I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
"Dog bites man". Move along.
The GOP is full of hypocrites? Who knew?
Hypocrite, indeed.
Hypocritically, par for the course.
Finding choice examples of hypocrisy by Republicans is like shooting fish in a barrel these days. It is, however, uncivil to point this out.
It is, however, uncivil to point this out.
For me, pointing out hypocracy is fairly hypocritical.
I very politely point out that the term "Pharisee" might apply here. And I say that sorrowfully, that such a kind and decent man might accidentally forget which set of principles he was using.
Yawn. GOP hypocrisy is such a common place it just goes unnoticed. Actually, it's not even hypocrisy, which is a simple, personal moral failing--it's part of a corrupt modus operandi of deception and bamboozlement. Pole-up-the-ass straight (in all senses of the word) Hatch is just another right wing moral relativist who'll do anything for power.
Sure wish we could get traction with this shit, but until we can do our own version of working the media refs, it ain't gonna happen.
I am sure Fox News was all over this when they covered the 'photogenic filibuster.'
Schmuck.
But that was an executive branch position and this deals with a lifetime judicial position. Since the latter has much more power, oversite must be much less. It only makes sense!
Yeah, so Hatch lies and the SCLM doesn't challenge him. What of it? It's not like the media is . . .
Look! It's Michael and Kobe!
9/11 changed everything.
Republican Hypocrite is an oxymoron.
TC, I think you meant to say "Republican Hypocrite is redundant".
Meanwhile, Drudge has some great news on the fascism front:
"FBI has collected extensive information on 'tactics, training and organization' of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, confidential bureau memorandum show... Developing..."
http://www.drudgereport.com/
See? Instapundit was right all along! Dissent *IS* traitorous!
Speaking of hypocrisy, check out this outrageous WaPo editorial. Here's the juicy, supremely ignorant/evil quote:
For Democrats thrilled with the Soros millions, imagine conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife opening his bank account on behalf of Mr. Bush.
Via TPM, via one of his readers.
G C - that is truly frightening. Now my weekend is complete - Tommy Franks talking seriously about the possibility of a military dictatorship and now this. Where are the weathermen and the SDS when we need them?
I need to start using tinyurl.
Here's the WaPo editorial link. I hope.
Where are the weathermen and the SDS when we need them? -- Tena
Funny you should mention it. My landlady was part of the SDS back in the day. A real, honest to goodness, public demonstrating, speech giving, illegal-abortion-slush-fund managing, student radical. I listen to her stories with awe and envy.
I imagine that, like her, many of the Weatherman and SDS just grew older, settled down and joined the bourgeoisie. At least she's still a Lefty.
Some of the old, leftist radicals are our present day Neocons.
Some of the old, leftist radicals are our present day Neocons.
Precisely. That's why I don't get all nostalgic about that style of radicalism. The Stalinist impulse is to strong in it.
"too strong"
I was at the National Academy of Sciences in 1981 when the Reagan administration decided to politicize the Academy, "a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare". In came Frank Press as the NAS president (who is a Presidential appointee); out went many career staffers. One of my favorites was Mike Naftalin. Mike ran the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy for 25 years, guiding all sorts of important studies. Mike's office had pictures in his office shaking hands with every US President he served, from Johnson through Nixon to Carter. But when the Reaganauts landed, Mike had to go....
The early 80s were in some ways just as bad as today, only we couldn't complain on the Internet. All we could do was read the WaPo and receive the message that it was politics as usual.
Thanks, Jeff, for sharing your story. You brought back some fond memories of good people....
Some of the old leftys are today's neocons?!?
OK, let's make a list. There's Horowitz. And then there's, um, there's....gosh, outta bullets on that one.
Q in the B: Very few old lefties are today's Neocons. But that's not the point. It is a fact that the Neocon movement rests on an intellectual foundation developed by people who had a certain type of Leftist mindset. Needless to say, it wasn't a progressive, populist form of left wing thinking, but a totalizing one. Hence my reference to Stalinism. Granted, these people were mostly just assholes in search of an ideology, with Horowitz being their posterboy.
Quaker -- if you are truly curious about the radical left ancestry of some of the radical right, check out this article at: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100103.html
Justin Raimondo discusses the Trotskyite underpinnings of the radical right in great detail and provides great link-throughs for more information.
"Some of the old, leftist radicals are our present day Neocons."
