From Ace, citing the media embargo of a Rasmussen poll “finding that 61% of self-identifying Democrats either believe George Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance or are not sure if he did or not”:
[…] when 61% of Democrats state they believe that George Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, or may have known of them—thus making George Bush a co-conspirator in the attacks—the media not only does no debunking whatseover, but fails to point out the left is engaging in some fairly serious myth-making itself.
Long story short:
The media considers it crazy to believe that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, had something to do with 9/11, and fights this insanity with every tool at its disposal, including outright deception.
On the other hand, the media does not apparently consider it particularly hard to believe that George Bush, President of the United States, had something to do with 9/11. If they did consider such a notion beyond the pale, one would imagine they’d publicize (and implicity mock) those crazed liberals believing that our own President aided and abetted Osama bin Ladin.
But of course they don’t. Because it’s simply not possible for a reasonble person to believe a sworn enemy of the US, known to have at least some ties with Al Qaeda, could have had a hand in the attacks, but a reasonable person could, according to the MSM, believe that a US President with no ties to Al Qaeda helped facillitate and perhaps even carry out the attacks.
Factor Ace’s observations into my argument earlier today that the MSM is not so much credulous and blinded by its hatred of all things non-progressive as it is cynically playing to the fact that we live in an cultural ethos wherein the philosophical substructures necessary for the progressive agenda to take root—among them a credulous and politically disengaged majority (which forces politicians to give more weight to those who are engaged, who, on the left, tend to be the types who believe that short-term white lies or rhetorical dodges are a practical—indeed, a moral—tool that in the end brings about the greater good, and so is justified) and an epistemology that privileges anti-foundationalism, identity politics, and linguistic totalitarianism, and it becomes clear that we’ve reached a similar ending point, but that we disagree on the nature of MSM and partisan complicity.
In general, I’m willing to give the media the benefit of the doubt—they tend to go for the sensational, and many of their drones aren’t exactly the sharpest stingers in the colony—but when it comes to memes that they continue to push even after they have been thoroughly and completely problematized or outright debunked, then we can safely say that their intent has become something far more objectionable than merely selling newspapers.
In the course of my proddings over the last few years, I’ve extracted, from the likes of Greenwald(s) and Mona, confessions that they, and many of their supporters in the ranks of “true conservatives” (read: progressives who started out in the blogosphere as cutout conservatives in order to claim a convenient political epiphany), are willing to do anything and everything—including lying (which they would reframe as finessing the narrative)—to achieve their ends.
That is, they have stated in no uncertain terms that lying in the service of larger truths is not a political sin—and in fact, it is, in the perverse logic of arrogant, presumptuous, illiberal hacks, something of a badge of honor. Muddying the narrative waters, obstructing progress, keeping their political opponents constantly on the defensive: these are the tactics of “progressivism,” and are geared toward forcing their opponents to surrender the fight for wont of being able to elevate their own voices above the din.
So while I share Ace’s jaundiced view of the MSM, I’ve come to think of them as less gullible than opportunistic, and far more cynical than simply credulous or blinded by hatred alone.
Because to be sure, they are blinded by ideological hatred; but they have taken to channeling that hatred into a willful attempt to control the electorate and shape public debate in a way that rises to the level of intentional advocacy.
But then, maybe both of us are wrong—and what we’re seeing instead is a mass hallucination happening on the right, whereby we all went to bed on 910 and woke up on 911 as giant cockroaches.
Ya no puedo caminar.
Yo no soy marinero.
BOY, YOU SURE DO GET WORKED UP! This is not complicated, the MSM is dominated by Socialists. They call themselves ‘Progressives’, but the Socialist political party in Canada also calls itself ‘Progressive’. The progressive agenda is a Socialist agenda, but Americans can’t believe it. It seems most Americans think Socialism is dead, or something, but why do you think that? Europe is still full of Socialists. Remember that in France, 46% of the population just voted for Socialism! To figure out how the MSM thinks, read the Communist Manifesto (Marx-Engels, 1848).
http://www.box.net/shared/7dnvimtb5z
That web site has a copy, but it’s only a few pages, available all over the internet. Marx writes very well, explaining clearly and concisely what he wants. It’s a pleasure to read, and it gives excellent insight about how the MSM thinks.
