Posted on 06/12/2004 3:34:58 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A majority of U.S. voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq and feel the United States is getting bogged down there, according to a Los Angeles Times poll published on Friday.
In the survey of 1,230 registered voters conducted across the country from Saturday through Tuesday, 53 percent said it was not worth going to war in Iraq while 43 percent said it was and 4 percent said they did not know. The sample has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
The paper said the survey was the first time one of its voter surveys found a majority of voters doubting whether the situation in Iraq was worth the United States going to war there.
In a March L.A. Times survey 53 percent of voters said the war was worth fighting and 43 percent said it was not, a reverse of the current figure.
The paper said that 35 percent of American voters thought the United States was making good progress in Iraq while 61 percent said the country was getting bogged down there.
But 52 percent of voters said that they thought the United States was winning the war in Iraq and less than one in four said the insurgents were winning.
Despite a growing sense that the war was not justified, voters did not advocate a quick pullout of Iraq.
Less than 20 percent said America should withdraw its troops within weeks. Seventy-three percent said that there should be no specific date for withdrawal because disorder and civil war could result.
Fifty-five percent of voters said they disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war, while 44 percent approved.
On the domestic stuff, it was politics. He took away their issues, now they don't have them. He delivered tax cuts which were what the economy needed and it predictably responded. There are maybe a quarter of the electorate that are actually pacifist or defeatest, and you can probably win a statewide race in Massachusetts on that platform (probably, not entirely clear even there). But nationally, defeatism and anti-Americanism are big time political losers, no matter how hysterical the media gets.
There is a potential constituency that might not go with Bush over the war, but not for those reasons. Screw the ungrateful wretches, we got rid of Saddam now leave them in their own filth. If some thug wants to turn the shredders back on let 'em, it is about what they deserve. If nutjobs take over the place again, don't futz around with trying to govern them and seperate the nice ones from the mean ones, just nuke the lot of 'em and be done with it. None of it is worth one US Marine.
Not a sentiment I share. But not a pacifist or anti-American sentiment either. That kind of "defeatism" added to the left's kind might make a plurality. And might want to use Kerry to get our guys out. But it is a dangerous thing, because it means putting a half peacenik dove who in power will do whatever the NYT editorial page asks of him, in charge of our policy toward Iranian nuclear weapons. And we know exactly what he will do about those. He will cut them a check and applaud when they lie to him. And even the cynical "get out" crew over Iraq, don't want to see that.
Anybody want to see what President Kerry would do the day after a hit that makes 9-11 look like a Sunday picnic? Anybody want to bet the country on him, if that happens? The man is a spineless pansy. The American people know it. They aren't going to elect him commander in chief, any more than they elected McGovern. All the media hype in the world couldn't elect McGovern and it won't elect his the modern version.
“And you've won oh so many more votes that W has, right?”
No, I don’t win votes – I give a vote. The people that give votes can offer much better political advice than those that only try to win votes.
“On the domestic stuff, it was politics. He took away their issues, now they don't have them.”
Bad politics! I hate it when people try to use that as an excuse. You can’t say that it’s okay to destroy this country (immigration, spending…) if it is politically opportune. Limited government is a key aspect of the Republican party and the conservative movement. It is bad for this country (and I dare say bad politics) for Bush to abandon that aspect. If by taking away their issues, you mean that he adopted their positions on these issues, please remember – in doing so, he broke campaign promises and disappointed the many conservatives that expected him to pursue a more limited government.
“There are maybe a quarter of the electorate that are actually pacifist or defeatest, and you can probably win a statewide race in Massachusetts on that platform (probably, not entirely clear even there). But nationally, defeatism and anti-Americanism are big time political losers, no matter how hysterical the media gets.”
Don’t get me wrong. I supported the war in Iraq and adamantly defended it. I believe that the world is better off with Saddam out of power. That being said, I do not believe that this is a strong campaign issue for Bush. I only wish that he could brag of a strong domestic agenda, but he can’t, because he sold out on immigration, healthcare, campaign finance reform, and spending. I once thought gay marriage would be the issue to save him, but it seems that he plans to focus only on taxes and Iraq. Taxes are good, but he fails to recognize that the constituency which feels most strongly about tax cuts is the same group that wants spending cuts. Iraq is a gamble, and as with most gambles, the odds are against him.