Precisely. That's why I don't get all nostalgic about that style of radicalism. The Stalinist impulse is to strong in it. mondo dentro
I'm with Quaker on this. Say more, please. I was certainly a lefty, but I acted mine out in a different way. And I never considered myself a Stalin admirer. I'm still a lefty -- I'd even enjoy living in France (or Canada).
Are they taking our names from here?
I'm with Quaker on this one. Shifting from a radical Lefty to a Neocon is such a severe change that few are capable of. There could be an exception or two (like, the Horowitz example) but seriously, someone would nottice if a bunch of radical Stalinists suddenly went Imperialist. We're talking political whiplash.
Of course, here in the US, Moderates are lumped in with Libbers and lefties for no other reason than to narrow the focus and paint a rosy picture of our creeping totalitarianism ("would you like Right Wing or Supersized Right Wing with fries?" as Neil Gaiman once commented).
A Real live, honest to Bakunin Lefty would scare the bejesus out of most Americans. They'd think we'd been invaded by martians or "Commies". Oh, sorry, we call our pervasive, amorphous enemies "Terrorists" these days. I keep forgetitng.
I think the GOoPers are full of shit, but I suppose they would claim that filibusters of judicial nominees are different than filibusters of other nominees, since under the Constitution the president appoints judges with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. In the view of Constitutional scholar (not!) Bill Frist, that requires a "straight up-and-down vote" on a nomination. Being an actual lawyer rather than a cat-slicer like Frist, I disagree.
Streaker,
Very likely they are. But if you aren't on someone's list already, you wouldn't be doing your patriotic duty!
Some of the old leftys are today's neocons?!?
Back when they were eligible for the draft. Things changed abruptly after that was done away with.
It's always tempting to go over the Hatch story everytime the oily, lying little slime ball is brought up. I'm trying to limit myself to once every two months.
someone would notice if a bunch of radical Stalinists suddenly went Imperialist
Stalin wasn't imperialist?!
The Neocons are just Stalinists who changed sides when they saw which way the wind was blowing. It actually required very little ideological whiplash.
And, by the way, it has nothing to do with what most of us think of as left-wing activism.
Is what Orrin "hatch-ed" now egg on his face?
The following is an excerpt from Jonah Goldberg's article The Neoconservative Invention, (and quoting Goldberg does not make me a troll, so stay calm):
The word "neoconservative" was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who'd moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of "running dog" or "fellow traveler." Or perhaps the "neo" was intended to conjure "neo-Nazi," the only other political label to sport the prefix. As Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the most-respected social scientists of the 20th century and an original neocon wrote, the term "was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being so described."
But the important thing to remember is that the term described a process which the Left considered intellectual betrayal, not a distinct ideology.
I'd offer a link, but I'm having trouble figuring it out. In any case, the article I linked to above at http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100103.html provides the link.
I'm with mondo. The radical left contains within it the seeds for totalinarianism just as the radical right does. It's just that the country as a whole has moved so far to the right that what used to be left-middle has been redefined as radical left. It's not that the Left never posed any danger to the system, just that, for now, the Right is the ascendant, imminent danger.
Peanut - I think you may have missed mondo dentro's point, but perhaps I should let mondo address your comment.
I think mondo is right, however, in calling the Bushistas Stalinists. I don't think Stalin was actually what any of us think of as "left." He was a totalitarian, period. There is really no difference between totalitarians - it is spurious to call them left or right, IMO. It's a whole nuther animal.
Some of the old, leftist radicals are our present day Neocons.
If you fight the same enemy long enough, you become them.
You know at some point in time, you would think the Democrats would stand up to the Republican lies-very verbally and all together for the press - here we go.
This bit where Bush says he will no longer take question from the Democratic Party and when Sen. Frist as well as Sen. Robertson stop an investigation for the missing WMD under the pretense of its just politics that Dem's are playing here -- you begin to realize that the Dem's seem to be play along with Bush on this little game of his because they are not raise HELL so what gives?
Do the Democrats think things are going to get better?
Why not - where the fuck is Clinton - hell he is helpping Bush hide all his shit. WHY?
Remember Clinton said "as a matter of law Bush doesn't need UN okay to go to war with Iraq'
remember Clinton thinks the French suck too.
and remember Clinton thinks it okay for Bush to lie about tHe Niger yellowcake-its was just a mistake.
