So not to say I told you so, BUT I said:
I predict the Democratic numbers will be about the same, but the GOP numbers will be reversed and as a result the numbers will be closer to 60-40 than 39-59
And the results:
OK, it all was pretty predictable.
It is interesting to read criticism of the strike from people who don’t note Clinton was for them as well.
So a little hypocrisy from not just Republicans I guess.
Interesting what the “fait accompli” factor is, since we are comparing a prez request that Congress approve a sustained bombing campaign vs. approving a single unannounced unilateral executive bombing escapade. There’s a strong element of defending whatever military action the US has already undertaken. “Support the troops!” “Support the Mission!” etc, etc, ad nauseam. All part of the militarism complex.
The turnaround in “independent” opinion seems especially interesting. Just goes to show that there is no downside and all upside to presidents using America’s multifaceted aerial bombing capabilities. McCain: “BombBombBomb ’em, just don’t invade ’em!”
I suspect being decisive may have a part in it.
The Democrats really didn’t change all that much.
Right, because as I said in the other thread, there are partisans everywhere, but Republicans are close to Stalinists in their reverence of party over anything. D’s have barely shifted in economic outlook, whereas Republicans did a complete u-turn.
The reduction in Democratic support can arguably be explained entirely by the fact that it’s Donald Trump in charge — I wouldn’t trust him to order me Chinese takeout, let alone escalate our war(s) in Syria. I think it’s different than pure partisanship. It’s Donald Fucking Trump. Plus the situation is far more complex now than in 2013.
In what universe is -16 not much of a change?
I fear that the military beilligerance of Obama and Clinton has permanently (or semi-permanently) altered the how many Democrats view our place in the world, but this is where we are now.
40% of Democrats are warmongers. 16% are hypocrites. — war good when the POTUS is a Democrat and bad when the POTUS is a Republican. And 43% oppose unnecessary, unilateral military actions. Those numbers look awfully familiar.
36% of Republicans are warmongers. 48% are hypocrites. And only 11% oppose stupid military actions (higher than I expected)
29% of Independents are warmongers. 23% are hypocrites. And 38% oppose blowing stuff up for fun.
If it hasn’t already been noted here, we can now apparently put one Howard Dean into the warmonger camp, or at least the Attack First, Don’t Bother to Investigate Later camp of Dems.
Rep Tulsi Gabbard, outspoken and independent, made the mistake of challenging conventional wisdom and failing to toe the party line on Assad and Putin being guilty as charged, no investigation and evidence necessary. Howard now wants her out of Congress.
The world really is upside down. Used to be, not too long ago, Howard was a breath of fresh air among Dems in openly questioning Junior’s Iraq War. Now, as if perhaps to compensate for that failed run and the way the MSM tended to mock him, he’s now trying to act the war hawk, while also questioning the legitimacy or sanity of any elected official who dares speak out against Trump’s reckless, extremely unwise use of force. Sadly, many Dems today will agree with him, no doubt a number of posters here.
Tulsi Gabbard is an Islamophobic Hindu nationalist who denies genocide.
And you’re like:
In India, Hindus have long been anti-Muslim and the religious bigotry isn’t benign. But Gabbard isn’t Indian, never lived in India, and has embraced the adopted religion of her European mother. A good friend of mine became a Hindu many decades ago and she’s as lovely now as she was before her conversion. I respect her choice and she respects mine; so, religion isn’t a topic of discussion between us.
Religion absolutely is important here because it is the link between her and the Hindu nationalist PM of India, Modi, who also happens to be an Islamophobic bigot.
The Modi Mind-Meld. Uh oh — look out:
Good one. Not only did Obama and Modi meet half a dozen times during his presidency, which is bad enough, but from that photo, it looks like they’re enjoying each other’s company too, which should make everyone suspicious that O was really an Islamophobic Hindu nationalist. I hope historians take note of this.
Pathetic — you’ve now stooped to a level below the mad troll raters.
Devotion to anyone or anything has that effect on mental faculties.
When you troll, I troll rate. Didn’t rate your first comment, in case you noticed.
She wasn’t trolling my diary.
I don’t agree with her about this in any way shape or form.
But do we really have to use the ratings like this?
I really don’t get the point.
Pro-peace ani-war Tulsi Gabbard:
“Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”~October 1st, 2015
She supports war. And bombing. As you’ve made it readily clear in the past.
I find myself wanting to like Gabbard, especially because the pro-war crowd at dKos has gotten all over her, but unsure how much effort to spend checking her out. I’m not voting in Hawaii.
from what I do remember she’s “independent” verging on inconsistent and has some weird connections.
Re Dean, I think I prefer the rationale offered elsewhere that he’s getting back at Tulsi for her support for Bernie in the primaries.
Recall that HoDo had been a very early, prominent public backer of Hillary, frequently speaking on her behalf on the cables. And not unreasonably he probably fully expected her to beat the Donald, whereby he would go on to get a more respectable job as Sec of HHS. No doubt he would have been a good one.
Tulsi is currently one of very few (2, 3??) members of Congress openly questioning the wisdom of striking at Assad w/no evidence. Most who’ve voiced objections do so on the less important ground of process, while at the same time backing the strike. Very sad.
Apparently my guy Bernie is also in the latter category, based on comments he made a few days ago. I always felt that during the campaign, he’d been too quiet on FP generally, which just confirmed my suspicion that there is only a tiny skeptical Left left to challenge FP orthodoxy.
Even my other heroes like Eliz Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand (with her, my feelings are a little more complex), hopefuls both for 2020, have been disappointing on this latest in Syria.
So it’s Tulsi and a couple others in Congress as the only current candidates for a Profile in Courage. Just barely enough for a dinner party and a card game. Depressing at the moment.
NYT lists 15 major figures, and Sanders is the only Democrat who is listed in the skeptical category for both times.
I’m not saying that I agree that everybody they list as inconsistent really is, or that I agree/disagree with Sanders’ views.
The Times list seems to have omitted Tulsi who isn’t a leading Dem on any relevant committee but who has been the most vocal opponent among Congressional Dems, while it does list RAND Paul who also doesn’t head a comm’ee. I shouldn’t be too surprised by the omission.
Bernie should be out there more forcefully on this one, clearly the most important issue facing all of us at the moment. With Trump putting us suddenly on the brink of the brink with Russia over Syria, and with his threatening words and actions toward NK, all other issues pale in comparison.
Republican Partisanship driving polling: WaPo/ABC poll