Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati"Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions," the Washington Post headline blares. It seems like big news indeed. Until now, polls have consistently shown a clear majority of Americans favoring something like Obama's position; if not his precise 16-month timetable, at least a definite commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat troops within a specific time frame. In this new Washington Post - ABC poll, the number who want no timetable exactly equals the number who favor a timetable. Could this mark a turning point in the public's views, toward McCain's "as long as it takes" position?
That question has to be asked in a larger context. It's true that in recent polls, anywhere from 58% to 68% want most U.S. troops out of Iraq within some specified time. (It's anywhere from a few months to two years, depending on how each poll puts the question.) Yet when the public is asked, "Who do you trust more to make the best decisions about the Iraq war," McCain still wins every time, as he has for months.
His lead on that question has gradually been decreasing. In this latest WaPo-ABC poll he wins by only 47% to 45%, which is within the margin of error. Still, if most Americans indeed want troops withdrawn within a specific timeline -- exactly the policy McCain vehemently opposes -- why should he come out ahead on that question by any margin?
This latest poll appears to be the first where the puzzle disappears and it all fits together logically: The public is roughly split on which candidate to trust about the war because it's split on what war policy to follow -- or so it seems, at first glance.
Take a closer look, though, and things get more complicated. In this poll, nearly two-thirds say the war was not worth fighting, a number that is consistent with most other polls. Only one-third say the U.S. must win in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, while 60% disagree. In other words, overall support for the war remains low, just as every other poll finds, too. So the question remains: Why the surprising support for McCain's prowar policy?
Maybe it's a matter of how the question was phrased. As the WaPo itself noted: "This is the first time the Post-ABC poll has squared the two candidates' withdrawal plans against each other. In previous polls, a majority of Americans (55 percent in June) put a priority on withdrawal even without civil order in Iraq."
If you just ask people whether they want a fixed date for withdrawal or not, a clear majority have been saying yes they do. But here, with the candidates' names attached to the alternatives, the numbers shift to a tie. So this ballyhooed "Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions" may actually reflect only the continuing personal appeal of McCain.
The poll also asked whether each candidate "would be a good commander-in-chief of the military." On that question, Obama gets an equal number of "yes" and "no," while McCain polls "yes" by a whopping 3 to 1 margin. (In the latest New York Times - CBS poll, Obama closes the gap only slightly on that question.)
That's no surprise to anyone who has been watching poll questions about the military and national security, where McCain gets overwhelming advantage every time. McCain's general advantage in the military/security area always plays to his advantage on questions concerning Iraq.
So does ignorance: Many people do not know his actual position on Iraq. The WaPo-Abc pollsters asked whether each candidate "has been clear or unclear in his position on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq?" Only 56% said Obama has been clear; not surprising, given all the media hype about his suppose "flip-flopping." But amazingly, only 60% said McCain has been clear.
A recent Pew poll got the same result. It asked: "As far as you know, does McCain support or oppose a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq? Whatabout Obama? Three-quarters knew that Obama supports a timetable. But only 62% knew that McCain opposes it.
In other words, if the polls are at all representative of the public at large, millions of people say they trust McCain more than Obama on the war, even though they don't know what his true often-stated position is. It's McCain the person, not his position, that they support. And when they are told what his position is, that may just push them toward supporting it.
Yet there are other new polls out that suggest a different interpretation. The latest NYT-CBS poll asks: "If John McCain were elected President, do you think he would generally continue George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or not?" Fully 78% answer (probably quite rightly) "Yes." That might sound like good news for the Democrats, if the poll had not found that 45% of the public think things are "going well" for the U.S. in Iraq.
54% still say "not well." But that 9 point gap looks awfully small compared to the 50 point spread on the same question a year ago, when the public was far more pessimistic about Bush's policy. So there may be a widespread awareness that McCain will continue that policy. And it may not be hurting him much at all.
Perhaps that helps to explain the latest Quinnapiac poll, which asks: "Regardless of how you intend to vote, what would you prefer the next president do about the war in Iraq - - Begin immediately a withdrawal of American troops with a fixed date to have them all out within 18 months OR Keep troops in Iraq until the situation is more stable and then begin to withdraw them without a fixed date for full withdrawal?"
In this poll, with no candidate mentioned by name, only 43% support a fixed date of 18 months, while 51% prefer no fixed date. That's a stunning turnaround from all the previous polling. It might turn out to be just a fluke. Or it might indicate that a year's worth of corporate media hype about "progress" in Iraq, combined with the widespread trust in McCain on war and security issues, is beginning to turn public opinion on the war.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
60 Comments so far
Show Allcriticalthinktank July 16th, 2008 2:10 pm
Those are interesting points to ponder, to explain the overall picture of what has been happening. I mean, the price for a gallon of gas exploded rather suddenly. There was no increment this time, and there was no Katrina to blame for shortages. Just the cost of a barrel of Oil. But that did not coincide with the spike in prices at the pump, that would cause a gradual incrementation, I think. I sense there was something fairly sinister about this whole mess. tying it into the polls in this article, and tying it into Iraq. As students of Human Nature, we may very well be seeing for the first time the bloodthirst for oil, if we never noticed it before.