Gee Clinton, was it okay to trash CIA agent Valerie Plame too?
We've got a problem in Washington DC - The Dem's are plenty capable, but they just are NOT doing anything...
Soros wants to get rid of Bush. The word to get rid of Bush is impeachment and not via the election.
Oh, bullshit on all that about old time lefties being today's right wingnuts.
I already said this on a thread below, but totalitarianism isn't right or left. It is a whole different animal.
Would you be saying the same things about the Black Panthers?
Peanut and Tena, you're both right on the money as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't want to distance myself from salt-of-the-Earth activists. I don't think anyone who posts here does (well, except the trolls--by definition, pretty much).
Generally speaking, I think we're in a period of history where the notion of what is "left" needs to be reinvented. "Needs" as in "has to be because we have no choice". Successful activism demands a new language. Cold war narratives ("ways of framing") just simply will not work in a post Soviet world. Ditto, I'm afraid, for many of our most cherished ideas from the Civil Rights era, as great as it was.
The "left" will go on, I am sure of that, simply because the old injustices and needs for human liberty are always going to be with us. The question is how and at what cost.
Personally, I'm a big believer in developing indiginous, All-American progressive populist forms of left wing politics that disentangle us from old modes of discourse that are too weighed down with "anti-Americanism" and "anti-imperialism". My evidence that this latter type of discourse is bad news? Just look that the protofascists. They love portraying protesters as "anti-war"
"anarchistic" and "anti-capitalist" because they know it is a losing image to be stuck with. The fact is that the anti-Bush movement is far more broad than the press has yet to portray in any significant way. Sure, it includes the stray "Bakunin Lefty" and liberarian socialists (that's more or less me), but it also includes guys like... Zbigniew Brzezinski!
just simply will not work in a post Soviet world. Ditto, I'm afraid, for many of our most cherished ideas from the Civil Rights era
Specifically what most cherished ideas?
Tena -- I can't agree completely that totalinarianism isn't right or left but a whole different animal. I think fascist or totalitarian tendencies exist at the outer edge of most political ideologies. Granted, totalitarian systems from both the Left and the Right have alot in common with each other. I tend to think of totalinarianism as a convergence point which any political system that does not sufficiently respect the rights of the individual can end up.
As for the Black Panthers, they promoted armed revolution. If they had been successful in instigating one and had achieved power, do you really think anything but a variety of totalinarianism would have been the ultimate result? The Panthers consciously differentiated themselves from the nonviolent civil rights movement by advocating violent insurgency.
That fillibuster doesn't count beacuse it didn't work, the nominee was confirmed. That is why Charles Schumer kept saying during the debate that Republicans were only against succesful fillibusters
Damn. I wish there was a preview option on haloscan.
...a convergence point where (not which) any political system that does not sufficiently respect the rights of the individual can end up.
You guys must have missed the memo... it isn't against the law when Republicans do it. Rush says so.
The fact is that the anti-Bush movement is far more broad than the press has yet to portray in any significant way. -- mondo dentro
I agree, absolutely this is true. But how exactly do we go about disentangling ourselves from the old modes of discourse? Serious question, not rhetorical. I think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure I see how it can be done.
What BushCo is engaged in is imperialism. They call us anti-American because we are, in fact, opposed to their vision of what America is and what it means to be American.
From www.dominantreality.com
The filibuster makes Democrats relevant.
Democrats cannot cower in fear that overuse of the filibuster will hurt them politically. The Administration and Congressional Republicans force the Democrats into this posture when they continually produce bills whose only redeeming purpose is to fill the pockets of Republican donors.
If Republicans are actually interested in reforming Medicare or passing a real energy bill they will bring Democrats to the table to negotiate truly bipartisan legislation. Putting conservative Democrats like John Beaux (D-LA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) on the secret Medicare Conference Committee does not accomplish bipartisanship.
As long as Republicans continue to ignore the constituencies that tend to vote Democratic, Democrats will be forced to use the filibuster to make sure those constituencies are heard. Democrats have no other choice.
The behavior of the Republican Party in 2000's Presidential race, the California recall, the attack ads that were run against people like former Senator Max Cleland, and reapportionment in Texas and Colorado demands this type of response from Democrats. Good government requires loyal opposition and right now loyal opposition means using the weapons that are available. The filibuster must be used by Democrats to defeat ill-conceived legislation and right wing judicial appointments or the Democratic Party will become irrelevant participants in a Republican orgy.
