MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extremism

This is a long post, but I truly hope you'll stay with it to the end. In my view, there's plenty of gems in here and we're getting ready to `go at throttle up' on the Analytical Rocket. This post helps you strap into the rocket, I hope.

First, for fun: an observation and conclusion. You know it's going to be a wild political year when all the politicos want briefings `on what's happening out there'. Now, yesterday. Eight months out. Uh-huh. Are we a bit on edge these days, folks? A bit concern-ed? A bit unsure-ed? Natch on that and there you go on my recent and upcoming sched. Briefings, briefings, briefings, at the end of which comes the world-renowned "Hmm. Really? Hmm." That's the take on the current state of blue campaign strategery in this neck of the woods: noodlin', ponderin', chin-rubbin'. Lots of "hmm."

I am sure you get the picture. It's TBD which frame is more apropos for the year, though: a refrain from Country Joe McDonald's Fixin' to Die Rag ("open up the Pearly Gates, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!") or from Public Image Ltd.'s Warrior ("I take no quarter. This is my land. I'll never surrender. I am. A Warrior.").

Strategically, from what I've seen, I'd say the Talking Heads' Once in a Lifetime has the point locally and nationally so far in 2006: "same as it ever was" for political communications, folks. Politicos are simply more fidgety this time. Nervous tics, that sort of thing. The poor dumb bastards. I'll definitely return to this issue when we get to the recommendations section of the research, given what we know now and also what I think we'll find in the extended analysis (which I plan to conduct and then present next).  And those recommendations are most likely include relentlessly slapping `em all silly. Just so you know. Tough love, you see. Especially since the national blues have that killer-diller Silver Bullet thematic going against the reds: "We can do better." (Sigh.) Jeebus. Jiminy Freaking Christmas, that'll catch fire with voters, don't ya think? Riiiiight.

Let's not get the cart before the horse, so in the meantime today we'll take a good substantive look at impeachment and extremism through the lenses of the Threat Index and some demographics. (Previous posts on findings can be found at these locations: Release 1 Findings, Terrorism Threat Index, Back in the Saddle Again and Impeachment Approach).

Here's the data on the lead-in question, whether Congress should investigate possible illegal actions (NSA surveillance of citizens, Iraqi WMD lies) by Dubya:

                                                  Should               Should Not
                                                   Investigate         Investigate

U.S.                                             49%                   43%

TTI Low                                      25                      69
TTI Medium                                56                      36
TTI High                                     76                      19

Fund.-Evangelical                      25                       68
Mainstream                                44                       49
Liberal                                        70                       25

Democrat                                   74                        21
Republican                                 22                       73
Indep.-Other                               51                       37

Northeast                                    54                        35
South                                          41                        54
Midwest                                     49                         43
Rockies                                      53                         44
West Coast                                 59                         35

As noted by Chris, we've got a split among voters on the issue. What a shocker. Further, the demographics show a split within voter groups, but with Republicans and their strongest supporters, fundamentalists/evangelicals, mainstream religious, those in the South, (not shown but in crosstabs on MyDD:) rural voters, Anglos and men most likely to say no to investigation while liberal religious voters, Democrats, those in the Northeast, Rockies and West Coast, (not shown) urban voters and minorities are most likely to say yes to investigation. Knock me over with a feather.

We've seen the demographic pattern before, in other questions in the survey, which I've discussed previously (see Release 1 link above). No new news there.

As I see it, the key finding here relates to the interplay between the Threat Index,  religious orientation and party registration. They're all three measures of psychological states: perceptions of terrorism threats, religiosity and political orientation. (Residence, in my view, is a geographical characteristic of people, having little, if any, meaning in a psychological sense.)

The characteristics (including others in crosstabs) don't provide us much direction in a strategic sense. We know that. But the psychological measures do provide some basic `map coordinates', so to speak, of strategy. Example: party registration shows the middle (Independents/Other) leaning toward investigation. Religious orientation shows the middle leaning against investigation. The TTI shows the middle significantly more likely to come down for investigation.