He's actually a bit low, but not horrifically so.
The real figure is 21%
Energy Information Administration
US Oil Imports
JANUARY - DECEMBER 2007
(Thousand of Barrels)
------- All Sources - Persian Gulf - Percentage
Totals: 3,628,696 --- 768,734 ------ 21%
However, depending on where they have contracts, oil companies have different mixes of oil imported from the gulf and that which is not.
Here's a small sample:
VALERO: 33%
EXXONMOBIL: 33%
CONOCOPHILLIPS: 5%
CHEVRON USA: 36%
SUNOCO: 0%
As you can see, some compaies would have considerably more trouble replacing Gulf oil than others.
Source:
http://tinyurl.com/ypyuxq
The Republican party would be the party of my choice, if they stuck to good old conservative values like balancing the budget, cutting waste, protecting American values, protecting the Constitution, keeping the peace, and protecting the foundation for our economy.
But ever since they adopted the Christian Rightwing, they have turned upside down. What I fail to understand is why the majority of Americans can't see what is happening. I know there is a lot of ignorance in this country (not stupidity), and that people are too busy having a good old time to bother keeping informed, but most of them don't vote either, so it still doesn't make sense.
I once asked a causual Republican friend, if he would vote republican regardless of who was on the ticket. He answered -- Yes. He hated Democrats in a way that I could not understand and yet he believed in most liberal values. Go figure.
wilmoor: "yet the neo-con media sold the ignorant public on him [the chimp] over a decorated war veteran [Kerry] who was much more worldly wise and intellegent. Now they're selling McCain over Obama the same way"
Elites long ago discovered how to enslave the people: Use media advertising to place personal identity at the top of the public priorities, then put dumb people in federal offices for the public to identify with, thereby reinforcing public dumbness. McKane will carry on the tradition. O'Bama is too smart. Can't trust someone who's too smart. God Bless the United States of America!
apollosviper, I understood that you said "How much of our gas comes from the persian gulf? 16%. How much oil is sat under the USA? More than enough to cover that 16%. "
Please do tell us your sources. Enlighten us as to this analysis, when there is not a single legitimate independent analysts (of the oil industry or of the alternative energy industry) that has reached such a conclusion.
You profoundly do not understand what you are speaking about. Monkeys speaking about quantum mechanics have been closer to the truth than you are ....
For God's sake vote Obama. The margin of victory will have to be overwhelming for the supreme court not to appoint McCain president.
When are people in this country going to grow up and stop listening to Republican rhetoric?????? It's the single biggest reason this country is in such a mess! People can not seem to past these hucksters and see reality! I have little doubts McCain will win. He will do like Bush wrap himself in the flag and delude everyone once more that Iraq is a holy cause to be followed over the nearest cliff. And people won't figure out until after they have been to the polls and put the con artist in office once more. That they are being flim-flamed again. He will probably convince American's it's in the interest of the country to take out Iran!
RE: EXPLAINING THE SHIFT
"Public shift "might indicate that a year's worth of corporate media hype about 'progress' in Iraq, combined with the widespread trust in McCain on war and security issues, is beginning to turn public opinion on the war."
1) Regarding "trust in McCain on war and security issues," Chernus should have mentioned that this is a pattern of American political thought. Since the Cold War, Republicans have billed themselves as the party of war and security, and this has worked - not only for the sizable, core right wing electorate, but for larger parts of the electorate.
There's a whole right wing overlay to U.S. thinking, despite the end of Cold War.
2) Re "media hype" and changing public opinion - of course, the media has an impact. But I regard it as evidence of fundamental progressive weakness in the U.S.: despite many's considerable best efforts, much opposition to the war has, likely, always been 'soft opposition' for the reason first stated by anwong.
In my view, this points not to a simple failure of progressives to get out a countervailing message, but a detachment from politics among large parts of the population (vs. electorate) that progressives need to solidify opposition to domestic aggression abroad, and social priorities in the U.S.
The problem for progressives is organizing the disorganized and politically alienated...
This war could hardly be called a war. It certainly can't be called victorius. And surely we can eventually get past this Imperial Colonial hogwash. Its this kind of thing that makes people tend to ignore our real points. Using rhetoric thats obviously false just helps the folks like bush.
Words Are Important July 16th, 2008 4:45 pm
"Since there is not a real difference between McCain and Obama's policies (real difference on major issues, see their voting records),"
I just found a difference yesterday. I heard Senator Obama tell me he would launch a premptive strike in another country (Packistan). I have not heard McCain say he would. Has anybody?
The astrology crap is a bit off topic but I am a Pythagorus with my moon in Uranus.
Sioux Rose
"Are you sorry you asked?"
No, not a bit sorry, and I am glad you answered. I would not call myself a believer, and yet your prediction gives me hope. I very much want to see real change. I will keep a copy of what you said, and watch events and see how they turn out in 2010. 2020 is too far away, though.
