CNN Poll

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:02 pm

I thought some might get a chuckle from this headline:

Poll: Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/ ... index.html

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:08 pm

Hah. Yeah, the headline says it all ...

tastes great.............less filling ..........

half full ...............half empty ............

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:36 pm

yeah... I considered sending that in to a few places that run funny headlines.

Every week, CNN runs some poll that's like "49% think Bush is X while 51% thing Bush is not X" with a headline like "Poll: nation divided over Bush and X". Well, duh! I think you could ask the question "Bush is from Texas" and you'd get a 50-49 split (49% think Bush LIED!!!)

This has to be the best question to ask, though, if you're looking at such a polarized electorate. "Is the electorate polarized? 50% say yes, 50% say no!" Heh.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:43 pm

It'd be interesting to see the political breakdown of the "No we're not polarized" answers to see which side is more dillusional about them being in the silent majority.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:55 pm

Perhaps a more realistic question would be:

Do you think liberal democrats, in their lust for the return to power, along with their allies in the mainstream press...been uniters or dividers?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:23 pm

My roommate and I were having a laugh at this, and we figured out that those that who said Bush is a divider have to be right. If everyone thought Bush was a uniter, they'd be right. If everyone thought Bush was a divider, they'd be wrong, because he united everyone into thinking he's a divider. So if half the people think he's a divider, and half the people think he's a uniter, those that said he was a divider are correct!

Anyways, I personally think he's a divider. I think we're more polarized now than in 2000.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:58 pm

"You're either with us or against us".

Umm... That's uniting up a storm isn't it?

Going to war with only Britain as a cohort is a real world-wide consortium!

Fully concur with Vander on this point: the evidence speaks for itself, Bush is a divider fueled by obfuscating rhetoric, bamboozling rubbish combined with the idiocy of pledges, prayer and power.

Thank goodness he can't run again.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:30 pm

Mobius wrote:Going to war with only Britain as a cohort is a real world-wide consortium!

I didn't think you'd stoop so low as to lie outright...

The US had over 10 countries in there with us. Besides, do we need the permission of an agency providing free money to Saddam in order to attack Saddam?

Vander didn't express an opinion. He posted a funny link.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Mobius wrote:Fully concur with Vander on this point: the evidence speaks for itself, Bush is a divider fueled by obfuscating rhetoric, bamboozling rubbish combined with the idiocy of pledges, prayer and power.

Of course, you're not exactly doing wonders here to unite the US yourself. Figures.

Besides--when the other option is Kerry, which is worse--a guy who actually does what he says, or a guy whom you can count on to do absolutely nothing whatsoever, no matter what the circumstances?

The politically correct thing for every president to do is nothing.

Americans are, by nature, divided. Heck, they can't even agree on whether they're divided or not. Says a lot, doesn't it?

Edit: Also, we all know how reliable all of CNN's polls are...

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:38 pm

I actually did express an opinion.

Stryker wrote:Besides--when the other option is Kerry, which is worse--a guy who actually does what he says, or a guy whom you can count on to do absolutely nothing whatsoever, no matter what the circumstances?

Careful, your bias is showing.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:41 pm

Your opinion, as stated, was that "I thought some might get a chuckle from this headline:"

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:03 pm

I wrote:Anyways, I personally think he's a divider. I think we're more polarized now than in 2000.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:32 pm

erk, didn't see the second post. At any rate, I don't care if my bias shows. We're all biased, it's just a matter of which side. It just really irks me when someone claims to be totally nonbiased about which party they vote for, yet they somehow determine that one party (usually the democrats) are "superior" somehow to republicans, and therefore they will now proceed to vote a straight democrat ticket. The same applies to people who do this but vote for republicans--in case you're wondering, yes, this means O'Reilly irks me.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:48 pm

I hate polls like these, because "uniter" has an obviously positive connotation and "divider" has a decidedly negative one. Bush is a divider in the sense that he wants to mark divisions in solid lines. He is very direct in defining his enemies and his friends. His policies are geared towards strictly defining "good" and "bad": heterosexual marriages are good, homosexual "marriages" are bad; democracy is good, tyranny is bad, etc. His choice of definitions is very divisive, but I find that his willingness to clearly draw lines in the sand a positive quality. I would be uncomfortable answering a poll that is so skewed towards the extremes.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:24 pm

That's exactly the point DC. You can't both claim you're a uniter (as Bush did) and take strong/controvercial standpoints on important issues.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:44 pm

I agree with the fact that what Bush claimed to have done in his inaugural address was false. He's attempting unification by division, and it isn't exactly working out too well.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:41 pm

The thing is, Tetrad, would you rather have a president who panders to the will of every group, or a president who takes a strong stand on what he believes is right? I'd much rather than the second, and I also think that, regardless of one's own views on Bush's actions, one has to acknowledge the fact that he doesn't give in and try to make everyone like him.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:56 pm

would you rather have a president who panders to the will of every group, or a president who takes a strong stand on what he believes is right? I'd much rather than the second

I doubt you would rather the second if his agenda was nearly 100% liberal, and shoved his agenda down your party's throat with few to no compromises. Example: Michael Moore 08'

Bush is a divider.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:43 am

True, but you don't see the Democrats extending any welcoming hands toward Al-Moore, do you?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:19 am

Bush was mostly a uniter in the first year of his presidency. He had both parties working with him on No Child Left Behind and other acts. After 9/11, there was still a lot of unity behind Bush, but that certainly changed things -- without 9/11, he may still have been a uniter.

