Sunday, December 04, 2005
THE REAL KOOL-AID KIDS
A recent FoxNews Opinion Dynamics poll, published on the first of December, is interesting not because the always fluffy source had anything new to say but because of the things being made out of the data.
True to their modus operandi, the hatemongers over at NewsMax have dug through the three pages of the poll to find the most inflammatory statement contained therein and have used it as the basis for one of their short, invective-filled "articles:"
"Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml
They don't bother to link the whole poll, of course. After all, NewsMax does the thinking so its readers don't have to...
For people who think, the link is:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_120105.pdf
We'll have to ignore the biased nature of the questions themselves. This is, after all, the "fair and balanced" source...
The poll is well worth the time to read, bias or no. I'm sure GWB's people are reading this one and others. The line in question is in page three. For your convenience, here is the question and answer:
7. Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?
Better off Worse off (Same as) (Don’t know)
Overall: 27% 52% 8% 13%
Democrats: 41% 34% 8% 18%
Republicans: 10% 78% 6% 6%
Independents: 29% 7% 11% 13%
[apologies for the poor format]
NewsMax is fixated on that 41% number, it being the best available means to bash Democrats. There is another number here I find far more revealing:
Overall, only 52% believe the world is better off with Saddam Hussein removed from power.
George W Bush, being far more intelligent than Carl Limbacher, will find this number far more significant, I'm sure...
Two and a half years ago when the war began, somewhere around 80% of everyone supported Hussein's forced ouster. Today, after revelations, recriminations, and setbacks variously interpreted, almost half of the pro-war side has reconsidered whether the world is better off without the Baathist government in Iraq and only a bare majority still think America did the right thing for the world.
Only the Republican block remains largely unchanged.
Conclusion:
Democrats and independents reviewed the facts as presented at the beginning of the war and made the thinking choice to support the government and the war.
As the facts presented have changed, those people have changed their minds. Thinking people do that.
The Republicans have for the most part kept their eyes shut, marching forward behind their leader. If there is a cliff ahead, they won't see it until they tumble over the lip.
Kool-Aid, anyone?
True to their modus operandi, the hatemongers over at NewsMax have dug through the three pages of the poll to find the most inflammatory statement contained therein and have used it as the basis for one of their short, invective-filled "articles:"
"Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml
They don't bother to link the whole poll, of course. After all, NewsMax does the thinking so its readers don't have to...
For people who think, the link is:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_120105.pdf
We'll have to ignore the biased nature of the questions themselves. This is, after all, the "fair and balanced" source...
The poll is well worth the time to read, bias or no. I'm sure GWB's people are reading this one and others. The line in question is in page three. For your convenience, here is the question and answer:
7. Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?
Better off Worse off (Same as) (Don’t know)
Overall: 27% 52% 8% 13%
Democrats: 41% 34% 8% 18%
Republicans: 10% 78% 6% 6%
Independents: 29% 7% 11% 13%
[apologies for the poor format]
NewsMax is fixated on that 41% number, it being the best available means to bash Democrats. There is another number here I find far more revealing:
Overall, only 52% believe the world is better off with Saddam Hussein removed from power.
George W Bush, being far more intelligent than Carl Limbacher, will find this number far more significant, I'm sure...
Two and a half years ago when the war began, somewhere around 80% of everyone supported Hussein's forced ouster. Today, after revelations, recriminations, and setbacks variously interpreted, almost half of the pro-war side has reconsidered whether the world is better off without the Baathist government in Iraq and only a bare majority still think America did the right thing for the world.
Only the Republican block remains largely unchanged.
Conclusion:
Democrats and independents reviewed the facts as presented at the beginning of the war and made the thinking choice to support the government and the war.
As the facts presented have changed, those people have changed their minds. Thinking people do that.
The Republicans have for the most part kept their eyes shut, marching forward behind their leader. If there is a cliff ahead, they won't see it until they tumble over the lip.
Kool-Aid, anyone?
Comments:
<< Home
What facts have changed? Was it supposed to be a perfect war? I would submit that Democrats (in general) supported the war initially because it was the right thing to do. Now they oppose it because it's the politcal thing to do.
# posted by 
: 1:04 PM
: 1:04 PM
So 48% of us are WRONG for thinking the world is better off without Saddam? Guess that just means that 52% aren't paying attention.
Regardless of why we did it, it needed to be done.
My main complaint is that we did it (like we do most things) halfway, instead of stomping on Syria on our way in, and telling Iran to sit up straight and knock of the foolishness.
Instead we have reinforced the worlds perception that we are unwilling to use our real power, and cannot take casualties. This concept is just reinforced by the "pull out now" crowd. It doesn't work in tenage sex, and it doesnt work in warfare...
Regardless of why we did it, it needed to be done.
My main complaint is that we did it (like we do most things) halfway, instead of stomping on Syria on our way in, and telling Iran to sit up straight and knock of the foolishness.
Instead we have reinforced the worlds perception that we are unwilling to use our real power, and cannot take casualties. This concept is just reinforced by the "pull out now" crowd. It doesn't work in tenage sex, and it doesnt work in warfare...
# posted by : 7:51 PM
: 7:51 PM
Kool aid program a definitive explanation for the leftists and middle of the road 'moderates' who are destined to get run over for their agree, disagree, agree or was that disagree on the topic mentality? I see a John Kerry candidate with these 'moderates'.
For leftists and moderates who claim to actually 'think' before they decide is absurd; for thinking would interfere with their long standing views of keeping an 'open mind'.
For leftists and moderates who claim to actually 'think' before they decide is absurd; for thinking would interfere with their long standing views of keeping an 'open mind'.
# posted by : 10:53 AM
: 10:53 AM
Fabulous conclusion. Only those who back the current media trend are "thinking" people. An open mind means that you intake information, evaluate it, and determine if it sways your opinion. Apparently Roadkill Journal "moderately" believes that one is a thinking person only if one follows the "Bush Lied!" crowd.
Were there WMDs? Yes, at one point, there were. In point of fact Senator Kerry emphatically stated that if we didn't believe that WMDs in Saddams hands were a threat then we shouldn't vote for him. This is a position he held while Bill Clinton was president, so don't tell me that the intelligence data changed. By their own admission only 6 members of the Senate actually READ beyond page 5 of the nearly 100 page briefing disseminated to the Senate before the vote to authorize war powers.
Now, you can "think" about that information with your "open mind" or you can shut it out, like a liberal.
What flavor Kool Aid do _you_ prefer, RoadKill?
Post a Comment
Were there WMDs? Yes, at one point, there were. In point of fact Senator Kerry emphatically stated that if we didn't believe that WMDs in Saddams hands were a threat then we shouldn't vote for him. This is a position he held while Bill Clinton was president, so don't tell me that the intelligence data changed. By their own admission only 6 members of the Senate actually READ beyond page 5 of the nearly 100 page briefing disseminated to the Senate before the vote to authorize war powers.
Now, you can "think" about that information with your "open mind" or you can shut it out, like a liberal.
What flavor Kool Aid do _you_ prefer, RoadKill?
# posted by : 1:17 PM
: 1:17 PM << Home