For any who find this subject appealing and can follow the Astro-logic, one more cycle is worth relating. (There are so few periodicals that will publish this material, it's marginalized and KEPT FROM the public.)
Saturn is the lord of karma in astrology. Its orbit is 29 years. It rules the sign of Capricorn where SEVEN planets, including sun and moon which were part of a solar eclipse, joined on January 15, 1991. SEVEN planets in one sign is a major event, given their orbs run from 29 days (moon) to 248 years (Pluto). I see this as a cosmic congress convening. That was when BUSH the first began the Gulf WAR! If we count 29 years from that date, which would be what astrologers term "the Saturn return" (or Saturn closing that circle of karma, so to speak) it takes us to 2020, year of the great conjunction in liberating Aquarius. The correspondences among these cycles are truly amazing, particularly for those of us who have learned to speak the language of the heavens, or as an x-attorney boyfriend of mine put it (poetically) "read the book of the night."
OOPS: in 2020 the conjunction takes place in Aquarius... sorry!
BRAITHWA: Read Shakespeare's OWN words. I'm sure he embellished as us writers like to do.
I haven't look too much past spring 2010. There is a very DIFFICULT heavenly pattern that definitely portrays SERIOUS attempts on the part of justice institutions and individuals (possibly a lot of rebel militias, too, which I HOPE is not signifying Blackwater) to regain some of the liberties now being trampled. The bad news is the conflict this configuration points to will go on for YEARS. Of course anyone paying attention (as most of us in this forum are) realizes the damage done to this nation will not bring any instant or quick recovery.
Pluto passing through Capricorn empowers the initiatives of the surveillance state, and this will be a GLOBAL influence. We see it already in UK and other nations following the US model using the ruse about "fighting terrorism" to really put into place state-based apparatus (is plural apparati?) to find out who the "trouble makers" are. History shows so often the intelligentsia is targeted, and that's why we joke among ourselves in this forum; but unfortunately there's truth behind that jesting.
2020 is when Jupiter and Saturn (they meet every 20 years and definitely--as based on the character of the SIGN in which they meet--influence the theory and interpretation of law, as will hold for about 20 years. Note Reagan came in on the 1980 one. From 1860 until Reagan, EVERY president who came in on one of those 20 year interval points was killed or died in office. So you can make fun of Nanci Reagan's astrologer, but the woman MAY have protected Reagan. He may have been slated for the same fate. Another astrologer called the l980 great conjunction (again, that refers to the 20 year recurrent meetings between Jupiter & Saturn, which I term the "law and order" planets) a mutation. All of the other ones occured in EARTH signs, but in l980, it was in the AIR element. Since Reagan was an Aquarian (really acted like a corrupt Capricorn) he probably was "protected." The same conjunction that took place in l940 (Jupiter-Saturn in Taurus) recurred in 2000 and I noted that just as the nazis conducted genetic experiments on the Jewish persons in the camps, in 2000 the US Supreme Court granted to for-profit genetic engineering companies the INTELLECTUAL COPYRIGHT to genes! In my view this was a ghastly diabolical decision.
Anyway, in 2010 the conjunction takes place in AQUARIUS!!!!! I see it as worldwide brotherhood and sisterhood, the Marx ideal of a greater rising up of THE people because at long last there is a realization, that extends to empowered representative channels, that the elites do not own GAIA or OUR LIVES, BLOOD, TIME & TREASURE. If we make it till then, I mean us, the mature crowd, as there will be testing, what the Christians term "tribulation" between now and then. Are you sorry you asked?
I may have crossed paths with you Siouxrose since I hung out whereof thou speaketh. I lived in Old San Juan then and it was the Age of Aquarius so who knows? Sigh...
You first horoscope was inspiring. Your second was a let down, pero bien puede ser. Conservatives hate Obama for his liberal voting record and would assassinate him in person or in character as some are trying to do here.
Keep us posted.
Sioux Rose,
Do you see severe resource scarcity issues REDUCING after spring 2010 ?
What information exists about Portia on that day? Is there a link?
One more, sorry any who castigate us sincere star gazers... currently with sun in Cancer and moon taking on its full phase in Capricorn, the energy is decidedly AGAINST Obama. The sign before one's birthday symbolizes the "12th" house on the dial, and it's known for self-undoing, roughly coincides with Pisces (the 12th sign) and signifies activities that end up shooting ourselves in the foot. In my view, Obama is doing all that... since as a LEO, this is indeed HIS 12th house phase.
Add to that statement the fact there will be a solar eclipse in Leo on August 1. In ancient astrology Leo was the sign of kings. Eclipses carry a dark portent. Sure, before science the fact the sun went dark seemed like an omen, a castigation from ON high, etc. Shakespeare, who I believe was a Master, started his tragedy of Julius Caesar WITH an eclipse. And putting female intuition front and center, it was Caesar's wife Portia who noted strange behaviors on the part of animals and pleaded with her spouse NOT to go out that day. He did, and he was betrayed by a buddy and killed.