In many ways we’re not out of the Cold War, because after the Soviets fell, the world relaxed, but the Socialists did not. They make common cause with the Islamists because they both hate Bush with a vicious, unremitting passion. The do not want Liberal Democracy in Iraq, because they do not like Liberal Democracy.
I can’t find the poll. Did Republicans get asked the same question? Until I know that, and the results, this poll number is meaningless crap. What was the actual question posed? How big was the sample?
Until that info comes out, a single stand-alone percentage doesn’t mean much.
Gimme some context, baby!
F u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd-pyg jb.
I thought we were supposed to wake up as a butterfly?
For a good laugh, read the comments here.
Okay, found some more info. And the Dems do look far more conspiracy-addled than the GOP by a large factor. Still don’t know what the actual question is, however.
Context is important. How much knowledge would it have taken for Bush to have expected to “know” about 9/11? That’s a political question wrapped in a series of subjective and objective criteria that can be weighed differently depending on your opinion of Bush and his Administration. Add 20/20 hindsight to that mix, and you get the results you saw here.
Of course, I still want to know what the exact question was.
Back when America was a democracy and a beloved beacon of hope to all the downtrodden of the world, her media took approving notice of her prosperity, and chattered and buzzed about something they christened the wealth effect. Many stories were told and many songs were sung.
The wealth effect arose, we were told, because of the vast numbers who, through 401k plans, shared in the country’s prosperity in numbers unthinkable before such plans were developed.
And then came the Darkness, a great despairing which no amount of prosperity could hope to assail. No “wealth effect” could be found to fortify the spirits of the citizens of a troubled land. What were these 401k plans that had brought such comfort in the days of the Great Shining?
From the date on which He and His Darkness were inaugurated, January 20, 2001, the minstrels have sung of the wealth effect but seven times, and a different tune is heard. The “so-called” wealth effect had “shifted into reverse,” “kind of a poverty effect,” indeed it had become, and whatever heights yon Dow might scale, a dispirited people can but spastically clutch at those bitter remaining dregs at the bottom of Pandora’s box.
THE MORAL RELATIVISM should be a stark give-away. Marx almost single-handedly invented moral relativism. Liberals, of any stripe, are moral absolutists. For example, almost all Liberals believe in the 10 Commandments as actually saying something important. Marx disagreed. For example, he thought Socialism must seize power over the state by any expedient means, and impose Socialism from above. Morality had nothing to do with it.
He thought that people are too selfish to adopt Socialism by themselves (he had a point, but he missed the thing about most people resisting Socialism as a bad idea). For the MSM, lying is OK, deception is OK, dropping stories that fail to prove your point (eg, QANA), this is all OK, and they do it everyday, everywhere in the free world.
I often read XINHUA.COM (China’s English-language daily), because it’s quite objective. They do not have to sell any political ideologies, because they already own their people!
I’m gonna start charging for these memes, I swear…
Dang. Will ya lookit that little feller dance…
SB: land56
Ho! (Non-Nappy)
Gregor Samsa awoke to visions of Dennis “TofuPup” Kucinich explaining that there’s no War On Terror, only a Dept. of Peace for you and me forever and ever amen.
They are just following Alinky’s Rules for Radicals as they have been since Miz Clinton was babysitting migrant kids back in the ‘60’s. Geez, nobody wants to recognize all the effort that Mario Savio, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Tom Hayden put into making “by any means possible” come to life.
For crying out loud – Greenwald couldn’t carry Hoffman or Rubin’s bong.
You whippersnappers just don’t understand the good old days – when the rot was fresh and strong.
What? The Chinese English-language newspapers sell the idea that China is good and often victimized, and democracy is dangerous and unstable.
They only own the people if they can keep enough people happy with said ownership. That isn’t the same as having no ideology to sell.
