Rasmussen has a new poll out, showing when it comes to national security, Americans trust congressional Democrats more than President Bush (43% to 41% respectively). The 2% advantage is within the margin of error (+/- 4%), but it’s alarming news for Bushie nonetheless. Supporters of the President can’t spin this poll as bad sampling or biased questions. The poll is entirely on the up and up.
There is one oddity in the poll results that seems to stand out for me:
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Americans say they have been following news about the Dubai Ports deal somewhat or very closely.
If 61% of respondents don’t know who currently operates the ports, how closely can they be following the issue? Bushie and his militant supporters may be able to use it to blow off this poll, but I think that would be a big mistake. Bushie has a real problem here. And I lay the blame entirely at his feet.
His administration was unprepared for the pushback on this port deal. That’s the second time they’ve made that mistake, and I have to wonder what’s going on there? Only thing I keep going back to is the administration assuming that Bush supporters would make the case for him, instead of making the case himself. And that’s just lazy PR.
When Bushie, the Evil Karl Rove and the rest of the staff sit down to discuss what happened in this poll, I hope someone has the guts to bring up how poorly PR for this issue has been handled by this administration. I can tell you I’m not optimistic.
Excuse me can I please talk to Farrah!
Is this invasion of the body snatchers or something?
Yeah, by the prez not knowing about this secret deal till last week is somewhat difficult to just trust him that there is no threat to our national security…if there is such a thing…
I think it’s interesting that the poll doesn’t ask respondents to compare their national security confidence in congressional democrats vs. congressional republicans. 2% is pretty slim and congressional republicans have been suspicious of the port deal too. I mean, this is, ultimately, an election poll, n’est ce pas?
The passengers on the Titanic didn’t think there was a problem either.
Maybe the Republican party should adopt this as a motto, “What, me worry?”
Martin is on the mark when he points out this is an election poll. That explains why the Congressional Republicans are putting as much distance between themselves and the Pretender in Chief as possible. The curtain has been pulled back and the American public is seeing Bushie for the failure he always was.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, if the American voters don’t trust them with security they’re in deep doo doo. Middle class Americans are realizing the new Republicans are leaving them penniless. The latest economic numbers are validation for what average Americans already know; that they are worse off than they were four years ago (wages not keeping up with inflation, record low personal savings, etc.), and this state of economic disarray can’t be blamed on 9/11 forever. That’s bad news for the party in power in any election cycle.
All you Bush supporters just keep playing the music and tell yourselves everything will be alright.
Democrats calling the Republican party the “Titanic” is akin to OJ Simpson counseling someone about anger management. What is funny about this poll is that the ousted Democrats have had no power for anyone to put their trust in for quite some time (cute how they like to pretend the American people still vote for them). Who are they referring to? The mayor of New Orleans maybe?
These same polls existed when Reagan defied public opinion to defeat the Soviet Union. Public opinion outcry was that he was going to start WWIII and usher in the nuclear winter (Sting was even forced to write songs about the Russians loving their children). Funny how only Republican presidents have the courage to do what is right, despite the boo-hooing of the mobocracy. History, an elections, will again change the polls.
Yes, keep playing the music. Republicans who fail to heed the warning signs of the failed policies of their party leadership also turn a blind eye to the last presidential election. Bush did not win by a landslide. He had no mandate. And this was on the heels of losing the popular vote four years earlier. Republicans may be in power, but they are far from invincible politically.
Some Republicans also spend too much time reliving the past. Reagan is a forgotten memory for a large number of voters, and invoking his memory will do nothing come election time. And are we now rewriting history when it’s claimed only Republican presidents do what is right? Our entry into every major war of the last century was with a Democrat president at the helm. Was our entry into WWI and WWII a mistake? Was it the act of cowards? I dare think not. But it was certainly not with a Republican as president.
Republicans, Democraps…..
They all lie. Hide. Cheat “US” somehow.
The “Old Timers” the founding fathers are the only ones that didnt act like a bunch of children that got caught stealing a piece of gum on camera and then saying it wasnt them!
Because they didnt!
They cared for US! United States of America!