So what does that mean? It means framing investigation within the context of threats (in this case terrorism, but I'd also argue threats in a general sense: Dubya's unitary executive crap, NSA, Iraq, Katrina, lies, incompetence, corruption, yada, yada) is likely to push middle groups (Independents, mainstreamers) over to investigation in majority numbers. The conceptual anchor, the `hot button', that we see in these data is `threats', which moves in the same direction, only more clearly so, as other psychologically-oriented measures. In short, "Congress should investigate because such allegations and concerns are a clear and present threat to us, the voters." 

Thus, the call for investigation because of the threats these allegations and others represent, relentlessly made over the next eight months, is the real finding here. I'm confident this issue can be a tipping point, if handled right. There's already a significant constituency who buy in and there's also strong reason to conclude framing this issue properly and consistently getting it out there in communications will begin tipping middle groups over the fence. Once they perceive these Republicans and this Administration as a threat, watch out, baby.

Arianna over at HuffPo, whom I just adore, recently posted on the impeachment issue, concluding Dems should take Congress first in 2006 and then "we can talk about impeachment" on November 8th. Fine, I agree, but focusing on that (impeachment) misreads the strategic opportunity that the call for investigation represents, in my view.

That's the real opening and, further, as I noted in my last post (link above), potential investigation is where we actually are in the impeachment process. There's no evidence for impeachment right now, thus this recommendation tracks with the current reality. Hello? Are we listening, national blues?

There needs to be an investigation by Congress to determine if there is evidence. Put the heat on Republicans to do it (which emphasizes it's their responsibility as those in control of Congress), and don't let up, ding, danged, dammit. Of course Republicans won't convene a House Select Committee in an election year and that makes it all the more strategically attractive to do it now, in front of mid-term elections. In short, framing investigation as a threat response to Republicans can: 1) shore up the base, 2) begin swinging the middle and 3) erode some level of support for this Administration. And the dam starts to break. D'oh, as the original Sun Tzu might say.

Next, I'm going to blow through the actual impeachment/removal question because it's primary value as I see it at this point in time is establishing the baseline numbers for tracking. As noted above by Arianna and by me, it just doesn't make sense right now from a strategic communications perspective to pursue it as a key communications opportunity in this election cycle. But if things heat up down the road, we're set to map out the dynamics as they unfold. Here's the data on support/opposition to Dubya's impeachment and removal if it's determined he broke the law...

                                                    Total                   Total                   Not
                                                     Support               Oppose               Sure

U.S.                                               50%                    38%                   12%

TTI Low                                        31                       56                       13
TTI Medium                                  53                       35                       12
TTI High                                       72                       21                        7

Fund.-Evangelical                         33                       58                       9
Mainstream                                   42                       45                       13
Liberal                                           68                       26                       6

Democrat                                      71                       21                       8
Republican                                    26                      65                       9
Indep.-Other                                  51                      33                       16

Northeast                                       51                      35                       14
South                                             44                      47                        9
Midwest                                        50                      37                        13
Rockies                                         49                      39                        12
West Coast                                    61                      30                        9

Okay, it's good a majority, even a bare one, supports impeachment at such an early point. But opposition is significant and it's significant among sizable numbers of most groups. Further, a chunk are just not sure and that's no surprise whatsoever. So, currently, it's a divisive issue with no clear path to make it a successful wedge for us.

However what catches my eye is, again, the psychological middles. Particularly, the Threat middles. They're leaning support, they want to come over, but they're just not there yet. Getting them to move into support in large numbers would be a substantial undertaking with no guarantee it would amount to much, given the fact impeachment/removal is still fermenting, so to speak, as an issue. But, down the road...well, you know the gig on that.

Now let's look at the extremism measure. This one's really, really important, especially as you'll see in the extended analysis, as opposed to the basic demographic analysis. Overall, it captures the country's `zeitgeist' in a pointed way: are religious and political activists pushing public policy too far to the right or are they protecting society? Here's the data...

