Posts Tagged ‘Public Opinion’

Public Says Not So Fast On Repeal

Center for American Progress

The House passed a blanket repeal of the Affordable Care Act last week. Conservatives like to assert that in doing so they are just following the wishes of the public.

But many polls indicate that support for repeal is very soft indeed. The fact is people like a great deal about the new health care reform law and are reluctant to give up these advances. Consider these results from the latest CBS/New York Times survey. Forty-eight percent of those polled said they preferred to let the new law stand compared to 40 percent who wanted to see it repealed. The latter figure is obviously significant and, in fact, has been up to 10 points higher in other surveys.

wpid-snapshot24_1-jpg-2011-01-24-11-54.png

But the CBS/NYT poll went on to ask respondents who said they supported repeal whether they would still support repeal if that meant insurance companies were no longer required to cover those with pre-existing medical conditions. This query reduced the number supporting complete repeal to just 21 percent.

wpid-snapshot24_2-jpg-2011-01-24-11-54.png

Conservatives clearly believe the new law goes too far and that it should be repealed in its entirety. But, contrary to their assertions, the public is not on board.

Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. To learn more about his public opinion analysis go to the Media and Progressive Values page and the Progressive Studies program page of our website.

Is This The End Of Sarah Palin As We Know Her?

AlterNet.com

Has Palin finally tarnished her luster with her thoughtless remarks about the Giffords shooting, or will she turn this into yet another opportunity to play the victim?

January 14, 2011 |

Has Sarah Palin gone too far this time? Or is she immune, able to cross any line no matter how sacred?

With every headline-making gaffe or nasty comment Sarah Palin has made over the past few years, pundits and citizens alike have pondered this question, and the answer, until now, is that like the Energizer Bunny, she just keeps going.

Still, it’s worth asking again, in the wake of last weekend’s senseless tragedy which puts a new light on her public persona. Palin’s cavalier use of violent imagery may not have directly caused the Tuscon shooting that left six dead and a dozen wounded–but it seems uglier now. Her endless gambits to rule the news cycle may be grudgingly admired at other times–but when it takes precious time away from mourning those whose lives are lost forever, it has a pathetic, out-of-touch-feel.

The heat on Palin began almost immediately after the horrific Giffords shooting, when social media users, bloggers and journalists by the hundreds made the immediate connection between Giffords’ Arizona district and Palin’s infamous “reload” crosshairs map, which put a target over that district. This map from Palin’s camp had bothered onlookers at the time: Giffords herself had warned about it having consequences. So it was natural that the map came back to mind.

Continue reading »

Don’t Let Deficit Panel Co-Chairs Hype a Bad Plan, Embrace the Progressive Alternative That Saves Social Security

December 4, 2010

By John Nichols

From The Nation The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform failed to produce a mandate for assaulting Social Security, undermining Medicare and Medicaid and generally balancing the budget on the backs of working Americans.

But that hasn’t stopped its co-chairmen from claiming a sort of victory for their plan to make Main Street pay for Wall Street’s failures.

Their goal is obvious. Commission co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles want to spin a win they did not achieve in order to foster the false impression that their ominously titled ” Moment of Truth” proposal is the only real alternative to fiscal ruin. That’s not the case. There are better proposals–such as the detailed alternative to austerity outlined by commission member Jan Schakowsky. But this is a critical juncture, and progressives need to be conscious that an effort will be made to narrow the range of options and impose key elements of a bad plan that failed to gain required support.

Let’s start by getting a few things straight:

The commission was given a clear charge when President Obama cobbled it together in February–after failing to win congressional support for the formal launch of the project.

The commission was to come up with a plan to address deficits, debts and the challenge of maintaining a federal government at a point when revenues are not sufficient to keep paying for every war, bailout and boondoggle that comes along.

Proposals for what could be radical, and in many cases painful, change had to attract broad support, so the president said that at least fourteen of the eighteen members of the commission would need to back an initiative before he would promote it. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to hold votes this year to see if a consensus could be reached.

