|
--- The polls on Bush's Iraq war venture continue downward,.. justifiably so,.. and the percentage of popular "disapproval" arrayed against the administration is edging into the solid 70's. But that word "disapproval" is starting to bug me. From the standpoint of the democrats making best utilization of polling data, wouldn't a little more information be helpful?
--- After all,...at one point, the war had popular support, and today's figures represent a substantial decline for the Bush junta. Some of us were against this war from the outset,.. some of us could see all along that the administration was using trumped-up evidence,... others were cautiously supportive of the White House and (obviously) others, vehemently so. Things have changed,... but not always in the same manner, eh?
--- For instance,... how many of today's "new" disapprovers have shifted position on the basis of cost and casualties? How many have withdrawn their support on the basis of a military strategy once trusted, but now seen as unsound? How many have abandoned ship once they could no longer avoid admitting that the Bush administration had LIED to them, ..and lied bigtime,.. to get this thing going? (my favorite category) And there could be other variants affecting the shift in poll data,... the oil motive, for example. Or other Bush transgressions (domestic spying, denying habeas corpus, etc)
--- See what I mean? I think that, for anyone planning to run against this administration in 2008, it would be useful to get a sense of where all those "new" disapprovers came from,... and just how they came to disapprove. These are the subtle ideas and insights on which platforms are built, and successful speech phrasings crafted.
--- But "disapproval" just ain't enough anymore. We need more information.
|