Peanut, I agree about BushCo being imperialists, but they are also fascists IMHO.
Here are some points (apologies to anyone who's already seen these) on fascism:
*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
Full document here: http://www.remember.org/
hist.roo....root.what.html
These points are terrifyingly close to what's going on these days aren't they?
What's really sad is that they call people who are really espousing the views of "Patriotism" & "Americanism" (like us) as "Un-American" or "Anti-American" I sure hope the general populace wakes up before it's too late.
Cheers 
Peanut - Sorry I had to leave and couldn't answer you in a more timely fashion.
Yes, the Black Panthers did advocate revolution, but it didn't happen. What did happen was things like the Black Panther-run school breakfast and lunch programs that were very successful, among other things.
The weathermen were violent, and I don't advocate violence. But mainly I was talking about the organizing ability that the 60's radical groups showed.
And as for totalitarianism not being right or left, I guess one needs to define "right" and "left." I still don't think of Stalin as a leftist. What Stalin brought to the U.S.S.R. was not socialism at all, and was something much closer to the fascism that Hitler brought to Germany. If you read, say, the classic definition of fascism, it fits Stalin's regime just as well as the Third Reich. It wasn't as if Stalin brought true anarchy to the U.S.S.R. - and that really is the extreme of the left.
Quaker and Peanut,
There was a segment of Cold War hawks on the right, with Trot roots, back in the '50s and '60s before "neoconservative" became a popular term. They started out in the Schachtman wing of the Socialist Workers Party. After some abortive attempts at a "third camp" position toward the superpowers, they threw in with the Truman national security state and moved to the right. James Burnham was chief among them. I believe Willmoore Kendall was, too. And Dwight MacDonald probably would have become one of them if they'd lived long enough. Back in the days before neoconservatism was identified as a separate movement, these rabid anti-communist hawks were a major segment of the '50s New Right. I guess you could call them "pre-neocons."
More important than the ex-trots, though, are former members of the Art Schlesinger "vital center" of Cold War liberals. Scoop Jackson and Jeanne Kirkpatrick come to mind. This wing of neoconservatism is especially prevalent at the Standard. There's quite a bit of continuity between the attitudes of people like William Kristol and the technocratic, interest group liberalism of Adolph Berle and Daniel Bell. These are basically just slightly more hawkish corporate liberals with a smidgen of skepticism toward the Great Society; the paleocons at Lew Rockwell.com call them "big government conservatives."
Another New Left guy in the current neocon camp today, BTW, is Ron Radosh. It's a real shame: Radosh coauthored some great work with the libertarian Murray Rothbard on the corporatist aspects of the New Deal. It was part of an attempted alliance between free market libertarians and the New Left, under the sponsorship of Rothbard and Karl Hess.
During and after the St. Louis libertarian revolt from the YAF, there were close ties between elements of the New Left and right-wing libertarians. Noam Chomsky at one time wrote for an anarcho-capitalist publication (I forget which), and Rothbard wrote for Ramparts. Ironically, this collaboration with Rothbard and the paleos is one part of Radosh's career he completely varnishes over in "Commies."
As somebody on a libertarian list commented, Radosh had more respect for the Old Right isolationists when he was a commie than he does as a neocon.
Specifically what most cherished ideas?
First of all, I'm speaking of framing issues, not values, per se. I don't want to be misinterpreted here.
I guess the biggest "idea" I was thinking of was the idea that every issue involves identifying a minority or minority status of some group. In short, the left has tried to repeat the civil rights movement with women, the disabled, gays, migrant workers, etc., using basically the same template. Certainly, there are good reasons for this--not the least of which was the outstanding courage, leadership and values demonstrated by King and others in that seminal movement for the rights of African Americans. How could we not help but be inspired by such things?
Unfortunately, though, taking almost exclusively this sort of rights-based, fight-it-out-in-the-courts approach in the years that followed has also served to fragment society, and make the left appear to be the movement of splinter groups ("special interests" in rightist doublespeak) as opposed to a mass, genuinely populist movement. This, in turn, has been precisely what has made it vulnerable to wedge issue campaigns from the Right.