                                                         Pushing              Protecting           Not sure/
                                                          Too far               Society                Both/Neither

U.S.                                                   41%                    33%                     26%

TTI Low                                            24                       48                        28
TTI Medium                                      46                       30                        24
TTI High                                           62                       16                        22

Fund.-Evangelical                             24                       59                        17
Mainstream                                       39                       34                        27
Liberal                                               57                       23                        20

Democrat                                           55                       20                        25
Republican                                        27                       49                         24
Indep.-Other                                      41                       30                         29

Northeast                                           40                       27                         23
South                                                 36                       37                         27
Midwest                                            42                       34                         24
Rockies                                             47                       41                         12
West Coast                                        51                       25                         24

As John Lennon says: "Well, well, well. Well, well." A split electorate again, but this time on a question, in my view, getting at the base, fundamental change since the 2000 election: the constant political onslaught from the extremist right-wing.

It is amazing to me, with the abdication of the MSM/Fourth Estate's traditional public watchdog responsibility, the cabal of right-wing Faux media, corporations and churches and also the behavior of this Republican Party these past five years, that Americans are split at all, let alone three ways (pushing too far, protecting society, not sure). I believe this question shows a great resiliency among American voters, given such a consistent environment. Two-thirds do not buy into the `protecting society' position. Two-thirds, after all they've done and the hegemony they've pursued. Amazing.

We see in the detail familiar patterns among groups. This is an indicator we've gone as far as we can go in learning from the base crosstabs. So left-leaning groups say extremists are pushing too far and right-leaning groups say they're protecting society. Yup, been there, done that.

There're two things I see, though, that jump out. One, pluralities (the largest percentage) in 10 out of 14 voter groups come down on the `pushing too far' side. Only four land on `protecting society'. An obvious indicator of potential in strategic communications. Thus, not enough voters are `sold' on the pushing too far position but a bunch more could be.

Further on this observation, the expanse of turf covered by these ten groups is important. And impressive. Four of five regions of the country, two of three in religious orientation, two of three `parties', two of three in the Threat Index. That's a big, big chunk of the landscape the pushing too far position leads on, especially given the cabal of the right-wing, the dearth of formal opposition and the failure of the MSM in their watchdog role. Very impressive, I say again.

Second, that's a sizable chunk of unsure, etc. in virtually all voter groups: a fifth or more in 12 of 14 groups. There's a lot of potential for movement on this issue and the pluralities pointing toward `pushing too far' in most groups indicate they're inclined to move that way. If somebody helps them get there. If. Somebody. Helps them. Get there. Hello?

Which is The Point, as Harry Nilsson says. `Somebody' hasn't helped them. `Somebody' hasn't done squat. Somebody, that is, besides the progressive bloggers and netroots. Somebody besides us. Somebody besides you. Think about that. We are the only real opposition in this country. Period. And these wonderful, extraordinary American people are still hanging in there with us, five years plus down the road of right-wing hegemony.

It's a beautiful thing, folks. Truly humbling and inspiring, I say. My recommendation for today is to go grab some beers (plural), a bottle or two of wine or the liquor/libation of your choice. Whatever you want. Drink it, but be safe. Because...

we're done with the basic analysis. I'll do an intro post on the extended analysis and then, as Todd Rundgren says, `the shit hits the fan'.

We're going to lock and load the M-16s, button up the hatches of our M1-A1 Abrams, ring the engine rooms for flank speed and light the afterburners of our FA-18s. I'm going to do it because I am a Warrior. And as Jesse says, I Am...Somebody. I believe you are, too. We, you and I, are Somebody for the American people. It's that simple. So, until next time...hooyah!

Tags: campaigns, extremism, impeachment, investigation, MyDD Poll, Political Strategy, poll (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

So we got this person Sun Tzu as a "front page poster" at MyDD. Yeah. Okay. I think I'm about ready for that...

by blues 2006-02-13 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Hey thanks Blues. Been a MyDD reader for a long time, nice to something of interest to post about. Hopefully of interest, at least. Thanks again.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-14 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

I was just commenting about the name. I really want to know about your deeper analysis; I assure you I will be all ears!

