Democratic Agenda Stalled = Hope for America
This Washington Post article relays some good news for America- the Democrats agenda has pretty much stalled and they are in danger of being seen as a do nothing party. Hopefully, this situation will reverse the electorate’s mistake in 2006 and, in 2008, we’ll see a chastened Republican majority returned to both the House and Senate as well as a Republican elected to the presidency. Then, we can continue to fight the war on terror and hopefully even privatize Social Security. And we’ll certainly prevent dangerous tax increases from threatening our economy- a nearly impossible dream with Democrats in power.
Clearly, the less Democrats do the less harm will be done to America. But, in my opinion, the best news in the article is the following: “A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public’s hope for a productive Congress.” That tells me that many Americans don’t see the war in Iraq as utterly hopeless like the Democrats what them to believe and that they want Congress to pass legislation that President Bush can sign into law- not legislation for cutting and running.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Ah, another journey to that mystical alternate reality land the Bushites inhabit, where facts are, as former President Reagan once quipped, “stupid things.”
You say last month’s Democracy Corps Poll “tells me that many Americans don’t see the war in Iraq as utterly hopeless.” However, according to that poll 55% agreed with the following statement: “The current course cannot bring stability and we need to start reducing the number of of U.S. troops in Iraq.” That tells me that the majority of Americans do feel the current course is hopeless.
You say it shows “that they want Congress to pass legislation that President Bush can sign into law.” What you don’t mention is that the respondents by 57% agreed with this statement: “I want my member of Congress to vote for measures that will force the President to change policies and reduce troop levels in Iraq.”
Then this question was asked: “As you may know, Democrats In Congress passed legislation that ties further funding of the war in Iraq to targeted dates for withdrawal of troops and Bush says he will veto any funding bill that sets a timetable for troop withdrawal. Do you find yourself agreeing mainly with George Bush or mainly with the Democrats in congress?” In yet another contradiction to your spin the respondents answered 55% for “The Democrats in Congress.”
And how about this question: “The Congress and the President have been publicly debating over the Iraq spending bill and have not been able to come to an agreement on it yet. Whom do you think is mainly to blame for that: George Bush or the Democrats in Congress?” The respondents said Bush 50%, Democrats in Congress 39%.
Furthermore, if you will exam the Washington Post-ABC News Poll the Washington Post article you linked to references you will get an even clearer picture of how obnoxious your take of the data is.
This polls asks whether the respondents approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job. Contrary to your take 59% disapprove, while only 39% approve.
When asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job, 54% approved while 44% disapproved.
When asked whether they approved or disapproved of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, they disapproved 70% to 29%.
The majority of us wish Bush and his supporters would come back to this reality.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Face it Doug, the Democrats want now the same thing they wanted 30 years ago, an American defeat. Why, you ask? Because of the simple fact that with the media’s help, it’ll get them a nice fat seat behind a desk in the Oval Office.
As much as I’m for public opinion, American to be exact, I find it impossible to see how trusting the average American’s view on the war can give you any answers. To prove this, all I have to do is bring up one name… Anna Nicole Smith. What does this have to do with anything…? During the Anna Nicole Smith debacle, cable ratings went up 55%. If those numbers mean anything to you, they should, because they speak volumes to me and my fellow analytical thinkers. When the average American cares more about a 2 week long episode of Maury Povich then preventing future attacks on their country, then you can throw their opinion out the window.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:26 am
I like to think of myself as an analytical thinker, heySOOSE.
Your first paragraph doesn’t begin to explain why the American public consistently expresses its disapproval of Bush’s Iraq policy and its support for withdrawal. Surely the seventy percent of Americans who oppose Bush’s war don’t seek a “nice fat seat behind a desk in the Oval Office.”
I reject the thrust of your second paragraph as well. I don’t believe we can ever throw American opinion out the window and maintain a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
With attention to your specific concern about future attacks on our country, I have to point out that the indications are that the Iraq war has actually been the source of an increase in terrorist activity. According to Country Reports On Terrorism, released April 30, 2007, by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the Iraq war “has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries.” The State Department has reported an increase of terrorism attacks of 28.5% for 2006.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:19 am
The majority of those who disapprove of Iraq policy only do so because they are programmed to by the media. If you ask those same people to name the 3 branches of the US government, you’d be horrified at the result.
As for your yawningly shocking little tidbit regarding this war spawning more terrorism, this sounds to me a lot like stating an obvious effect of a war and disguising it as some sort of revelation. If you claim to be an analytical thinker, Doug, then think about this logically with me… Of course this war is causing more terrorism, it’s drawing the enemy out. Iraq is a battlefield, people are coming to fight.
I’m beginning to think that the strange delusion those who oppose this war are having is that if we were to simply abandon this war, muslims will like us. Fat chance. This war has been a long time coming and fighting it was more a matter of when. It was either now or later, either way it was going to happen.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
With all due respect, if the polls showed overwhelming public support for Bush’s Iraq policy I doubt we would be having this discussion. These are the same Americans whose hearts and minds Bush captured in 2004 in winning reelection and earning, as he put it, “political capital.” Were they “programmed by the media” in that matter as well?
I say the people spoke then and they are speaking now.
And it is hard for me to think logically with you about your suggestion that the Iraq war is merely “drawing the enemy out” because you gave me nothing but your personal opinion to think about.
The problem seems one of perception. A World Public Opinion.org poll of four major Muslim countries (Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia) taken last month showed that Muslims perceive the goal of the United States as being to “weaken and divide the Islamic world” by an average of 79%.
More disturbing is this, taken directly from their website: “Most significantly, large majorities approve of many of al Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.”
Therefore I have to conclude that we are actually making more enemies and not merely drawing out those we now have.
Lastly I am concerned about your statement that those of us who oppose the war have a delusion “that if we were to simply abandon this war, Muslims will like us.” That gives currency to the very perception our enemies hold, i.e., that it is Islam we are fighting. This point President Bush carefully addressed at a press conference in November of 2002: “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith.”
Quite clearly the extremists are the enemy, not Muslims.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It’s interesting you bring up that study in your response, I took a gander at the study myself.
What percentage of the polled Muslims is in favor of terrorism attacks on civilians (and note the question doesn’t say American civilians — which presumably would be more popular than attacks on even Muslim civilians — as the general form of the question suggests)?
To varying degrees, 27 percent of Moroccans, 21 percent of Egyptians, 13 percent of Pakistanis and 11 percent of Indonesians approve of terrorism attacks on civilians — and not just American civilians. Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims.
Of course, as the study points out, “Large majorities (57 percent-84 percent) in all countries oppose attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam.” We must be grateful for such mercies. But when, to fairly extrapolate these numbers, about a quarter of a billion Muslims are in favor of civilian terrorist attacks, I think prudent people are entitled to be alarmed at the magnitude of the threat.