Right. This obvious (to me) fact is why I consider the whole main stream media corrupt. Of course they lie to the American people. They’ve done it so often for so long that now they usually don’t even try to hide that they’re lying. There may be some MSM journalists that don’t lie but they also never contradict the ones who do.
IF THE DEMS did not have the MSM as fellow-travelers, I doubt that they could even approach a majority government. For example, Jimmy Carter is embroiled in a scandal that would get a Republican HANGED. No mention of it in the MSM. Carter seems to have been taking Saudi Oil money since before he was President.
The source was high-up, generous, viciously anti-Semitic, and very anti-Western in its views. While these Saudi Islamists were financially rescuing Carter’s peanut business, Carter was supposed to be defeating the Islamist Iranian hostage takers. Once in power, Reagan solved the hostage crisis immediately—why couldn’t Carter?
http://www.box.net/shared/7dnvimtb5z
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves!
TW: list73 recipes for the cookshops of the future. Or don’t, as it turned out.
OK, about XINHUA.COM Yes, you’re right, they are very biased when it comes to China, so I just ignore those stories. However, I still find them a useful contrast to the AP/REUTERS/UPI/AFP axis. Those services tell all the same story, even falsified & biased in the same way. At least the NORTH KOREANS put a little bit of unique spin into their lies (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm). If you don’t like XINHUA.COM, fine, it’s not THAT great anyway.
THE THING I really don’t get is why the Progressivist-Socialist news bias, from all sources, all the time? Even ‘right wing’ sources like the NY SUN are mainly reprinting AP stories. How did Socialism get hold of the MSM, and why is it keeping this DEATH GRIP, even in the face of obviously disaffected news consumers? Why would text-book capitalist news publishers like Conrad Black want to run Socialist rags? I do not get that part at all.
proscriptions trump subscriptions
Marx writes very well,
NoNO, I’m serious. Don’t sell this guy short, it’s dangerous to under-estimate your opponent. Read at least a bit of it to see what I mean. It won’t like, INFECT you or anything. Marx’s logic only works if you accept the false premise that the Bourgoisie (roughly, the middle class), are inherently bad. Then the whole thing makes sense, and of course you have to ‘smash the state’.
You have to give Marx credit for articulating quite a complicated social and economic theory. Ordinary people understood it. The Viet Cong, and many other ignorant and unworldly people believed that stuff so strongly they were willing to die for it.
I guess to talk like a protein-wisdomer, THAT’S A HEAVY MEME.
No, envy isn’t that bloody heavy, DR. All you need is to start with that and then say that the guy with more has more because he and his stole it from you – go and get your own back.
Not bloody difficult at all; but the results are bloody, indeed.
The “Bush knew” answer can be rationalized in a similar way to the “Saddam-9/11 connection” answer, although the evidence for the former is generally unserious compared to that for the latter.
I’d like to know how many Dems would answer “yes” to something like “The Bush administration was involved in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks, and is covering it up.” Because the Truthers are seriously nuts.
Thank God, another believer!
“How did Socialism get hold of the MSM, and why is it keeping this DEATH GRIP”
There was this fellow named Antonio Gramsci who came up with a great idea (or maybe stole it from the Fabians) for spreading his favorite ideology by focusing on infiltration of the institutions which control the transmission of information. The Soviets were so enamored of the idea that they spent quite a bit of energy in identifying which institutions would be most helpful in spreading concepts that embodied communist ideals.
How do we get them out of entertainment, education and the media? We don’t and we won’t. The “ideals” that they promulgate are a tad shopworn and the folks in the institutions who are still peddling have the intellectual skills (on average) of cement block but the jobs are not so performance related that anyone is going to be (or can be) fired just because they’re dumb or incompetent.
We just get to wait, watch and comment upon a very slow collapse.
PS Alinsy – Preeviw is such a useless bastard.
To: Rick
Good points. I do buy the argument that this was actually systematically done in Hollywood, before McCarthy came along. There seems to be a good body of evidence to support it, and it was workable. Pay off the person who approves scripts, and you get a lot of power for not much money. Soon, script writers know it has to be pro-left, or it won’t be accepted. Without knowing it, Producers and Directors may be playing along without knowing it, because those are the scripts they’re told to produce.
