American's View Of GOP Crumbles With Iraq

[Psychoblues]

Maybe it’s a religious thing?



America's view of GOP crumbles with Iraq

By Thomas F. Schaller
Special to The Baltimore Sun

Article Last Updated: 02/15/2007 11:20:07 PM MST

According to the latest Gallup survey, Republican self-identification has declined nationally and in almost every American state.
Why? The short answer is that President Bush's war of choice in Iraq has destroyed the partisan brand Republicans spent the past four decades building.
That brand was based upon four pillars: that Republicans are more trustworthy on defense and military issues; that they know when and where markets can replace or improve government; that they are more competent administrators of those functions government can't privatize; and, finally, that their public philosophy is imbued with moral authority.
The war demolished all four claims.
In uniform or out, Americans think Iraq is a disaster, oppose escalation and blame Bush and his party for the mess in Mesopotamia. Heading into the 2006 mid-terms, polls showed Republicans trailing Democrats as the party most trusted to handle Iraq and terrorism. Nationally, Bush's war approval ratings hover around 30 percent.
Military members are skeptical, too. A Military Times poll released in December revealed that only 35 percent of military members approved of the president's handling of the war - despite the fact that 46 percent of them are self-identified Republicans (down from 60 percent in previous Military Times polls) while just 16 percent are Democrats.

More: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5238026

Maybe it ain’t.

Psychoblues

Americans Gotta Keep On Truckin’

[avatar4321]

But why do people have negative approval of the President's handle of the war? is it because they agree with Democrats, or because they believe the opposite is true and the President hasnt done enough.

[Gunny]

Maybe it’s a religious thing?



America's view of GOP crumbles with Iraq

By Thomas F. Schaller
Special to The Baltimore Sun

Article Last Updated: 02/15/2007 11:20:07 PM MST

According to the latest Gallup survey, Republican self-identification has declined nationally and in almost every American state.
Why? The short answer is that President Bush's war of choice in Iraq has destroyed the partisan brand Republicans spent the past four decades building.
That brand was based upon four pillars: that Republicans are more trustworthy on defense and military issues; that they know when and where markets can replace or improve government; that they are more competent administrators of those functions government can't privatize; and, finally, that their public philosophy is imbued with moral authority.
The war demolished all four claims.
In uniform or out, Americans think Iraq is a disaster, oppose escalation and blame Bush and his party for the mess in Mesopotamia. Heading into the 2006 mid-terms, polls showed Republicans trailing Democrats as the party most trusted to handle Iraq and terrorism. Nationally, Bush's war approval ratings hover around 30 percent.
Military members are skeptical, too. A Military Times poll released in December revealed that only 35 percent of military members approved of the president's handling of the war - despite the fact that 46 percent of them are self-identified Republicans (down from 60 percent in previous Military Times polls) while just 16 percent are Democrats.

More: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5238026

Maybe it ain’t.

Psychoblues

Americans Gotta Keep On Truckin’

As usual, all I see are allegations an no substantiation.

[theHawk]

But why do people have negative approval of the President's handle of the war? is it because they agree with Democrats, or because they believe the opposite is true and the President hasnt done enough.

Logical questions like that are not welcome during partisan attacks on a President.

[Psychoblues]

Did Nov. 7, 2006 not prove anything to you? The logical things were bypassed years ago by the President. It took a few years for it to catch up with him. Americans are generally not happy with the neocons, the war on Iraq, and are unconvinced that the president's War On Terror is sincere or being competently carried out.



Logical questions like that are not welcome during partisan attacks on a President.

That is the way it is and how do you propose to illuminate it further?


Psychoblues


Americans Gotta Keep On Truckin'

[eighballsidepocket]

Did Nov. 7, 2006 not prove anything to you? The logical things were bypassed years ago by the President. It took a few years for it to catch up with him. Americans are generally not happy with the neocons, the war on Iraq, and are unconvinced that the president's War On Terror is sincere or being competently carried out.

That is the way it is and how do you propose to illuminate it further?

Psychoblues

Americans Gotta Keep On Truckin'

Well, when the media and the liberals right after 9/11 go on a "shut their mouths" retreat for about 6 months and then come out with both guns blasting against the war attitude, you know they're just politico's to the core, and want their power-base back.

Every day, ABC,CNN,CBS, and NBC solemnly (:laugh2: ) announce the American body-bag count as part of their hourly radio/T.V., and nightly prime time T.V. broadcasts.