Not Mr. Jones’s pocketbook, or whatever the case is, like it is today.
Todays politics is sickening. It wont change. In fact hate to say it, it is just going to get worse…..”History ALWAYS repeats itself!”
Re “Our entry into every major war of the last century was with a Democrat president at the helm. Was our entry into WWI and WWII a mistake?”
I’m confused. First you say Reagan is all but forgotten (tell that to the people of Leningrad - now renamed St. Petersburg who have named a city center & street after him)and then have to go back to WWII to find evidence of Democrat leadership? Case & point.
how about we say the last 20 years? Let’s see now… Democrats have lost power in the House of Reps, lost power in the Senate, and lost the past 2 Presidential elections. Please help my blindness!
Maybe a better way is to ask is: In the last 20 years, for whom have Democrats been willing to go to battle for?
Answer: Democrats will fight to help the Muslims of Bosnia & those who felt intimidated by a Christian Cult in Waco Texas.
I’m having trouble keeping up with what case is being made. I thought the point was only Republicans have the courage to do what is right. I didn’t realize there was a time limit on that statement, so my counterpoint was based on a while back.
If we’re to keep this within the last twenty years, then yes, there has been a Republican at the helm for 12 of the last 20 years. But, Republicans have only had control of both the Senate and House for four of the last 20. And that was due, in large part, to Mr. DeLay’s gerrymandering in Texas that is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. If the Texas districts are forced to be redrawn in a way less favorable to Republicans, that alone may take away their control of the House.
I’ll ask what is wrong with ending genocide based on religion in Bosnia? Was that not a good, or courageous, thing to do? And aren’t Muslims in Bosnia just as worthy of saving as Muslims in Iraq?
David Koresh was more than a simple pseudo-Christian cult in Waco, Texas. Koresh subscribed to the teachings of the Bible in only ways that served his personal depravity. They broke the law and refused to submit to the authorities. Should they be venerated for their lawlessness?
Are you listening to yourself? Let us apply the same standards liberals heap upon Bush in regards to Iraq to those 2 “incidents” Bosnia & Waco. Liberals will wail that Bush made a hostile pre-emptive strike against a nation that had never threatened the United States. Now my memory may be on the fritz, but I can’t recall when Milosevic or Koresh had ever attacked a single US citizen. So far as I can see - the Davidian Compound had no WMDs and containment was working before Reno brought in the “pre-emptive strike”.
So let me ask you - when Sadaam enacted “genocide based on religion” on the Kurds and Shiites, was that not worthy of US intervention? The real question for liberals is “And aren’t Muslims in Iraq just as worthy of saving as Muslims in Bosnia?” or does everything pivot on the permission of “food for oil $$$” France?
When Sadaam defied one UN resolution after another and “broke the law and refused to submit to the authorities”, should they be venerated for their lawlessness?
What is shown is a great double-standard on the part of the Democrats when it comes to foreign policy. Today’s Democrats are backed into a “hatred of all things Bush” corner. Having to accuse Bush for doing things that they themselves championed, they have no argument and are forced to stumble through a maze of some awful John Kerry like “I voted for the war before I was against it” explanations.
Democrats better figure out where they stand on National Security because the American people are not fooled by their “do as I say - not as I do” double speak (thus say the polls).
I would trust certain Democrats like Joe Lieberman who brings strong foreign policy leadership. Problem is - he is rejected by the far left Move-on.orgs and will never be advanced by his party.
Are you listening to yourself? Let us apply the same standards liberals heap upon Bush in regards to Iraq to those 2 “incidents” Bosnia & Waco. Liberals will wail that Bush made a hostile pre-emptive strike against a nation that had never threatened the United States. Now my memory may be on the fritz, but I can’t recall when Milosevic or Koresh had ever attacked a single US citizen. So far as I can see - the Davidian Compound had no WMDs and containment was working before Reno brought in the “pre-emptive strike”.
This is a strawman argument. The US Government’s primary reason for intervention in Bosnia was not because we were threatened. This was the primary reason for invasion of Iraq.
And aren’t Muslims in Iraq just as worthy of saving as Muslims in Bosnia?