Continue reading »

Self-Made American Myth #2: Who Makes $250K?

ourfuture.org

Progressives have suspected for years that working- and middle-class Americans vote for the GOP because they have a deeply unrealistic idea about their real chances of becoming wealthy. We’ve joked that working stiffs vote for tax cuts and other goodies for the rich because they seriously believe that they’re going to be rich themselves someday, and want to make sure those advantages will be there for them, come the day.

To date, this has been just a guess on our part — but a recent study now proves that this guess was right on the money. The Myth of the Self-Made American is being bolstered by a delusionally optimistic view of just how many people actually make it to the top 3% income level. It’s a delusion that affects almost everyone, but particularly those who vote Republican.

Ryan Enos at yougov.com explains the results of a YouGov/Polimetrix poll conducted a few weeks before the recent election. As he explains their findings:

The hot button issue with the tax cuts is whether to renew the cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year. The wrangling among politicians over this issue seems to mostly involve whether or not earning that amount of money qualifies somebody as wealthy.

What’s amazing about the magic number of $250,000 is that, based on responses to a recent YouGov/Polimetrix poll, by and large, Americans have a very distorted view of how many people make that much money.

Any idea what proportion of American families make more than $250,000 a year? Or, to potentially make it easier, any idea what proportion of families in your state make more than $250,000 a year?

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know—most people don’t. The actual number, nationwide is somewhere less than 3% of families earn more than $250,000 a year. What did the survey respondents say when asked this question? The average response was close to 17%!—meaning your typical survey respondent thinks that almost 1 in 5 families in America earn that kind of money, when the answer is closer to 1 in 50!

Enos goes on to point out that there are only a few states where the actual number of $250K earners even cracks 8% — Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. But when the question was put to people in those states, they weren’t even half right, because their answers tilted upward, to about 21%.

Furthermore: the more money you make, and the more education you have, the more accurate your guess becomes. People making over $150K guessed an average of about 11%; those making under $30K thought it was more like 21%. College graduates guessed 12%; people with graduate degrees were closer, but not by much.

And only 15% of the survey participants answered 3% or under –though one-third of those answered “zero,” meaning they thought nobody in the country makes more than $250K a year. Deduct this disconnected 5%, and you’re left with just 10% of Americans who have a realistic sense of just how rare a $250K income is in this country.

While Republicans and Democrats gave about the same answers, the study also found that the more distorted peoples’ views were, the lower their opinion of President Obama was, and the more likely they were to vote Republican last November 2. The bottom line, says Enos is this: “A person that says 20% of people make $250,000 is more likely to vote Republican than a person that says 5% of people make $250,000.”

The irony, writes Enos, is that “people making less money actually believe that there are more wealthy people out there than wealthy people do.”

This distortion explains a good deal about why middle- and working-class people vote for the GOP. A quarter of a million dollars sounds like an attainable income to most people — they know at least a few people around town whom they imagine have already made it — and they honestly think that with the right break or a little work, they might get there someday, too. It could happen.

Combine this with the common misunderstanding about how marginal tax rates work (hint: it’s only the income over $250K that’s taxed at the higher rate, not the whole year’s take), and it’s not hard to see why so many people making the average household income of $53K are incensed by the idea of increasing the marginal tax rate on the top 3% — and why they think Obama is attacking them personally by suggesting such a horrible thing. They’ve bought into a myth about their chances of moving up the economic ladder that’s at vast odds with the actual facts.

Some critics think Obama picked the wrong number, and that proposing at top tax rate that kicks in at $500K or a cool million would have avoided this problem. The average voter might have had a harder time imagining these numbers as being attainable. Maybe so. But maybe not: given how strong the myth of the self-made American is, and how many falsehoods you have to take on faith to believe it, we may be dealing with a level of delusion that’s impervious to even really huge numbers, the kind that define only the top 0.5% of Americans.

We are living in a fact-free world now. Stories are all that matter. And in hard times, people tend to cling harder to their dreams — especially the dream that no matter how bad things are now, someday they’re going to rise above all this and triumph. Telling them the truth under these conditions is hard, and perhaps even cruel.

