challenge him for the nomination? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Back when Jim Webb was a candidate we knew he once supported George Allen and still admires Ronald Reagan. We all know how he felt about the anti-war left when he came back from Vietnam (a war he still agrees with by the way). And then people expect him to go to Washington and act like Russ Feingold.

Amazing.

But that's why I bet those Liberal voters who say they are pissed with Webb now vote for him over his Republican opponents.  He's no Russ Feingold to them, but he'll certainly be better for them than the hard-core Righties the GOP usually puts up.

Once again, Jim Webb's support amongst Liberals is suprisingly low, only at 56%.  That's tied with moderates.  Some of the stances Webb has taken with liberal voters have been clearly controversial.  My view is that liberals are upset with Congress for not quite taking on the Bush Administration enough.  Webb promised a lot of his things while campaigning that Republican roadblocks have halted.  But don't worry about these voters; come 2012, they'll be supporting Webb in large numbers.

Webb has not gained traction with "independent voters" yet, which is very odd.  He's clearly a maverick, which Independents usually appreciate.  

The other group that Webb has trouble with are Hispanics.  Perhaps his immigration vote had something to do with this one?  But Warner voted no as well, and has stronger Hispanic support.  Perhaps Webb simply needs to do more to reach out to the demographic.  His numbers amonst White voters is respectable, and his number with Blacks is good considering how he started off with them after the primary.  

Webb does need to get out and about the state more, however.  I expect we'll see more of that as 2012 closes in.

There is one truly positive thing to take out of this, however.  Webb breaks 50% in all area of the State save Central Virginia, a death-trap for Democrats.  This would bode well for re-election in 2012.

On October 12, 2007, I wrote the following regarding the same poll that came out in October:

"And in the SurveyUSA's poll, 27% of Dems disaprove of the job he has done, as do 29% of liberals.  These numbers are high; any Dem running for president with disaproval numbers like that would get clobbered in a general election."

Webb's disapproval rating in the current poll among Dems is 31%, a 4% increase since last month.  His disapproval rate in the current poll among Liberals is 36%, a 7% increase.  

His disapproval rating with black voters is 40%, with Hispanic voters it's 55% and his disapproval rating among voters 18-34 is a whopping 45%.

Overall, these numbers are a disaster.  And I attribute most of these disastrous numbers to his poor attempts to end the war.  Each ammendment he has sponsored in the Senate to end the war has been unsuccessful.  And the liberal wing of the party is furious, as it should be.  The only way to end the war is to cut off funding the war but the Dems in the Senate are too chicken to do this.  And Webb gets lumped in with them.

There was such hope and excitement during last falls campaign and after the election when the Dems won a stunning victory that we could finally get out of Irag.  And yes, the 60 votes are not there in the Senate, but they have never tried to cut off funds to end the war.

Webb's other problem is that he is becoming too entrenched in Washington.  He is not in the state very often to talk with voters, explain his votes, etc., and it is taking a huge total.

And I disagree with DanG - 2012 is not that far away.  And if Webb allows his numbers to slip further and not take corrective action, those number will only harden, as will attitudes towards him.  

I wrote the following on October 7, 2007, a full five days before the SurveyUSA poll came out on October 12, 2007 and I was raked over the coals on this blog for my comments.  However, I stand by them to this day.  And based on the poll results from October 12, 2007 and the poll results that came out today, I think I hit the nail right on the head.  Obviously a lot of people feel like I do and it shows in the polls:

"I just read the text of the article on Jim Webb in The Baltimore Sun's "The Swamp" blog and I am outraged!
The Iraq war has beem a complete disaster.  How President Bush as a "Christian" can sleep at night is beyond me.  Over 3,700 of our service men and women dead, tens of thousands severely injured with permanent brain damage, missing limbs, loss of hearing, eyesite; families torn apart, children growing up without a mother or father.  And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed during the invasion of Irag and during the subsequent civil war that has gripped the country.

I had high hopes that the Dems, once winning control of Congress last fall, would put an end to this fiasco but the horror continues.

In the article, Webb says he "is frustrated as anyone else adding "We've been filibsutered every single time."  And the key phrase is frustrated every single time!  Senator, of course you have - the Republicans are never going to vote to end the war no matter how many times the Dems bring the issue up.

The only way the Dems can stop the insanity is to cut off funding for the war and bring the troops home.  But Webb, in the article, says that he "was very clear during the campaign that this has to be done responsibly." What is responsible about continuing a war in which more American troops will die?  There is a direct link between continuing to fund the war and the number of troop deaths in Iraq.  Is this concept too difficult for the soon to be "Senior Senator" from Virginia to grasp?  How do Dems like Webb explain to families of service members who will be killed in Iraq tomorrow or in December, or next summer, that it was responsible to keep funding the war?  