But the MSM? How would you get control of such a rabble? You would have to pay off a lot of people for a long time. Furthermore, Russia is no longer paying! No one is. The MSM propaganda machine keeps running out of control like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice got them going and then ran away.
To: Rick (again)
“We just get to wait, watch and comment upon a very slow collapse.”
Maybe you’re right, but lately I’m not so sure they will collapse, and I’m getting a bit worried. If the Dems get control of the house, senate, and executive in ‘08, the West could be speaking Arabic before their 8 years are up.
DR,
It’s just affinity – it doesn’t require much of a conspiracy or money. In the ‘30’s the NYT was already in the bag for the Sovs. Who hired and kept Walter Duranty on the payroll? Who hired and promoted comrade uncle Walty at CBS? Who decided that Steinbeck and Hemingway carried more weight than Dos Passos or Orwell after they turned?
It wasn’t the Politburo – although they undoubtedly smiled. Just affinity, like minded and lock step individuals giving fellow travelers a little help. Hollywood was rather special, the Sov penetration there was very obvious.
They’ll collapse. The “movement” has been intellectually moribund since Kojeve died. It’s just a bunch of automatons constructing vapid simulacra without rhyme or reason.
WELL, IT’S driving Western democracies into wreck and ruin.
In regards to the notion that “It’s ok to lie for our righteous progressive cause,” I’ve found many, many accusations from the left that the right “lies all the time, and we’re just doing it back.”
I think the modern left’s defining epiphany was when their epic villain, Nixon, really turned out to be a lying, plotting, conspiring villain, and they have yearned for every right-winged leader to be the same ever since. They justify their actions against such a backdrop: “We must stoop to lying to defeat the evil right’s lying.”
It highlights the flaw of “you must become a devil to defeat a devil” line of thought, espcially when your enemy isn’t actually a devil at all.
61% of Democrats are also report they have not had a bowel movement in the last week, but is it the same 61%?.
I’ve lost count of the times a commenter here has force fed the line that generally paints all Republicans and the troops as ignorant dupes because they tend to poll as seeing a connect between Saddam led Iraq and 9/11.
Haven for terrorists, payments to suicide bombers, refusal to allow weapons inspections are at least some evidence of bad behavior.
Bush has zero complicity in the 9/11 attacks…. oh wait… he was nearby
In the course of my proddings over the last few years, I’ve extracted, from the likes of Greenwald(s) and Mona, confessions that they, and many of their supporters … are willing to do anything and everythingâ€â€including lying (which they would reframe as finessing the narrative) to achieve their ends.
IIRC, even Kevin Drum confessed to something along these lines last year. It isn’t just the Monas and Greenwalds doing that.
Couldn’t find the link to save my life, though, sorry…
Well, there is either Truth, or Power. If you do not believe in Truth, then people believe what they are forced to believe; and the one with the most force wins the most adherents.
To say it is cynical is to say it is misguided is to say it is blind is to say it is gullible is to say it is opportunistic.
Regarding belief in only power; all meaning is meaningless except for the Almighty Fist. This can be seen in the projection of the left of this nightmare onto the right.
So all thoughts, ideas, values are made equal and thus equality itself is debased; and great inequality results. No thought or idea or value can be higher than another, so they are all vile and lowly.
If you press the leftist beyond the surface of claims that the right exemplifies their worst nightmare about the Religion of Power (also known as the Religion of Death..) they cannot go deeper; they can only go as deep as this nightmare is realized in themselves and they can empty its contents into the nearest ‘conservative’.
I once said: Is it not fitting, that those who rejected the idea of Rightness should be called Leftists?
The only reason to tolerate being ‘on the left’ is that you have lost the ability to discern virtue, and have decided that ‘left’ only means what you want it to mean, which is to say nothing.
Anyhow, the Gramscian or however its spelled- idea is precisely what is going on, sans the Soviet Masters. Of course, in my view, they were never really the ones with their hands at the wheel anyway.
