Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal js7a's Journal: Cat's in the Cradle 24

Journal by js7a
The pollsters for Newsweek, NBC, and the Wall Street Journal, Princeton Survey Research Associates, say that Bush just scored "his most negative ratings to date" from all adults, and is losing reelection 52-to-44% with registered voters. Dispite that, people overwhelmingly (78%) think he is going to win. That apparent contradiction is not necessarily a bad thing at this time, because the word-of-mouth around water coolers, dinner tables, backyard fences, and town squares (not to mention letters to the editor) will be strengthened against Bush as long as the majority is both against him and believing he will win. If the same thought pattern prevails in November, though, it could lead to low turnouts.

So, normally, I would be more enthusiastic about these new poll numbers, but a whole lot of bad news just hit over the past couple of weeks, so it could be a fluke. In addition to the Plame grand jury, the dollar continues to make new lows against the euro, and fell under the 106 yen watermark dispite the Bank of Japan and European Central Bank's out-in-the-open admission that they are fighting the dollar's slide (with derivatives, even; to no avail.)

The big news out of Iraq seems to be the fact that the vast majority of the insurgents at present aren't pro-Saddam, they're anti-U.S. However, the CIA is now more or less on record in agreement with the conventional wisdom that Iraq is at a huge risk of civil war, whether they hold direct elections or just caucases; whether the U.S. stays in or pulls out. And budget officials say Bush needs another $40 billion to stay in, this year. The establishment isn't helping Bush much either, with an Army War College report detailing why, "The war against Iraq was not integral to the war on terror, but rather a detour from it." And Davos security analysts directly contradicting the party line that the Iraq war made the U.S. safer. Just as Coleen Rowley predicted back in March.

Plus, there is finally some solid documentary evidence about why Bush lied to get Congress to approve the war, not just how (which I've repeatedly been over in detail.) As Paul O'Neill's "secret" document shown on 60 Minutes indicated, it was in fact, from day one all about the oil. The telling response from the administration came very swiftly. Without denying any of O'Neill's claims, they launched an investigation against him.

Things are pretty bad on the home front, too. The federal goverment is claiming that states aren't accessing education funds but the states say that's because they haven't been able to do so. It's fairly clear that the federal Department of Education is at fault and they are apparently just making things up to try to deflect blame for their policy failures.

Oh, and guess what? The Baby Boomers are going to retire much earlier than had previously been expected. I hope Josh Bolton gets that question next week.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cat's in the Cradle More

Cat's in the Cradle

Comments Filter:
  • I think Bush is going to win too, but if the poll results stick over time I'll have to change my opinion.
  • After Florida, after hanging chads and selected winners, the rules of the game have changed.

    I think that the Dean machine is, in part, born out of this; whether or not he is the nominee, the value of the vote has been shown and people--so long as they remember--will vote.

    Fickle minds may forget, but as long as we remember, as long as we don't let wedge agenda items like gay marriage overwhelm the value of each vote, we can win it.

  • Given that polls are structured differently, I'm not sure if there is any statistically significant movement in the poll numbers (although the poll you name is probably the better structured/more accurate poll). Of course, in a very real way there has been no significant movement in the numbers since the last election.....

    If the Dems numbers are up, I think it is because actually holding a primary is good for a political party. It gives all your candidates exposure; if you have any kind of contest, people
    • Yeah; I'm strongly in favor of the candidate with the best chances, even Clark, who I dislike because he supports a consitutional amendment to ban flag burning. But if that's what it takes to beat Bush, pass the kool-aid.

      For the time being, though, I'm very happy to see Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards in a close race. That will keep the media attention heavy (close == excitement == ratings) and also keep Karl Rove unable to effectivly move against any one of them or focus on opposing strategies. It wou

  • Polls (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    First, your quoted numbers are deceptive; he does not lose reelection 52-44, because that figure is against an "unnamed candidate." But the candidate he faces will have a name and a record, will have views and issues. Individual candidates, real people, do not have such a margin.

    Bush has not yet begun to campaign. The nightly news and media are filled with attacks on the President. He has only had the SotU, and has not really said anything against the Democrats. Bush's job approval rating right now is

    • And please stop lying about the oil "evidence." All it shows is that they were planning for what to do with the oil following the removal of Hussein. So what? How could you plan for removal of Hussein and NOT plan for what to do with the oil? That would make no sense. An objective and sane observer could not possibly think this proves the war was "about oil."

      Let me get this straight. You're saying that even though they had a list of companies in early 2001 entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield [oregonlive.com]

      • Re:Polls (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Jhon ( 241832 )
        THESE [judicialwatch.org] documents are what you are refering to with the "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts".

        Please tell me how you make the leap from these documents to suggest the invasion was about "oil". Please note ALL the documents in that release. Also note THIS [judicialwatch.org] press release and further note that they were part of a larger group that included similar materials for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It's amazing how the credibility of your claims falls apart when the materials are actually put in CONTEXT.