I am not saying there will be an attempt on Obama, but the eclipse may be somehow darkening his light. I know I liked him a lot better, got caught up in all that hope, 2 months ago... but the positions he's taken have eroded that more and more. It makes me wonder if there was a threat leveled against him? But then can we say the same for Pelosi and all the others who have just gone along with the elite's program, one that is not just diminishing the citzenry of THIS nation, but in many respects placing the world (dereliction of duty as per the command station with respect to climate change) in jeopardy, as well?
PS: EZE did we ever cross paths in PR? Did you ever have coffee at Kasalta on McCleary? My favorite expatriot haunt when I lived in Ocean Park for a number of years before I married and had children.
I'll reserve my full judgment until closer to November... the astrology around the election is FASCINATING and actually holds promise! It's some of the most harmonic interfacing I've seen in some time. If anyone cares to follow along, the cosmic sphere relates the following, which then projects to affairs on earth ("As above, so below" style).
Jupiter represents what is possible for human beings. It can be a force of good, and leads to prosperity and expansion. In its negative, hubris and the gambler's spirit (abuse of resources).
Saturn represents the old, established elites and generally conservative types.
Uranus represents the free thinkers, those born to break the rules and invent or spontaneously come up with new, often ingenious amalgams.
Uranus, this rule-breaker principle, directly opposes Saturn (the old interests), while Jupiter works harmoniously with both. It looks like a very unique type of compromise among diverse groups to form the basis for a more promising coalition.
Now whether that takes shape as Obama, or such intense disconent as to catapult a 3rd party candidate further into the limelight, I can't say. Jupiter takes 12 years to orbit the sun and enters Aquarius in January, 2009 for the inauguration. Aquarius is a magical sign. It relates to human beings capacity to transcend themselves and their selfish interests if they put aside that self interest to instead focus on the greater good. This synergistic principle operates in over-drive during ALL of 2009 and it lends promise. In fact, in the early part of 2009 both Jupiter and Mars (dig it, straight from the song lyrics, "Dawning of the Age of Aquarius") will be crossing Aquarius.
At the end of 2009, Saturn, the great custodian of karma, enters Libra, sign of the balance scales. This is the position of its exaltation, i.e. where it REALLY has the power to UPHOLD THE LAW and by that I mean, the Spiritual Truths/verities that mankind is intended to follow in its mundane systems of law. BUT this Saturn (it enters Libra once every 29 years) in Libra will come into intense conflict with Pluto, which by this time has entered Capricorn (the sign of Rove, Nixon, J Edgar Hoover and other authoritarians) to remain for well over a decade.
My sister is quite wealthy as she opted for the corporate world. She said the economist she speaks to says the autumn of THIS year will begin a MAJOR recession that holds till mid-2010. I feel otherwise... I see VERY severe resource scarcity issues emerging in autumn 2009 and holding through spring 2010. The influences I am speaking of (2 that involve planets with long range orbits) were in evidence during the Great Depression.
Like many have shared in this forum, I have scaled down and need almost nothing... just food and maybe vitamins, and a little gasoline. It seems true that the older the evolution of the soul, the less the titillations of the marketplace culture lure them. Sell our precious mortal time for trinkets? I think not.
I hope some can and will use the above prognosis for positive purposes.
The left should, I think attack McCain on precisely the things that make a lot of white men (especially) admire him, his incarceration by the North Vietnamese and self-styled "war record". In fact, his behaviour was questionable at best while in North Vietnamese custody. A strong case can be made that he played upon his position of priviledge (as the son of two admirals) to obtain special benefits and privileges from his captors, willingly performed traitorous acts that undoubtedly resulted in the loss of American lives, and was, in fact, a quisling and a traitor rather than the so-called "war hero" he masquerades as.
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html
http://www.farfromglory.com/john_s_mccain.htm
Cheers...
Public? Whose PUBLIC? I don' need no steenkin' Public.....
Who's your candidate Siouxrose? Join the fray?
Given the choices where I live and that fate has a sense of humor, I date a guy from a right wing Republican family. He is by nature an authoritarian (I still put him in his place every chance I can get!). He likes to say, "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." THAT is our MEDIA in a nut shell.
Excellent and astute points on how the IMAGE-making faculties of media enhance McCain and draw doubht to Obama, but as we all know, it's basically a wrestling match between "opponents" who represent many of the same interests/policies.
