As Democrats Collapse on Iraq, NYT/CBS Poll Finds Public More Antiwar Than Ever

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor&Publisher: As Democrats Collapse on Iraq, NYT/CBS Poll Finds Public More Antiwar Than Ever
By E&P Staff
Published: May 25, 2007

NEW YORK Just hours after the Democrats in Congress threw in the towel on trying to force a timetable -- or some other measure -- for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, The New York Times and CBS released their latest national poll showing antiwar sentiment in the country only growing.

"Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago," the Times reports today.

-- 61% say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq

-- 76% say things are going badly there, including 47% who say things are going very badly.

-- Only 30% approve of the job President Bush is doing overall.

-- 76%, including 51% of Republicans, say additional troops sent to Iraq this year by Bush either have had no impact or are making things worse.

-- 63% say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003590655

[bamacrat]

1. Lets start the revolution...

In the 60s there were huge protests to the Vietnam war, is the only reason there are no protests because there is no draft? If so that is sad, we need more wide scale protests of this regime.

[porphyrian]

3. Do you really believe protests will work?

If the media bothers to cover it, they'll understate the numbers and only show clips of the most radical members, implying they represent the whole. Congress isn't listening. The administration certainly isn't listening. In the meantime, the bills keep coming and our troops keep dying.

I think we need something new, but I have no idea what that is.

[Dhalgren]

6. Yes you do know what it is. You just won't say it. I know, I hate to say it, too...

[bdamomma]

12. I think there are many of us thinking that too but cannot say it.

[porphyrian]

15. "We're gonna explode? I don't wanna explode." - Jayne, from Serenity

I'm hoping for another as-of-yet-un-thought-of idea for how to proceed, because as creative as I am, I'm fucking stumped.

[EFerrari]

7. They work in other ways, too, though. They give you the morale

you need to keep working & they are a good way to build networks -- both necessary elements to any movement, no? :)

[porphyrian]

10. Possibly, but not necessarily, and just as easily done on the internet.

I'm not saying people shouldn't do it, I'm questioning the ability of protests to enact change as they used to do.

[EFerrari]

14. Well, I may agree with you, at bottom.

But, every time I go to a mass action, the learning bit of it seems very important -- the training of people to "act up" in a community of activists and in a constructive way.

But for networking and getting a shot in the arm, the net and meat space are really different. The net is efficient, convenient -- it puts activism on your desktop. But "in person" is powerful in a different way -- if only because we use more of our senses (one hopes!) when we interact. Interesting question, though. :)

[porphyrian]

17. Interesting point.

Much of our communication is not expressed solely in language. The internet has allowed us to see this even more clearly. But, if we are just trying to meet and communicate with each other, there are plenty of way to do that other than a protest that would be ignored by everyone we're trying to get the point across to.

[EFerrari]

20. Funny thing about this: I'm having a hard time getting people together

twice a month to talk about impeachment strategies. But, were I to invite people out to an action, the attendance would improve because having an "adversary" fires people up. Maybe we're just an oppositional breed.

lol

[porphyrian]

22. Have you tried cookies or brownies?

Maybe cake? People will do just about anything for cookies, brownies or cake.
;)

[EFerrari]

23. Now, that's the best political strategy anyone has suggested to me

all year!

lol

:toast:

[BuyingThyme]

2. Any polls about Congress yet?

I'm thinking they're down to about 13 or 14% approval.

Thanks Nancy! Heckuva job!

[bdamomma]

13. I hope *'s numbers fall too.

[BuyingThyme]

21. I suspect he'll get a bump.

(Really.)

[Phredicles]

4. So how is bending over for Bush going to help us win these people's votes?

The Neville Chamberlain crowd are all over DU saying that this is all about winning in 2008. How is giving the vast majority of voters the finger going to help us accomplish that?

[Missy M]

5. Are those the same people who were.....

all for the war when it started and loved Bush? Are they the same people who bought magnetic ribbons for their cars?

[EFerrari]

8. With this whore media, how do we know how many of those people

there really were in the first place? You know, people who never bought a copy of Judy Miller's book "Germs"?:shrug:

[magellan]

9. That damn fringe again

[bdamomma]

11. let the rumble begin!!

[LBJDemocrat]

16. When the politicians don't represent the public

You'll find that whenever there's "bipartisanship" going on, it's when both parties disagree with the majority of the population.

You'll find bipartisanship on trade policy, Iraq policy, and the new immigrant-exploitation act.

[onenote]

19. the same poll suggests that yesterday's vote did represent the public

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


We need to work on getting the public to realize that the time has come for us to go.

[onenote]

18. another thing that same poll shows: only 13 percent support defunding

"Most Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008. While troops are still in Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180120512-zyIbZvJFxdrFbP/faCd3HQ

[EFerrari]

24. So, what do you make of that? (Real question.) n/t

[onenote]

25. What I make of it? The public is of many minds

DU is something of an echo chamber that tends to construe things in black or white terms. Out in the fields, there are more shades of gray. Most folks here, I suspect, thought the war was unnecessary, illegal, immoral, wrong-headed, not in the US interest (any or all of the above) from the outset. But "out there" the public, because they were duped, because they were naieve, because they adopt a "my country in wartime" mentality, tended to support the war at the outset. Getting those people from where they started to where we are now takes time. Some come to the realization quickly, but more often not, people are more cautious in casting over their old views and adopting new.

I believe the tide is turning, as demonstrated by the growing numbers who not only think the war is being handled badly, but who now believe the war was a mistake in the first instance. These people are coming around to the realization that we need to get out -- that the cost of staying outweighs whatever they may have perceived to be the cost of getting out. I think the enactment of the timetable bill and forcing chimpy to veto it helps people focus on what the "end game" really is.

The fact that many people aren't at the point of demanding (as opposed to desiring) that we get out yet is, I believe, something that is changing. I suspect that if things continue on the current course (and I see no reason that they won't unfortunately), repub members of Congress will be getting an earful over the August recess and will come back in September with a message for the White House -- come up with a plan to start bringing home troops or we will be forced to join the Democrats in doing it for you. I know many here will think this can never happen, but its what happened during the Vietnam War and I think its a likely result here. The pace of the withdrawal won't be to our liking (just as the pace of the withdrawal from VIetnam was not to the liking of the anti war movement) but hopefully it will start us down the road to a near total disengagement.

[EFerrari]

26. I hope you're right. The element that haunts me is

that the media has been so captured, the whole process is slowed. And that means lives lost.

[onenote]

27. sadly, that is always going to be the case

Consider Vietnam -- from the time that Congress first really asserted itself by passing legislation to prevent combat troops from being sent into Cambodia in late 1970, until the completion of the withdrawal of combat troops in March 1973, over 3000 more Americans died.