        That d
      • You're saying that even though Colin Powell is black, and so is Michael Jackson, that Colin Powell isn't a child molester too?

        I can speak nonsense too, if that's really where you want to go.

        You are not making a case for anything. You are citing a fact and assuming it must mean what you want it to mean, when in fact, there is no evidence it means that, at all.

        Just because they were looking for people to handle the oil contracts doesn't mean the war was about oil. They were looking for people to handle t
        • Yo, so let's pretend that the war wasn't about oil. What was it about? Not WMD, obviously. Not making America safer, unless you think living American soldiers constitute a danger to the homeland. Not making Iraq democratic, since the occupation authority refuses to allow free elections, free media, or free labor unions (Bush's speechifying aside). Seriously, you can bash the "nonsense" of the antiwar side all you want, but please do us the service of telling us what the war was all about, if you in fact kno

          • "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say y

            • Well, unlike you, I don't believe something just because Bill Clinton said it. A lie does not become true simply by being bipartisan. Both the testimony of former weapons inspectors (Scott Ritter), former regime people (Hussein Kamal), and the then-present inspectors (Blix and El-Baradei) confirmed that Iraq possessed no weapons. And even supposing that they still couldn't be sure, why did the Bush administration tell such outrageous lies (the Niger uranium story being only the most ludicrous) to support th
              • Unlike you, I don't believe every thing once believed was the result of a "lie". Bipartisan or not.

                What you seem to fail to grasp is that the War wasn't so much about Iraq having WMDs, but more about preventing them from GETTING WMDs. This illustrated in the state of the union address from 2003 where Bush flat out said:

                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 t

                • Both the testimony of former weapons inspectors (Scott Ritter), former regime people (Hussein Kamal), and the then-present inspectors (Blix and El-Baradei) confirmed that Iraq possessed no weapons.

                  Please be so kind as to provide citation materials for this enlightening information.

                  In February 2001, Colin Powell said [state.gov] that Hussein, "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." In July 2001, Condi Rice said, "we are able to keep arms from him; his military

                  • Your lack of reading skills astonishes me. The OP said the following:

                    Both the testimony of former weapons inspectors (Scott Ritter), former regime people (Hussein Kamal), and the then-present inspectors (Blix and El-Baradei) confirmed that Iraq possessed no weapons

                    To which I disagreed and provided something from Blix TO THE UN just weeks before the invasion which COMPLETELY disagreed with the OPs statement.

                    You provide text and a link of an interview with with Powell in Egypt in 2001 -- NOTHING cited fro

                    • So you're saying that our view of our own security changed after 9/11 such that our data resulting in claims that Iraq could not even threaten its neighbors is completely consistent with our subsequent claims that they were a direct threat to us?

                      You are dubing me a tinfoil hat head, and standing up for a regime that claimed to Congress that Iraqi drones filled with anthrax were ready to attack the East Coast, on the eve of the vote authorizing force, when the only direct intelligence available indicated t

                    • So you're saying that our view of our own security changed after 9/11 such that our data resulting in claims that Iraq could not even threaten its neighbors is completely consistent with our subsequent claims that they were a direct threat to us?

                      Yes. Pre 911 our goal was regional stability. Our main concern was keeping Iraq from attacking any of it's neighbors. Containment was key. After 911, we realized that we (the US) was a lot more vulnerable than we would ever let ourselves believe. Those unacc

                    • NOBODY is suggesting those drones were a deliberate lie.

                      On the contrary, since the last time we discussed this, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report [matrixgroup.net] has been published which discusses the drones in detail on pages 40-42. Although the issue of whether the lie was "deliberate" is left to the reader, the report is clear in that the administration reported the drones with absolute certainty on several occasions when they had no evidence that such UAVs had ever been used by Iraq for chemical

                • Something about the quote "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving" rang a bell. It is not from Blix's 2003 report to the UN; it is from George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech [whitehouse.gov] . Surely there is a difference?

                  I am going to extend to you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just seriously misinformed, not actually dishonest. In that spirit, please consult Counter-Dossier II [traprockpeace.org] by Glen Rangwala, which refutes every claim made by the war-boosters using official and

                  • I believe you are correct. I should have provided a link to the material and read it more throughly. I believe it was a research article which combined both the Blix report 2003 and an analysis of said report and some of the results - including Bush's SotU address. I'll search for the original link and provide it if I find it.

                    I'll eat this one. The quote I provided was inaccurate and for that I humbly appologize . I'm usually much better at providing supporting citations.

                    However, with that said I'll
          • so let's pretend that the war wasn't about oil

            I did not say the war was not about oil: I said that the evidence provided did not prove that it was about oil. Please stick to the point.
  • Bush is going to lose many conservative votes in November, I think the pundants and neo-cons underestimate just how disgusted old school conservatives are with Bush.

    The feeling among many of his base is that they are tired of being treated by republicans like minorities are treated by democrats "who else are you going to vote for"

Slashdot Top Deals

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Close