My two dollars and fifty cents. Biggie size it, please!
WELL, IT’S driving Western democracies into wreck and ruin.
We’re doing all right.
You have to remember, the gatekeepers have always been there. In the 1930s, they gave Walter Duranty a Pulitzer Prize while he covered up the Soviets’ Ukrainian forced famines that killed millions. That would be a bit tougher today.
Eternal vigilance, etc. You know the drill.
It is not your fault is a real easy sell, especially in a capitalist economy. The reason I am a polytheist is only a committee could be this ironic.
I was just saying, the other day, that you just don’t see the word “credulous” used enough anymore. Are you in my brain again?
As Rick Ballard points out, all that’s needed is affinity. But there’s more to be said on it.
As I’ve noted here at PW, the MSM we have is one evolved from progressivism. J-school students aspire to be muckrakers, in the grand “progressive” tradition of Upton Sinclair. This is the foundation of the “profession.” Those who run the J-schools generally were steeped in that culture. And—like most of academia—it is so ossified that most on the right side of the aisle would not be attracted to the notion of bashing one’s head against a wall. Thus, journalism perpetuates its own century old political biases.
Shit, DemocracyRules is onto us. And in ALL CAPS, no less. We’ll have to cancel our plans to replace the masthead logo with the Internationale.
“among them a credulous and politically disengaged majority (which forces politicians to give more weight to those who are engaged”
It does, but I don’t believe thats why the far left has taken over the democrat party. IMO it was finally sinking in on the left that they failed. Most of their ideas didn’t work. The center left folded into Clinton ism.. Which was fine IMO.. But the far left decided to ‘go crazy’ and/or impose a psychic break on itself. It was so disillusioned but unwilling to admit it that it simply went schizty. It willed itself to forgot who it was, projected its faults onto ‘conservatives’ (anew, as it has done that plenty before), wrote a new narrative / rational for its existence (green-ism is one example)… and came out swinging at its shadow…
They sound crazy because they are crazy.. their beliefs about themselves and their opinions of their opponents are a mass [self justifying] hallucination..
I suspect that the golden political philosopher of our age is P.J. O’Rourke who said something to the effect that governent is a conspiracy of boredom. He who stays awake the longest gets to spend all the money. Unfortunately for the “progressives,” Hayek will have the last laugh, and as the universe gets “progressively” more complex, those who would be our masters will have less and less ability to influence events. The “gatekeepers” will be left holdng an empty bag.
I consider this story to be part of the same government coverup that keeps so many people believing in UFOs. Maybe when more of the media elite find themselves without jobs, and J-schools have to close, we’ll rid ourselves of the parasites who can’t understand that we can manage without their services.
And this is why I’ve thought it is figuratively 1859. What Jeff and DR are describing means that our chances of reversing this through the ballot box are slim. Maybe we will get lucky and they overplay their hand so obviously that we’ll wake up, but otherwise we’re going to have to fight. The alternative is “de-Nazification” George Soros style.
For crying out loud – Greenwald couldn’t carry Hoffman or Rubin’s bong.
You whippersnappers just don’t understand the good old days – when the rot was fresh and strong.
It was wonderful being a lefty in those days.
Cepting for all those dead Cambodians. Talk about harshing the mellow and causing a total freak out or amnesia.
Hoffman and Rubin at least knew how to bring some life to a political party. They actually made news. Funny news.
All the kids can do these days is be nostalgic about something they will never have. I blame the Republicans. In fact now I am a Republican. So take that.
MW: reached73 – not quite. But I’m working on it.
I think the modern left’s defining epiphany was when their epic villain, Nixon, really turned out to be a lying, plotting, conspiring villain, and they have yearned for every right-winged leader to be the same ever since. They justify their actions against such a backdrop: “We must stoop to lying to defeat the evil right’s lying.â€Â
I still hate Nixon. Despite being a Republican these days.
I myself am still unsure whether Michael Dukakis is a normal human being, or an android constructed by aliens from Beta Carinae.
