MyDD :: It Is All About Iraq

It Is All About Iraq

by Chris Bowers, Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 01:51:16 PM EST

Just in case anyone needed a reminder about what the top issue of 2006 will be, the latest CBS poll offers you a clue:

The war in Iraq is by far the biggest reason Americans volunteer for disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president - it is the answer given by more than half who disapprove. Smaller numbers say that the President is doing a bad job generally, that he is dishonest, or mention his positions on other domestic issues.

WHY DISAPPROVE OF BUSH'S JOB? (Asked of those who disapprove of Bush's job)
53% Iraq war
8% Doing a bad job generally
8% Dishonest
6% Other domestic issues
5% Other personal qualities
4% Economy/jobs

Among those who approve, 35 percent say the President is doing a good job generally. Another 13 percent mention the war in Iraq. The President's personal qualities and positions on issues are also among the top reasons given.

[WHY APPROVE OF BUSH'S JOB? (Asked of those who approve of Bush's job)]
35% Doing a good job generally
13% Iraq war
8% Honest
6% Other personal qualities
5% Agree with him on issues
5% His party/ideology
5% Handling of terrorism

Lately, I think Democrats have been doing a better job than they have in the past when it comes to not avoiding the war as an issue. Still, if Democrats believe that they can run a successful campaign in 2006 that does not have Iraq front and center, they could not be more mistaken. Whatever other issues we may like the discuss, Iraq is by far the number one issue on the minds of voters. I don't see any way that can change over the next eleven months.

Tags: Open Threads (all tags)

Permalink :: 9 Comments :: Post a Comment

Was this a one choice poll? (none / 0)

If not, it implies that 92% approve Bush's pther policies. That's shocking. And very scary.

by antiHyde on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 02:09:43 PM EST

Seems like it was (none / 0)

Which means the fact that 53% of those who disagreed with Bush agreed as to what the top reason was is a big deal.

by Geotpf on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 07:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's 53% of the 53% who disapprove (none / 0)

Which is only 28% of the country.

by zt155 on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 02:28:18 PM EST

Thank you (none / 0)

"if Democrats believe that they can run a successful campaign in 2006 that does not have Iraq front and center, they could not be more mistaken"

I swear I'm about ready, as a centrist Dem, to have a brain aneurysm explaining this dreadfully simple point to other Dems who hide out in this corner of the party.

Indeed, this issue pretty much separates the true centrists, who have opposed the war since day one, from the wannabe Hillary Clinton types.

No honest Democrat who supports the center of American politics can be dumb enough to support the war as it was laid out by the Bushies.

Too many chickened out, thinking they had learned the lesson of the Gulf War. Oddly, someone forgot to tell them that the lesson was: get UN support for everything.

The truth is that the Iraq War was conducted on the worst principles that could be taken from Bush 1's experience in the Gulf War (such as stepping all over Arab social values) with the dumbest principles of Clinton's intervention in the Balkans (particularly not seeking UN approval).

The Iraq War has been a study in the fact that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's the dumbest lessons of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, and the Balkans all rolled into one heaping pile of lies and misdirections.

And everyone knew in the fall of 2002.

Only a handful of the smarter ones, like Russ Feingold, had the balls to call bullshit.

Oddly, Russ got re-elected in a red district, because at the end of the day these things are about strength and respect.

Hmmm. Dems need to start giving Americans -- even Red State Americans -- some damn credit.

by jcjcjc on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 03:10:44 PM EST

Some Dems... (none / 0)

are doing a better job lately. Feingold, Pelosi and Murtha are prominent examples. But then we have people like Lieberman and Hoyer. Lieberman probably believes what he is saying but he doesn't represent democrats on this issue. Hoyer is a slimy political opportunist who represents his own ambition. Everybody has a right to their opinion but the DEMOCRATIC PARTY needs to have a clear alternative to Bush on Iraq. Most democrats and independents want to start withdrawing troops and to have them out by a set time, but the party dithers around afraid of taking a leadership position on the most important issue facing us. If Dems try to go into 2006 criticising Bush but not offering a clear alternative on what we should do in Iraq, they will look weak and incapable of providing national leadership and that will work against their goal of nationalizing the elections.

The other thing to keep in mind is that those swing voters the Washington, DC insiders are so afraid of offending if the party "caters to the liberal base" as one insider put it aren't the ones that donate to the party. If the Dems blow Iraq they may cause the liberal/progressive base to question their support. A sufficiently disillusioned base could decide to sit 2006 out.

by Alvord on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 04:22:41 PM EST

Bowers Rox (none / 0)

You rock bowers.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 07:16:14 PM EST

Iraq and 2006 (none / 0)

If anyone really thinks Iraq will define 2006 they are detached from reality. There will be a troop draw down based on events that Iraq's citizens will control and not us. Yes, there were serious shortcomings in the initial stages after we booted Saddam but trust me the the Iraq situation will not define 2006.

Simply complaining about Pres Bush may get you sympathy but without a plan of any on Iraq kind the Democratic leadership is sadly mistaken.

Economic Security is more important than homeland security at this point.

Mike Protack for U S Senate 2006
www.mikeprotack.com

by Mike Protack for U S Senate 2006 on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 10:14:52 AM EST

I'm not so sure (none / 0)

"I don't see any way that can change over the next eleven months."

How about this for a way that it can change. Let Dems campaign on this issue alone for the next nine or ten months and then in October, announce a comprehensive plan for the drastic withdrawal of troops.

It may be heartless to politicize lives, but if I'm sitting in the backroom of Republican strategy sessions, I'm gonna go ahead and let Dems focus all of their energy on a single issue as long as possible and then pull the rug out. If the only major shift is the center of the spectrum getting upset about the war, and we can't sell them on any other problems with the current Repub policy, then once they get what they want regarding the war the Dems are left without a platform.

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 01:31:55 PM EST

True that (none / 0)

If we build our whole gameplan around Iraq, we'll get in trouble. Right now, the war is huge, but the GOP is putting plans together to bring some troops home. Sure, it's just a show, but it will make people feel better. Then, we won't have anything. If you ask me, 2006 should be corruption, corruption, corruption. Delay, Rove, Frist, Cunningham, Abramoff, Reed, etc. This stuff is hard to wash off, and the Republicans are hoping we don't make it an issue. It's also a lot easier to build party consensus. That's not to say we shouldn't call the GOP out for their Iraq idiocy and tell the country what our plan is, but the centerpiece of the argument should be: the Republican party is filthy, and you can't trust them.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 04:40:15 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.