Karl Rove has a must read editorial today that lays out many facts, most of which shouldn’t be a surprise to Flopping Aces readers. Facts such as we are winning in Iraq but the Democrat leaders refuse to acknowledge it:
One out of five is not a majority. Democrats should keep that simple fact of political life in mind as they pursue the White House.
For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office — without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America’s security — a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.
Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn “on a timetable as soon as possible.” And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.
It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.
He points out that last September Hillary told Petraeus that his glowing reports required the suspension of disbelief, that Reid argued that the surge hasn’t accomplished its goals and is actually making things worse, and that Pelosi said there has not been any gains in Iraq….only failure.
This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq’s changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration’s expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.
For another, Democrats appear to have an ideological investment in things going badly in Iraq. They seem upset and prickly when asked to comment on the progress America is making. It’s hard to see how Democrats can build a majority if their position on what they claim is one of the campaign’s central issues is shared by less than a fifth of the electorate. They’d be better off arguing success allows America to accelerate the return of our troops rather than appear to deny the progress those troops are making.
He then moves on to the Protect America Act that will enable our intelligence agencies to operate much more efficiently then the 1978 era FISA that is now in place, pointing out the real reason the Democrat leaders are stalling on this issue….trial lawyers:
House Democrats want personal injury lawyers to be able to sue telecommunications companies for having the audacity to cooperate with the government in monitoring terrorist communications after 9/11.
It appears that in Ms. Pelosi’s warped world, the monetary needs of the Democratic Party’s most generous financial benefactors take precedence over the nation’s security. How else could one rationally explain her opposition? Sens. Clinton and Obama, both of whom opposed the bipartisan Senate reauthorization bill, have joined in her approach.
Now, my question is, are the Democrat votes going to be lulled into another incredibly naive vote? Do they really believe that with a Democrat in office Iraq will not be a problem anymore? I could of sworn the same thing was said in 2006 right?
Do they really believe that with a Democrat in office, and our intelligence agencies hamstrung by silly idiotic rules and regulations that are NOT required, that our intelligence will actually be better?
I think we all know the answers to those questions. They were naive in 2006, and are now pumping their fists for a man with one of the most liberal voting records in Congress, has no experience and has a questionable character trait in his choice of church and mentor.
UPDATE
Rove was interviewed today by the folks over at Newsbusters and asked which blogs and media he reads daily:
NB: Let’s get some more media questions. So what’s your media diet like nowadays?
ROVE: You mean on an ordinary day?
NB: Yeah.
ROVE: I get Mike Allen’s overnight summary from Politico, I cruise RealClearPolitics.com, I get Taranto from the Wall Street Journal, I visit the Corner. I check Drudge, I check Fox News, I have a list of favorites that I sort of thumb through if I’ve got the time. I obviously read papers, the New York Times; the Wall Street Journal; when in Washington, the Washington Post if not, I get it online. I check out, most days, Instapundit, Power Line, Hugh Hewitt. Occasionally I’ll dip into Just One Minute or visit the Captain’s Quarters, I check out Michael Barone’s blog, and I look forward to getting Opinion Journal, and I get the NCPA summary. And I also get a news summary, a news clip early in the morning of all the clips.
Damn, was hoping to see FA on that list….oh well.
See author page
The democrats have an invested interest in failure, because that is what they have said would happen. If we win, they lied.
They also need to feed the anti-war crowd, they need their votes.
The democrats have grown into an unrecognizable mass of dweebs, mindless cultists and aging 60’s anti-war protesters. They are rounded out by eternal victims, apologists and white guilt.
And to think I used to call myself a democrat. I grew up.
That Gallup poll Rove mentions seems out of step with other recent polls. Even the Pew poll that many hawkish blogs cited over a week ago had “47% of Americans want[ing] to keep the troops in Iraq, as opposed to 49% who prefer to begin withdrawing them.”
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gideon1789/2008/feb/28/could_47_of_americans_want_to_persevere_in_iraq
Then you have these:
“The USA Today/Gallup poll says that only 35% of Americans consider staying in Iraq to be the best course of action for the government in Washington with 60% of those polled preferring a set timetable for withdrawal.”
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=69431
“Nearly six in 10 of those polled want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year. In addition, more people would prefer Congress to run U.S. policy in Iraq than President Bush.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html
“A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That number is down four points from two weeks ago and two points from four weeks ago. Over the last twenty-three weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal
“Many adults in the United States want the coalition effort to come to an end, according to a poll by Hart/McInturff released by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News. 55 per cent of respondents think the most responsible thing the U.S. can do is find a way to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009.”
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/most_americans_deem_iraq_withdrawal_responsible/
Lastly, the Gallup poll did not define for those polled what was meant by ‘having an obligation to establish a level security and stability before withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Further, Obama, nor Clinton, want to withdrawal “all” troops. Finally, I’d like to see that Gallup poll confirmed with some other polls to be sure up its numbers.