But one of the hallmarks of countries that are falling into chaos is that people come to believe more and more absurd things. Truth gives way to truthiness; facts aren’t given the same weight as feelings. The huge disconnect between people’s perceived prospects and their actual prospects shows just what a masterful job conservatives have done. They’ve convinced people to believe that their potential for mobility is as good or better than it ever was — even as they’ve stolen the usual routes to a better life (education, home ownership, public investment, and so on) right out from under them.

Health Care Reform Back from the Dead? Obama’s Team Signals Support for Public Option; 18 Senators Sign on

Pressure is building in the Senate among Dems, and Obama’s Health Secretary backed government-run insurance plan if Majority Leader Harry Reid signs on to it.

February 19, 2010  |  

wpid-storyimages_picture24_1266536193_310x221-y80tc3te9ppy.jpg

 Editor’s Note: AlterNet’s Daniela Perdomo writes:

“Adding to the building pressure this week from his Senate colleagues who have openly demanded a public option in the health care reform bill, comes the news that President Obama would support a government-run insurance plan if Harry Reid signs onto it.

From Thursday’s Rachel Maddow interview with Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

Maddow: “The private insurance company writ large hasn’t done a great job. That’s why we want a public option to compete with them. These 18 Democratic senators want to bring that back into the fold. If that happened, would the administration fight for it?”

Sebelius: “Well, I think if it’s… Certainly. If it’s part of the decision of the Senate leadership to move forward, absolutely.”

The onus is now really on the Majority Leader. As of Thursday, at least 18 senators had signed an open letter urging Reid to make the public option a necessary part of the final Senate bill.

***

The following is Sahil Kapur’s Raw Story article, edited to reflect recent developments (original here):

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has become the first member of the Democratic leadership to sign the public option letter, indicating its growing momentum.

In an email to supporters, reproduced by The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent, Schumer said victory on the provision is “far from a done deal, but it’s an opportunity to break through the obstructionism Republicans have pushed for the past year.” [...]

As of Wednesday early afternoon, nine senators had signed a letter urging passage of the public health insurance option through reconciliation. [...]

The signatories urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to “bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.”

The public option, which has been the topic of explosive controversy throughout the health care deliberations, was passed in the House legislation but eliminated from the Senate version that was later approved.

The whole process hit a gridlock in January after the election of Republican Scott Brown to the senate, which gave the party the votes it needed to filibuster the final motion.

The letter continues, “There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.”

With Republicans poised to block another senate motion, Democrats have discussed using reconciliation — which would require a simple majority of 51 senators — to amend the bill before the House holds a final vote. A December poll found that six in ten Americans support the provision.

The liberal advocacy groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy For America have endorsed the letter, which also encourages citizens to sign in the support of the idea. One hundred and nineteen members of Congress have also signed it.

Next Thursday President Obama will convene a bipartisan summit with Republican leaders to discuss the two parties’ differences on the legislation. After initially equivocating, Republicans have confirmed they will attend.

Daniela Perdomo is a staff writer and editor of the Progressive Wire and Investigations at AlterNet. Follow her on Twitter. Write her at danielaalternet [at] gmail [dot] com.

It’s past time for President Obama to show some leadership

By Steven Pearlstein

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

It’s a rotten time in Washington, and I’m not just talking about the snow. Health-care reform, financial regulation, the jobs bill, the long-term budget deficit, energy and climate change — everywhere you turn, there’s political stalemate. Poll numbers are plummeting, and many good people either have been reduced to shameless pandering (John McCain) or are simply giving up and going home (Byron Dorgan, Evan Bayh, Billy Tauzin).

While we’re passing out the blame, however, let’s not forget a heaping helping for the public. I can genuflect with the best of them before “the basic decency and wisdom of the American people,” but the truth is that on many issues these days, the American people are badly confused.

They want Wall Street to be reined in, but they’re dead set against more regulation.

They want everyone to have access to affordable health insurance, but they’re wary of expanding the role of government.

They want the government to do something to create jobs, but not if it involves spending more money.

They want the federal deficit brought under control, but not if it means cutting entitlement spending or raising taxes.

They want to do something about global warming, but not if it raises energy prices.