“The American people know it. They aren't going to elect him commander in chief, any more than they elected McGovern. All the media hype in the world couldn't elect McGovern and it won't elect his the modern version.”
Your optimism is encouraging, but naïve You forget that “the American people” elected Clinton for two consecutive terms. The American people nearly elected Gore. The American people can be surprisingly idiotic.
It is OK for you to state the principles you'd like to see enacted. But it is silly and naive of you to think your concern for ideological purity in causes you agree with is the route to political success. Go into politics. Parade your ideological purity. You won't get 5% of the vote. Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. You don't have useful advice to give them on the subject.
Now, unprincipled pols accomplish nothing because they don't have any principles so they don't move in a direction. They just blow with the wind. But principled ones do not differ from them by never bending to get votes. On the contrary, they differ from both unprincipled pols and ideologically pure creed types. They pick their fights. Fights that they judge the most important, that they can win, and that they can string together into a campaign heading in a direction.
In Bush's case, he decided the war is the number one policy issue. Domestically, he decided the economy was the number one policy problem and tax cuts were the right policy solution - for his party and conservatism as well as the country. These are not transparently stupid issues to focus on. As picked fights, they are rather large and important ones. Dems have to be dragged to both kicking and screaming - which is instructive to the country at large, because both are also popular and obviously important.
When practical pols pick their fights well, the ball moves. But they make the job of the ideological voter somewhat harder. Unprincipled pols sell themselves as practical ones, since they have a poor rep themselves (accomplishing nothing in the long run) and practical ones have a good one. They masquerade. That puts the onus of voters to tell them apart.
If a pol acted as pure ideologue it'd be easy to tell them apart. But that is not his problem, it is the voter's problem. His job is not to make that part of the voter's job easier. It is to move the ball. In the existing state of the world, in which half the votes belong to the other side. Where policies the ideologue wants to happen, can only even get started if some of their opponents are scared to been seen opposing them.
The ideologue's reaction to all of this is typically to damn politics, and to call the other half of the voters stupid. Sure that helps. Can he make them unstupid by calling them stupid? No. He just makes himself feel better about failing to convince them. The attitude is a natural in monarchical or dictatorial politics. If the other guys are stupid, why let 'em vote? Just get somebody pure enough, screw politics, and impliment all the right policies. Which works like a charm - in the sense that charms are magic fantasies and don't work at all.
Our system is set up to require compromise. Because it is deeply distrustful of the creed approach to politics, and its monarchical tendencies. It is a far better system. Not just because the ideologues are often wrong, but also because they are forced to be more than right. They are forced to bring a majority of the people along with them. It isn't enough to have the right opinions. They also have to teach their neighbors. Politics is an educational enterprise.
You think the American people are stupid? Look at what passes for political thought in a place without such a system, like say Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Where the pols haven't been dragging the people along. You get "right" opinions out of bloodthirsty whacko fantasy. The American people aren't stupid. They didn't climb to the top of the world power system, wrecking communism and fascism and authoritarian empires along the way, by being stupid. The requirement that they be consulted and persuaded before an agenda is implimented as policy, isn't stupid either.
And there is a reason Bush is entrusted with serious political responsibilities, and you are not. He understands the world he is living in a lot better than you do. Not a little better, a lot better. Your approval is not required for this proposition to be true. "But he works for me". He works for a lot more people than you, including many at least as informed and some considerably more so.
Stating the policies you'd like to see succeed in the long run is perfectly sensible. And discussing the voter's task of telling the principled pols picking their fights but trying to move the ball in the right direction on important issues, from unprincipled ones just blowing in the wind, is also perfectly sensible. Pretending ideological purity in agreement with all of your opinions is excellent political advice, is naive to the point of silliness. The man did not get to be president by knowing less than you about how these things work.
No, they didn't ask me....but they routinely include over 12% more registered Democrats in their polls....rendering them useless.
Perhaps thats why the LA Times is laying off people due to shortfalls in advertisement revenues......(grin)
Jason C,
I apologize for my delayed response – I have been traveling and only have periodic access to the internet.
I hesitate to respond, as I think we’ve moved considerably beyond the topic of this thread. However, your last post was obviously quite thoughtful, so I will respond likewise.
