You beautiful people out in red-state land have been giving dovbear some grief. I'm condecedning, you say. Patronizing. Elitest. Or, as one lovely lady put it:
I think you're terrible to suggest that all the fine god-fearing and religious people who voted for president Bush were stupid pig farmers. How dare you cast aspertions on the great American heartland!Truly, your emails have been a joy to read. But, dear lady and friends, the joke is on you.
Or so suggests a survey conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The survey found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.
This is scary. No wonder Bush won. His supporters, largely, had no knowledge of the world. They voted for a president who faught a just war, for a president who enjoyed the world's support. In other words, they voted for a president who DOES NOT EXIST. So much for values. This election wasn't about values. It was about ignorami and their voting patterns.
Am I crowing? You bet.
Please keep those emails coming to yourfavoriteblogger@hotmail.com
17 comments:
oi gevalt... that is depressing.
some people just can't bear to be reality-based.
Yes, we lost. Because Bush voters aren't terribly bright. Can't I have a little fun pointing it out? Or will the right wing deny me that, too?
I'm taking your advice, though, about getting a life. Starting tomorrow, I'm taking up bike-riding. Perhaps I'll blog about it, too.
PS - Mo and others: I hope you're also reading my other posts. They aren't all anti-GOP. Not by a long-shot.
He who phrases the questions determines the responses. Somehow they didn't bother to ask about misconceptions commonly held by Democrats. For example, try asking:
- If Bush called Iraq "an imminent threat"? (Answer: No.)
- If Kerry voted for the Kyoto agreement? (Answer: No.)
- If Clinton went to war without UN approval? (Answer: Yes.)
- If Cheney earns money when Halliburton wins government contracts? (Answer: No.)
- If the Constitution mentions "separation of church and state"? (Answer: No.)
- If trees are a major cause of air pollution? (Answer: Absolutely.)
I could go on...
Whether or not Bush used the exact words "imminent threat", is a straw-man. There are several quotes from the president and members of his administration which reinforce the idea that Bush and his men intended to convey the sense of "imminent threat." In other words he scared us. Historians of the future can decide if this was a deliberate tactic on the president's part, or an honest mistake.
For your consideration:
a) Bush manipulated information to meet his needs and then used it to go to war.
b) Bush received bad intelligence and acted in what he thought the nation's best interests were based upon bad intelligence. Do you prefer either of those scenarios.
Congress declares war, did our reps not do any checking on their own of the veracity of this intelligence.
Whether or not Bush used the exact words "imminent threat", is a straw-man.So misconceptions held by Republicans are vital but misconceptions held by Democrats are red herrings?
Bush explicitly stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.Reported in the Los Angeles Times, the article on this address was headlined: "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat"!
Spinsanity's take on this is here.
Next, you can debunk the other misconceptions I listed... no doubt there are countless more.
So misconceptions held by Republicans are vital but misconceptions held by Democrats are red herrings?
No biur, that isn't what I said.
The point is Bush's exact words are irrelevant, because he and his men said many, many things that conveyed the sense of an inniment threat. He didn't use the exact words you are holding up as a litmus test, but he did make us think that the threat was imminent, using other words.
Is this really so hard to understand?
The relevant point is the Bushies benefited from the ignorance of the public. Is that the sort of society we want?
Zeman Biur is trying to change the subject, but I hope this brings him back.
Nice site DB!! Love the pictures, when do we get more?
The relevant point is the Bushies benefited from the ignorance of the public. Is that the sort of society we want? That is a different question. Do you blame the gov't for society's indifference to educating themselves.
No, but the right cultivates and exploits ingnorance.
Dov, the public in general is pretty ignorant. Until you prove that democratic voters were completely informed of the issues (or moreso than republican voters) you have no valid point.
Dovie, instead of a bike, get a foster child and blog about that. The ladies will love it.
As for the Dems being dumb, that's possible. I myself know lots of dumb Dems. The point is that everyone says the election was about values, that this stinky 2 percent majority proves something about what American's believe. But its not about values. Maybe some of those people would have voted against Bush is they knew the truth.
If so, all the values chitter chatter is not based on anything real.
No, the relevant point is that this "survey" is bunk. By only asking about misconceptions commonly held by Republicans, they draw the conclusion that most Republicans are ignorant. Democratic voters believe in just as many falsehoods, which are no less relevant to the way they vote.
More questions they could have asked:
- Did Saddam Hussein actively support and shelter terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those with American blood on their hands? (Answer: Yes.)
- Did vote recounts show that Gore won Florida in 2000? (Answer: No.)
- Did intelligence reports warn that al-Qaeda had plans to crash airplanes into American buildings? (Answer: No.)
- Did Saddam's Iraq have high-level contacts and cooperation with al-Qaeda? (Answer: Yes.)
etc....
Zman Biur continues to miss the point by a country mile.
The survey shows the most of Bush's supporters did not know basic facts about the president's record. Yet they supported him
It's fair to ask: Would they have continued to support him had they known the true facts?
It's fair to conclude that Bush's voters were ignoramuses.
The survey delivers no conclusions about Kerry voters, and until you produce a similar survey of Kerry supporters, your comments about their knowledge and inteligence is mere speculation.
When all else is lost the future still remains.
0yQzv http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
nThs http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
dGyg http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
1eEvo http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
7cDho http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
8zLdv http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
6hOfm 6lVdf 2jSva 5zPwe 6aHfa 6eOti 6nVbp 5qQzv 7fEhj
Post a Comment