Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

GlennGreenwald

Published Letters: 5006
Editor's Choice: 18

Monday, April 16, 2007 08:18 AM

Svensker:

The Founders had a good idea -- no entangling alliances, no standing armies, friends/trade with all, enemies with none. It's time for the U.S. to decide whether it will consciously abandon those ideas, or not.

That is an excellent summary of the choice the country faces.

Monday, April 16, 2007 03:40 PM

Ms. Powe:

I concur with all of the praise for Diana Powe's comment today, but it's unsurprising. For those who don't know, she's a long-time police officer in Texas (as she's written about) who comments here infrequently but always insightfully, and I, too, think she would make a superb blogger or political writer, were she so inclined. A comment she wrote relating her experiences as a police officer arresting and detaining people to the Jose Padilla matter was one of the best blog comments I ever read.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 07:12 AM

SalmoS:

My observations of co-workers who are the Republican base . . . .

For so many reasons, extremely limited anecdotal evidence of this type cannot remotely undermine an endless string of scientific polls taken over the course of months (actually years) showing the same results.

1. "He's not a real Republican" meaning that he is not an example of what their party and their ideology produces

To the extent Bush does still have support, it is found almost exclusively among Republicans and self-identified "conservatives."

2. "They're all crooks and liars" meaning that contemplating a change in identification and support would be useless.

Thus, the low approval ratings and utter lack of credibility of the Bush Administration do not indicate a popular shift so much as a suspension of participation, with an attendant wall of inattention to prevent further information inconsistent with their fundamental beliefs.

If that were true, all politicians would have the same approval ratings as Bush does. They don't. Therefore, it is untrue.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 07:49 AM

Scientician:

About approval for the Dems vs Republicans in Congress. Hitherto now, all I had seen was general Congressional approval as a whole, which is still quite low. Now that we break it down by party, we see which party is dragging down America's opinion of their Legislative branch.

Many Bush followers have been trying to make the point that disapproval for Congress is as high as disapproval for the President - and therefore all of this shows nothing more than a general disgust with politicians and government. This poll shows that's not true, and as you point out, much of the disapproval is for Republicans in Congress.

But there is another important point -- Yesterday, I saw a very recent poll (which I can't find now - if anyone finds it, please post or send me the link) which broke down public opinion on these issues by "liberal/moderate/conservative" and also "Democrat and Republican."

A BIG part of why the Congress doesn't have higher approval ratings is because so many liberals and Democrats DISAPPROVE of the job Congress is doing (it was split almost evenly among liberals - 43/43 or something), showing that much of the disapproval is because of the perception that they haven't stood up to Bush and opposed the war ENOUGH.

If anyone can find the poll that breaks that down that way, I'd really appreciate it.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 09:14 AM

Scientician:

Thanks - I actually found and posted the LA Times poll in an Update before seeing your comment, but you are right - the CBS poll demonstrates the same point (the LAT poll is even more convincing because it breaks down respondents by "liberal/moderate/conservative" -- it is not merely "Democrats" who disapprove of Congress (which people would suggest are moderate Democrats) but LIBERALS. Clearly, many (if not most) self-identified "liberals" would be dissatisfied with Congress because of the perception that they're not stopping the war and/or fighting Bush hard enough.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:56 AM

Dalebeck:

Backlash is a noun

From Dictionary.com -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backlash

back·lash /ˈbækˌlæʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bak-lash] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. a sudden, forceful backward movement; recoil.

2. a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change: a backlash of angry feeling among Southern conservatives within the party.

3. Machinery.

a. the space between the thickness of a gear tooth and the width of the space between teeth in the mating gear, designed to allow for a film of lubricant, binding from heat expansion and eccentricity, or manufacturing inaccuracies.

b. play or lost motion between loosely fitting machine parts.

4. Angling. a snarled line on a reel, usually caused by a faulty cast.

–verb (used without object)

5. to make or undergo a backlash.

To be honest, I checked because I thought you might be right. You weren't.

Most Active Letters Threads

425

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
224

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
56

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon