Maybe my impression is inaccurate, but it appeared that Daschle was walking the tightrope pretty well between party politics and support of a president during 'wartime'. Then, the impression is that Gore crossed the line, and other Democrats followed his cue. Now, irregardless of whether Gore is right or wrong (because it is quite possible that Gore's more deliberate approach is 'correct' based on known data), what happens to our two-party system if a future terrorist attack is tied to Iraq? We all understand the human and econimic ramifications of an attack, but there's nothing more that we can do about that. Has Gore considered the damage to our country if one party takes a body blow? I'm not comparing magnitudes of loss between the two here, I just don't want us to incur more damage to our country, and severe damage to one party, IMO, would be a very serious issue.
I think it would be a bigger issue if there was universal support for a war on Iraq. In that case, I think Gore would be playing with fire. As it is, there's a decent amount of support for Gore's view (between 30-70% depending on if you're talking war in general vs. unilateral war). For example, if Gore had railed on the war on terrorism (saying its unnecessary), and there was another terrorist attack, THAT would be much more likely to splinter the Democratic Party.
From today's Post. Appears the public has a more nuanced view than is commonly being reported. And then again, 40% haven't even thought about it that much. ___________________________ Simply Put, The Public's View Can't Be Put Simply By Andrew Kohut Sunday, September 29, 2002; Page B05 Ask a pollster if there is public support for war with Iraq and the answer is likely to be "yes." Ask reporters doing man-in-the-street interviews or traveling around the country, and they are likely to say "no." As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote on Sept. 18, "Don't believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It is just not true." Who's right here? From my vantage point, they both are. And therein lies the problem -- and the challenge -- in understanding the public's will on this important issue. Public opinion about a potential war with Iraq does not lend itself to an easy thumbs-up, thumbs-down characterization. Almost all national surveys this year have found a broad base of potential support for using military force to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. In mid-September, for example, the Pew Research Center found that 64 percent favor taking military action to end the Iraqi president's rule. But when pollsters go beyond this initial question, they find lots of qualifications and caveats. Respondents' concerns about the lack of allied backing and the prospect of heavy casualties reduce general support levels dramatically. Complicating the picture further, as many as four in 10 Americans still have not seriously considered the issue of war with Iraq. The polls also find that Americans may not ultimately judge a war with Iraq only on the basis of an initial military victory. For all that, there appears to be enough potential backing for President Bush to successfully sell war to the American public, as his father did 11 years ago. But he hasn't closed the deal. Such a complex picture of public opinion is not what headline writers long for, nor is it easy material for the cable chat-show circuit. Press references rarely go beyond something along the lines of "the latest polls show a majority of Americans support a possible invasion of Iraq." So it's little wonder that both sides in the debate about Iraq have laid claim to public backing for their point of view. The basis for potential backing for a war in Iraq stems from the strong support for the use of military force following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In contrast, the public kicked and screamed about every intervention by the Clinton administration, whether in the distant Balkans or nearby Haiti. The Clinton White House got as much support as could be hoped for the air war in Kosovo, but over the short course of that campaign, Clinton's approval ratings fell more than they did over the entire span of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The attacks of Sept. 11 changed all that. Support for a defense spending hike hit a 25-year high, fueled by female support, as the once yawning gender gap on military issues narrowed significantly. More than 70 percent of men and women backed sending troops to Afghanistan, even at the risk of casualties. And our polling has found that 58 percent of the public supports combating terrorism by using military force against countries attempting to Ddevelop nuclear weapons. Given the new public mandate -- protect us -- it is not surprising that the idea of military action against Saddam Hussein has gotten such a positive reaction over the past year. He's a bad guy from a dangerous part of the world who wants to do us harm, say Americans. The latest CBS News national poll found that 77 percent think Hussein already possesses weapons of mass destruction, 61 percent believe he wants to use them against us and 51 percent say he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. In the first polls after 9/11, support for using force against Iraq was at the 70 percent level. It fell to the low fifties in August, when some prominent Republicans voiced their concerns. However, public support has since rebounded: An average of this month's major national poll results finds more than 60 percent