I have an alternate analysis of my own, vastly more cynical, actually. I will post it shortly...

by blues 2006-02-14 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

I think this line might be the inspiration of the name Sun Tzu:

"Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abr oad, and men will drop out exhausted.

Opposing forces may face each other for years, striving for the victory which may be decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver is the height of stupidity."

It's from Sun Tzu's, "The Art of War" from the chapter on spies.

phat

by phatass 2006-02-14 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Spot on, Phat. You are a gentleman/woman and a scholar. BTW, were you looking for a way to contact me about NB the other day? I have a public email address listed in my profile here at MyDD: sun.tzu@direcway.com.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-15 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Yes, thanks. I'll get in touch.

phat

by phatass 2006-02-15 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

I will be looking forward to reading and discussing it. Very much. Cynicism is my friend, after 20 years' slogging through the rice paddies of campaigns and politics.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-15 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Thanks for the continued analysis.  Very interesting.  I hope someone in the party gets it figured out--how to talk convincingly and shape the discussion, instead of having it shaped for us.

Meanwhile...

"a refrain from Country Joe McDonald's Fixin' to Die Rag "open up the Pearly Gates, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!""

Digging up a pretty old reference for the normal blog population aren't you? :) I can sing along, but not sure many others can.  Which would have been true almost 20 yr ago as I was getting ready to go to college.  Same as it ever was.

by The lurking ecologist 2006-02-13 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Thanks very much for the comments. A lot of work so far. A lot more to do. The rubs help me keep doing it.

I think you're spot on: we have to shape, not be shaped. We'll see if people listen, yes?

Hey, nice to know the youngsters get some of the older music references, ain't it? :)

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-14 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Hey, nice to know the youngsters get some of the older music references, ain't it? :)

YES.  I hope that Lucas is representative.  Perhaps his generation will be able to avoid repeating the mistakes that previous gens have repeated.  I'll optimistically assume that getting Country Joe's references indicates a healthy understanding of history beyond music.

Of course, I just referred to a vastly more recent singer in class today (Sinead O'Connor) and got 15 uniform blank stares, only slightly more blank than my reference Kunte Kinte.  <sob>  Apparently no one knows Mandinka.

by The lurking ecologist 2006-02-14 03:18PM | 0 recs
Yes, But About That TTI Thing...

I agree with the main thrust of this analysis, particularly about the resilience of the American people, and the need for some political leadership to tap into the potential out there that is starving for that leadership.  (On that note, I have to say that I'm bitterly disappointed at Paul Hackett's withdrawal.  Not that I supported him over Brown.  I thought both had their pluses and minuses.  But the way that the party string-pullers stepped in, rather than letting the people choose in a primary. Very bad.)

My problem is with the interpretation of the TTI.  Going back to the original proof of concept post, it seems clear to me that the index is not simple of measure of how concerned people are about the threat of terrorism, it's also (inversely) a measure of how much they trust Bush to protect them.

Look at the 5 questions that go into the index:


  1.    A job performance rating on the federal government's efforts protecting America since 9/11,
  2.    A rating on personal feelings of safety and security since 9/11,
  3.    A rating on worry about a terrorist attack on the country in the next year,
  4.    A rating on worry that Osama bin Laden has not been captured,
  5.    And a rating on personal confidence in federal emergency response should a terror attack or other man-made or natural disaster occur in one's local area.
Every single one is as much about trusting Bush on national security as it is about the threat of terrorism per se.  Which is why I don't buy the argument that this data "means framing investigation within the context of threats"--at least not in any sort of simplistic sense.

I'm not saying the argument is wrong, mind you.  I just don't think the data supports it, since the TTI is partially a measure of not trusting Bush in the first place.  And here is where I think we can make some headway.  I'd go back to what Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, said:

This wider conflict is a conflict of ideas. It is our ideas, which are the political values upon which America is based, indeed, upon western liberalism is based, and the ideas of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other evil people like those. And if we think that this conflict can be won with bombs, bullets and bayonets, we are sadly mistaken.
For me, this is the point that we should be hammering.  We should be saying, "Regardless of how safe you feel now, in the long run, this is what will make us secure--the triumph of our ideas.  And some of our core ideas concern openness of government and the accountability of our leaders.  That's why we need to investigate.  We need to know the truth, even if it hurts at first.  In the long run, the truth always makes us stronger."