Kudos to: WILMOOR, SAMSON, ZZZ
Imagine if we all imagined a better world and our MEDIA supported THAT agenda! All the $ and human energy/talent/intelligence wasted on war could be redirected to new greener technologies. I believe I was an American Indian in former lifetimes and as a result am VERY conservative with nature's resources. I often think of how LITTLE I can use rather than HOW MUCH. This is the paradigm change that MUST impact Americans. Water is a good example. It usually does not cost much, so most people use it without thought. They think the only viable transaction is what shows up on their monthly bill. Enlarging consciousness so that citizens recognize the IMPACT of their actions is at least as important as which ding dong wins the election. I thought I'd vote for Obama but this constant moving to the right really strengthens the points made by many intelligent posters that there is NOT enough difference between the parties today. As for the Supreme Court justices, who let the dogs in already? I think the rot is so bad the carcass of American politics has to rupture that all its grotesque components come pouring out. Perhaps then we will be able to establish new councils that will indeed render the decisions falsely gotten in this interim null and void. The rest until then is a dangerous trance/dance of smoke and mirrors.
"The poll also asked whether each candidate "would be a good commander-in-chief of the military." "
That Americans need their president to be firstly "Commander in Chief of the Military" says something.
You see, we do not find ourselves in the position of North Korea or Iran, where there is a real danger of being invaded, and having the country destroyed. We spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world, and even if that were not true, we have one of the best armed civilian populations. We will most certainly not be invaded.
Also, it is unlikely that someone is a brilliant General, who spends all his time thinking about military matters would also be the right person to look after our education, our health, the country's positive well being in general.
Take for example, the issue of crime. Someone constructive might dream up projects which look after the poor so they dont have to steal, and also projects which give them creative things to do, and also projects that enhance their career or employments prospects. With the right attitudes in government, we could have a country like Sweden or Japan, where it is safe enough to install vending machines in parks. But the military mind is focussed on defeating problems with force. So his answer will be to use yet more heavy handed force, and to build more prisons.
Who would make the best "Commander in Chief of the Military"? That could be Bremmer, or Petraus, or Fallon for all I know. But dont even think of making that person the leader of a nation.
Perhaps a better question would be to ask "who would make the best educator in cheif".
You see, a good educator, a good teacher does not just hammer facts and numbers into student, but has to inspire the students to want to learn. Make the students actually want to learn, and some real learning will definitely follow. Try to hammer in facts, and the minds and attitudes of students will resist. So "who would make the best educator in chief" would be a good question to ask.
But quite frankly, even "Who would make the best Plumber in chief" has to be better than "Who would make the best Commander in Chief of the Military".
In my eyes even "Who would make the best plumber in chief" would
And again Samson, since none of the three you mention have any more chance than you have of becoming president, I'll vote for Obama. My only other real-world choice is McCain. And McCain scares me a hell of a lot more than Obama, as he should any one.
People probably vote based on quick impression.
Mccain: white, veteran
Obama: black
You can vote for Obama. This is a vote to keep troops in Iraq through his term. And its a vote not to bring troops home but to use them to expand the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan.
Or you can vote for someone else like Nader, McKinney or Barr that is truly a vote to end the war and bring the troops home.
Your choice. But don't pretend you are voting for anything other than more war by voting for Obama. The blood's on your hands if you do so.
PS ... with regard to the discussion above my last post.
If you read carefully, when asked specifics about Iraq policy, the poll numbers haven't changed and still show widespread opposition among Americans. The place where the numbers suddenly change is when asking more ephemeral questions like who will best be our military leader in terms of Iraq and overall. That's when the war-hero propaganda kicks in and makes people answer in contradiction to the policy specifics they say they want.
These polls are just the result of a long propaganda campaign.
Look closely, and McCain is always presented as a 'war-hero'. Not just in his campaign pr junk, but constantly and regularly in the corporate press. That's a standard propaganda technique ... repeat the lie so often that it becomes accepted as fact. Its the exact technique previously used to fool the American people into thinking Iraq had ties to Al-Qaida.
Thus, its no suprise when a vague question like 'who is the best military leader' is asked that McCain shows as ahead. And even that question might be viewed as a sort of 'push poll' to cement in people's minds that McCain is a military leader. Followed of course by 'reporting' on the polls that further cements this.
Interesting since we are talking about someone who only got to be a naval officer because his father and grandfathers were Admirals. He was nearly last in his class at Annapolis. As a pilot he crashed five planes before ending the string by crashing in Vietnam and becoming a prisoner. He was never a strategic commander, and his sole contribution was following orders and bombing from high altitude. There are strong indications that he collaborated with the enemy as a prisoner (see counterpunch.org and the BBC interview with his warden).
Of course, the propaganda system never, ever detracts from the 'war-hero' message by telling you any of these facts. Viewers of the BBC know more about McCain's record than Americans.
Polls are just part of the loop. These results just reflect the results of the propaganda campaign that's been going on for quite some time. The only break in it was the 'crazy McCain' stories back when he dared to challenge corporate Americas choice of Bush for Pres in 2000. Since then McCain has sucked up and made nice so now he gets the good propaganda again.
criticalthinktank July 16th, 2008 2:10 pm
Expensive Military bases have been built there. America will never leave them behind. No we are there, like McCain said, for 100 years. Our military bases are across the world, like tiny lights keeping the world in line.