backing military action. At the same time, the polls consistently find less than majority support when a tag line such as "even if it means thousands of casualties" is added to the question. This is a bit of an unfair test, because most of these questions mention only the cost of a war, not the benefit that might be achieved by such national sacrifice. It is always difficult to predict how the public will react to actual casualties. On the one hand, Americans know that war inevitably risks the lives of soldiers and civilians, and this is implicit in support for military action. On the other, they have grown accustomed to light American losses in military engagements. The lack of allied backing is an even bigger drain on support for the use of force than the prospect of casualties. Our most recent poll found that 64 percent generally favor military action against Iraq, but that withers to 33 percent if our allies do not join us. The first President Bush faced the same challenge, but turned public opinion to his favor with the November 1990 U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an Iraqi pullout from Kuwait. Prior to that resolution, Gallup found just 37 percent of the public favored going to war with Iraq. After the decision, majorities of the public favored going to war in every Gallup survey. Indeed, by January 1991 the only public tension was not over whether to go, but when. It is unlikely that this President Bush will persuade the public to go to war without a coalition of traditional allies. In fact, the importance of the United Nations was underscored by public reaction to Bush's U.N. speech earlier this month. After his appearance there, the percentage of Americans who think that he has explained clearly what's at stake for the United States in Iraq rose from 37 percent to 52 percent. This was a step in the right direction for the president, but it still pales in comparison with the 77 percent who thought his father had a clear rationale for using force against Iraq in the fall of 1990. While the current President Bush's approach is a work in progress, so is the public's thinking. Since his U.N. speech, an increasing number of respondents say they have thought a great deal about the issue -- 55 percent, up from 46 percent in August. But that is still below the 66 percent who had given careful thought to the question of war or peace on the eve of the Gulf War. Part of this deliberative process may well raise the question of what will constitute a successful outcome in Iraq. We were surprised when our Sept. 11 anniversary polling found that, despite the quick rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan, relatively few Americans described that war as a success; fully 70 percent said it is too early to tell. Accordingly, two-thirds of our respondents believed we should keep forces in Afghanistan to maintain the peace. And a growing majority think that the U.S. will have to help rebuild the country. No doubt, many Americans have the same vision of the end game in Iraq should U.S. forces quickly dispatch Hussein's troops. Both CBS and Pew surveys find Americans expecting that, unlike the Gulf War, the U.S. involvement in Iraq will be lengthy. Al Gore and Tom Daschle's vocal criticism this past week of the Bush policy may encourage further public reflection and help influence how America makes up its mind in coming months. So far, a plurality of the public believes that Congress has asked too few questions about Bush's intentions. A dozen years ago, support for the Persian Gulf War deepened following a sometimes contentious debate. Today's polls do agree on one point: A conflicted public would welcome a comparable airing of the pros and cons of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Andrew Kohut is director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Mehtinks that more Americans are concerned about their job and the economy than the war on Iraq. I read an article today Stocks to Fall as Chill Sets In (Reuters) http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20020929/hle_bus-n29274203.html that suggests that the stock market has no place to go but down. The S&P 500 lost 10% in September and may likely lose more in October. These type of loses leading into the early November election spell big trouble for the Republican hopes for gaining seats in Congress.
I thought your politics couldn't be adequately satisfied by either of the two major parties. Why would you care if one of them bit the dust?
Well, according to the latest Newsweek poll, Democrats have "surged" with 47% of registered voters saying they will vote Dem. as opposed to 40% saying Repub. Of course on September 12, Newsweek had opposite results so people's minds are constantly changing. Anyways, the death of the Democratic party is a ludicrous notion, considering over half of the country voted Democrat in 2000.
I think an equally valid (and rarely discussed) concern is what happens if a future terrorist attack is tied to us waging war on Iraq? It can't have escaped most politicians that a war on Iraq will very likely lead to an escalation of tensions between America/Israel and many Muslim countries. As we've seen with Israel and Palestine the constant volley of attack and retaliation has done nothing to end the terrorism. It has only served to escalate the situation. So what happens to our two-party system if a majority Republican-backed war leads to further terrorist attacks? (I suspect nothing, but it is worth asking in the context of this discussion).