And to think I used to call myself a democrat. I grew up.
It’s amazing how often Righties will use this little bit of flimflammery in order to lend credence and gravitas to their position. Every conservative, it seems, really fer sher used to be a liberal until they grew up, or learned about the world, or had a lobotomy, or whatever. Now they know better. It’s used up by now.
House Democrats want personal injury lawyers to be able to sue telecommunications companies for having the audacity to cooperate with the government in monitoring terrorist communications after 9/11.
I’m not a House Democrat. I want the lawyers to be able to sue the telecommunications companies because they broke the law.
And what law did they break by allowing the government to monitor foreign communications?
Actually, they abetted the Administration when it bypassed FISA to engage in warrantless wiretapping.
Doc Washboard, I think you’re taking away the wrong message from the fact that many conservatives used to be liberals. You seem to think this is simply a rhetorical tactic; when it reality it should serve as the proverbial “canary in the mine” for the liberal camp.
In the mid – late 1960’s the Democrats took on “fellow travelers” that introduced toxic elements to their ideology, and slowly twisted their platform to the point that even those who grow up in Democrat households eventually can no longer choke it down, and leave the party.
Consider statements admitting former liberal leanings a sign of our ability to admit mistakes.
Thank you Machiavelli for your explanation. It is the convoluted mass that the democratic party has become, that caused me to change sides. When you can no longer support the majority of opinions your party stands for, you leave. I stayed far too long.
And that reason is stated by many people who have done likewise.
Redundant or not, it is the truth.
Doc,
Which FISA laws, the antiquated 1970s one or the post 9-11 bi-partisan FISA? And how are phone calls from known terrorists to cells within the US protected? And how many of these wiretaps followed through and received their warrants per FISA laws?
Chris:
Blah blah typical Righty tactic blah “bi-partisan” red herring blah. If you’re right, they’ll toss the cases out of court. Then you’ll win! I hope you’ll be just as happy if a President Hillary or a President Barack use such a win as a precedent for more warrantless wiretaps. Let’s hear it for the Unitary Executive, baby!
Doc,
Wow… Little touchy, but that is “typical leftist tactic blah”. Actually I have no problem with using this against comms coming INTO and OUT OF the USA from known terrorist IPs and phone numbers as it is now. What I have issues with was mass unwarranted scanning as done under the previous President (which the NYTs had no issues with in 2000) which are no longer used BTW.
But thanks for acknowledging that both leftist/socialist candidates will gleefully abuse and expand the wiretaps in their lust for absolute power. More proof that the current incarnation of the socialist Democratic Party needs to be kept far from power.
Now if only the Republican candidate was not “Democrat Lite”. But that is another issue.
Hah! I used to read JustOneMinute several times a day, still check in occasionally, but, switched to FloppingAces. FA moves a bit faster with a variety of topics and the research provided by the FA crew can’t be beat. I appreciate the dedication, the hard work, the research, the articulate debate and much more. Thanks to all!
Rove will find you, if folks like MataHarley, Mark E, etc. did, so will he. Been meaning to compliment their outstanding contributions as well as other posters in the comment section, but don’t want to chase away FA’s lib friends with too much gushing.
Gush away Missy…..I promise our heads won’t grow THAT big, just a little. Seriously tho, thanks for the great compliments.
Thank you Missy for your very kind words.
You also brought up a very important point that I would like to amplify: The authors here at Flopping Aces, led by our fearless leader Curt, are just the cooks slaving away in the rhetorical and intellectual kitchen. It is the very fine and substantive comments from so many others like yourself that add the flavor and spice to this daily stew of ideas, commentary and debate.
So, don’t thank us! Thanks to you and your fellow readers and comment contributors this daily blog experience is so much more rewardable for all.
Doug said:
The concept of polls often baffle me. How can they ask 1000 people out of approx 300 mil denizens and figure that as an accurate slice?? But, ya know, they do provide employment. Just wish they weren’t the foundation for media talking points, which then tends to make people form opinions that follow the crowd.
So let’s talk polls. Early polls had Clinton inaugurated as the nominee, and next POTUS. Early polls had the GOP with zero chances for contest. Early polls had McCain as a long shot. Early polls in late 2002 and 2003 had 70% of the population supporting the Iraq liberation strategy.
And… all polls become “early polls” as time marches on.
My point? Polls and opinions are as fleeting and changable as the wind… merely a reflection of the latest media headlines.
As Cheney said INRE poll opinions, “so?” Polls should never be a factor in policy or military decision making. To do so is to allow the media to guide policy and legislation in our country.