For example, I think the way the gay rights debate is shaping up for this election cycle is very much carrying forward this approach, and I think it's unfortunate, even though I support the general aims of the movement. The events in Massachusetts occurred by judicial action, not mass persuasion. An alternative approach would frame this more clearly in terms of the equal rights for all promised to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, instead of making this a special status thing--it's something that every American has and should want. Gay people should have these rights because they are our fellow citizens, period, not because of the way in which they choose to have sex, or because of whom they choose to love. So should divorced people, unwed mothers, and people "living in sin". Framing it in more general terms helps everyone. It helps build consensus, and even makes for stronger, more robust law.
The more the Dems present themselves (or "appear to be" or "allow themselves to be painted as") the party of wounded minorities, the harder it will be for them to regain majority status. This seems so clear as to be almost tautological.
what happened to Radosh. i was more disillusioned by him than by horowitz, who i always thought of as a self promoter. Eldridge Cleaver and Jerry Rubin are two more examples tho i dont know how much they were ever really accepted by the righties
mondo dentro - well, you're right about most everything you are saying. The right took what the left has been saying for a long time and used it against the left. Now, as you say, they are controlling the discourse. And I think the time has come to reframe what the left stands for, myself. I wasn't advocating going backwards to the 60's - except for the organizing ability the radical leaders had.
There is so very much that can be laid at the Republicans' doorsteps - of things done and not done because they have divided the country so sharply. I basically think the Democrats could really make some political points by showing the voters that the contentiousness that has characterized politics in the last couple of years is the fault of the Republicans. Mr. "Uniter" has only polarized this country, he has not brought it together.
Hey, Tena...whattaya mean almost everything?! 
mondo dentro - heh heh heh
I knew when I typed that that you were going to catch it if noone else did.
I don't actually take issue with anything you said.
Tena -- Sorry for the late response. I don't think we're going to resolve all of our differences of opinion. For instance, I think anarchy is really the extreme of libertarianism, which isn't always aligned with the Left. But I don't think of Stalin as a leftist -- Lenin and Trotsky, yes, but not Stalin. Stalin was far more interested in personal power than questions of ideology, I believe.
Perhaps we could just agree to disagree on the subject of political history and forge an agreement moving forward. Defeat Bush/Cheney in 2004.
BlogReader -- I agree, BushCo is steadily moving the country towards fascism. Do you read Orcinus? Really excellent blogging on the topic of fascism and the current cultural trends and indicators of it. He's listed in Atrios' blogroll.
Kevin Carson -- Thank you for the history lesson, I found your post fascinating. But, hey, I'm a geek and a political junkie. So, what's your opinion of Bush? Empty vessel for the Neocon intellectuals? If he'd chosen a different vice-president -- a James Baker type, for instance --would we be at war in Iraq?
Mr. "Uniter" has only polarized this country, he has not brought it together.
Mr.*Uniter* has NOT brought the country together. He has polarized it.
Sinner.
Mr. "Uniter" has only polarized this country, he has not brought it together. -- Tena
I'd like to see a Democratic campaign commercial that begins with footage of Bush claiming "I'm a uniter! Not a divider!" and then proceeds to footage from the countless demonstrations against his policies.
Alternately, we could go back to the venerable Reagan campaign slogan, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" 'Cause if you weren't already rich, probably not.
Hatch is a dirt-bag, plain and simple.
>Sure wish we could get traction with this shit, but until we can do our own version of working the media refs, it ain't gonna happen.
We're already working on working the refs:
-- Sign up with MoveOn.org.
-- Write letters and make phone calls. (That's what the wingies do. They don't sit on their hands and say 'what's the use -- the damn liberals win no matter what we do.' They ACT.)
-- Check out AnShell Media. (Conason tells me it's close to fruition.)
now if only that momon filled idiot state Utah would have the DESENCY to boot hatch.
33 Years Later, Draft Becomes Topic for Dean
By RICK LYMAN and CHRISTOPHER DREW
n the winter of 1970, a 21-year-old student from Yale walked into his armed services physical in New York carrying X-rays and a letter from his orthopedist, eager to know whether a back condition might keep him out of the military draft.
This was not an uncommon scene in 1970, when medical deferments were a frequently used avenue for those reluctant to take part in the unpopular war in Vietnam. And this story would have little interest save that Howard Dean was the name of the young man. Now, 33 years later, he finds himself a leading Democrat in the quest for the party's nomination to be president of the United States.
