As the midterm elections draw near, the multi-billion dollar machine that is political partying is in full effect, polling and analyzing data at a prolific rate, continually tweaking candidate's messages to conform with the latest trends of voter sentiment. The latest poll from the NY Times clearly illustrates several trends; namely that the Republicans are in trouble.
For example, in the polls final question it asks which party is most likely to tell the truth about how the war in Iraq is going. The response was 23% Republican, 44% Democrat. The Iraq War has become extremely unpopular, and rightfully so, it has devolved into a strategic disaster of epic proportions... and quite frankly, anyone left in America who does not realize that is at this point basically stupid. There is no valid justification to continue the Iraq War at this point; plain and simple.
In 1998, Henry Kissinger essentially remarked that 'Moral certitude cannot be dispensed from an altitude of 25,000 feet.' The notion of a militarily inserted and enforced democracy continues to be a non sequitor of the highest order. The cost in terms of dollars to the American public is simply not worth it, bar none. And if there are any hawks out there who still contend we owe the Iraqi people the duty or moral imperative to stay in Iraq and 'finish the job,' I have some bad news for you; the Iraqi people's lives are simply not worth $500,000,000,000 of our money, plain and simple. It is not in our rational national interest to continue this charade in Iraq, the war has become a joke on many levels; strategically, financially, contractually, etc.
But back to the NY Times poll, to me the single most promising indicator of a Democrat win in one of the halls of power this November is the question asking about the economy. When asked which party could ensure a strong economy, 35% responded Republican, 42% Democrat. Considering that our economy is great at the moment, this is surprising. Granted, income levels are fairly stagnant relative to productivity levels over the last five to ten years; but aside from the technical reasons for this, the political implication is simple, those most adversely affected by this don't really matter, because they are poor, and poor people don't vote. And if they do vote, they will use moronic heuristics such as gay marriage or union benefits as the deciding factor in whom to vote for. Remember, the single longest period of sustained economic growth in this country was in the years immediately after Clinton was elected. While political theorists tell us the data shows it doesn't matter if our government is politically unified or diverse in its governing, I think it is clear that at least in this juncture, we desperately need some type of oversight for these Republicans who currently run the show; they are totally out of control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/us/politics/21poll.html?hp&ex=1158897600&en=ef00c357f1e7980c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
1 comment:
Yes there needs to be oversight, but I think the Democrats are counting their chickens before they hatch. Iraq is a big deal, I have family members over there, but it won't really affect how I vote. I am selfish and will vote selfishly. You don't fight in Iraq to free Iraqies (I wouldn't know one if I saw one), you fight somewhere so you don't fight here. Both political parties disgust me, and I think that is the majoirty feeling of the public. I don't know who will win the majority, but I think it will have more to do with the price of gas than with the death count in Iraq. I guess we will see in a several weeks.
Post a Comment