This liberal will answer your question. Yes, they are just as worthy of saving as Bosnian Muslims. So is every starving, malnourished child in the world. If this is the basis of your logic, that we took on the plight of Bosnian Muslims and should therefore take on the plight of Iraqi Muslims… well, we have a long way to go with this administration before we have single-handedly rebuilt the majority of the world.
However, is that why we invaded? Was it to save the Iraqi Muslims? What happened to Bush’s 2000 election debate statement that we shouldn’t be nation-building?
Now that I have answered your question, you can answer mine. Did we go to Iraq to save the Iraqi Muslims because that’s what we did for the Bosnians? Please answer.
does everything pivot on the permission of “food for oil $$$” France?
Yet another distracting strawman argument. This has nothing to do with anything, just another with us/against us statement.
When Sadaam defied one UN resolution after another and “broke the law and refused to submit to the authorities”, should they be venerated for their lawlessness?
So you are saying we should consider an internal affair on the same grounds as an international affair? Are you saying there is no difference? Please explain.
Today’s Democrats are backed into a “hatred of all things Bush” corner.
Haha. So funny. You love to lump, don’t you? Here is your own double-standard:
Funny how only Republican presidents have the courage to do what is right, despite the boo-hooing of the mobocracy.
Guilty much?
Democrats better figure out where they stand on National Security because the American people are not fooled by their “do as I say - not as I do” double speak (thus say the polls).
Right. Democrats don’t believe in having national security. Sure. Whatever you say Mr. Kool-Aid. Yet another strawman argument, trying to make Democrats defend a position they haven’t taken.
Thank you Tyler for saving me quite a bit of typing.
I will only address this statement: “Democrats better figure out where they stand on National Security because the American people are not fooled by their “do as I say - not as I do” double speak (thus say the polls)”
The polls do show the Republicans still holding on to a narrow, and lessening, lead on the question of national security. However in all other categories, those same polls are saying, by an ever widening and substantial majority, the American people believe our country would be better off if Democrats were in charge. We’ll have to wait and see what November brings. But if the current poll numbers hold, our friends who blindly support the Republican platform may find themselves sitting in the back seat once again.
Tyler - When defending a point of view, you should present facts of evidence to back up your point - simply stating “Kool-Aid & strawman argument” without any actual facts is quite a hollow retort don’t you think?
Despite having different points of view, at least Nora makes attempts to support her argument (why she praises your mental goo is beyond me).
So how about tackling just one argument at a time? I say Democrats are in trouble now for protesting Bush for doing the very things they supported when Clinton was president. Here is a favorite quote of mine:
“Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- Ex President Bill Clinton, 12/16/1998
So tell me again about why we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq? By the way - Dems supported then President Bill in this strike.
When defending a point of view, you should present facts of evidence to back up your point - simply stating “Kool-Aid & strawman argument” without any actual facts is quite a hollow retort don’t you think?
Actually, there isn’t much else to say when you present a strawman argument. Your arguments have nothing to do with the point you are trying to make. Why should I defend a position that I haven’t taken?
So tell me again about why we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq? By the way - Dems supported then President Bill in this strike.
I’ll do some research on that particular instance and give you my response. Unfortunately for you, you won’t be able to pigeon-hole my opinions based on Democrat/Republican because I don’t believe in blindly following a political party’s ideology. I’ll let you know.
HOWEVER, I WILL point out the fact that I asked you several questions and very clearly asked you to respond. You didn’t. I guess you really don’t want to defend the positions you’ve taken.
“Good evening.
Earlier today……
So tell me again about why we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq? By the way - Dems supported then President Bill in this strike.
Did a little poking around.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that using the “everybody else is doing so why can’t we” argument is just plain childish. Why not stick to justifying the war on your own grounds? It makes your position look even weaker going down this path. I mean really, does everything in your life revolve around Bill Clinton? Do you realize it’s been over 5 years since he was president?
Anyway, in general, I believe our middle-of-the-road policies during the Clinton years weren’t very wise. The no-fly zone situation had no real conclusion as a matter of policy. It just was. Without a clear-cut ending or objective, we were asking for trouble. When Saddam kicked out the inspectors, we either had to escalate the conflict or stand there and take a Saddam Slap(TM).
