Thursday, September 21, 2006

Anti-war drumbeat alienates voters

According to the LaTimes, Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters
In June, Republicans led Democrats by 9 percentage points when voters were asked which party they trusted most to handle national security and the war on terrorism. In the new poll, voters prefer Republicans by 17 percentage points, 49% to 32%.

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly summarizes the dilemma one way,
Note, though, that "Republicans have nearly doubled their lead when voters are asked which party they trust most to protect the nation against terrorism." The Democratic message is apparently not getting through either.
They also have a nice graph from the times that highlights the rest of the poll.

Basically, I disagree with Drum's conclusion. The main Democratic anti-war message is getting through, it's just turning off voters. The Republicans on the war and on terrorism are as incompetent as ever, the only thing that's changed is that the once rabid war hawks now appear moderate thanks to the liberal anti-war movement. It will be interesting to see how this uptick in Republican support plays out with the weak-kneed three.

LATIMES, Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters, Ron Brownstein, September 21, 2006.

Wasington Monthly IRAQ AND TERROR, Kevin Drum, September 21, 2006.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, the message is getting out there, its just that people dont want to be pacifist wussies. They see the tide of islamic agression expanding to our shores and around the world and want something done about it. We dont want to talk and negotiate with people who's starting point is our death.

The Democrats cant figure that out, which is why this election season is going to be another bout of post election depression for them, hopefully they will all hold firm and move to Canada or Europe like they promised the last few election cycles.Good riddence to wussy rubbish I say.

bluecoat said...


Courtney details Iraq war stance
By Mike Cummings, Journal Inquirer
09/20/2006


Poll: War on minds of young voters
Mary E. O’Leary, NHR Register Topics Editor September 21, 2006


Not everybody is cuckoo for cocoa puffs when it comes to counterterrorism and national security.

disgruntled_republican said...

Remember back in school...did you want to be friends with the cool kid who could handle his own in a fight or the wussie who got pummelled?

The cool kid of course. If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times - The real problem for democrats is that they have no plan. Take the 2nd congressional debate the other night. 15 minutes of babbling and Courtney still didn't answer anything about Iraq. Sure he said that the Bush strategy was wrong and Rummie had to go but offered zero, zilch, nada, in the way of new ideas. Then he pinned any hope on having a D congress. Beat that drum all you want, please, because we Republicans love it.

ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL. If the far left ever figures this out maybe, just maybe, they can win something. Someone in Pomfret doesn't give a hoot about the entire country when voting for a Congressman. Sure they give it some thought but in the long run they care about who is going to deliver for them. You need to tell them why you are the right choice, not why your opponent isn't. As of yet, we have not seen this from the Democrat congressional candidates in CT.

Now I await my verbal beating from the liberal bloggers here and I will take it. As your levels of anger rise while reading this, just think back to the last time a Democrat actually won an election when it mattered...oh, and Ned doesn't count...last time I check it was still Joe in D.C.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Hugo Chavez, the Republican hopes are getting even better.

I think that the Democrats understand the potential weakness in the anti-war campaign, that is why they are really running an anti-Bush campaign. Let's face it, the President is not popular.

However, having Hugo Chavez stand before the UN and call Bush the devil will help rally some support for the President. You know the old theory, "He may be a bum, but he's our bum."

One other thing that I hope the Republicans will pounce on: yesterday, while speaking at a college in NY, Chavez continued to hammer Bush and he got a standing ovation from college professors and union members (at least that is what is being reported in the press). Not a surprise, I guess.

turfgrrl said...

disgruntled_republican -- except in this case the "cool kid" is not so cool, kinda pointdextery and dorky, and has just been consistently paying for outsourced bully protection services that have resulted in the protectees still getting pummeled, paying more for it, and unable to to get a pass to the nurses office without insurance ...

Anonymous said...

turfgrrl - what the f@&# does that mean?????????

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 1018 -

It's an obvious jab at the Republican party. Obviously she too missed the mainn point of my post. I thought the CAPS would have helped. GUess not.

bluecoat said...