I think that this is the sort of message we should be thinking about in view of the TTI in the above analysis.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-02-13 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, But About That TTI Thing...

Paul,

As usual, you are way ahead of everybody else on this research. My compliments, amigo. BTW, I really appreciate your thoughtful analysis and comments. I hope we have the chance to meet and talk about all this some time.

On the TTI, you're intuiting, I think, some findings from the extended analysis which I think are going to emerge. (As you know, I haven't run the extended yet.) Specifically, the Bush interpretation you propose. On that score, I wouldn't disagree that conceptually the TTI may inversely reflect attitudes toward Bush's so-called efforts on national security. It's possible, some might say likely. I would say 'we don't know yet. We're highly likely to find out.'

More specifically, the TTI itself is based on a simple transformation in the data. It's simple addition and division, with the results set into a five point scale. Because it's so simple, mathematically speaking, I'm hesitant to impute further interpretation of its meaning at this point in time, e.g., an inverse reflection of Bush national security efforts. Like I said above, though, I don't disagree that it might actually have that reflective aspect. I just don't know for sure yet.

The extended analysis is going to be where the rubber meets the road. I'm going to look for underlying aspects and themes buried deep inside the raw data. (There's a statistical routine that does this.)

That's where I think the Bush national security piece might rise to the surface, among other key aspects of opinion. If so, I can capture it and crosstab it with the TTI, even run other routines like regression on these variables to determine causal relations, interactions, etc.

In short, the extended analysis may show us the simple TTI is a complex measure having causal connections with other key aspects of opinion. And we'll know which ones and how they relate to the TTI.

Think about how powerful that will be, if it occurs. At minimum, we'll have a set of five questions we can run any/each time we want and build the simple TTI from those original data. We can crosstab that on anything at all we measure in the future. However, because of the knowledge we have from the extended analysis  about what the TTI correlates with, we will be able to impute deeper interpretations (e.g., Bush on national security) of those basic crosstabs with questions asked/issues in the future.

Thus, a simple-to-construct extremely powerful measure giving us excellent 'under the hood' insight into anything we measure down the road is born. That's my goal on this, has been from the get-go, and we'll see if it plays out.

A couple of FYIs. First, from the very beginning this project was designed to go light years further than simple polling. Specifically through the questions, wording and scales. It's entirely accurate to say this is research more than it is polling. If you want, just read the specific wording of questions and think about what themes, strategies and values each one might tap into. Then think about how individual values, themes, etc. might group together and what insight that might give us. This is exactly what I'm going to do next analytically.

Second, it's highly likely the TTI is not going to be the only simple summary measure we get out of this. The results of the extended analysis are going to point to themes and strategies, as I mentioned. That means we'll have ideas about how to use the same simple-to-construct method to build scales tapping deeply into other aspects of opinion, using other questions. Truth be told, I'm trying to develop a series of killer scales/concepts that can be put together easily and give us great insight when applied. In short, I'm trying to build an arsenal for us to use in the context of the MyDD Poll. If all works well, and it should, we'll be reporting levels of analysis way deeper than anybody else. Anybody.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-14 06:01AM | 0 recs
Research vs. Polling

I agree this is a very important distinction. Polling may adhere to scientic standards (following protocols to get a representative sample, etc.) without being truly scientific--designed within a theoretical framework in order to obtain new knowledge, which will in turn reflect back on the framework, and suggest new questions and new sorts of questions.

All good pollsters know how to do research, of course. But it seems that they are rarely paid to actually do it for any purpose beyond simply getting a candidate elected. And so we get a great deal of data that doesn't readily lend itself to playing well with others.

Pursuing a research-oriented approach to polling is a very logical direction for the online reality-based community to take. But I think the implications need to be spelled out more in order for people to fully appreciate what this means.  It might be fitting to post an essay on that after the conclusion of your analysis, which you could then use to illustrate the concept.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-02-14 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Research vs. Polling

Thanks, excellent idea. I will do it after I get past all of the research work on this one.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-15 07:08AM | 0 recs
p.s.