Obama wants the OIL and is on the same page with the Republicans on this. Most everyone in Congress is sanctioning a WAR for OIL. They have no urge to get us out of there. Apparently the strategy of upping prices at the pump changed the minds of many Americans that YES we want the OIL In Iraq. Yes we want War with Iran as we are more deserving of the OIL and we should own it. Just bumping up the price of OIL at our local gas stations and holding at around an average of $4 could convince Americans to sell out everything for OIL.
★☆♀♂☆★
I think that is the funniest thing I have read, in the last 30 secs.
So ludicrous its laughable. I highly doubt American voters will sway to war because gas is 4 bucks a pop. Or that staying in Iraq because gas/oil is expense, is going to happen.
Lowering the cost of gas means removing our dependancy on it, if we don't need to import as much,and can get it from other sources...
How much of our gas comes from the persian gulf?
16%.
How much oil is sat under the USA?
More than enough to cover that 16%.
We don't even need oil from that part of the world. This is not about oil.
Our real problem lies with the fact that war is profitable and the people in control like to make money.
These people did some nasty things to get that money.
They lied to and cheated us, WE the people, into stirring up a hornets nest and now we are getting viscously stung for it.
America was built on certain values that are now being eroded by the fact that money is king, the people in power are greedy, and WE let stupid uneducated people run the nation.
I believe that there is no more WE the people, WE truly have forgot from where we came and what we were built from. Our forefathers would shit a brick if they saw what WE have become.
WE, need to educate ourselves and our children, and make sound decisions about who sits in the White House.
Letting the buck stop at one man is a great way to run a nation, you just better hope that the man in the hot seat knows what he is doing and is not milking it for himself or his cronies.
But we are now way off topic. Whoops. This is about McCain, and he is an idiot. I think Obama is probably the lesser of two evils. And, voting for Nadar, etc, is great, but they don't have the resources to compete against the Reps/Dems.
Ah, and so it comes back to money, and the stupid people have more of it.
So where do we go from here....
anwong July 16th, 2008 12:48 pm -- The American public's desire to leave Iraq has never been based upon a principled position that the war was one of criminal aggression against a nation that presented no threat, and was therefore fundamentally corrupt and amoral.
'Twas ever thus. With very few exceptions, "public morality" is almost always based on some more or less convoluted rationalization of self-interest. What's worse is the generally low level of enlightenment and foresight involved in the public's determinations of their own self-interest. It's hardly surprising that it is swayed so easily by corporate-sponsored politicians and their media allies.
But there I go being cynical again -- or just realistic, depending on whether the reader happens to agree or not.
So while McInsane is war-heroed, Obama is lampooned on the cover of the New Yorker which shows his wife carrying an assault rifle, a turban on Obama and a picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall of the Oval-looking office behind them.
A third of America thinks he's Muslim (terrorist)
This black man gets my vote, based if nothing else on the fact that the right is attacking him.
Machiavellian Byzantine Circles Within Circles; Denying these swirling waters does not make them fade away or present one with choices that aren't what they are; lesser evil choices.
Nothing to help the Republicans. Nothing.
And I ask CD this; WHERE ON EARTH IS UTOPIA? All governments suck, a lot or a little. So it's ALL lesser evils or greater ones. That is ALL the choice people on Earth have.
From the article: "In this new Washington Post - ABC poll, the number who want no timetable exactly equals the number who favor a timetable."
One word: Baloney! These polls are getting less and less believable. I have personally had enough experience with polls ... both constructing questions and also in fielding questions that, as worded, seemed structured so as to favor certain answers. The truth is, polls can be constructed to get desired results, and I would trust ABC (Disney) about as far as I could throw Karl Rove.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
How long have we been suckered into making "Sophie's Choice?"
If the traditional non-voting Americans voted for a third party candidate it would be a 'slam dunk' and we might just secede.
You wouldn't be throwing away your vote by voting 3rd party unless you vote for a third party president. Then you would be helping McCain get in.
As the last eight years show, letting Republicans into power is committing suicide, ecocide and possibly 2nd degree murder.
There are some rotten dem apples, but repugs are the devil incarnate.
Myth-making alert, myth-making alert,...The above article and its polling data are a complete fiction. It has the validity of The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus. All well-intended and total lies and all promoted by those who don't really believe them either "for our own good". Expect an Obama flip-flop very soon.
We'll always be told the election is a 50/50 split. This will discourage support for third parties.
The '00 election was 50/50 and so was '04. Does anyone really believe that after 8 years of Bush it's still exactly the same? I have never come across so many disillusioned republicans in all my life.
Do you remember the polls that said after 911 Bush had a 80-90% approval rating? Pure BS.
The media is lying... yet again.
Since there is not a real difference between McCain and Obama's policies (real difference on major issues, see their voting records), you might as well not vote for either. The only reason many people are voting for Obama is they don't want to vote republican. The only reason many people are voting for McCain is they don't want to vote for a democrat. That should not be enough of a reason when voting.
It you are against the war, and against corporate corruption, and for justice, you can't vote the status quo.