Well, just for Missy, I’m gonna do some serious research today and put together another good post or two. My next one’s for you Missy! Thanks for swelling my head and kicking my research initiative into overdrive. Next stop…nutroots naildown!
I have no doubts that you will be nailing the nutroots. Thanks guys, after a few days of flu, the color has returned to my cheeks.
MataHarley said:
“My point? Polls and opinions are as fleeting and changable as the wind… merely a reflection of the latest media headlines.”
Granted, there’s truth to that. But here, I think what we’re discussing here has a larger scale and volume. Attitudes on the Iraq war are quite solid and have a deeper gravity in the mindset of Americans than, say, present polling data on who will win the presidency. The two polls are different not in degree, but kind; one, measures attitudes from the past (tied to evidence–not just headlines), the other, speculations about the future (usually tied to wishes). Certainly, the Iraq war has more of a public familiarity, than momentary projections on political themes.
To differ here is to ignore the public cost of the war.
I’d argue the publics’ perception of the Iraq war is grasped much more clearly than a “fluctuation”. I believe Cheney was either ignorant or deceptive in stating, “I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.”
From a synoptic analysis of the polling data I believe one finds _years_ of consistent public erosion of confidence in the Administrations’ management of the Iraq war:
According to a recent CNN poll Americans have steadily lost confidence in the Iraq war after the 2003 invasion. CNN poll, …just 36 percent of the American public believes that “the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over — down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began.”
In 2005 the public highly questioned the invasion and was basically spit on an Iraq withdrawal in one or more fashion:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/27/iraq.poll/
By 2006 more than half of Americans wanted a withdrawal plan for Iraq:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-26-iraq-poll_x.htm
Last month as Cheney declared, “The American people will not support a policy of retreat.” … I noted above, in post 2, there is a near consistent majority in all polls that support some kind of withdrawal. This linkage from 2006 to the present has held fast.
Additionally, this downward trend in confidence in the Bush Administration’s management of the war is reflected historically in international support as well; it has continued to fall in most countries and generally reflects US attitudes:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/306.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=306&nid=&id=
A Pew poll on world opinion came to the same conclusions:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/314/opinions-of-us.html
Confidence in US foreign policy, both domestically and internationally, has taken only one path since over the past years: downward; confidence in the White House has eroded consistently and is preserved over time. Evidence of this was the 06 congressional election; …that was hardly a fluctuation (–as much as Rove argued he knew had the “real” numbers on the public pulse).
And lest we not forget –as is all too common the case here in the US– the outstanding theme in the two Iraqi polls we discussed, here at Aces last week, found only only 20% of Iraqis have any confidence in our occupation; meaning, that despite all of our good will, Iraqis have the least amount of confidence in US forces and it remains the single organization (out of six, including the militias) that has the largest credibility gap.
Therefore, for years– not days, weeks in a polling blimp –there has been a concrete domestic, international and Iraqi erosion in the confidence of the Bush Administrations’ handling of the war and a majority or more want a withdrawal: the magnitude of this issue is so weighted deeply in Americans it also coincides with the erosion in Bush’s own approval numbers falling along side his handling of Iraq.
These polls are long-standing in the US and world community and are not sandbars on a riverbank; they are about as near bedrock as one can get from polling as they span years and have been undergirded by the 06 election.
Of course there is lost confidence in all realms, Doug. Reading the media headlines of constant doom and gloom, and little on progress, is the only education most poll responders have. Why would you expect any other opinion?
Iraqis read daily that the next POTUS will be DNC, and will withdraw despite events on the ground as “pressure”. Why should they have confidence in our continued aid?
Note the eroding confidence over time follows the same path of increased negative coverage (vs any progress) over the same period.
You cannot separate public opinion from media reporting. Media is tasked with the education of the public for current events and issues. They fail miserably in that task by substituting op-eds and speculation as news….instead forcing their opinions upon the reader as fact.
Speaking of polls you so love, Mr. Doug… here’s one guaranteed to give most of us a smile. I had to blog on this myself today to release pent up steam from my ears….
It’s a poll that says 81% of Americans think our elected officials should listen to polls prior to major decisions. (Like they don’t already hear poll results in our news daily?)
Of course that 81% translates to 780 out of 975 responders. (no profile of the responders provided) That’s 780 people I can safely say do not speak for me, nor should their poll voices be granted the power to influence domestic and foreign policies.
You’ll find links to the actual poll, and both the UPI story, and ABC story that accompanies the poll, in my post. Point of contention is the Cheney quote you abbreviated above… as did the ABC accompanying story. Both you and ABC bypassed his suggestion that had polls been conducted during the contentious period of the Civil War, it may never have been waged.
Then again, therein lies the danger of allowing poll responders, who only read media cryptic half-truths instead of source material, so much influence over America’s policies.