Letters to the Editor
-
The "alternative outlets" to Beltway Punditry
Glenn, you spoken in the past of the need to develop alternative outlets for news and information as a counter to the clearly-disconnected noise machine of the Beltway. Weblogs obviously do so on some degree, as do new ventures like Air America. Yet 'public discourse' is still dominated by the punditry who show no sign of actually understanding the issues they pontificate over.
Are we seeing any manner of sea change now against said punditry, or is it simply a case of more voices being added to the noise and simply a triumph of the loudest voices involved?
Plus, given the vested interests involved, is it realistic to think American media is even capable of providing something other than partisan propaganda for any given side?
-
@jebbie et al.
Shooter would ban himself from this site were it not for all the attention he receives. It's kind of depressing, the amount of "controversy" he's managed to stir up -- people cackling and crowing as they take potshots at the easy target he presents -- without really adding anything to the tone or content of the conversation here.
-
More Polls
Yesterday's LA Times poll ( http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-04/28957478.pdf ) also showed a majority of people think the Bush administration should testify under oath, and than Gonzales should resign.
Two more pervasive sentiments the pundits denied.
-
Not So Much
nlacey:
b) Cognitive dissonance is a requirement for membership.
No cognition. No dissonance. No problem.
-
Glenn, found your poll
At least I think this is what you're looking for:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/april_iraq.pdf
QUOTE:
q8 Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?
ALL:
Approve: 34
Disapprove: 54
Unsure: 12
GOP:
A: 24
D: 66
U: 10
DEM:
A: 43
D: 42
U: 15
Ind:
A: 33
D: 57
U: 10
So in that April 9-12 poll, 42% of Democrats disapprove of the job "congress" as a whole is doing. Couple that with questions like q58 which asks about Iraq withdrawl timelines (supported by 75% of Democrats) and you start to see a picture of Democrats doing as glenn suggested: Disapproving of congress for not resisting the president strongly enough.
It is nothing but biased for journalists to report on Congressional job approval figures and merely presume that the American people disapprove of Congress telling the president what to do in Iraq. There's strong case to be made they disapprove of not bossing him around enough.
-
Disapproval of the Dems
Put me (and most of my family, and several others I know) down as a liberal who disapproves of Bush, Iraq, Gonzales, and Congressional Democrats. I think the Dems lay down for Bush, the beltway pundits, corporations (how else are they going to get campaign funding?), and, to a certain extent, the uber right (Dianne Feinstein lost my vote forever based, in part, on her vote on Iraq and her support for the flag burning amendment).
They're just too weak against Bush. Pelosi is better than I thought, and I respect Waxman, Murtha, Webb, Feingold and Leahy. Otherwise, I am vastly unimpressed.
Until we have publicly financed campaigns (which is about as likely as GWB getting a grasp on the English language, I know), I'll be a "decline to state" voter who mostly votes 3rd party.
-
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.
-
One problem
Greenwald is one of my must-read columns now, and for better or worse I "trust" him. I love, or rather hate, reading his column because the things he covers infuriate me. One minor quibble I have, however, is that he tends to repeat himself throughout the piece. Perhaps it's just being thorough, but it makes reading the already longish, dense paragraphs a bit more difficult.
Either way, I'll continue to read.
----------------------------------------
www.theethicalscumbag.blogspot.com
-
Glenn:
Agreed. Ideology is an even better indicator of war position than party affiliation.
Of course, these polls would have been easier to find if our beltway elites had actually discussed them in any detail, and accurately gleaned the real meaning of them, instead of simply buying into the 2002 conventional wisdom intepretation, and assuming disapproval of congress was due to the attempt to stop the war.
-
"Soft on Syria"
GG,
The attack on Pelosi was also used on Israel itself. Yes, Israel was also guilty of being too soft on Syria, and harming its own national interest (in this administration's opinion) by approaching Syria without Bush's permission. Text below is from the Jeruselem Post, October 8, 2006:
In a separate appeal, Americans for Peace Now demanded that the administration make clear that it does not oppose peace talks between Israel and Syria. "Unfortunately, many in Israel and the US believe that your administration is standing in the way of renewed Israel-Syria contacts. We urge you to clarify, publicly and expeditiously, that this is not the case," the letter, sent to Bush last month, reads.
This week, Americans for Peace Now put out a statement expressing anger at reports in the Israeli media suggesting that Bush pressured Israel to reject peace overtures from Syrian President Bashar Assad. The organization called such pressure by the president "outrages" and demanded he allow Israel to be the one who called Assad's bluff.
"It takes a lot of hutzpa to tell Israel not to even talk about peace with its neighbor," said Debra DeLee, APN president."
This story refers to US pressure that was applied specifically to interupt informal "peace-feeler" contacts between Israel and Syria late last year--instigated by Syria, of course.
-
@ SalmoS and Glenn
I think the observations are valid for many former Bush supporters, however. My in-laws fit that pattern.
Whereas once they might have argued mildly in favor of their trustworthy Xian president, now they are more inclined to just find it too painful to discuss. They'll read a little good news, but bad news turns them off.
And I doubt they respond to surveys. They specifically do not want to think or decide---that is why they liked Bush in the first place. These are the followers, not the wingnuts who adopt more and more convoluted positions as a defense.
So among the wider republican demographic, I think it's possible to argue that withdrawal, rather than actual withdrawal of support, is common, and accounts for at least a few % points.
Among the non-republicans who used to support Bush because he was their president, we are seeing support turn to opposition. That's a different story.