The Iraq war has been a huge disaster for the Republicans from almost the beginning.  But, even though I totally disagree with the Republicans on almost everything, at least they stand up and say what they believe and then carry through on it.  The Dems in Congress need to start doing the same thing.  They needs to grow some b---s (rhymes with calls), and show some leadership, cut the funding off and bring the troops home - and they need to do it now.  Shame on President Bush and every member of Congress for letting this fiasco continue."  

We have to stop treating our elected officials like celebrities and rock stars - they are neither.  We need to hold their feet to the fire, and in some instances, we need to push them to do the right thing.  

You and I really don't agree on that much.

Cutting funding for the troops is not only morally wrong, it's impossible.  President Bush will never sign any plan that does that, and we can't override that veto.  You want to leave the troops in a civil war without weapons, ammo, body armor, and tanks?  I'll fight you to the end on that one, pal.  Nobody is putting those boys in any more danger than they are already in.

Webb sees these people for who they are: people.  To you, they're means to an end; the end of the wat.  And frankly, I find that revolting.  You should be ashamed.

Yeah, that was harsh.  So sue me.

Flipper is a huge Obama supporter. One of his Iowa staffers said that they're bombarded by people asking Sen. Obama to choose Webb as his runningmate in the event he wins the nomination.

But I strongly disagreed with both Obama and Edwards it terms of their stances on troop funding.

And I heard about the Webb thing for Obama.  Webb appears to more popular outside Virginia than he is inside, no?

It would not be cutting off funding to our troops.  That is Republican's spin.  The DOD's appropriation for Fiscal Year 2008 is $471 billion.  If there is not an additional supplemental appropriation for the occupation of Iraq, that does not mean that troops do not have weapons.  There is still plenty of procurement money in the regular FY08 appropriation.  

Now if the administration continues to prosecute the occupation using their regular appropriation, that is bad management on their part.  If Democrats do not appropriate any more money, then it is incumbent upon the administration to manage with the funds they have.  Given a restriction on funds, the most appropriate course of action would be to limit the scope of your activities (i.e. start to withdraw from Iraq).  There are other choices he could make too, of course.  Ultimately, the hallmark of good management is making the best of what you are given.

Last, it is the only effective way for Democrats to end the occupation at this point.  It does not require overriding a presidential veto or overcoming Republican objections.  They can let appropriation bills die in committee and that requires very little effort on their part.  Republicans will of course decry this as troop-hating something or other.  

Many of our Representatives pretend that they are powerless because we can't override a veto.  tx2vadem is exactly right.  No more appropriations unless a withdrawal is mandated.  If it gets blocked or vetoed, fine - no more appropriations at all.

"I had high hopes that the Dems, once winning control of Congress last fall, would put an end to this fiasco but the horror continues."

Let's be honest, shall we, did you really believe that having Congress was all the Democrats would need to end the war?  Diod you really think that having Bush a spresident would be irrelevant?

If so, then I dunno what to tell you except: we don't have veto-proof majorities, and Bush will not sign anything he doesn't like.  It doesn't matter that he's unpopular because he's not running again.

Until we have it, money talks and will continue to talk for our "embedded" politicos.  I had hopes for McCain and "crossed-over"  to vote for him in 2000 and gave up after the "disgusting" embrace of Dubya before the cameras in 2004 with Iraq being the thing to do for AMERICA.

We desparately need some way to get the private money out of our campaigns so those of us with limited means but broad agendas can field credible candidates.

Poor John has lost my respect when he embraced Bush in 2004.

I like John Edwards because say what you will about him, he is from the people and for the people but feel I'm "pissing into the wind" with supporting him because my real hero, Wes "what's his name" endorsed Hillary.

All said, All I ask for is for Ralph Nader, once and for all, to stay the f#*k out of the democratic party primary so a democrat can win the most important office in America.

Ralph,Please stay out of the fray no matter how delusional you are!

Dan, you do not cut off funding and leave the troops behind, you get them out of Iraq, plain and simple.  And while the troops are being pulled out, appropriations that were voted on by Congress previously will keep the supply lines running.  Remember, each time the President requests more money from Congress, that money is designated way into the future.  So when you vote to cut off funds, there is still money in the pipeline to supply the troops with what they need.  That's why you set a specific dates as to when the tropps are pulled out, to ensure their is money avialbe to keep them safe while they are there.    

The arguement that you leave troops in the field with nothing once funds are cut off is the old scare line the Repulicans use - but it is just not the case.  And you should know better.  