Us Americans, are deluged by the main printed media with this same mantra too.

It never stops. "Bush bad", "Iraq war bad", "Americans disenchanted", and "solemn" news-heads sitting at their (thrones) desks trying hard to not crack a smile as they covertly are thinking, "Yippee, another negative Iraq happening, Bush is done, and the GOP is "dead meat":dance: in 08.).

If the negative is accentuated contantly, not only those that our conservative, but easily those that are liberal/democrat will gradually "wilt" under the deluge of one-sided/slanted news broadcasts.

Not only that, you have the "vaunted" of the public eye......or the Hollywood elite that chime-in their distaste for anything conservative, and also get "cart blanc" over-exposure of their political views aimed at Joe and Jane public, as though we are hearing the words of esteemed, knowledgeable, diplomatic, statesmen and women. Sean Penn, Robbins, Sarandan, Bab's Streisand........and now even Clint Eastwood (:eek:).

Ever wonder why past president of the Screen Actor's Guild Union, Ronald Reagan's portrait is not hung in the Guilds main union building in Southern California with the other past guild presidents? Oh there's no bias in Hollywood folks.............:laugh2:
******
I find that conservatives as a general rule, hate the policies of liberals, but liberals hate the conservative policy makers. There seems to be a "subjective versus objective" mindset here, as they (liberal establishment) take the "us versus them" thing to a personal height, instead of centering their critiques on the policies. They resort to referring to the president as Chimpy, a dumby, or some other un-intellectual put-down, rather than staying issue-oriented.

That's why films depictiing GWB's assassination are considered in good taste by the liberal media and politicos. His assassination is on the covert wish-list with their far left cousins whom them embrace with open arms.
****
Sadly, the U.S. media has been on a liberal, "bent" since the McCarthy hearings era. Sen. McCarthy's exuberance to unearth "commies" in the film industry was his undoing, as he was scratching and irritating a sleeping Lion(the unofficial 4th branch of U.S. government)......ala all public media giants.........who up to that time were fairly benevolent in expressing their hidden, political agendas. Nixon was also a McCarthy era champ, and his Watergate doings, though wrong, and illegal were blown to monumental proportions by the liberal, and ever powerful media.
*****
If the liberal establishment didn't have the support of 99% of Hollywood's elite, 99% of mainstream printed press, and the still, ever present, big hunk of mainstream T.V. prime time evening news, the difference in our present political climate in this country would be like night and day.

As long as the Poly Sci majors are the main suppliers of man-power into journalism, we are never going to have fair and balanced news, as we did in the Edward R. Murrow days.

When I mention Poly Sci majors, I'm referring to the 99% crops that are graduating out of our esteemed:laugh2: universities. These esteemed universities, who's Poly Sci, and Journalism departments are mainly staffed with full blown liberal Profs and publically avowed communits, and master's credited teachers of similar bent, will continue to adversely affect mainstream journalism.

These 18 and 19 year old Freshmen entering these institutions who want to make a difference in the world, are immediately brain washed by non neutral, politcally motivated instructors, and then "spit" out into the public, in four years with their Cum Laud, and their square board hat tassle. These innocent, balanced (for the most part) 18 and 19 year olds, graduate out as mid-twenties adults filled with liberal idealism. Their parents taught them to respect authority. They send them off to school. They(Freshmen) listen to this new, alleged, eye-opening rhetoric from their profs, about how they can be "world changers" etc.. They never learn the true tenets of journalism.......which is, "Present the news! Don't interpret it for the public!". We the public who have been brought up to rely on the balanced, Edward R. Murrows of yesterday, often don't see the difference for the "trees"! We've been taught for the most part to see and hear the news as just that; the news. With trusting hearts and minds. Unfortunately, the news is now over 50% editorialized, but covertly in most cases. The overt areas would be the Mathew"s, Keith Oberman's and the other liberal talking heads, that do the front line work with their liberal bayonets. As they take the heat, and get the most criticisms from the conservative elements, the Corrick's, and others hide under the guise of false, unbias while giving us the nightly "truth":laugh2: .

[avatar4321]

Did Nov. 7, 2006 not prove anything to you? The logical things were bypassed years ago by the President. It took a few years for it to catch up with him. Americans are generally not happy with the neocons, the war on Iraq, and are unconvinced that the president's War On Terror is sincere or being competently carried out.