We think we know how the public feels about these issues because of the number of e-mails that arrive on Capitol Hill, the temperature of the comments on cable television or talk radio, and the results of recent polls. But in reality, these are not the definitive political judgments of the American people, nor will they dictate voting behavior in November. Continue reading »

Our Democracy No Longer Works and the Problem Is Congress

The Nation / By Lawrence Lessig

At the center of our government lies a bankrupt institution: Congress. The US Congress has become the Fundraising Congress.

February 9, 2010  |

wpid-blogteaser_uscongressj001_310x220-nd2rjkmbnf2k.jpg

We should remember what it felt like one year ago, as the ability to recall it emotionally will pass and it is an emotional memory as much as anything else. It was a moment rare in a democracy’s history. The feeling was palpable–to supporters and opponents alike–that something important had happened. America had elected, the young candidate promised, a transformational president. And wrapped in a campaign that had produced the biggest influx of new voters and small-dollar contributions in a generation, the claim seemed credible, almost intoxicating, and just in time.

Yet a year into the presidency of Barack Obama, it is already clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. Not because it is too conservative. Not because it is too liberal. But because it is too conventional. Obama has given up the rhetoric of his early campaign–a campaign that promised to “challenge the broken system in Washington” and to “fundamentally change the way Washington works.” Indeed, “fundamental change” is no longer even a hint.

Instead, we are now seeing the consequences of a decision made at the most vulnerable point of Obama’s campaign–just when it seemed that he might really have beaten the party’s presumed nominee. For at that moment, Obama handed the architecture of his new administration over to a team that thought what America needed most was another Bill Clinton. A team chosen by the brother of one of DC’s most powerful lobbyists, and a White House headed by the quintessential DC politician. A team that could envision nothing more than the ordinary politics of Washington–the kind of politics Obama had called “small.” A team whose imagination–politically–is tiny.

These tiny minds–brilliant though they may be in the conventional game of DC–have given up what distinguished Obama’s extraordinary campaign. Not the promise of healthcare reform or global warming legislation–Hillary Clinton had embraced both of those ideas, and every other substantive proposal that Obama advanced. Instead, the passion that Obama inspired grew from the recognition that something fundamental had gone wrong in the way our government functions, and his commitment to reform it.

For Obama once spoke for the anger that has now boiled over in even the blue state Massachusetts–that our government is corrupt; that fundamental change is needed. As he told us, both parties had allowed “lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system.” And “unless we’re willing to challenge [that] broken system…nothing else is going to change.” “The reason” Obama said he was “running for president [was] to challenge that system.” For “if we’re not willing to take up that fight, then real change–change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans–will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo.”

This administration has not “taken up that fight.” Instead, it has stepped down from the high ground the president occupied on January 20, 2009, and played a political game no different from the one George W. Bush played, or Bill Clinton before him. Obama has accepted the power of the “defenders of the status quo” and simply negotiated with them. “Audacity” fits nothing on the list of last year’s activity, save the suggestion that this is the administration the candidate had promised.

Maybe this was his plan all along. It was not what he said. And by ignoring what he promised, and by doing what he attacked (“too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in”), Obama will leave the presidency, whether in 2013 or 2017, with Washington essentially intact and the movement he inspired betrayed.

That movement needs new leadership. On the right (the tea party) and the left (MoveOn and Bold Progressives), there is an unstoppable recognition that our government has failed. But both sides need to understand the source of its failure if either or, better, both together, are to respond.

At the center of our government lies a bankrupt institution: Congress. Not financially bankrupt, at least not yet, but politically bankrupt. Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, Americans’ faith in the Supreme Court remains extraordinarily high–76 percent have a fair or great deal of “trust and confidence” in the Court. Their faith in the presidency is also high–61 percent. Continue reading »

Senate Republicans seem to have one answer for Democrats: No

washingtonpost.com

By Dana Milbank

Friday, January 29, 2010

In his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Obama asked lawmakers to “work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics.”

On Thursday, Republicans sent their answer.

The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling — without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no.

The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can’t pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no.

The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote.

The state of the union is . . . unchanged.

The afternoon was consumed by a debate about whether to confirm Ben Bernanke for a second term as Fed chairman. Four years ago, when President George W. Bush nominated his former economic adviser to the Fed, the Senate confirmed him by a voice vote and only one Republican expressed opposition. This time around, President Obama nominated Bernanke to a second term. To thank Obama for this bipartisan gesture, 18 of the chamber’s Republicans voted no.