There's only one way to get the troops out or Iraq, and that's to elect a Democratic President in 2008.  The Senate can only cut off funds and HOPE that the President brings the troops home.  They can't FORCE them to come home, just hope that the President doesn't leave them without funds.  

Jim Webb is a real marine, Flipper.  You ever looked into the eyes of a man who not only wanted to kill you, but had the means of doing it?  He knows what that's like, and is protecting American lives from those exact people, damn-it.

I'm really getting tired of this extremist left who won't be happy until the National Anthem is replaced with ???? ?????????? ?????.

"I'm really getting tired of this extremist left who won't be happy until the National Anthem is replaced with Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza."

Apparently, i'm not allowed to post cyrillic.

Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but what is that song about?

Personally, I've never cared for the Star Spangled Banner. Not only is it long, it's also unsingable and atrocious to listen to. I prefer "America the Beautiful": good lyrics (environmentally-themed ones at that) and a melody that is appealing.

Excellent comments BTW. Glad to see someone taking the Stolllerites to the woodshed. Though I like visiting MyDD, I COULD NOT STAND Stoller and never missed an opportunity to knock him down. So glad he's left.

n/t

"The Senate can only cut off funds and HOPE that the President brings the troops home.  They can't FORCE them to come home, just hope that the President doesn't leave them without funds."

There's your answer Dan, in your own words.  The Senate votes to cut off funds with a specific date to bring the troops home.  Do you really think the President will leave them there, knowing funds run out in a year?  Of course he won't - and members of his own party wouldn't allow that nor would the Dems.  The public would go nuts. Check mate.  

And do we go your way and wait another 14 months before a Dem is sworn in as President before we get them home?  That is at least another 1,000 troops killed over the next 14 months, at least.  How many mothers will lose a son or daughter?  How many daughters and sons will lose a mom or dad?  Have you ever looked into the eyes of a mom who lost a son or daughter?  Or in the eyes of a child who has lost his or her mom or dad?  Well I have and it is not pretty.  And for what?  Lives are being destroyed, families torn apart - politicans who can't do what is needed to get the job done - it's awful, frustrating and depressing.  The insanity has got to stop.  

And if my views and feelings make me a lefty, I wear that badge proudly, honorably and without hesitation. And based on Webb's sagging poll numbers among democratic constituents, so do others.  

       

If Dems cut funding, and Bush keeps them there, every death is not just on his soul.  It's on all of ours.  They become more lives needlessly spent, but in this case, lives not spent on one man's ambition, but rather because a couple of extremists in the party wouldn't give them body armor because they wanted to make an asanine political statement.  Yes, Flip, the insanity has to stop... on BOTH SIDES.  You are simply rejecting reality for what you would like in an ideal world.  I bet you'd like to see Bush and Cheney impeached too, huh?  It ain't practical.  Idealism is pointless.  We live here, in the now, with what we have.  And what we have is an even Senate on the War.  We've tried to withdraw responsibly.  We've been blocked at every turn.  So desperate extremists are willing to put troops lives at risk to get what they want; and end to the war.  

As for your "checkmate" scenario, if we vote against troop funding, we're out of office before the funds even run dry.  And then the new Republican Congress gives more funds in an emergency fashion.  The American People are furious at George Bush and the Republicans for needlessly putting our troops in the way of harm.  Do you think they'll treat us any better?

As for the "Democratic Constituents" in Virginia and around the Nation, the ones that you speak of that our so upset with out Congress, I frequently find myself disgusted with them.  For a party that has long prided itself on a large tent and abundance of ideas, the blogosphere has turned itself into the SS of Diverse Thought.  I can't count the times I found myself ashamed of things coming out of the mouths of the likes of Stoller and his brood.  I'm not even going to go into this here, suffice to say that if I hadn't alread invested so much time and effort invested in this party, I'd become an Independent myself.  My party's acitivist base frequently makes me feel ashamed to be associated with them.  You're pride in attempting to discredit Senator Webb, a man who has actually BEEN on the frontline, a man who has looked the enemy in the eye and refused to back down, a man who knows what it is like to rely on your Congress to provide the means to your protection, only adds another tally to this chalkboard of shame that you people are creating in the name of justice.

Justice my ass.  Justice is getting those boys home as soon as possible UNHARMED.  And cutting off funds won't do that.  Only a Democratic President can.

Plain and simple.  And I have made a strong case that no troops will be left without armor or anything else they need until they are brought home.  The process in which Congress appropriates money covers this.  You are simply unwilling to accept the fact that this will work.  