“The requirement that they be consulted and persuaded before an agenda is implimented as policy, isn't stupid either.”
I couldn’t agree more. They were. I remember the debates of 2000. We, the American people, were consulted. Bush told us, “That’s the difference in philosophy between my opponent and me. He trusts government. I trust you.” Yes, we said! We like that idea. You’ve persuaded us. So, we elected him. Then, he gave us a 31.5% increase in non-defense domestic discretionary spending. Then, he decided to give us the largest expansion of an entitlement program since LBJ. He further federalized education. Sure, he trusts us, but the right to keep and bear arms might be too much for us. Oh, and what he said about trusting us with our own money during elections (Campaign Finance Reform), he didn’t really mean that. Oh yeah, and he doesn’t really trust us to talk on the phone, use the internet, or anything else like that without the possibility of government intrusion. The American people just can’t be trusted. After all, one of them might be a terrorist.
What I’m trying to say is that he consulted us and persuaded us about his agenda. But then, he completely changed his agenda. I’m criticizing him for that. That doesn’t make me “monarchial or dictatorial.” The fact that you even suggest such a thing is offensive and entirely out-of-line.
“Our system is set up to require compromise.”
I agree. But there is a difference between compromising and selling out. Bush campaigned on a smaller government. If say, he then kept the government the same size or reduced it only slightly, that would be compromise. But he didn’t, he increased its size in a way not seen for decades. That isn’t compromising, that’s selling out. I have the right to be angry.
“It is OK for you to state the principles you'd like to see enacted. But it is silly and naive of you to think your concern for ideological purity in causes you agree with is the route to political success.”
The LA Times (I know, I know, but just hear me out) poll in 2000 found that Americans prefer “smaller government with few services” to “larger government with many services” by 59 to 26 percent. I want you to find ANY poll that shows that much of a margin of support for Bush’s recent handling of the war on terrorism. Every poll on Iraq has shown that support for Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq is shaky, at best.
\
I know you don’t trust polls. But here is what you are doing: you are telling my that I am “silly and naïve” for arguing that the War in Iraq is not a very strong issue and that Bush would be better off if he had some domestic accomplishments to brag of. You say that I have no reason to believe this, yet I provide solid evidence in polls. Your response: forget the polls (they’re biased) my way is better because I said it is and because the American people are smart and wouldn’t vote for Kerry. Seriously, YOU have the nerve to tell me I’m naïve and ideological?
“Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. ”
Wrong! Every ‘practicing pol’ takes an oath before they hold their office. That is, you could say, their job description. I don’t believe any of those oaths say, “I do solemly swear that I will get all the votes I can…” Nope, but it does say something about faithfully executing the office and upholding the constitution. Obviously, they have to get elected first, but their job is to uphold the constitution. I know what you’re trying to say, but I had to correct your error.
“Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. You don't have useful advice to give them on the subject.”
But so many of them fail at getting votes. History tells us that the ones that fail are not the ones that faithfully uphold their promises and stick to their beliefs, but, in fact, it is those that sell out. People elected Bush because of what he said he would do. If he does what he said he would do (which we obviously liked), we will like him, and consequently reelect him. If he doesn’t do what he said he would do, he risks us not liking him. One example that comes to mind would be “read my lips” Bush Sr. If we had been on this board back then, I might have said, “Bush (Sr.) betrayed me by raising taxes. Too bad he sold out. That will hurt him at the ballot box.” And you might have said, “The American people aren’t stupid enough to vote for someone as spineless as Clinton. Bush will win, because he compromised. You’re too ideological. You couldn’t get 5% of the vote. Bush (Sr.) in an experienced politician, etc…”
“The American people aren't stupid. They didn't climb to the top of the world power system, wrecking communism and fascism and authoritarian empires along the way, by being stupid.”
Are you saying that they were smart to vote for Clinton two elections in a row?