In all of these instances, Republicans knew that failure was not an option; voting down the debt increase or rejecting Bernanke would send markets into chaos. But they also recognized that these were free votes for the minority, because Democrats, in the majority, would “own” any failure.

Before the debt-ceiling vote, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, warned that a default by the Treasury would have a “cataclysmic result in the financial markets.”

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on budget matters, rose in opposition. “It is not responsible to raise the debt ceiling in this manner if you’re not going to put in place any responsible activity to bring under control the rising debt.”

Continue reading »

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

[Unfortunately Charlie Crist is correct, much to the dismay of many of us Obama supporters.
Come on Mr. President, you certainly remember as well as we do what your campaign promises were. Where is all this change you spoke of?
We voters are watching -- and while you have an unenviable job it is a job you asked for. And while there are many reasons for not being successful in Washington, there are no excuses for not trying!
Jim O’ ]

Politifact.com

crist.jpg
“President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout (health care reform negotiations).”
Charlie Crist on Tuesday, January 5th, 2010 in a written statement

Gov. Charlie Crist says Obama breaks transparency promise on health reform bill
tom-true.gif
Bookmark this story:

Don’t mess with Charlie Crist when it comes to open government.
It was Crist, as Florida governor, who created something called the Office for Open Government. And we’ve heard stories of the governor himself ordering agency heads to hand over public records requested by nosy reporters.
Now Crist is taking up the cause of the nation’s people in a debate over transparency when it comes to the health care reform bill.
“It seems that a bill that was crafted in a closed door, backroom meeting in the White House will end the same way,” Crist, who is running for U.S. Senate, said in a statement released Jan. 5, 2009. “President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout this process, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi have only aided in the secrecy with sweetheart deals and dead of the night votes.”
Crist is claiming that Obama broke a promise when it comes to transparency and health care reform.
Lucky for us, we have this thing at PolitiFact called the
Obameter, where we are tracking Obama’s more than 500 campaign promises.
If you’ll now turn to
Promise No. 517. Continue reading »

“Political Winners” Circle Filled by Figures Close to Obama

December 28, 2009
“Political Winners” Circle Filled by Figures Close to Obama
Americans divided in labeling Sarah Palin as a political winner or loser
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — In Americans’ estimation, the top three political winners of 2009 are all women closely linked with the Obama administration: Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Sonia Sotomayor. Among these, Michelle Obama has the broadest support with 73% calling her a “winner” in U.S. politics this year and 21% a “loser.” However, Clinton’s rating is nearly as positive.
ed-h8-6q60kk-hcdwgirqw.gif
President Barack Obama, himself, also falls in the political winners circle, although the percentage calling him a political loser is somewhat higher than is seen for the three women.
The picture is quite different for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom half of all Americans identify as a political loser. More than half say the same of Rep. Joe Wilson (the representative who yelled “You lie!” to Obama at a joint session of Congress), as well as Gov. Mark Sanford (who is losing his wife and is under a state ethics investigation over an admitted extramarital affair), White House party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi, and the Republicans in Congress generally.
ri1zmhhh4kgsroin51oi4q.gif
In between the clear-cut political winners and losers are a number of public figures with more mixed reviews. Nearly half of Americans (46%) call Sarah Palin a winner, but slightly more (49%) call her a loser. About equal numbers of Americans call Ben Bernanke (Time magazine’s choice for person of the year) and radio talk host Glenn Beck winners and losers, while a large segment has no opinion about either man. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is more widely viewed as a loser than a winner, but not to as great a degree as Pelosi — possibly in part because of his high “no opinion” rating.
a-blddtjgkemtvd68-ytca.gif
Continue reading »

Obama’s War Speech Woke the Sleeping Giant — Anger Over Afghan Surge Fuels Country-Wide Protests

By Jodie Evans, AlterNet. Posted December 4, 2009.

The president’s announcement of a troop surge in Afghanistan this week prompted protests in over 80 communities across the country.

