Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Consensus?
Here's the most interesting bit I think. Democrats and Republicans can agree that Iran is a menace. But whereas a clear majority of Republicans would do something about it, Democrats would not.
That is bad for the Democratic Party at the polls folks. Real bad. Read the data, not just the article.
4 Comments:
By 
Admin, at
Tue May 09, 08:48:00 PM:
By 
, at
Wed May 10, 02:28:00 AM:
why are the terms 'do something' and 'use of force' synonymous?
And if a pollster called to ask me if I had confidence in the prospects for a diplomatic solution, my answer would be no as well. But, that answer would in no small part be guided by the fact that I have no faith in the Bush administration to negotiate.
I call this wishful thinking on your part.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed May 10, 09:10:00 AM:
The diplomatic solution and confidence with the Bush Administration have nothing to do with one another. The EU
3 and the UN have been at it for literraly years at this point, the the support of the US.
Iran's theocratic tyranny is a menace. Its president is a NUTTER. He is completely bonkers. How can you mutter some stupidity about your confidence or lack of it in the Bush Administration? Clinton made a deal with the NORKS wihich those freaks did not abide. The Iranian mullahcracy is the same.
There is no prospect for any diplomatic solution with Iran except CAPITULATION to their desire to have nuclear weapons. The poll demonstrates that the majority of the US, regardless of party affiliation, views this as a threat, now or tomorrow.
So again, the issue os action to deny Iran nuclear weapons is where the Democratic Party divides in 2. On the one hand, you have good loyal Democrats who love this country, understand perfectly well the menace posed by Iran, and would agree with most of the Republicans to deny Iran WMD, even using force. On the other hand, you have a motley crew of other Democrats -- who don't love this country, who are a mixture of pacificists, holdout socialists (think Internaitonal ANSWER) and other ists who would prefer Iranian hegemony in the Middle East and are unconcerned with Islamism.
Well, that's the exact same political problem the Democratic Party had in 1968, when their convention is Chicago was plagued by riots and division. It's the problem Hillary faces within her party because they resent her vote for the war. It's the divide between the Feingold/Dean crowd and the New Democrats of the Bill Clinton variety.
So no, it's not wishful thinking. It's the Democratic Party divide on national security out there in plain view.
By , at
Wed May 10, 12:11:00 PM:
"The diplomatic solution and confidence with the Bush Administration have nothing to do with one another."
that is a bizarre statement. So others are negotiating and have been doing so in the past and had no success. US foreign policy has an intense effect on those talks whether or not they are directly involved no? And it is current US foreign policy that I believe is driving the issue to the point it is at now.
I agree that the democratic party is divided, but that is certainly not anything new. It doesn't change the fact that polls also indicate that the majority of americans are not happy with republicans at this point. And this is certainly bad... real bad.. for republicans.
As for your summation of 1/2 of the democratic party, well, the republicans have more than their share of nuts and shifty unrespectable types as well. It just so happens that in this case the nuttier factions are happy to go to war.
