EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Presidential Debates Don't Reflect American Views on Iraq
If you've ever watched one of the ongoing series of presidential primary debates and gotten the feeling that there was something a little off about it, well it turns out that on the subject of the war in Iraq at least, you were right.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, 25% of Americans favor immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Yet, according to a study by NBC News political director Chuck Todd, the candidates advocating immediate withdrawal, Democrats Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul, have received 11% (167 minutes out of 1,460) of the speaking time on the eleven Democratic and ten Republican nationally televised debates. Rasmussen also found that another 38% of the country say they want all troops home within a year. However, the chart accompanying Todd's December 28, New York Times opinion piece indicates that when the time allotted Democrat Bill Richardson, a candidate who advocates one-year withdrawal, is added to that of the above three candidates, a grand total of 19% of the network time has gone to candidates supporting positions held by 63% of the country.
And this mismatch is nothing new, by the way. Rasmussen has been conducting weekly polls in partnership with Fox Television Stations since August, and each one has found support for immediate withdrawal somewhere between 20% to 30% and total backing for withdrawal within a year ranging from 57 to 64%.
So what do we get instead of an airing of the views held by most Americans? We watch debates among Republicans who largely support the Administration's Iraq policy and Democrats who claim to oppose it but will not commit to withdrawing all troops by the end of their first term in the White House. Devoted debate watchers, then, have seen 81% of this free network time go to candidates who anticipate continued occupation of Iraq through 2013! And all the while, many of these candidates are treated as if they are representing the nation's antiwar sentiment.
Network powers-that-be don't find this at all strange, of course. Todd writes, "Not surprisingly, the times for each candidate seem to follow the polls, with the leading contenders getting more minutes." The question of how the major news institutions' reporting might affect those polls remains unexamined in his article.
Since the credo of most of the American news industry is that they don't make the news, they just report the facts - or at least the facts as seen by sources credible to them, we probably shouldn't be expecting that anyone in the business will be losing too much sleep over this disconnect in the near future. They will likely continue to support the American people's right to support candidates who don't actually support their views. But even if we've gotten used to this state of affairs, the rest of us might at least ask ourselves how this campaign discussion of Iraq that is so skewed from actual public opinion must look to people outside of American media markets.
Well, it turns out that we have an answer. A BBC World Service poll of 23,000 people across 22 countries conducted last September found 39% favoring immediate US withdrawal from Iraq and a total of 67% support for withdrawal within a year. The poll also found that 49% "believe the United States plans to keep permanent military bases in Iraq," while only 36% "believe the US will withdraw all forces once Iraq is stabilized."
In analyzing the survey, Steven Kull, Director of the Washington, DC Program on International Policy Attitudes, pointed out, "While majorities in 19 of 22 countries polled want the US to be out of Iraq within a year, few think the US will do so." He added, "It seems the US is widely viewed as planning to make Iraq part of its long term military footprint in the Middle East." Perhaps they have been watching the debates.
Tom Gallagher is a former Massachusetts state legislator who lives in San Francisco.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
15 Comments so far
Show Alltom,tell us something we don't already know.
a much shorter article:
"presidential debates don't reflect american views."
---30---
The Iraq War is not a political issue anymore. All candidates know that we will be in Iraq for decades. How many and doing what can be debated to hell and back as it is now but nothing will be done to end the war until the oil companies cut up the pie. And America is so positive that the pie won't satisfy all that it will have a few troops around to maintain law and order. Read WAR IS A RACKET by Smedley Butler. Whether it's bananas, a gas station, or oil fields, you will find some of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children dying for the rights of American companies to make a buck. That's what the guys in D.C. don't want to talk about.
Hoa binh
In the early 20th century an american registered corporation called the United Fruit Company was havig trouble in South and Central America with thier slave laborers and the various governments.
The quick answer to that was to send in United States troops to quell the "rebellions" and assure a peaceful continent.
These crimes against other nations and peoples has been going on for a long time.
There was also the Panama incident which got the panama canal built and the "Maine" incident which has made Cuba a dicatorship for most of its' subsequent history.
The United States has never really done any good for anybody.