I prefer two parties to one especially if the one is the evil, hate-filled GOP. <font size="1">please note the intense sarcasm</font> I'd prefer 3 myself and I think we are getting closer. The result of two dominant political parties is a dramatic split between them throughout most of the country. However, if you look at the ideological split, the divide isn't nearly as great. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves moderate to slightly left of center on social issues while moderate to slightly right of center on fiscal issues. Most want freedom of religion, diversity, more stringent gun control, better environmental protection, lower taxes, a stronger criminal justice system, a more efficient government and better support for the less fortunate. If the right people decided to run with a platform supporting those issues, it could be the biggest single change in American politics in 100 years. Thing is, I don't agree with ALL of those policies, but I, along with most Americans, would be satisfied splitting the difference between two parties that tend to favor the extremes in the party OR their own self-serving (i.e. monied lobbiests) interests.
Jeff, From the times I hung out with yuou I seem to remember you mentioning that you are a leftist tree hugging type, correct? I say that with all due respect and support. I happen to be a right wing guy that truly believes that 'it takes all types'. I would picture you as more of a Green Party than a card carrying democrat but I want your opinion on something. I want your opinon because I respect you as a person and I know you. The whole blow up last week with Daschle...what was your opinon? It seemed to me that he was the pot and he was calling the kettle black. "You owe us an apology for ..blah blah blah" And then "Mr. Bush, you are politicizing this war" Senator Daschle is and always has been a political animal that politicizes EVERYTHING. Remember his speeches after then Gov. Bush would say anything? What about his 'answers' after S.O,T,U. addresses and ****? I just want to know what one of Dasch's peeps think about him...If you are one of his peeps. If not then tell me I am a moron and I'll edit this post so few people will know how presumtious I am! Thanks Jeff. Chants the Homophone
I would be okay with three parties as well, however, I think that major elections should always end up in a run-off between the two candidates who tallied the most votes. If there were three dominant parties then there stands a good chance that someone would win who the majority of Americans didn't want to win (sort of like now ). For example, if one party garnered 40% of the vote and the other two split the remaining 60% 50/50 (30% apiece) then that would mean most of the people in the country voted <i>against</i> the winner. At least with a run-off people could at least choose their second choice if their first didn't make it.
As a leftist up to his eyeballs in California Naderites, I sincerely hope La Parte de Verde (pardon bad Spanish) is not what you're thinking. From the views you outline in the nominal 3rd party, I don't think you mean green. I really like the mix you suggest. IMO, whatever 3rd party we get (and I'd love to see it), it has to grow from the bottom up, not from a self-aggrandizing top down. (ahem, ahem, paging one-note Ralph: you can come out of your wealthy pad and join the national debate, try to make a positive difference, even when you aren't ruining -- oh, I mean running -- for President. Where the heck is that guy if he cares so much?) And I know Chants wants to see Jeff's reply, and I'm looking forward to that as well. As a lefty, I have to say I think Daschle snapped just a bit. He is indeed a political animal, but usually that means he is very calculating and professional. I don't think his angry speech last week was entirely calculated. Interested to see what others think.
I'm sorry to say that Jeff was lying to you. Our yard has five pecan trees, one elm and one oak. We've lived in this house 6+ years and not ONCE have I seen Jeff hug any of those trees! He usually just walks right past them like he could care less. Very disappointing...
First off, don't listen to Mrs. JB. I have had more than one hugging experience with a couple of trees in our yard, so I'm no tree-hugging virgin. As for the third party, no, I don't mean Green. As much as I agree with many of their philosophies, I do not think they would work in America. This country's strength is its diversity and that includes people from all sides of the political spectrum. I have a real soft spot in my heart for the Greens, but I don't realistically expect them to have any kind of a shot at political success on a national level. On the local level, however, they should be able to have as much success as the libertarians, independants and reform party candidates. In response to your question, Chance, I don't think what Daschle did was good or bad. It just really was. Frankly, I saw it two ways: On one hand, I viewed it as part of a long pissing match between Dems and the GOP on Capital Hill. Today, it's Daschle; tomorrow, Trent Lott. The next day, Kerry will be up there trying to prove he can be a viable presidential candidate while DeLay will remind us all why we have term limits. It is a neverending cycle of stupidity, IMO. As a crusty old former VP-candidate bellowed: "Gridlock!" On the other hand, knowing politicians as I do, this was Daschle being calculated. For several years now, there has been an awful lot of soft-pedalling and side-stepping by Dems because they fear the more conservative arm of the GOP. Because the right has had more success by being subtle, smart and rather innovative in their messages, they have pigenholed Dems, particularly the real liberals, as irresponsible, out-of-touch airheads. Daschle was doing the equivalent of a hard foul in the lane. It was an attempt to warn the President and members of the GOP that his party won't rollover and play dead. Ultimately, it's all politics. The GOP will continue to suck up to the far right and big business. The Dems will continue to suck up to the trial attornies and labor unions. The world will turn. The sun will shine. And, all will remain exactly as it is until we decide that we're tired of the same **** over and over again. Honestly, I think the time is coming when a significant change in American politics will occur. Minus 9/11, the country was in a tremendous quandry when it came to the 2000 election. Once this war is over, and it will eventually come to an end, we'll be right back in the same spot we were, trying to decide which party best represents the interests of the nation. The truth is that neither really does that adequately and, at some point, we'll figure that out and demand a change. Until then, GRIDLOCK!!!
I tend to believe that the volleying back and forth of presidents and their respective party affiliation is healthy and inevitable. We have a DEM for a few terms then a Republican for a few terms. It keeps the country balanced.
I agree 100% with the person who mentioned that the person winning would have had most of the people in the country vote against him. That's kind of like what Canada has had since the birth of the reform party. To give an extremely brief and inaccurate summation, when I was a kid, there were two major parties - the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. Then the Reform party was born in Western Canada. From that time until I left Canada, the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative party split the non-Liberal votes and seats, leaving the Liberals and our much-maligned leader, Jean Cretien to march up the middle. Four years later, I am not surprised to see that the guy is still in power, despite the fact that he can speak neither of our national languages well and is also the ugliest successful politician I know(usually not conducive to a successful political career). It seems like the system is broken to me, but since I don't have to pay Canadian taxes anymore, I don't worry too much about it.
Originally posted by Jeff Cohen: Don't you wish! I hope the wink was intense sarcasm. I agree that we need more ruling parties, only one concerns me greatly. Death of the Democratic Party? LOL! Oh, man, that's hilarious. If the impression is created that the Democratic Party or its leading politican is against war with Iraq, and then the worst occurs, I can guarantee that the Democratic party would suffer for years. It is purely hypothetical, and I hope we never find out, but it should be conisdered so that it doesn't happen.
Originally posted by Jeff First off, don't listen to Mrs. JB. Wow. That takes guts, Jeff. Ultimately, it's all politics. The GOP will continue to suck up to the far right and big business. The Dems will continue to suck up to the trial attornies and labor unions. The world will turn. The sun will shine. And, all will remain exactly as it is until we decide that we're tired of the same **** over and over again. Thats takes care of the contributions, not votes. Honestly, I think the time is coming when a significant change in American politics will occur. Minus 9/11, the country was in a tremendous quandry when it came to the 2000 election. Once this war is over, and it will eventually come to an end, we'll be right back in the same spot we were, trying to decide which party best represents the interests of the nation. The truth is that neither really does that adequately and, at some point, we'll figure that out and demand a change. Until then, GRIDLOCK!!! Agreed.
Originally posted by BrianKagy I thought your politics couldn't be adequately satisfied by either of the two major parties. Why would you care if one of them bit the dust? BK, pretty good memory there (or were your talking to Jeff?). Because the balance that the two strike has been much closer than either one separately.
You must have been born and raised in Alberta. Canada has had a third major party since the 60’s, but they have usually hovered around the 20% (rough estimate) mark in popular vote, but were once the official opposition IIRC. They are the NDP, and are currently the provincial governments in SK and MB, and quite recently lost in BC. I think they are also the official opposition in NS. They have had almost no presence in Canada’s most right wing province, Alberta, however. When the Reform Party came along (now the Alliance Party, you’re losing touch GS ) that made 4 significant federal parties, although the Alliance is strictly a western party. An even more regional one is the Bloc Quebecois, which is the separatist party (soft separatists now) in Quebec. They get a lot of seats in Quebec though and therefore end up with about 10% of the popular vote nationally. I liked it with 3 parties, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party. I thought there was pretty good balance then, but 5 parties is just a little too many.