Actually, it makes a lot of sense to first define your opponent - nd your opponents political allies - so that next you can give the voters an alternative. Bush has totally f--ked up the situation in the Middle East with his fales bravado and now our military is working to straighten it out - even pointing out that they can never kill all the terrorists and that diplomacy and political change needs to take place in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Joe talks the same "holy war" bullshit as Bush while Lamont is absoulutely wrong to think you can "bring the troops home" without first bringing stability - security, economic and political - to the two countries that we have invaded while at the same time continuing to protect our interests in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

"ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL. If the far left ever figures this out maybe, just maybe, they can win something."

disgruntled, I agree. But to show you how far lost the national democratic party is, it was the quintessential liberal democrat, Tip O'Neil (a true partisan in the good sense) who coined the phrase!

Of course, electing a SF liberal like Nancy Pelosi is another pretty good indication of how far the democrats have moved from the center too.

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat-

You just committed the same mistake. They are running against an incumbant, not President Bush. That is why the Republicans will retain control - they are making the same mistake you made.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon -

And that may have been around the last time they won a race that mattered too!

Well said.

bluecoat said...

the only mistake I made was a spelling mistake and it's corrected in bold italics: "Actually, it makes a lot of sense to first define your opponent - and your opponents political allies....

disgruntled_republican said...

My point bluecoat, simply is that Bush as nothing to do with the Senate race, or any other race in CT for that matter. A farmer in eastern CT cares more about who is helping him, the small business owner in Wethersfield feels the same and the guys working for defense contractors want to know who is going to keep them working. That is first and foremost on their minds.

It is true Tip coined the phrase but it is Republican campaigns that remember it.

bluecoat said...

Not really true for all, DG, but enjoy your Rob Simmons political universe - I saw his ad last night.

disgruntled_republican said...

OK bluecoat, beleve what you want to. It isn't just me that beleives it. Anyway, I am done getting into pissing contests with you.

bluecoat said...

I always piss with the wind, never against it. Still hurting on the enivronmental issue at the subbase, DG?

Anonymous said...

Just curious - where's rubenstein been? Last I heard he was having breakfast with GC and now he's gone missing from these posts.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon -

Bruce is at trial right now. I was wondering the same thing so I emailed him. He told me he will be back soon.

ALSO

Just moments ago on Fox News:

Chuck Rangel, thats right - Congressman Chuck Rangel from Harlem was on Fox News - chidded Hugo Chavez and said, "don't come to this country and insult our President."

What's with that?

A 9:56 said...

Rangel knows that Chavez' remarks could help Bush and, if the Democrats don't come out and condemn such remarks, hurt the Democrats at the same time. Smart move by Rangel, but I still contend that this type of lunatic rantings against Bush will ultimately bring his numbers up slightly and that will help Republicans this November.

Anonymous said...

What is irony?

The same people who complain, "George Bush isn't running in CT-2...", are now apparently running against Hugo Chavez...

Disgrunt - think people don't care about national issues? I promise, the majority don't even know who Chavez is...

bluecoat said...

Congressman Rangel is a decorsted veteran who speaks his mind with his wisdom - and often too far to the left for me - but he respects the institutions of our government and expects others to do the same..

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon-

My comments about one had nothing to do with the other. I don't think I in any way shape or form incinuated that. I was shocked he said and posted it. That said, Congresman Rangel has earned my respect.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 2:37 you completely miss the point. Nobody is running against Hugo Chavez; nor does it even matter if people don't know who he is or what country he is from. The point is that Americans read in their papers or watched on the tv news that some guy from another country spoke before the UN and called Bush the devil and a number of other over the top, outrageous statements mostly over the Iraq war. In simple terms, he was attacking our President (yes bluecoat and truebluect I said "our" President) over the war, which is similar to what many Democrats have been saying. Now, before you get all crazy on me, with rare exception (Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney and maybe one or two others), the Congressional Democrats do not use the language Chavez used. However, that language is commonly used in the blogosphere, which is the medium of the left wing. I believe most Americans are angered at Chavez' comments, even many who disapprove of Bush. Thus, in conclusion, the closer Chavez' rhetoric is to that of the Democrats, the more the 2 can be linked, and that would hurt the Democrats.

