|
|
Dems Don't Care?
Ok, first the article:
There is some stunning — and so far unreported — news in a new poll conducted by Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg.The survey — sponsored by Democracy Corps, the group founded by Greenberg, James Carville and Robert Shrum — focused on Democrats who take part in the nominating process in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
What Democracy Corps found was that Democrats, at least those who are most active in politics, simply don’t care about terrorism.
Just don’t care.
Sit down for a second, will ya? The author writes for the National Review, a neo-con rag. However, the Democracy Corps, the ones who actually did the survey, are about as yellow-dog as they come:
[F]ounded in 1999 by James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Bob Shrum ... The organization was born out of outrage over the impeachment of President Clinton ... Following the 2000 election, Democracy Corps rededicated itself after the presidential candidate with the most votes and the most popular policy agenda did not become the President of the United States.
Once you get past the classic-troll intro, the conclusions are (IMO) why I would rather vote for a purple elephant than let the Dem Party Faithful come back:
Finally, the pollsters read respondents a series of position statements from four fictional candidates.One said that “the Iraq war [has] hurt our country” but did not mention terrorism. Two others did not mention either the war or terrorism and instead stressed such things as repealing the Bush tax cuts and reforming healthcare.
Just one fictional candidate said, “I am committed to fighting the war on terrorism and supported overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But we must abandon Bush’s go-it-alone policy and work with our allies so they provide more forces and bear more of the cost.”
That anti-terrorism, modified-pro-war candidate finished next to last in Iowa and South Carolina — just a percentage point out of the bottom spot. (He did better in New Hampshire, for reasons that are not clear).
I have to say most of what's excerpted from that survey sounds a lot like the stuff coming out of Big Media and the True Believer Dems I know.
Prosecuting terrorism aggressively is one of the few positions I agree 100% with in the current administration. I'm sorry, I'd rather have four more years of George W. than see the mules turn it all back.
Opposing analysis welcome.
Via Site-essential.
Wow, what an article. Can't say that I believe what the guy was writing. Sure he was working off numbers of a poll. But everyone must remember, it is very easy to confuse a person because of the wording, and thus show numerous results from the same poll. This is one of hte reasons I don't like polling like that. I prefer straightforward questions with established ideas beforehand.
Let me give you an example of why I hate polls and how I would change it:
During the recall election circus in Cauli-fornia there was the discussion of the women that came forward about Ah-nold groping them. You remember hearing about it right? Thought so. Anyway... talk continued on and the sides were once again drawn.
On a side note I find it a little disturbing that the people for Ah-nold were on a soap-bax saying the groping didn't matter, it was all a political play. Yeah possibly it was a held onto fact by anti-Ah-nold people, but isn't this the same party that was concerned about the moral direction the counrty was in if the Clinton tried to get busy with someone, let alone hit on her? But I digress and will return to the discussion at hand.
Anyway. The right was screaming about how it was in the past, he was sorry for doing something wrong that he didn't know was wrong and let's move on. By that time there were definate lines drawn for pro and anti-Ah-nold people. So, a poll was released....
Does this new information about Ah-nold alter your view of him for Governor?
Me being an anti-Ah-nold for Gov person would say "No." Because I already didn't like the idea of him being Gov and I had heard the stories before, it was old news to me. A conservative supporting Ah-nold would would say "No." Because they are tired of the political 'mud slinging.' ha
So, this other poll that was conducted that brought about this discussion. Were the people asked why terrorism was low on their list? Could it be becuase for the past few years things have continually gone down the drain here within our borders. Were they getting more and more depressed at seeing money that could be used to help us go outside? Was it they were tired of the rhetoric and lies coming out and think that there is plenty of talk about terrorism that other things are going by the wayside and being ignored? Was ther any follow-up at all to find out why? No, not really as far as I can tell from that short article.
What I would find interesting is for this person to find out why people are responding like they did and not try to paint a picture of ignorance upon an opposing party.
Posted by: Joshua on October 22, 2003 01:03 PM*Sigh*
The question was:
Pollsters read a list of a dozen topics — education, taxes, big government, the environment, Social Security and Medicare, crime and illegal drugs, moral values, healthcare, the economy and jobs, fighting terrorism, homeland security, and the situation in Iraq — and asked, “Which concern worries you the most?"
I wonder what the poll numbers would be if you asked the Republican or even Independent folks the same question??
We are spending less than 1% of our budget on actually fighting the war on Terrorism (Not the War in Iraq. If you believe the reason we went to war in Iraq was terrorism I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you)
In order to prosecute the war on Terror we have to have a solid foundation at home. The things that were put before the war on terror in this poll are what, at this time, we need to focus on to ensure a solid foundation. So I ask you why should this poll be any different regardless of political affiliation??
Cause and Effect:
Solid Foundation = Ability to prosecute the war on Terror with EXTREME PREJUDICE
Rocky foundation = Inability to wage war in the manner needed.