Go back to how this started. You said that the American people would never elect Kerry, because ‘the American people know [that he is spineless].’ I’ve always thought that Clinton was spineless. Why didn’t the American people ‘know that’ and vote against him? Were they right to vote for Clinton? Did the fact that they voted for Clinton help us to ‘climb to the top of the world power system’? NO! Voting for Clinton was stupid. Those that voted for Clinton were acting stupidly. Many Americans voted for Clinton. Therefore, simple logic will tell us that many Americans are stupid. Those stupid Americans haven’t gone anywhere, and if (as they did with Clinton), all those stupid people again vote stupidly, Kerry could easily be elected, regardless of his spinelessness. Do I want this to happen? Of course not! I’m just saying that you are being naïve and overly optimistic to say that Kerry could never be elected because the American people ‘aren’t stupid.’
So, I know what you’re going to say. No, I’m not suggesting that we kill all the stupid people or stop them from voting. I’m not “monarchial and dictatorial.” All I’m saying is that the war in Iraq isn’t Bush’s strongest issue. We know that people like the idea of smaller government, because he campaigned on that and won in 2000. All I’m saying is that Bush would be better off at the ballot box if he had some good domestic accomplishments to brag of, but since he decided to sell-out, he will be in a much more difficult position come November, because, yes, there are many Americans stupid enough to vote for Kerry.
And you are flat wrong in your statements about what Bush campaigned on in 2000. He said he'd support a drug benefit for medicare recipients, raise federal funding for education, raise defense spending, and cut taxes. He also said he'd bomb any detected WMD sites in Iraq and support an overthrow of Saddam.
You reiterate that the American people are stupid, and your proof is that you have disagreed with them. That's cogent. It obviously needs no argument that you are their superior. Obviously Bush would be well advised to do whatever you say, because you are his better and wiser, just as you are better and wiser than his bosses.
In fact, it is a deep impenetrable mystery why you aren't already running the country in his place. Why, you'd just explain that you are for a smaller government, which polls support, and every would smack their foreheads in unison and say, "gee, he'd take an oath, what were we thinking? We coulda had a limited republic under First Citizen for Life GSC. Who wants all these freebies taken from the rich?"
Then the clouds would part, and a great white hand would come down and carry you aloft over congress, intoning, "thou shalt not tax and spend. Thou shalt make no graven regulations. Thou shalt not bother your constituents, but shall leave them to my all-sighted preaching." Then the lion would lie down with the lamb, and socialism would be but a memory; manna would rain, taxes would be paid by 3 foreigners and a single remaining liberal kept around for display purposes; all foreign enemies would realize how invincibly popular you are and not dare to cut off a single additional American head, and all the enlightened minds of conservatism present and future would humbly bow before your shrine, exclaiming as one, "just don't sell out, and victory for all that is right and true shall always follow automatically by divine providence."
Amen.
Meanwhile that idjit W has only won elections and cut taxes a measly trillion dollars and ended a recession and won 2 wars, and geez he had 3 and a half whole years to do it in, too. Numbskull should go to school at your feet, clearly.
Yeah...their polls have a lot of credibility.
Whatever. I have a life, so this will be my last post on this topic.
“You are flat wrong on what Bush campaigned on in 2000.”
He said he was for a limited government. He increased it at the fastest rate in decades. He said he was against the Campaign Finance Reform Bill – then he signed it. When it comes to spending, he didn’t compromise, he sold out.
“You reiterate that the American people are stupid, and your proof is that you have disagreed with them.”
My proof is that they voted for Clinton two consecutive terms. If that isn’t stupid, I don’t know what is. Do you think that was a smart thing to do? If they acted stupid by voting for Clinton, don’t you think they could act stupid again by voting for Kerry? Yes. That’s all I’m saying.
“In fact, it is a deep impenetrable mystery why you aren't already running the country in his place.”
Okay, now you’re just being stupid. This is a political discussion board. We give opinions about politics. Just because I say that Bush is making a bad move by focusing so much on the War in Iraq doesn’t mean that I think I should be president. Calm down and take a few deep breaths. I’m sure that, in your life, you’ve also made a few political predictions, like, um, maybe saying that Kerry could never win?
“blah, blah, blah”
Oh brother. If anyone here is living in the clouds, it is definitely you! “Oh, don’t worry, the American people are too smart to vote for Kerry – Bush will win. Besides, how could he not win, it’s his job to get votes. I know that the polls might disagree with me sometimes, but that’s okay because, every poll is biased. Only I know what’s going to happen, because only I know that the American people are too smart to vote for Kerry.”
Yeah, right. And I’m the one that’s naïve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.