Lesson over for today.

Anonymous said...

This is getting frightening. Turfgrrl said soemthing that I not only agree with but that I think is really important. (Either that, or I'm misinterpretting what she is saying).

Instead of asking, "did you want to be friends with the cool kid who could handle his own in a fight or the wussie who got pummelled", it seems like the real question is did you want to be friends with the bratty trouble maker, who started lots of fights but never fought them himself, or the brainy teachers pet who sought intelligent ways to stop the conflicts.

I know a lot of people that really looked forward to seeing the brat get slapped down.

As to all politics being local, as a Ned Lamont supporter, I have to agree on this. While some people are trying to make Ned Lamont's primary victory into some referendum on the war in Iraq, many of the people I know that voted for Ned did so because they felt that Sen. Lieberman had lost touch with the voters in Connecticut, that he was too busy being a big wig to care about his constituents, or apparently even to vote much of the time.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:47 : I don't know where you went to school, but where I went although we certainly had our share of brainiacs, none of them ever "sought intelligent ways to stop the conflicts." They just stayed out of it.

Here is a better analogy, if I may be so bold:

There was always a bully, in the lunch room or on the playground, who picked on kids over-and-over with no end in site. The longer the bully was allowed to keep picking on kids without anyone standing up to him the worse the bully got. Now, there were different ways to deal with a bully. Some tried to hide from him and just hope he would stop; while others thought they could tell on him to a teacher. Guess what? Those methods didn't work. The only answer - the only way to stop a bully - was to stand up and fight. Bullies usually back down, but when they don't you have to be prepared to fight, or the bullying will only get worse.

Anonymous said...

the Congressional Democrats do not use the language Chavez used

Thus, in conclusion, the closer Chavez' rhetoric is to that of the Democrats, the more the 2 can be linked, and that would hurt the Democrats.

uh....ok.

Anonymous said...

It's a throw the bums out year. Period.

If you all can't see that you're as delusional as Bush, Rummy and Lieberman are about Iraq.

And Katrina didn't help.

Turfgrrl's premise that there is an anti anti-war backlash is rubbish. All you have to do is turn on CNN to know that America has screwed the pooch in the mid-East. And while there might not be any quick fixes, the country will hold Bush & Co. accountable by voting the Republicans out of power. Bank on it.

turfgrrl said...

my -- Hugo Chavez and Charlie Rangle in the same comments ... Chavez is just spoiling for a fight. And why not? Venezuela sits on major oil reserves, and he has some grandiose ideas about a latin american hegemony. The Bush administration has totally mismanaged diplomacy there and the rest of the central america. Instead of focusing on the Chinese buyouts of the Panama Canal, and European buyouts of water rights in South America, he's been hoping that Reagan era CIA plots would somehow stave of the emergence of neosocialism in those countries.

Anonymous said...

Nuclear Waste Cures Cancer

The premise of this post is ridiculous. There is no evidence, not a shred, that the "anti-war drumbeat" is "turning off voters".

If anything, the opposite is true. There is no significant movement in the macro Dem vs. Repub polling. And a steady 65% of all Americans are against the Iraq war. Anti-war candidates are doing pretty well. Look at all the trouble Lieberman is having selling icecubes to Eskimos this year.

So I just don't understand what you're trying to do with this post. Are you trying to create an "anti-anti-war" narrative? If so, you'll need a little bit more substance. The facts are not on your side.

Hopewellian_Magi said...

To all who support war this immoral war in Iraq and elsewhere, when are you going to join the military and get your behinds over to Iraq? I have no respect for those of you who support war but won't get off your duff to suffer in it. I won't even call you sunshine patriots. You are lazy and bigoted armchair soldiers.

Mr X said...

I am so happy The Board of Selectman in The Town of Washington did the right thing and voted Unanimously against holding a Special Town Meeting to Impeach President Bush These are some more of your Lamont Activists stirring up more crap.

More of CT Keith's disciples trying to destroy the state County by County with their anti-war, anti-american bulls**t Thank God that these belligirent morons have been silenced!!!!!