I'm not voting third party as a 'protest' vote, I'm voting third party because they represent my values, are not indebted to the corporate elite, and support many of the same values that are the only path to peace and justice.
Since when is voting for a candidate that you support 'throwing away' your vote.
One would think that voting for a candidate you don't support but who you have deemed as 'winable' is throwing away your vote.
vote for peace and justice
If 80% of the American public think Iraq is in Central America, how many bananas can you grow in al Basra? How many Americans know the Occupation has already killed 1,200,000 Iraqis? Who cares if the boobocracy prefers the psycho McCain or the hypocrite Obama? It's time to throw the whole mess on the dung-heap of history.
RE: "Vote third party, don't throw away your vote on a corporate elite candidate."
Here. Here. I 2nd this motion. IF there is one on my ballot I will do so, if not I will write in Kucinich and not feel bad at all. They don't count the votes anyway.
Word sez:
"Vote third party, don't throw away your vote on a corporate elite candidate."
If we voted third party (for pres.) wouldn't we be doing just that?
You know, it's just downright f**king amazing - we read countless articles and reports and exposes about how the Big Corp Media gang are all pushing propaganda and lies down our throats, but whenever the same BCM releases a "poll," it's discussed and debated as if said same BCM is suddenly the bastion of honesty, integrity and truth.
We're all becoming totally pathetic...
Who cares what the brainwashed and deluded American "public" wants or thinks. The Iraqis do not want an occupation army telling them what to do, and they don't need an occupation army to protect their oilfields, contrary to what Bush, Cheney and McCain think.
It's the colonial imperial version of Aesop's fable of the boy and the jar of filberts:
"A boy put his hand into a jar of filberts, and grasped as many as his fist could possibly hold. But when he tried to pull it out again, he found he couldn't do so, for the neck of the jar was too small to allow of the passage of so large a handful. Unwilling to lose his nuts but unable to withdraw his hand, he burst into tears. . ."
The Bush/Cheney corporatocracy and Iraq: "Waa boo hoo!"
… Ooops Shifting, as Emily Latilda might say:
… … never mind …
When people said this champaign was going to get DIRTY, I had no idea how bad it would get :"McCain Shifting
Public's View on Iraq?
As "anwong" stated above, most people don't consider the fact that the war is a criminal undertaking.
The only just end to this war would be to withdraw (could do it completely withing a year, have some other international entity oversee the transition) and issue an apology to the Iraqi people.
Then take the money that we pay the mercenaries like Blackwater and Hallibuton and give it to the Iraqis to rebuild the country to at least the level it was before we started this immoral war.
Third party candidates are talking about doing this. Is your candidate?
Vote third party, don't throw away your vote on a corporate elite candidate.
peace and justice require action, not just words.
The fact remains, as long as the United States has troops in Iraq, the resistance to the occupation will continue. The US can not wait out the resistance. The US has created the mess in Iraq due to their criminal desire for control of Iraqi oil and 'permanent bases' in the gulf. The US should apologize for their criminal war, pay reparations, and let the Iraqi people decide their own fate. No matter how long the US stays in Iraq, the eventual outcome will be the same.
McCain is a Republican, which means the media is on his side by default. They'll all keep covering for phil gramm and promoting mccain as a war hero whilst accusing each other of being too liberal.
This does not surprise me one bit. People have been trained like dogs to just think Republicans are naturally better than Democrats, no reason, they're just better, just, because.
So even if their own views on the war fall on the Democratic side of things they still trust the Republican more. The right wing strategy has worked so well at manipulating public opinion it's quite amazing.
Its getting harder, as he slides between what's right and what's politically expedient, to see a lot of daylight between Obama and McCain. But the war is screwed up, and getting out won't unscrew it up, no matter how they leave. So one can stay forever, or leave tomorrow -- makes no difference to the day after.
Mccain's not doing the shifting here. People in this country have been hooked on scarcity for decades ever since the Oil monopolies took over. As long as dependency and thus demand on crude oil stays high enough, America will knowingly or unknowningly accept more bloody murders on Iraq for oil. In the meantime, why not give HEMP a chance to compete with petroleum and let it give Big Oil a run for its money instead of whining about Mccain shifting people's views on Iraq which by the way Obama's accepting and doing as well?
Expensive Military bases have been built there. America will never leave them behind. No we are there, like McCain said, for 100 years. Our military bases are across the world, like tiny lights keeping the world in line.
Obama wants the OIL and is on the same page with the Republicans on this. Most everyone in Congress is sanctioning a WAR for OIL. They have no urge to get us out of there. Apparently the strategy of upping prices at the pump changed the minds of many Americans that YES we want the OIL In Iraq. Yes we want War with Iran as we are more deserving of the OIL and we should own it. Just bumping up the price of OIL at our local gas stations and holding at around an average of $4 could convince Americans to sell out everything for OIL.