Not sure I’d admit that to a pollster, though.
Apropos of not much, has anyone else seen Donnie Darko? There’s lots more wacky narratives that could be constructed, if one allows that this might not be the only universe.
”…I’m willing to give the media the benefit of the doubtâ€â€they tend to go for the sensational,…”
Then why are their newspapers so boring? I’d say, cable news goes for the sensational; tornadoes, Anna Nichol; but the newspapers are completely PC, predictable and boring. The exception is the New York Post, which sees its circulation growing.
“…their intent has become something far more objectionable than merely selling newspapers.”
And they’re doing a lousy job at this too! I’ve debated for years whether the MSM was simply ignorant or evil. The only logical conclusion was both.
Been there, done that (Transformation Problem, anyone?), bought the souvenir coaster set. Still unimpressed. I understand the sway Marx (or a certain synthesis of Marx, as there are many Marxisms) holds over people, so I’m not underestimating anything. I’m more worried about Stiglitz at this point, quite frankly.
I think it’s the same 61% that believe in astrology, psychics, Nigerian scam letters, no effort weight loss plans, and Socialism.
This time it’ll be different. I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.
Sigh.
IMO, the strong leftward bias of the “mainstream” media is the logical prgresion of their frustration at the growing irrelavance of their position.
In the 50’s and 60’s, the liberals in the media owned the airwaves. Cronkite declared the Vietnam was lost, and so it was. Republican were portrayed to be country club white shoe racists & snobs, and so they were. Democrats were portrayed as campaigners for “social justice” and labor rights, and so on.
The scism occured when the McGovernites took over the Democrat Party from the Scoop Jackson-types and pushed rank and file union members and other traditional Democrat voters into voting for Nixon. This baffled the East Coast media elites, for they’d been defeated in an election they truly felt belonged to them. Remember the
Pauline Kael’s famous remark, “How did Nixon win? I don’t know anyone who voted for him?”
Once Nixon was exposed as the venal, evil Republican they all knew all along that he was,
their world spun back onto it’s axis and Jimmy Carter brought order back into their world.
But again, the public grew disenchanted with the results of the limp-wristed liberals and Reagan patched back together the coalition that Nixon first won, and the media, unable to give any credit to Nixon for anything, named the, “Reagan Democrats”.
Soon, Rush Limbaugh emerged as a contrary voice. He presented a national alternative perspective that couldn’t be ignored, unlike say, a Paul Harvey, whose brand of populist conservatism was mostly a midwest phenomenon, easily ignored by the major media types on both coasts.
During the Clinton years, Rush became such a thorn in their side, that the media did eveything in their power to discredit and destroy him, including having the President directly attack him.
But, the final straw that’s caused the leftist media to take the mask off and become little more then another instrument of the Democrat Party, has been the success of Fox News, or Faux News as they like to call it.
Once the “other side” had a reliable voice, presenting the perspective the establishment media refused to acknowledge, all bets were off and out the window went any pretense of “fairness”. That allowed things like the Dan Rather forged documents scandal to become standard operating procedure. It’s not that big a leap from pushing obviously forged documents to tacitly supporting a meme that allows the belief that a sitting President to be complicit in the murder of 3,000 Americans.
Or are not sure if he’s sure whether he did. Or not.
That’s sorta like saying, “Hey, that’s a really, really nice dog shit sculpture.”
.
.
.
TW: Marxism was supposed to help the poor18. It didn’t, it only made more of them.
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be stoned was very heaven!
A similar percentage of voters believes Bush knew about 9/11 as currently support him (35% say he knew; the Man has an approval rating of 28%)? That says something on the face of it, doesn’t it?
Clearly, the ability to have a 28% favorable rating means you are a) an incompetent boob, b) just fired a war hero less than 2 years after he saved Korea and finsihed reforming Japan, or c) have presided over an economic downturn which leaves 33% of the public out of job.
Bush is clearly “a”, which ipso facto means the dunderhead and his pals couldn’t pull off 9/11> For Christ’s sake, they were on vacation! They couldn’t even adequately plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq! How would people like this be able plan 9/11?