Dr. Dean got the medical deferment, but in a recent interview he said he probably could have served had he not mentioned the condition.
"I guess that's probably true," he said. "I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."
But now that he is running for president, in a race when many Democrats believe they need a candidate with strong national security credentials to challenge President Bush, the choices Dr. Dean, a former Vermont governor, made 33 years ago are providing ammunition for critics.
Senator John Kerry and Gen. Wesley K. Clark, two of his strongest challengers for the Democratic nomination, have recently started running advertisements highlighting their military experience. And all the Democratic candidates except Carol Moseley Braun had to face the possibility of being drafted during the Vietnam War.
In the 10 months after his graduation from Yale, time he might otherwise have spent in uniform, Dr. Dean lived the life of a ski bum in Aspen, Colo. His back condition did not affect his skiing the way the rigors of military service would have, he said, nor did it prevent him from taking odd jobs like pouring concrete in the warm months and washing dishes when it got cold.
Even the candidate's mother, Andree Maitland Dean, said in a recent interview about his skiing after receiving a medical deferment, "Yeah, that looks bad."
But, she said, that is the nature of his condition. It is aggravated by certain kinds of physical activity but not all kinds, she said. The condition is called spondylolysis, a low-back pain that sometimes radiates into the legs, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' online information site.
Dr. Dean said it was the military's decision to grant him the deferment, but he also said he was eager to get it. Had he wanted to serve, he probably could have.
Ever since the first politicians who came of draft age during the Vietnam War rose to the national stage, the question has been a recurring one: Did you serve in Southeast Asia, or did you take a different path?
Dan Quayle, the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1988, was criticized by opponents who said he had used family connections to land a spot in the Indiana National Guard, which he
AWOL Bush
Bush pulled every string he could to avoid getting shot at in 'Nam. Yet he wanted to be photographed in nice pretty uniforms for his budding political career. That's how he got that cushy Stateside berth in the Air National Guard. (He leapfrogged over a few hundred better-qualified guys to do it.)
Dean, meanwhile, didn't try the hypocritical Bush route. Dean showed up for his physical, and the Pentagon turned him down as 1-Y. The Pentagon told him to come back only when the nation was in grave danger.
Well, here he is.
Retro Poll: 40% of Americans want Bush impeached
Press Release: From:--Retro Poll ---
(600 word text).
To: political reporters, columnists, editors, editorial page editors, opinion page editors, justice reporters
Contact: Dr. Marc Sapir 510-848-3826, Msapir@compuserve.com
Release Date: November 24, 2003 Public Growing Tired of Being Misled on Facts in Iraq
Dateline: Berkeley.
At least one in three Americans believe that George W. Bush should face impeachment for misleading the public and Congress about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to create support for war on Iraq.
This is a new finding from a national survey conducted by the Retro Poll organization between October 29 and November 12. The actual proportion supporting impeachment was 40% but with a margin of error of plus or minus 8%, 1 in 3 remains a conservative population estimate. "We are seeing a rising tide of public anger that no one is paying attention to", said Dr. Marc Sapir, Retro Poll's Director.
Currently 47% of those polled know that Saddam's Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, up from 36% in a Retro Poll last April. Of that 47% who are now clear on this fact, 52% favored impeachment. Even more dramatic was the strength of support for impeachment among those who know that the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection was also a media-government fabrication, based on little evidence. Of the still small 32% who know that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were never partners a whopping 73% favor impeachment and 78% think the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq. (54% of the total sample said the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq which is consistent with recent findings of major polling organizations).
These correlations suggest that the public will likely turn more and more against the war and the Bush group for lying as the facts versus the propaganda are clarified over time. On the other hand, since it was the corporate media that collaborated in the misleading stories about nuclear, chemical and biological materials in Iraq in the first place the possibility of renewed efforts to mislead the public and distort actualities can not be ruled out. However, Sapir claims, "these correlations lend evidence to the assertion that most differences among Americans on these important issues are driven l
Retro Poll: 40% of Americans want Bush impeached
Press Release: From:--Retro Poll ---
(600 word text).
To: political reporters, columnists, editors, editorial page editors, opinion page editors, justice reporters
Contact: Dr. Marc Sapir 510-848-3826, Msapir@compuserve.com
Release Date: November 24, 2003 Public Growing Tired of Being Misled on Facts in Iraq
Dateline: Berkeley.