CODEPINK issued an alert on Thursday, December 3, about the President’s West Point speech on Afghanistan and his failure to respond to the many voices calling for peace. We asked people to email the White House to voice their concerns.

The alert had been out for three minutes when the phone rang. My assistant Mark answered, then turned to me and said, “The White House is calling.”

I picked up the phone, and discovered it was Jayne in the President’s Office of Public Engagement. “How did you feel about the President’s speech?” she asked thoughtfully.

I told her I was feeling horrible, that I disagreed with almost everything he said. I said he didn’t have the courage to be in his own body as he delivered the words that would cause the deaths of so many and that if he was willing to couch his position in so many untruths then I couldn’t believe anything he said–even about why we were there. Really, we are going to send 100,000 troops, over 100,000 contractors and 100 billion dollars to deal with 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? It reminds me of an Afghan woman’s tirade to me when I was there, “You want me to believe that the most powerful nation in the world is being held hostage by those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of this broken country?”

Jayne said, “I totally hear what you are saying.” She indicated that the President has told them to stay open to all opinions and she understood I might feel that way. And then she came to the purpose of her call. “I want to keep our lines of communication open, but I can’t do it if I can’t work. I have an email from your list hitting my box every second and can’t get any work done. Can you do something about that so our communication can be more productive? Can you send out another alert with a better address?” Continue reading »

Obama’s Misguided War Speech Shouldn’t Be the Last Word on Afghanistan

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted December 1, 2009.

Presidents are not supposed to begin and end the discussion about war. With both parties divided over Afghanistan, it’s time for Congress to debate the Obama’s war plan.

President Obama delivered a carefully-constructed and nuanced call Monday night for the extension of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Obama came to the wrong conclusion about a military adventure that should be coming to a conclusion, rather than ramping up. But Obama’s attempt to find a middle ground between anti-war forces and supporters of a Iraq-style occupation at least recognized that the debate over Afghanistan has many sides and many players.

At times, Obama seemed so tortured in his attempt to placate both those who want to send more troops and those who want a bring-the-troops-home exit strategy that his speech had the ring of Greek tragedy — or, perhaps, “fall of the Roman Empire” history.

Unfortunately, there has been nothing artful about the media coverage of Obama’s speech.

Most of it follows the predictable patterns of the post-September 11 “war on terror” era.

Compromise, even bad compromise that keeps the U.S. involved in a quagmire, is portrayed as rational, even necessary, while blunt calls for rapid withdrawal or all-out war are simply dismissed as outside the realm of rational thought.

So it is that we are left with in murky-middle moment where prominent Democrats rally, for the most part, to back the president even when the president embarks on what House Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisc., refers to as a “fool’s errand,” while prominent Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, whine that the president is not doing enough.

In fact, the picture has more shades of grey than the pundits would have us believe.

There remains substantial Democratic discomfort with Obama’s plan to surge more than 30,000 additional troops into what — despite the talk of an exit strategy — is sounding more and more like an endless, and very probably pointless, war of whim. One hundred members of the House, the vast majority of them Democrats, have now sponsored Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern’s call for the development of a formal plan to bring the troops home. In the Senate, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders make no secret of the fact that they believe the president is making a mistake, as does Obey, author of the “fool’s errand” characterization.

Perhaps even more significant, however, is the fact that there is a good deal of division within the ranks of the Republican caucus, particularly in the U.S. House. Not every member of the Grand Old Party is banging on Obama for taking too long to do too little in Afghanistan. In fact, some key conservatives are echoing the call of liberals for a “Bring the Troops Home” plan.

The first cosponsor of Jim McGovern’s resolution was North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, Jr., who says of the Afghanistan occupation: “We’re trying to police the world. Every great nation prior to America that tried to police the world has failed economically. That’s why I tell people that I’m a Pat Buchanan American. I want to stop trying to take care of the world and fix this country. Our problems are so deep that there is no easy way to fix them.”

Among the other stalwart conservatives who do not merely reject a surge but who are outspoken in their advocacy for the development of a plan to withdraw U.S. forces in Afghanistan are California’s Dana Rohrbacher and Tennessee’s John Duncan Jr. Continue reading »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.