That is the way it is and how do you propose to illuminate it further?


Psychoblues


Americans Gotta Keep On Truckin'


November 7th proved alot to me. Ignore conservatives and you lose elections.

You seem to think that America said they suddenly agree with your leftist positions and thats why Democrats won. The reason Democrats won is because Conservatives were fed up with being ignored by the politicians we elected and didn't show up to reelect them. Personally, i think the conservatives who did this were incredibly stupid for doing so. But that doesnt change the fact that they did do it.

[TheStripey1]

But why do people have negative approval of the President's handle of the war? is it because they agree with Democrats, or because they believe the opposite is true and the President hasnt done enough.

maybe because they are tired of being lied to and they can see what is happening on their TVs just doesn't gibe with what comes out of the white house....

[TheStripey1]

As usual, all I see are allegations an no substantiation.

I think the substantiation is in the poll numbers...

[TheStripey1]

Logical questions like that are not welcome during partisan attacks on a President.


unless of course the president is a democrat and then it's ok... right?

[TheStripey1]

Well, when the media and the liberals right after 9/11 go on a "shut their mouths" retreat for about 6 months and then come out with both guns blasting against the war attitude, you know they're just politico's to the core, and want their power-base back.




as I recall, there was unity in both Washington and the country after 9/11... it was when bush decided he didn't care where Osama Been Forgotten was and decided to attack Iraq instead, that the dems jumped the unity ship... and the president that claimed to be the uniter became instead the divider...

[stephanie]

as I recall, there was unity in both Washington and the country after 9/11... it was when bush decided he didn't care where Osama Been Forgotten was and decided to attack Iraq instead, that the dems jumped the unity ship... and the president that claimed to be the united became instead the divider...

What, do you have a book of all the Democrat talking points sitting next to your computer??

That's all you spout...

Sheeesh...

Parrot..

[Gunny]

I think the substantiation is in the poll numbers...

I don't. You picked the wrong substantiation for me. I think ALL polls are full of crap and represent the agendas of who is doing the polling. All I ever see from them are "loaded," or one-sided questions.

Unfortunately for our society, there are those who believe them to be gospel truth.

[TheStripey1]

What, do you have a book of all the Democrat talking points sitting next to your computer??

That's all you spout...

Sheeesh...

Parrot..

no... my thoughts are my own, too bad you can't say the same...

talk about talking points... that's ALL that comes out of your mouth... right wing talking points, straight from the elephant's ass...

[TheStripey1]

I don't. You picked the wrong substantiation for me. I think ALL polls are full of crap and represent the agendas of who is doing the polling. All I ever see from them are "loaded," or one-sided questions.

Unfortunately for our society, there are those who believe them to be gospel truth.

I don't like polls either... never have... ask Mr. P... or Gadget... cuz way back when we first met, I used to say on Nonviolence.org that I have never been asked anything by any of them...

and those that believe the polls come from both sides of the aisle... it all depends on how they lean... the polls that is...

but it cracks me up how many people that USED to be for the polls when they were in bush's favor now oppose them...

[Gunny]

I don't like polls either... never have... ask Mr. P... or Gadget... cuz way back when we first met, I used to say on Nonviolence.org that I have never been asked anything by any of them...

and those that believe the polls come from both sides of the aisle... it all depends on how they lean... the polls that is...

but it cracks me up how many people that USED to be for the polls when they were in bush's favor now oppose them...

Well, you won't find me in that bunch. I've never liked them, and considered them pretty-much as described from the get-go. Some posters I have run into in the past base their entire beliefs on poll results.

I don't get it.

[glockmail]

Did Nov. 7, 2006 not prove anything to you? ....

The party in power typically loses more in the 3rd congressional term then the GOP did.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I think it's a colossal tragedy that both conservativism and the GOP have come to be associated with an insane and pointless war. Because all the great stuff about conservatism is swallowed up by this, and how many young people want to get involved or find out more? It's hard enough on college campuses.

[Psychoblues]

It's tragedy for sure.


I think it's a colossal tragedy that both conservativism and the GOP have come to be associated with an insane and pointless war. Because all the great stuff about conservatism is swallowed up by this, and how many young people want to get involved or find out more? It's hard enough on college campuses.


Is your warning that the lives of whites will somehow be impacted by the successes of the otherwise an honest appraisal of the way you see things?

You, sir, are a turd not worthy of permission to post on this board or any other, as I see it.