And you are unwilling to assign responsiblity to anyone for the casulaites that will occurr over the next 14 months by not cutting off funding and bringing the troops home.  Should I just sit back and accept another 1,000+ casualties and turn my head?  I can't do that, maybe you can, but I cannot.

Every politician in Washington has a responsibility to end this fiasco now - including Jim Webb.  And yes, Jim Webb has an amazing history of service to this country - but it does not give him a free pass on this issue.  He needs to  get the troops home NOW. I take no pride in any of my remarks regarding Webb but I stand by them, so please do not tell me how I feel.

Oh, and for the record, I was never for impeachment.    

Your "strong case" is that we hope President Bush shows brain and heart that he has not yet had by bringing the troops home once they have money instead of sticking to the usual Bush-system of putting his legacy first.  Your "strong case" is nothing more than a big "if."  Frankly, those troops aren't worth that "if" just so you can make your political statement against Bush.

Yes, more deaths would be horrible.  But the results of a reckless withdrawal could be even more horrid than what you first mentioned.  You're typical of the extreme left, Flip: you want exactly what you want when you want it.  You want out or Iraq immediately.  Well Washington doesn't work that way.  It simply doesn't.  We don't have the numbers or the cooperation.  The only way for responsible withdrawal is to get a Democratic President.

Oh, and by the way I wasn't telling you how you feel.  I honestly don't care how you feel.  I was saying that I feel ashamed of the extremists in my party.

I don't think it is quite as apocalyptic as you purport it to be.  I think we are referring to a supplemental appropriation, which is just more money on top of what has already been appropriated.  And the DOD has $471 billion for FY08, which is a lot of money.  In order to believe that troops would be without armor or that we would be flying people off the embassy in Baghdad, I would need to see some support that the Pentagon could not simply use their sound judgement to apply their existing appropriations to meet their needs.  Democrats generously appropriated more money than DOD even asked for, to the tune of $30+ billion.  

They have a pretty large procurement budget.  It seems that they could just defer some handouts to Raytheon or Lockheed and spend that on the occupation of Iraq instead.  Maybe I am oversimplifying.  Maybe the federal accountants, contract administrators, and other involved in procurement at DOD do not do a good enough job of making the most of their appropriations by weeding out nonessential requisitions or ensuring competitive bidding on all reqs (I have heard of some not so flattering DCAA audits in the past).  And if so, this would be a great opportunity for DOD to improve its procurement and contract management practices.

I understand where your passion is coming from, I think.  But I think it is misplaced.  The bottom is not going to fall out if the Democrats decide to take the kid gloves off.  They would only be matching the president in this regard, who has demonstrated his ability to play tough.  And wanting Democrats to be a little more tough on this does not make someone a communist.

I do happen to agree with you that this would not be a checkmate for President Bush.  I am sure he signed the Defense Appropriation Bill with a signing statement that said something akin to: "Thanks for the advice on the budget, but I still retain my right as the 'Decider' to spend as much money as I like."

You keep saying the only way to get out is to elect a Democratic President.  I would just qualify that it is dependent upon which Democrat wins the nomination.  It is not entirely clear that Hillary Clinton would extricate us from Iraq.  I fear that she would might keep us there for another 10 years (or at least 8) in the never ending war against terror and so that she is not considered a softy.

Also Ron Paul wants to get us out too.  And he is nominally a Republican.  Unfortunately, he will probably not win the Republican nomination.

I don't know that this is all that unusual for a first-term senator after a party change.  I would expect John Warner's ratings in his first year would have been the same.

he is retiring so what is the point in slamming him, especially given his long term service. i think there is a great deal to slam him for but he doesn't have much incentive to change.
webb is a new senator and that alone accounts for the disparity in his numbers and john warners. i think many people are critical of webb because they want him to know what we want from him and the criticism may affect the future. it also reflects our disappointment with the inability of congress to stop bush. we wanted it in a day but that was never really going to happen. as to his presence in the state i expect that any senator in his first year has an exceedingly busy schedule. he has had less than a year to set up his administrative staff, has introduced several key pieces of legislation, and activley supported democratics in the most recent elections. as a senior senator he will have a larger staff and his team should be well established.george allens poll numbers were much higher because he did very little except make public appearances and backroom deals. he was an incredibly ineffective senator but he probably would have been re-elected without his macca moment. i would rather have an affective senator but maybe that is the blue in me. the red part of this state represents stupidity to me. blind, ignorant, shallow, and intellectually lazy. i wouldn't worry too much about his poll numbers for at least another year.
just a last thought. i would rather know that webb is in iraq this week than shaking hands in shopping malls.