I'd like to get together some time, if you're ever in the Los Angeles area. My email's in my profile.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-02-15 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: p.s.

10-4. I'll defintely try to get over there. I'm in AZ, hop, skip and a jump. The issue will be timing. I'll give a shout ASAP. Thanks.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-15 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: p.s.

Can't find your public email. Mine is: sun.tzu@direcway.com . If you'd like, zap me something, whatever, I'll print it and shout back when times opens up.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-15 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Your comment reinforces my confidence in making such references in my posts, Lucas. Sometimes they may be old references, but hopefully people see they're applicable. Throw in a little humor, too. Thanks, amigo.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-14 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Excellent point, Lucas. I don't disagree but I do see it a bit differently. Here's how I would characterize the Dem party/leadership issue:

I think it has more to do with standing up, with articulating coherent, sensible opposition, than with political philosphy (liberal, moderate/centrist, radical, whatever). In other words, it's the measure voters take of the man/woman, rather than philosophy or specific issue positions, that matters most. Extend that thinking to a group (the Dem party and leadership) and you've got it, in my view.

Voters see this party and its spokespeople as weak, wimpy and wishy-washy, as you infer. It's that vision, unfortunately accurate in my view, that's one of the crucial problems we face in terms of electability. And, at this point, I don't see the problem being addressed much from DC (Dean's an exception), mostly because of the inertia and clout of Beltway types and their effects on Congressional Dems. They both want the game to stay the same, same rules, same fundraising, same campaigning because that benefits them. It's their system, not ours.

Out here in the netroots, we're the only ones who know and are pushing for the game itself to change. Dramatically. Beltway control and strategy means continued losing over time. Our strategy scrambles the deck, dispersing campaign strategy and control out of DC for example. That will provide the opportunity to win majorities because our campaigns will be situational, geared to the specific races, individuals and issues at hand. Then we can pursue effective progressive policies in office. We're hope, they're despair. That's how I see it. There you go.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-14 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation...

So far so good, Sun Tzu. All very nice work, really. My only beef with it is all those dark, cynical clouds I happen to be seeing on the horizon. They scare the crap outta me. But I just feel I have this duty to respond to what I am witnessing.

Like, where will this all be going if Bush Jr. bombs the Iranian nuclear complexes, and the Chinese grab Formosa, and the Russians attack...

Will we even have electric power to run the friggin hacked voting machines?

No, I am not just making this stuff up. Just check out the significance of the Iranian Oil Bourse (comming this March).

by blues 2006-02-14 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation...

Thank you very much, blues. I appreciate the feedback.

Being extremely concerned means you are extremely smart. You should be scared; I damned sure am. When I wrap the analysis, I'm coming in with recommendations. It's not going to be pretty, amigo. Generally speaking, '06 looks like another train to wreck to me. So far, at least. In addition to the threats you cite, throw on the Hackett thing, the contined effectiveness of GOP strategy and messaging and the inept blue strategy/response for five years now and there you go.

I think we in the netroots are going to have to be the ones to fight. And fight smartly, aggressively. There's nobody else, as I see it.

by Sun Tzu 2006-02-15 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Poll: Investigation, Impeachment and Extr

Sun Tzu. Ancient Chinese philosopher-warrior.

by blues 2006-02-14 03:56PM | 0 recs
My view on this

My view on this is exceedingly simple - the American people deserve to be led, in a democratic way. What they're doing here is saying that if there are any leaders who will stand up and go after the wrongs, and set them right - there will be full and enthusiastic support.

The people of America are an extremely smart bunch if you give them credit, one would think that after a significant victory for the corrupt GOP in 04 that you would guage the wingnuts are in control but in fact the American people just said, with that vote, simply - we won't change presidents in wartime.

Now, we have a great opportunity - and the GOP has an albatross.  Divided vote with an overwhelming majority in control. Easy call for me.

Someone stand up and go get 'em!

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-02-15 04:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads