The unpopular President
I caught Meet the Press on my flight back. Jet Blue rocks. Here are some poll numbers Russert quoted:
"Let's look at the latest polls on George W. Bush's second term. Approve, 43 percent. Disapprove, 55 percent. On the economy, approve 40 percent. Disapprove, 58 percent. On Social Security, approve, 34 percent. Disapprove, 62 percent. On Iraq, approve, 41 percent. Disapprove, 58 percent. And this one, handling the war on terror, which always had been George Bush's strongest issue, approve, 50 percent. Disapprove, 49 percent. David Broder, what do you make of all this?"
I know what I make of it. But I don't think it matters much; Bush isn't one to be swayed by opinion polls.
"Let's look at the latest polls on George W. Bush's second term. Approve, 43 percent. Disapprove, 55 percent. On the economy, approve 40 percent. Disapprove, 58 percent. On Social Security, approve, 34 percent. Disapprove, 62 percent. On Iraq, approve, 41 percent. Disapprove, 58 percent. And this one, handling the war on terror, which always had been George Bush's strongest issue, approve, 50 percent. Disapprove, 49 percent. David Broder, what do you make of all this?"
I know what I make of it. But I don't think it matters much; Bush isn't one to be swayed by opinion polls.
posted by mochi at 7:52 PM
5 Comments:
Wait a minute, Mochi! Don't we usually criticize people as being weak when they are swayed by public opinion over personal principle?
Completely off the topic-
Interesting article about Dean and Democrats over at:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18374
Is this pretty much true?
Jack, that article is totally untrue - it begins by estabilshing as its foundation the asinine lie that the Democrats' have a "Christian-hating base... who view Christians as public enemy #1". That is absolutely ridiculous, untrue and evidence of the extremist hate-speech that Dean addresses, and which has long been a part of extremist christians' attack on the rest of society. Those of us who criticize religious extremism are not anti-religion, we are anti-extremism. There is a difference.
People like the author of that article think they have exclusive rights to the religion they've called their own, even though they usually have to twist it into something ugly in order to make it conform to their vision of what it should be. It's a folly that has been repeated many times throughout history. And, as usual, they have to claim that all who disagree with them are the enemy by attaching their paranoid delusions such as the one that the Democrats are out to destroy christianity.
Try these instead, please: Public Christian and Liberals Like Christ.
Sorry, here's the link to Public Christian: Public Christian
Shea, I went to the Public Christian site and these people are wacked! Sorry to say that, but if this is the left's religious perspective then no wonder Democrats/Liberals are having a hard time being credible. (not saying that everything on the site is bad) I'm not directing this at you, but let me just critique just a tiny piece of what's on this site:
FIRST - GENERALIZATION IN THE EXTREME!
"The problem with Dean's politically incorrect comments is that he was right. It's common knowledge that the conservative evangelicals are predominately affluent white Christians.
This is a group that
(a) excludes minorities,
(b) arrogantly claims to have exclusive access to the mind of God,
(c) does NOT take care of the sick and the poor as Jesus asked us to do,
(d) supports a president who would not seriously help the poor when Blair asked him to but does support the unholy act of torture, and
(e) proposes family values espoused NOT by Jesus Christ but by Caesar Augustus in the early church (and Adolph Hitler 60-70 years ago), among other many things.
You can't seriously believe this do you? I can't speak for Bush, but I thought Democrats were all about individualism, against stereotyping, against homogeneity!
I don't know why all of the sudden, Democrats are pushing a religious agenda, trying to gain religious credibility, when for years they have pushed an agenda to the contrary.
For example, according to most Christians, killing innocent life is morally wrong. Therefore abortion is morally wrong. A LARGE majority of liberals support abortion. Liberals pipe up and say, "Oh, yes, but conservatives advocate WAR!". Well, some do, and some are misguided by their leaders, but the reason some Christians advocate war is that it is waged primarily against the morally wrong, those who have attacked first, etc. I'm not saying that the case is always there for war, but many Christians think it justified to protect the innocent. Whether they are right or wrong about the particular circumstance is immaterial. But, what never gets addressed is, just because Christians often support war, does that make abortion right?
More examples: Liberals have tried to remove God from everything. From the pledge, schools, public buildings, you name it. Did Jesus advocate removing God from society?
The sites you recommend don't advocate tolerance, they advocate judgement and religious fundamentalism. Just because it differs from the conclusions of the "right" fundamentalists, doesn't mean that the thought cannot be fundamentalist--these guys are out to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, and that is clearly not Christian! It is wrong for the religious "left" as much as for the "right"
In Romans 14, it cautions Christians to lift up the downtrodden, to lift up the weaker brother. If there is a fellow Christian who is mired in ignorance and error, then it is the responsibility of other Christians to lift him up, to teach him, to edify. NOT DESTROY HIM!
These "liberal" Christians are as "fundamentalist" as the ones they accuse. These guys will never win fellow "right" Christians to their message if it is one of judgement and condemnation.
Shea, a group is often defined by their most vocal. When a "right" ideologue comes forth with vitriol against their fellow man, fellow American, I am quick to point it out and to the best of my ability help them overcome that narrow minded perspective. (not saying that I don't have some of my own narrow minded perspectives-ha!)
When Democrats/Liberals most outspoken are heard uttering a vitriolic and judgemental remark against their fellow man and American, it is often defended by those like minded. (Republicans do it to I might add). I would be offended and condemn remarks by the leader of the RNC if he said that the Democrat party was just a party of pinkos, homo's and African Americans. But Liberals/Democrats can't see the offensive nature of Dean's remarks? The contempt, the judgementalism, the vitriol?
Ok, enough of that :)
One thing I DO know about you, Shea is that you seem to be a man of compassion and fairness. That is an admirable trait and one not shared by many on the left or right.
Will follow up with a question:
Can you provide me with your definition of "religious extremism" and give me some contemporary examples of such? (Citing Christianity, not something like Islam)?
Kindest regards,
-Jack
Jack, Jack, Jack...
"no wonder Democrats/Liberals are having a hard time being credible." - They're not. Democracy and liberalism are widely embraced by the mainstream, even by those who vote republican.
"You can't seriously believe this do you?" - Yes.
"I thought Democrats were all about individualism, against stereotyping, against homogeneity!" - To be honest, I'd say it depends on the situation, as both sides give lip service to those values. Homogeneity, in my opinion, is something that people indulge in as an accident of human psychology. They form like groups even when they're not trying.
"I don't know why all of the sudden, Democrats are pushing a religious agenda, trying to gain religious credibility, when for years they have pushed an agenda to the contrary." - Au contraire. They're not pushing a religious agenda, nor do they need to gain credibility, nor have they ever pushed an anti-religious agenda. All they have done is say that non-fundamentalist religions are valid too, and that the fundamentalists are not the be-all and end-all of religion. It is not anti-religion to speak out against judgmental zealots who claim that you are a heretic if you don't adhere absolutely to their definition of what a religion should be.
The abortion thing: you present semantic argument that it is okay to kill sometimes, the only difference is in which times those are. You remember the anecdote about Winston Churchill? He was sitting at a dinner and talking to his dinner partner, when for some reason he asked her if she would sell her body for £1 million, and she said yes, she thought she might. Then he asked if she would do it for £10. “What do you think I am?” she cried indignantly. “Madam,” he responded, “we have already established that. Now we are only haggling over the price.”
"Liberals have tried to remove God from everything. From the pledge, schools, public buildings, you name it." - Please note the word "public." If I pay for a building, I do not want you to spray paint your religious message on it. Similarly, many Liberals have fought to ensure that public property is not subject to endorsement of one person's or one group's religious values, to the exlusion of all others, even to the point of derision.
"...it is the responsibility of other Christians to lift him up, to teach him, to edify. NOT DESTROY HIM!" - if the right-wing fundamentalist christians would only follow that principle, things would be so much better.
"But Liberals/Democrats can't see the offensive nature of Dean's remarks? The contempt, the judgementalism, the vitriol?" - Sure they can. They have been slammed by such tactics from the right for so many years now, that they quite frankly see it as just desserts. They want the opportunity to be as offensive as Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney. I don't advocate being offensive to make a point, but I can see why they want to be able to say outrageous things and get away with it just like the teflon party who are never held accountable for what they say.
Which brings us to: my definition of extremism. To be honest, it's not as glamorous as my silver-tongue rhetoric would imply. I just go with the old tried-and-true dictionary definition: extemism. Simple, but effective.
Post a Comment
<< Home