What we know now (2006) is that there were no WMD in Iraq in 2003. We DON’T know if there were WMD in 1998, almost a decade ago when the inspectors were kicked out. It would be nice to know what intelligence this was based on, but we will probably never know. I wouldn’t put Bill Clinton above lying. We know he’s capable. In this case he could have been lying to save face for the U.S. Don’t know.
Anyway, if Bill Clinton lied, would that make your argument stronger? After all, if Bill Clinton can lie, George Bush can lie. Right?
Let me put it this way. When the United States was repeatedly attacked during the Clinton admin, what was the Democrat response these terrorist attacks?
1993 - Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.
1993 - Oct 3 & 4 Mogadishu, Somalia; Forces of the United States fought against Somalian guerrilla fighters loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. 18 American soldiers died, and 73 were wounded.
1995 - Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996 - June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
1998 - Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500.
2000 - Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
What was the democrat response to Terrorism? Answer: The Clinton administration reacted to the disaster by pulling out (other than lobbing 2 missles at an Asparin factory the day before his Grand Jusy deposition). This seems to be the liberal response today. What is the message liberal appeasement sends to terrorists? Here is what Osama said - “So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled…”
Why should America trust liberal foreign policy in a post 9/11 world?
THEY ALL LIE!
I say and think this way —>
1) Just let them kill each other off.
OR
2) Just aim and cover your ears!
Bifgroovey - I see you STILL didn’t answer a single question I asked, even though I gave you the courtesy of answering yours. I see how this is. Care to answer my questions or do you want to keep running from the answers?
Not to go line for line with you on the Clinton-era responses to terrorism, but have you forgotten the Reagan era-responses, or should I say lack of responses, to the following?
April 18th, 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, that killed 63 people including 17 Americans.
October 23rd, 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in which 241 U.S. Marines were killed, and over 100 wounded.
December 12th, 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.
September 20th, 1984 bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex NE of Beirut.
There are others, but this should be enough to illustrate that it just isn’t a liberal, or Democrat, decision to not respond in kind to terrorist attacks. This is why I don’t blindly trust either party or its leadership.
Back to an earlier assertion concerning President Clinton’s ordered bombing of Iraq to destroy WMD’s in 1998; many who did not believe Saddam Hussein harbored WMD’s in 2003 based that belief on the Clinton ordered bombing, among other things, being successful in destroying Iraq’s weapons programs. As the existence of WMD’s have not been documented in Iraq after 1998, it would seem Clinton’s actions achieved their intended purpose.
To Nora and Tyler re failed Democrat leadership to fight terrorism:
My argument isn’t about Clinton lying. I think he told the truth when he said Iraq had WMDs. What liberals can never get into their heads is Bush never said there were WMD’s. He said we can’t wait until we get hit to find out. Here is his own words:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
No documented proof of WMDs since 1998? Which Moveon.org site are you reading?
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He never accounted for that material and gave no evidence that he has destroyed it.
In 2003 Iraq was blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.
Maybe that’s why Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq.
You posted again and ignored my questions again.
Dear Tyler - I anwered your question “..if Bill Clinton lied, would that make your argument stronger?” Try reading. I give Clinton as an example of Democrats failed foreign policy when it comes to dealing with terrorism. Despite the years he has been out of office, I am grasping to find a more recent Democrat who has held any actual power. If you know any - please reference!
You know as well as I do that if Al Gore were President, Saddam would still be:
- Torturing polictical prisoners. International human rights groups have catalogued methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. (what? no panty-heads like Abu-Garab? shocking!)
- torturing children while their parents are made to watch
- funding Palestinias suicide bomber families with $20,000
- ordering Iraqi officials to accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses
- blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations
- killing scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors, along with their families
Al Gore himself said Sadaam would still be in power. Thus (and here again is my point)Democrats would continue Clinton’s foreign policy of “talk big - do little/nothing” with terrorism.
Now - Instead of verbal spankings, try offering a supporting argument this time.