This is Capitalism, A Facist Government...and manipulation of people with propaganda at it's best.
wilmoor July 16th, 2008 1:01 pm:
"Take a look at Bush's so-called "war record" and his knowledge of foreign countries - he couldn't even name the countries or the people running them, for God's sake - yet the neo-con media sold the ignorant public on him over a decorated war veteran who was much more worldly wise and intelligent. "
I agree. Similarly, Obama, as intelligent a man as Kerry, could very easily differentiate himself from his opponent, if he wanted to. Obama could say that ALL US soldiers, pilots and mercenaries will leave Iraq. That is what the polls say Americans and Iraqis want. Obama, like McCain, hasn't said that. Are you not curious as to why both McCain's and Obama's plans leave sizeable US forces in Iraq indefinitely?
Take a look at Bush's so-called "war record" and his knowledge of foreign countries - he couldn't even name the countries or the people running them, for God's sake - yet the neo-con media sold the ignorant public on him over a decorated war veteran who was much more worldly wise and intellegent.
Now they're selling McCain over Obama the same way.
John McCain, the new Jim Jones of big league American politics.
"In other words, if the polls are at all representative of the public at large, millions of people say they trust McCain more than Obama on the war, even though they don't know what his true often-stated position is."
What flavor of Kool-Aid do you call this? No matter the name, the brain dead acolytes of the Half-Assed People's Temple will drink it by the barrel. What remedy is there for such stupidity? I don't think there is any.
How much of the credit crisis is due to the Government soaking up funds to fund neocon wars?
The American public's desire to leave Iraq has never been based upon a principled position that the war was one of criminal aggression against a nation that presented no threat, and was therefore fundamentally corrupt and amoral.
The American public opposed the war when it went badly and they appeared to be losing. Face it, if the war, as corrupt and as criminal as it was, was victorious as planned, most Americans would have hailed the neocons as geniuses and heroes even if a million Iraqis were killed in the process.
Americans like to be winners, and McCain really believes that is possible in Iraq. As foolish as that may all sound, his call for victory will resonate in the American electorate and McCain may end up the next president promising victory and glory for the Vaterland, er.. ah... "Homeland?".
The American people (by the way, I wasn't polled, and I always wonder if these polls are only taken in white areas of Mississippi and Alabama, and Orange County, or Wyoming, and of mostly men over 50 who own V8 pickups!) have "forgotten" about Iraq, as the number of US troops dying has fallen of greatly in the last few months. That fact, and the corporate fascist media's nearly complete lack of reporting on what is going on there as news of $4.50/gallon gasoline, Bush's call for more drilling (as opposed to mandating that all new autos be electric or hybrid), and the recent New Yorker cartoon cover take up TV time and newspaper pages' print, at least this week!
Obama does not have the same position that most Americans seemed to have expressed only recently: the war and occupation are a mistake, and let's get the hell outta there! So if either he or McInsane win, I just have to wonder how they think this colonization of the Middle East and Central Asia is going to continue without a future draft? Perhaps that is the question the pollsters should be asking: Do you favor McCains' position of wanting to keep troops in Iraq without a timetable if there needs to be a draft (with no deferments for anyone!) to keep it going? That is a question that should be asked at college campuses in particular, or at grocery stores of middle-aged women who could possibly have kids between the ages of 18 and 22!
On another matter that is related to this issue, because this war and occupation has been all about oil and America's greed for the use of this natural resource, I saw a news report on the News Hour on how people in the greater metropolitan Los Angeles area are dumping their SUVs for smaller, fuel efficient autos. Yesterday here in so-called liberal Santa Cruz, Ca., nearly 100 miles south of liberal San Francisco, where gasoline is selling at $4.50, in a space of fifteen minutes, I must have seen a dozen gas-hogging SUVs and trucks drive by my favorite beach, seeing very few fuel efficient vehicles, and nearly all he parking spaces were taken up by Suburbans, 450 Fords, and Landcruisers. So in one of the most liberal and progressive areas of the country, in which, I admit there are alot of Pius vehicles on the road (I have one), I don't see any less SUVs on the road, and you'd think they would be disappearing and showing up in junkyards instead of people's front yards.
So another question the pollsters should ask: knowing that the technology exists, do you think that auto makers here in the USA shoud be mandated to start making all vehicles electric or hybrid, and do you favor such a mandate if it meant the US would stop buying oil from any country from the Middle East or Central Asia (and by the way, most of the oil we use is bought from Canada!)?
McCain is not reframing the war in Iraq all by himself. The MSM, under orders from their corporate masters, no longer reports on actual events in Iraq at all. Fascist pundits announce on television that we have won. Everything is looking up and it turns out that Baby Caligula's war of choice was a good idea after all. And the imbecilic sheeple are actually buying this nonsense. Time to leave the country.
Mr. Chernus, why are you so puzzled? When there is little difference between the positions of the two candidates on a specific issue one will always get close to a 50-50 split of the voting public.
What about the fake gay marriage in the White House between W and "da terminator" to split the gay vote, the pretty white dress, Pat Robertson as the "lovely flower girl," and Diebold going bold with the big time high tech steal factor in case of close presidential contest?