Or you can simply look at the numbers:
People directly effected by education, taxes, big government, the environment, Social Security and Etc: 288,368,698 (As of July 1st 2002)
People directly effected by the war on Terror??
When I say directly effected I mean this will have a direct impact on their day to day lives.
They didn’t ask the people if they thought the war on terror was unimportant. They didn’t ask the people if they cared about the war on terror. They asked them where in this list of things did it rank in importance.
They put it almost exactly where W would have put it. The only difference in this list Vs a Republican pollsters list would be that the environment would probably rank below the war on Terror. Go Figure.
Posted by: Jeff on October 22, 2003 01:40 PM"People directly affected by ..." is a straw-man argument. The people directly affected by 9-11 are very small compared to those affected by "education, taxes, big government, the environment, SS, etc.", perhaps 15,000 (families & such as well as direct victims) vs. 288,368,698. By your argument, this means 9-11 was basically an insignificant event, no?
And when I say directly affected I mean this will have a direct impact on their day-to-day lives, of course.
Accusing these people of being republican cheerleaders is like accusing Ted Nugent of working for PETA. If this survey had been done by, say, the National Review itself or some RNC shill group, I wouldn't have even posted it. Democracy Corps is founded and run by the truest of the True Believers in the Dem camp. Their honesty is refreshing, their conclusions quite frightening.
I could say "guns and butter" just to make your ears burn, but you said it better... only 1% of our budget is going toward various war goals at the moment. We can afford this, and it's not what's causing the country's domestic troubles.
I will not vote for a group that advocates rolling back to the attitudes that allowed small groups of people to delude themselves into thinking we were weak. This survey tells me if I vote Dem, that's exactly what will happen.
Posted by: Scott on October 22, 2003 02:04 PM*Whaps brother on head*
Read what I post next time and think about it. Don’t just skim it, I usually won’t post something that will allow you to jump on it because I KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
Past experience dont’ya know.
I am not criticizing the poll. I am criticizing the interpretation of the poll. The poll asked folks if they thought the war on terror was MORE important than the Economy, Health Care, Taxes etc. etc it never asked if the war on Terror was unimportant. The Neo Con Rag (and you) are the ones who jumped to this conclusion. This line of logic leads you to things like: Who is more important to you, your brother or your daughter? Then deciding that you don’t care for Olivia because……..:-) It just doesn’t track.
I never said 9/11 was an insignificant event. 9/11 affected the entire population of the US in their day to day lives. It shut down airports, closed schools and business etc. This was an EVENT. (A battle in the war on terrorism if you will. Which would you say is the better statement?? That the attack on Pearl Harbor DIRECTLY affected the population of the United States, or that what followed Pearl Harbor, what was a result of Pearl Harbor, is what directly affected the majority of the US?)
The war on terror IS NOT AN EVENT (Anymore than WW2 was an event) it does NOT directly affect the lives of the majority of the people in the US (Though this line of reasoning gets a little blurred when you compare it to WW2 simply because of the Scope of that war.) The only people that the war on terror directly affects are those people who are prosecuting this war.
Declaring that the Event is the War is pure W style politics at it’s finest. It tries to deflect or blur the hard question/comments by vilifying the person who asks those questions or make those comments (IE I see 9/11 and the victims families as unimportant.) instead of answering/discussing them.
One other thing before I end this. I said that 1% of our budget is going to the war on Terror. A lot more of that budget is going to Iraq. What’s more important?? How much of the $89 Billion dollars requested is going to Afghanistan?? How much is going to pursue Al Qaeda?? The Department of Homeland Securities budget in the first year was estimated to be $37 Billion dollars. Where do you think this administration’s priorities lie??
Ask yourself this:
Is the war on terror more important than a healthy economy??
Is the war on terror more important than taxes??
Is the war on terror more important than health care??
You may say this is a fallacious argument. You may be right. The thing is, though, this is what the poll asked. Not if the war on terror was unimportant. If you believe that conclusion from this poll then you would also believe that Scott considers me more important than Olivia. It’s not that I am unimportant to Scott. It’s that he has his priorities straight.
Posted by: Jeff on October 22, 2003 03:24 PMpeople killed by terrorists no longer need health care.
Posted by: samkit on October 22, 2003 10:16 PMOne other thing I was thinking about this morning about the poll and the way it was spun. Did the poll ever ask the responders if we should stop the fight against terrorism? It doesn't look like it. Perhaps the people taking the poll were looking at how things hare happening now and what other areas they think need more attention. they might think that what is being done is good, and keep it at that and lets give attention to other areas as well. Again, I didn't see anywhere wher they said to halt all fighting against terrorism. Just was spun that way. See, this is another way the repubs are trying to show how un-Patriotic the Dems are.
Give me a break.
Posted by: Joshua on October 23, 2003 10:07 AM