We praise democracy most of the time, but we practice it as if we had accepted every argument against it, as if we believed it must depress the level of culture and of public life
Quote of the day
 Avaaz/Mugabe Petition Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
|
 |
The NumbersFor those opposed to Bush et al Tom Oliphant has written a wonderful book: 'Utter Incompetents'. Hardly a rhetorical flamer, it is far more full of light than heat. Page after page after page Oliphant just lays out the ‘record’, and allows the evidence to accumulate. For the anti-Bushie, dabble in it as you will [and you will!], it is like catnip. Be that as it may, at the books conclusion, Oliphant lays out a series of simple numbers that devastate. I will return to these in a moment, but, as the book – of necessity - ends with the status of things in 2007, consider the interview with Chuck Hagel conducted by Charlie Rose March 28, 2008: http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/03/28/2/a-conversation-with-senator-chuck-hagel It is as ‘up to date’ as possible, but not yet available as either video or transcript – one assumes it will be shortly. Hagel clearly seconds many of Oliphant’s points and makes reference to a new poll that shows 81%[!!!] of the country believes we are on the wrong course. And so back to those numbers. [It would be nice if I could ‘cut and paste’, but I will have to enter text by hand, and apologize for any ‘typos’ in advance – note that Oliphant’s numbers are matter of public record, being nothing more than poll data, which, in the aggregate, define a truly stunning reality] From pages 271 – 272 ‘Utter Incompetents’ 2007 by Thomas Oliphant, Thomas Dunne Books, St Martins Press 2007: President Bush’s Polls did more than just go poof.
As his days dwindle down to precious few, his handling of the presidency has cost him what once were his most appealing qualities – and, in a way, the foundations of his standing as president. In the Washington Post/ABC News surveys early in his administration most people (including most people who disagreed with him)on major issues) considered Bush honest and trustworthy, by 63 to 34 per cent in the last survey before the 9/11 attacks. In January of 2007 the result was 57 – 40 percent negative. Another part of his foundation was a once wide spread felling that the outwardly affable Bush understands ordinary Americans and their problems. That was the view by 61 – 37 percent margin in survey in early 2003, shortly after the terrorist attacks. By 2007, the result was67 to 32 percent negative. Americans also once saw strength in him. Just before the 9/11 atttacks sent those ratings into the stratosphere, Bush was seen as strong national leader by a 55 – 43 percent margin. In early 2007, the result was negative by almost the reverse margin, 54 to 45 percent. Above all Americans had long considered Bush the kind of person to be trusts in a crisis. That was the view by 60 to 37 percent in the late summer of 2001. Nearly six years later, the verdict was 56 to 43 per cent negative. One important reason for the harsh judgment was an overwhelming view of Bush as stubborn and unresponsive. By 63 to 36 percent, the American public declared him unwilling to listen to different points of view. Now just THINK about this, in an era of great and grave consequence, by significant and consistent margins, the American people believe the President of the United States is untrustworthy, does not understand them, is stubborn, unresponsive and unwilling to listen to different points of view, is NOT a strong leader, and NOT to be trusted in a crisis. What conceivably could be more damning! Or Chilling! And not least as it defines the trashing of possibly the greatest Presidential asset of them all: the bully pulpit. 81%[!!!] of the country believes we are on the wrong course.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-03-30 02:57
Still fighting the last war Ron?
And yet, Bush's approval rating is still higher than the Democrat led Congress!
FOX News Poll: Bush and Congressional Job Ratings Hit Historic Lows Thursday, March 20, 2008 Three in 10 Americans (30 percent) now approve of the job Bush is doing as the nation’s leader, with 6 in 10 disapproving. Not to be outdone by the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Congressional job performance also hit a new low—flirting with the "teens" on overall approval (20 percent).
So while you are wallowing in Anti-Bush catnip of the past, the rest of the country is looking forward to the next generation of leadership. In case you missed it, McCain's numbers are loooking pretty good.
Poll: Republican McCain Would Beat Democrats Obama Or Clinton
A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows why Republican John McCain has long been perceived as the Democrats’ biggest nightmare in their dream of recapturing the White House: it shows he’d beat both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton if today were Election Day Yet, Obama and McCain don’t agree on many issues. You can see this interesting quirk at work in the poll, on the issue of the war and McCain support: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. Even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain - a Vietnam veteran who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy - was better able to deal with Iraq. In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46 percent to 40 percent) and Obama by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey of 1,246 registered voters, conducted from Thursday to Monday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61 percent of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats. So he is also the first Republican in years who appeals to Democrats as well — and not because of their intense antipathy towards any Democratic candidate. A tick in time does not a difintive judgment make
Iron Mike, What poll are you talking about? There are two links, the first leads to a poll from Feb. 27, 2008; the second leads to a 'page cannot be displayed' message. I have seen recent polls showing a (momentary?) trend in McCain's direction to be receeding already. What I reported has been long term and enduring. I will wait at least a little bit before considering acknowledging some more difintive judgment has been redendered. You guys are so GOOD at counting chickens before they are hatched! Oh and as to the Congress: It is pretty widely acknowledged that a principle reason for its unpopularity is a failure to successfully challenge the Bush/McCain support for the War. Not very re-assuring
IM has a point Ron but I'm afraid the significance of McCain's popularity is escaping both of you. They want to elect a man advocating the very same policies as the one they're dissing! Winston Churchill once said that the quickest way to lose faith in democracy was to spend 5 minutes talking to a voter. Hmm....Do you think it would take 5 minutes?
DO they, REALLY?
Big C.
They want to elect a man advocating the very same policies as the one they're dissing!
I have already indicated I have seen recent polls, as opposed to the cited Feb. 27, 2008 poll affirming Iron Mike's contention, that indicate a flow backwards towards a long, and well established 'popular' opinion contra Bush/McCain/Rice et al.
Winston Churchill once said that the quickest way to lose faith in democracy was to spend 5 minutes talking to a voter. Hmm....Do you think it would take 5 minutes?
How about half an hour? And REALLY talk! You know, get beyond the sound bites. Kind of makes you wonder how democracys have managed to get to positions of power and wealth far, far beyond the expectations of nearly all of previous history's 'wise men'. Have you missed something? Talking
How about half an hour? And REALLY talk! You know, get beyond the sound bites. Well yes Ron. Absolutely. What's more, listening to what they're saying and respecting it. If that starts happening in your presidential campaign then wake me up. I'll be really interested. But then you'd be talking about real democracy, not a meaningless talk show punch up between 3 integrity free mannequins where the object is to appear to represent as many special interest groups while appearing to alienate as few as possible - while all along only really representing the fat cats who bankroll the campaign. I'm all for democracy but giving people this nonsense and telling them it's giving them a say is the most sure way never to get it! A Happening?
Big C, I would suggest you find Obama's speech relating to race, given in Philadelphia on March 18th, 2008. It is readily avalible as both video and text. Not unlike a good dialog, anticipated questions are raised and dealt with thoughtlfully. 40 minutes long, and it holds your attention throughout. He talked to us like adults. Incidently the speech was largely occaisioned by something on the order of obsessing (raging)? intgrity free talk show mannequins, driven by ideological/political agendas, and all too frequently driven as well by the profit motive - their own and that of those who fund them. I'm not denying that at all.
Obama's speech
Yes it was an excellent speech. Not quite MLK or Lincoln but good stuff. Unfortunately, of the three candidates he is the most funded by Wall Street. And anyway, it looks to me as if Hillary is going all out to wreck Obama's chances so that she will be in with a chance in 2012. So you'll probably get the scary mad bomber regardless. My jibes about Tweedledum and Tweedledee notwithstanding, that would be a disaster. I'd be heading for Canada. Post new comment |
|
50.50Podcast: Women and Memory, a report from Egypt In the blog: Positive Anger, Zainab Magdy Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 624
Joined: 2003-02-15