Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 38% (42%) Wrong Track: 50% (44%)
* * * * *
Ipsos-Reid 9/16 - 18
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 37% (39%) Wrong Track: 57% (56%)
* * * * *
Fox News 9/23 - 24
Who should control congress?
Democrats 41% Republicans 36% Neither/Unsure 23%
* * * * *
Democracy Corps 9/14
Who should control congress?
Democrats 47% Republicans 42% Neither 1% (unch) Not sure 11%
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Going for the Easy Kill
They may be despicable, immature, irresponsible and evil, but the Administration (and Rove in particular) are not stupid.
Indeed, the Iraq invasion was a detestably clever endeavor. It helped the Administration immeasurably in their quest for political domination. Of course 911 set the stage, fulfilling the prayers of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle who called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor". But the way that they used 911 to their political advantage was successful beyond any of their wildest, most hate-filled dreams.
A particular element in their 911 sacrilege was the Invasion of Iraq. In addition to all the Administration's other ulterior motives for invading Iraq, there is political popularity. Everyone knows that the president always receives a boost in ratings after a successful military incursion regardless of its validity or moral quality.
So the Administration chooses a paper tiger, completely innocuous and absolutely non-threatening to the US. They jack up the tin-pot dictator, promoting him as a powerful force in charge of "elite forces" numbering in the tens of thousands, a primary terrorist sponsor and a monster bent on using weapons of mass destruction.
Then, in a blast of bravery, Bush sends our fighting forces off to fight for the Administration's dream of Middle-East domination.
Not surprisingly, Iraq was devastated in a couple of weeks and people cheered for George W. Bush.
What a hero!
Nevertheless, the deed was done. The hapless enemy was built up in the minds of Americans and Bush struck him down. Now Bush benefits from the farce with high approval ratings, a new military base in the Middle East and the second largest oil reserve on the planet.
Almost sounds good on the surface…until you realize that the move alienated nearly all our allies, set a catastrophic "first strike" precedent, enflamed anti-Americanism across the globe, increased the likelihood of another terrorist strike on American soil, stimulated terrorist recruitment, reinvigorated nuclear programs in Iran, North Korea and who knows where else and raised the level of cataclysmic danger in hot spots across the planet. Yeah. Sounds great.
Oh, come on. Let's cut Bush some slack. Sure. He may have used his family's political prowess to avoid the Vietnam war and subsequently go AWOL from the National Guard. But he's certainly made up for it here by sending all those other men and women off to fight in the Middle-East. So courageous!
(An aside: Ironically, The Vietnam War, where 60,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese died, was referred to as a mere "conflict" for decades. Not so with the Iraq invasion which has curiously and immediately been tagged a "war" even without congressional declaration.)
Now, I can't imagine that Bush would ever win California. Ever. Recall that Bush took 41.6% of the California vote in 2000. So with margin of error (+/- 3.8%) in the above poll , the results are merely reflective of the support that Bush has had all along.
Nevertheless, it poses a problem for any Democratic nominee because it would mean that the Dem has to waste time and money campaigning in a state that should be a given.
Rest assured, however, that once the Democrats have their candidate, the Bush numbers will fall drastically. Once there is a name and a face to Bush's opposition, those who would select a "generic Democratic candidate" will be joined by those who favor the person as well. The result will be another Bush blowout in CA, NY, and MA if nowhere else.
The critical issue to watch is the Democratic primary. It has to be cordial within the party and it has to be fiercely hostile to the Bush Administration.
The bottom line is that the CA numbers don't bother me one bit (except that I have to hear the right-wing blowhards rail on about it). There is no surprise that Bush is experiencing nationwide approval. In fact his father was experiencing approval ratings in the mid-80's post "Desert Storm" and prior to the end of his one-term presidency. Bush Jr. can't even seem to bust out of the 70's, even with 911 at his back.
The bottom line: 1) The Democratic Primary has to go smoothly and result in an exciting candidate (i.e. Not Lieberman or Gephardt). 2) The Democrats have to be fearless and courageous in their support for that candidate…and 3) Nadarites (2.5 million votes strong in 2000) have to realize that ridding the world of Bush must be their first priority.
"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."
He pointed out that Bush's "bully-the-world" foreign policy will ultimately fail:
"We can't run. If you have an interdependent world… you cannot kill, jail or occupy all your adversaries, sooner or later you have to make a deal."
He continued to say that the Administration is unable to handle multiple tasks simultaneously and noted that he would scrap the current tax cut proposal if he were in the White House.
Oh, how I yearn for the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. I would take a Clinton sex scandal over Bush global devastation any day of the week. How about you?
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')