I forgot to include the Phillipines and Mrs. Marcos' shoes.
Anyone who has been working on or rooting for the Kucinich campaign can see this pattern by now. Kucinich represents the interests and most deeply held views on genuine issues of public policy of the majority of the American people, not just the Democrats, and can bring a crowd of working Americans to their feet cheering and shouting, yet his name recognition is still far from 100%! Poll after poll shows that the Democratic activist base favors him strongly, yet most still choose to back someone "electable" (like Kerry or Gore!) or to sit out the primary and kvetch about it.
Anyone who worked on Kucinich's campaign four years ago could certainly have seen this coming.
To break out of this media trap would have required a very different kind of campaign, one that bypasses the media. It would have required calling together meetings of the people active in 2003-2004, to organize a real grass-roots movement. This movement would be built around city, town, neighborhood and even block clubs to discuss policy and positions and provide feedback, to raise money and to organize activities. Among their functions would be
1. Getting the Kucinich message out locally by approaching and writing local newspapers and radio stations, and by printing and distributing or posting locally prepared and financed leaflets and posters.
2. Identifying all the progressive and working class social and political groups in the community - housing and homeless groups, hunger and food pantry projects, environmental groups, peace groups, veterans groups, and most especially union locals - talking to their leaders and getting invitations to speak at their meetings.
3. Holding meetings for people to gather and hear Dennis speak, and making public announcements and leaflet distributions to let people know when he is going to be on the air.
4. Holding noisy public events to embarass and pressure media outlets that refuse to give the campaign fair coverage.
5. Organizing support for Kucinich's initiatives such as the Impeach Cheney campaign.
6. Traditional campaign activities with a twist - door to door canvassing for supporters, but taking time to pitch to non-supporters who are open to talking, engaging them on the issues. Maybe handing out pastries as an ice-breaker and handing out locally-produced newsletters.
Perhaps approaches like these were attempted and I didn't hear about them. If so, that is perhaps a symptom of what is wrong. I was active in the Kucinich campaign in 2003-2004, and have attempted to keep in touch, although I was not in a position to offer my home for meetings, not having one as it happened. If a serious organizing effort was undertaken, why didn't I hear about it?
Perhaps even now it's not too late.
Must be a conspiracy to deny folks exactly what it is that Bill Richardson proposes re Iraq and the U.S. removing its military presence.
Gallagher doesn't have it right because NBC's Todd didn't have it right and Gallagher apparently didn't visit Richardson's website to double-check.
Richardson DOES NOT propose a one-year withdrawal, but proposes getting out no later than the end of 2008 -- with earlier withdrawal indicated.
Here is Richardson's issue-statement on Iraq as of 12/17/07, which goes way beyond simply getting out, but plans for stabilzing the region after withdrawal --
The Richardson Plan for Ending the War
I have a one-point plan on the Iraq War -- END IT.
We must get all of our troops out quickly and safely so that a new political process can begin.
Our military presence in Iraq is prolonging the violence, costing us more than $10 billion a month, and distracting us from the war against Al Qaeda. George Bush's "surge" has suppressed some of the violence, at least temporarily, but it has failed to bring about political reconciliation. Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do -- but they cannot win someone else's civil war. Now it is up to the Iraqis. We need to get our troops out so that a new political process can begin.
My plan will end the war and stabilize Iraq, and the most important step, upon which all others depend, is to remove ALL of our troops quickly.
What we need to do:
Remove ALL Troops: Only when the Iraqis know we are leaving will they start seeing us as partners, instead of occupiers. A complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. The Iraqis must take responsibility for their country, and only a complete withdrawal gives them the incentive to kick out al Qaeda and heal their country. Any plan that leaves troops behind will allow the war to drag on, and will cost more American lives.
Withdraw as Quickly as Possible: We should start redeploying now. The longer we stay, the more people die, the further the situation deteriorates, and the more damage we do both to our military and to our reputation. Only when we are out of this quagmire can we refocus on the real war against Al Qaeda -- the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, and who are still headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq .
A Diplomatic Surge: Iraq's crisis is a political crisis. It cannot be solved militarily. We need a surge of diplomacy to bring Iraq's factions together, to engage all of Iraq's neighbors in stabilization, and to put together a coalition of donor nations to aid reconstruction.
How We Do It:
De-authorize the War and Fund Redeployment: Last November, the American people voted for the Democrats because they expected them to end the war. Congress should do what it was elected to do, by passing a resolution that de-authorizes the war under Article 1 of the Constitution and the War Powers Act. And they should pass funding only to safely redeploy our troops, not to leave them endlessly in the middle of a civil war. Congress can and should act now to end this war.
Remove ALL the troops from Iraq: We must get our troops out of Iraq as safely as possible no later than 2009. Since the war began, we have rotated up to 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq in as few as 3 months. The logistics and details of a withdrawal must come from our military commanders on the ground. I hope Congress will force President Bush to end this war, but if Congress fails, I will instruct our military leaders to get our troops out as quickly as possible. Steps should include:
Identify the units we can phase out quickly. Support units and their large bases should go first and combat units next.
Identify the equipment we can leave to the Iraqis and the equipment we must bring home.
Move troops and equipment into Kuwait, and to regional bases where we are welcome such as in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Redeploy troops from these regional bases to Afghanistan and other locations where they can fight actual threats to America. In addition, we should bring as many troops as possible home to start rejoining their families.
Lead a Regional and Global Diplomacy: The hard political work begins as our troops start to leave.
We must use the leverage of our withdrawal to bring the factions to the negotiating table.
The United States must lead this effort and involve all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, in a regional conference modeled on the Dayton conference which ended the war in Bosnia. Key objectives of the conference should be assurances of non-interference and the creation of a multilateral, UN-led Muslim peacekeeping force.
We must also convene a donor conference of wealthy Arab states to fund Iraqi reconstruction. All of Iraq's neighbors have an interest in preventing Iraq's civil war from spiraling even further out of control, and they should all play a part in stopping the violence.
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq
Laughter is the Best Medicine
Alphie: Didja hear the one about the Super Power that started a trillion dollar oil war and wrecked a country?
Ralphie: No, what happened?
Alphie: Well, they just up and left without the oil!
Ralphie:They did? But WHY?
Alphie: Cuz they're so GOOD!!
Ralphie: HA HA HA!
To rely on the Networks to bring anything near substantial reporting is like relying on floss to rig a ship.
They give you junk. Britney, American Idol,
death fears boogity boo.
Bain Capital (Owned by Wilbur Rommeny, Whom Mitt sat on the board for.) Just bought Clear Channel in a leveraged buy out.
I guess it doesn't matter what your ad budget is when you own the stations now does it?
Dr. Paul is the cure to the globalist plauge that is infecting our Nation.
We need to just Leave. Let the world look after their damned selves We can't afford it. Bring em' all home. From every where,
worry about our boarders the the U.N. to do their own policing and give the Fedral reserve a kick in the ass as we kick em' out too.
We need to go back to what worked. Personal freedoms and private land ownership.
The powers that be, whether Dimmo or Repug, will never leave Iraq unless they are forced to do so. This can only happen on the ground, not in a typical rigged election. It remains to be seen if the Iraqis can drive their invaders into a last helicopter off the roof scenario.
derbyata:
Did you hear the one about the earnest young man who applied for a job with alqaeda?
His resume was fine, but they couldn't contact his references as they had all blown themselves up!
During the debate where the Iraq troop levels question was asked, I too was shocked at the responses of Hillary and Obama (not even promising a complete pullout by the end of their first term!). But why is it that so many posters here believe only Kucinich wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq right away?
Richardson has an excellent plan -- he proposes getting out completely no later than the end of this year.
And Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and a complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 9-10 months.
We don't have to vote for Kucinich to get a radical shift of policy on this issue.
what the press is doing is a good lesson in ideology making. this article helps see into the lying and its effects on our consciousness.
A world map appeared on a comedy-news program here in Madrid last night. The United States was blanked-out... I mean, Canada and Mexico appeared, but water appeared where the lower 48 states would normally be.
You know what? It felt damn good to see it!!
-eom-
Bypass mainstream media. Support Ron Paul. Contact www.ronpaul2008.com