At least one in three Americans believe that George W. Bush should face impeachment for misleading the public and Congress about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to create support for war on Iraq.
This is a new finding from a national survey conducted by the Retro Poll organization between October 29 and November 12. The actual proportion supporting impeachment was 40% but with a margin of error of plus or minus 8%, 1 in 3 remains a conservative population estimate. "We are seeing a rising tide of public anger that no one is paying attention to", said Dr. Marc Sapir, Retro Poll's Director.
Currently 47% of those polled know that Saddam's Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, up from 36% in a Retro Poll last April. Of that 47% who are now clear on this fact, 52% favored impeachment. Even more dramatic was the strength of support for impeachment among those who know that the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection was also a media-government fabrication, based on little evidence. Of the still small 32% who know that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were never partners a whopping 73% favor impeachment and 78% think the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq. (54% of the total sample said the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq which is consistent with recent findings of major polling organizations).
These correlations suggest that the public will likely turn more and more against the war and the Bush group for lying as the facts versus the propaganda are clarified over time. On the other hand, since it was the corporate media that collaborated in the misleading stories about nuclear, chemical and biological materials in Iraq in the first place the possibility of renewed efforts to mislead the public and distort actualities can not be ruled out. However, Sapir claims, "these correlations lend evidence to the assertion that most differences among Americans on these important issues are driven less by different values or ideology than through the daily infusion via the media of fabricated misinformation."
Other important findings concern the war on terrorism and also health care.
Support for the anti-terror campaign is based among the same group that has absorbed incorrect information put out by the government-media combo, but that group is declining. For example, only 15% of those polled thought that the Patriot Act was strengthening their rights (down from 34% last April) while 32% said it removes important rights (up from 19% in April).
61% of those polled supported a national hea
(continued from previous)
Other important findings concern the war on terrorism and also health care.
Support for the anti-terror campaign is based among the same group that has absorbed incorrect information put out by the government-media combo, but that group is declining. For example, only 15% of those polled thought that the Patriot Act was strengthening their rights (down from 34% last April) while 32% said it removes important rights (up from 19% in April).
61% of those polled supported a national health insurance fund covering everyone, similar to other polls' findings.
Knowledge on Retro Poll's fact questions ranged widely. Highs were the 75% who knew that we have a constitutional right to a speedy trial and to be released unless charged; and 67% knowing that Nixon and Clinton were the two recent presidents who faced potential or actual impeachment. Very low knowledge levels were found concerning which of three countries did not supply Saddam Hussein with nuclear, chemical and biological materials for weapons (17% right) and U.S. poor international ranking in health care outcomes (20-54th) (19% correct). Only 26% of respondents knew that about
200 cities and 3 states have passed resolutions calling for repeal of key parts of the Patriot Act that remove democratic rights.
The poll sampled 165 persons from 38 states. 51% were women and 49% men.
61.5% had European-American backgrounds, 11.5% African American, 12.2 % Latino, 1.3 % Native American, 1.9% Asian-Pacific, 9% decline to state.
Highest state sampling included California (10.8%), New York (8.9%), Texas (7.6%), Ohio (5.7%), Illinois (5.1%), Pennsylvania and New Jersey (4.4%).
For More Info:
or 510-848-3826.
-- Peter Phillips Ph.D.
Sociology Department/Project Censored
Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707-664-2588
Peanut, Thanks for telling me about Orcinus, I'll check it out. Also, I totally agree with you about the "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" statement. People who are poor, or who are lets say, homosexual, and are still republicans, must ergo be Morons...
Cheers
yo bossman, your comments-counting template needs to be expanded to three places. as you prolly noticed, it's reading zero despite this being a hopping shin-dig.
best - isaac - laughing boy
There's actually an editorial up at whoslying.org that shows hypocritical quotes from both sides on judcial nominees (looking for more!). But Hatch actually said something then that surprised me:
"My message against filibusters of judicial nominees is one I hope to make abundantly clear to my colleagues in the majority. This is so because, to the extent our majority party gives repeated credence to the practice of filibustering judicial nominees, we can expect the favor to be returned when the President is one of our own. We hope in earnest that the next President will hail from our party. And if we are gratified in that hope, how short-sighted it will have been that we gave a fresh precedent to the minority party in this body to defeat--by requiring not 51 but a full 60 votes--that Republican President's judicial nominees. (3/8/2000, S1297)"
So true!
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