Those 35% are just morons.
I cannot, to this moment, fathom that there are more people out there who think Rosie O’Donell is right (35%) than think Jeff is right (28%)…man, there’s something wrong with our politics.
Let’s hope the new President can help fix that.
timmah, you’re boring.
The 28% is just the media pulling your dick, timster. Careful you don’t let them give you a callus.
And you are boring.
These comment timestamps need to give the year. I could swear I’ve seen all that before.
You know, timmah, your beloved Congress is polling in the same range. But hey, at least they’re “Strong. Smart. Tough.”
Remember the “Strong. Smart. Tough. Democrats.” Coming to a New York Times Magazine article near you….
So, does anyone think Waxman is channeling Glenn Greenwald in his attempt to do the Joe McCarthy thing with Condi Rice? Same sh*t, different form of BDS.
Part of what makes it boring is that Truman was reviled at the time as (d) all of the above, but is pretty well-regarded by history. Yet timmah fails to consider the obvious parallel.
timmah = Garrison K.
Democrats believe every war is Vietnam, every Republican is Nixon, and every Democrat is JFK. Republicans believe every war is WWII, every Republican is Reagan, and every Democrat is Carter.
I’m still trying to figure out what the goddamn popularity polls have to do with anything. Other than “shaping the narrative”, that is.
As I (repeatedly) try and explain to my moonbat brother-in-law:
“He’s not RUNNING for anything. And YOU DIDN’T VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY! So why the hell should he care about your ridiculous opinion?”
The usual thoughtful response runs something like:
“HE WORKS FOR ME!”
Sigh.
See, Karl, I thought I did mention that Truman had just fired a war hero…silly me, that would mean you could read. He fired that war hero, of course, because in the grand tradition of war-mongering fools that war hero wanted to continue a war that Truman had decided needed to be over AND Mac further wanted to “surge” it into China. Again, Karl, take your time and energy you expend screaming about being right and see what I said: politics in this country is broken.
As for happyfeet, great link. Did you know self-identifying Republican (outside of this bastion) here have dropped to around 30% of the population? http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070425_NBC-WSJ_Full.pdf
It’s harder to find you people to ask questions of you! It’s like saying Navajos were under-polled, because they weren’t 50% of the poll.
But, I do take your point, since Gallup has Bush at a widely divergent 34% (my God that 6% margin of error is an untapped gold mine of support!). The point of the post was that the President’s job approval is only slightly north of the number of Americans (22%) who are absolute kooks. But, you know Georgie’s widely popular, even though no one else will admit it to a pollster, so touche for you.
McGehee, if the numbers sounded familiar, it’s because the President has been wildly unpopular for the last 7 months (I read somewhere no modern President has pulled 7 months of sub-40’s), but cheer up, you only have 21 more months of complete suckage before January 2009. After that, you can have a sweet Republican to love anew or an evil Democrat to hate. The future is so bright for you.
Actually, Tim, Big Mac got fired for insubordination (very PUBLIC insubordination) to the CinC.
Quite properly, too.
Timmyb, you might pause mid-gloat occasionally and reflect that your tribe does not cope well at all in political down times. When that day comes, I truly hope there’s someone who’ll bring you chockit milk and sour patch kids and hold you while you cry.
Yep. Essentially, he was pulling a Pelosi. Unlucky for him, he was part of the Executive branch, so it got him the appropriate penalty.
That’s an awful long time to put up with Pelosi and Reid, though. Oh wait—their numbers are lower than that.
Who were you talking about, again?
Posted by BlueNight | permalink
“Democrats believe every war is Vietnam, every Republican is Nixon, and every Democrat is JFK. Republicans believe every war is WWII, every Republican is Reagan, and every Democrat is Carter.”
Sorta close… but I don’t think ‘we’ think any republicans are Reagan. Plenty of us didn’t mind seeing them loose the last election cycle either…
[…] stop “the Left” from hanging on their every word like Rosie O’Donnell to a conspiracy theory, or Michael Moore to a Ring […]