He became a divider when it became clear that he intended to take out Saddam and make Iraq a non-terrorist state. I would prefer if that issue wasn't so divisive, but I'm glad Bush took the stand he did, and I don't mind being divided from those who became reflexively anti-Bush in response. If we were at each other's throats over something goofy, Bush being a divider would bother me, but being divided over something so significant doesn't bother me.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:57 am

Top, I wasn't editorializing. I was just saying that's why it's an issue. Of course a politician not really doing some absstract thing which is what he said he'd do a long time ago isn't exactly unheard of, but whatever.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:07 am

would you rather have a president who panders to the will of every group, or a president who takes a strong stand on what he believes is right

Just because you believe something is right, doesn't mean it is. I belive sex with young boys is right, but is it? And Iraq has really become a non-terrorist state right? All those hijackers were from Iraq weren't they? I'm glad we attacked the right country that all these terrorists were spouting from. Oh wait a minute, none of the hijackers were Iraqi. The terrorist camps in Iraq fale to compare to any of the ones anywhere else in the region in terms of danger to us.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:56 am

DCrazy wrote:democracy is good, tyranny is bad,

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:55 pm

You're right, Zuruck, believing that something is right doesn't make it right. It doesn't automatically make it wrong, either. Given a certain set of information and one's own judgment, I believe making the best decision under the circumstances and standing by that decision is a good quality. One of the reasons that I respect Bush is that he doesn't give a damn what the press has to say about him; he doesn't let it affect his job. Now, not speaking about Bush specifically but in general, would you rather have a president who changed his mind based on his approval rating?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:08 pm

You resemble that remark?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:27 pm

Zuruck wrote:I belive sex with young boys is right

I'm going to remember this for next time you misquote me.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:26 pm

Bush is a divider by my definition not simply because of his Iraq policies, rather his complete lack of diplomacy caused the division in the US and abroad. Actually at this point I think a lot of people became anti-war because of how poor his diplomacy (or complete lack there-of) has been.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:08 am

c'mon Lothar, don't do that. Taking only part of what someone says and using it to bash them is pretty bad.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:33 am

*sigh* Ferno, that's what I'm trying to demonstrate. Quoting poorly chosen language (or well-chosen language, but quoted out of context) and using that to sway opinion is naturally divisive, and academically dishonest. I hoped that by choosing such an absurd example, that would become clear.

I go into this more at the end of my next post, specifically as it relates to Bush's speeches. For now, I'll just say this: focusing on someone's choice of words, rather than on the ideas they're communicating, is irresponsible. Using someone's words in a misleading way, when you know what they actually meant, is dishonest.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:15 am

Birdseye wrote:his complete lack of diplomacy caused the division in the US and abroad.

It's funny how people keep coming back to this point, as if they would've been on board with Bush had his language only been a little clearer or a little less inflammatory. As if, had Bush not said "axis of evil" there wouldn't be such a political divide.

Some of what Bush said served to amplify the apparent strength of the divide -- it's easier to get a bunch of people hyped up when the rhetoric is strong -- but the fundamental division is one over substance, not style. The fundamental division is not over language, it's over issues like whether the US military should be actively removing (certain) dictators from power. As much as we like to play the language game and blame Bush's rhetoric, nobody is *actually* anti-Bush because his words are too strong. People are anti-Bush because they disagree with his policies and his actions. If they agreed with the policies but not the language, they would've restated the policies more eloquently, rather than opposing them.

There are those who honestly believe Bush could've won over France and Germany if he chose different language. All I can say is that's an honest but misguided belief. National leaders are not so petty as to base their entire policy off of the harshness or eloquence of other leaders' speeches. They base their policy off of ideas, policies, and actions that they have teams of analysts working to identify and understand. France and Germany weren't on board with the Bush administration, not because Bush's language was too strong, but because when it came down to it they disagreed with what Bush was actually doing. The same is true for most educated individuals -- they're not divided over Bush's language, but over Bush's actions. They might cite Bush's language, but what they disagree with is the actions he's taken.

The only people who are anti-war because of Bush's language, rather than his actions, are the sort of people who get swayed by soundbites and headlines. People who base their decisions on soundbites and headlines will *always* be divided, and that's not really something to be concerned about (unless you're a campaign worker.) If somebody can't be bothered to learn more than what the soundbites or quotes tell them, I'm not terribly concerned if they oppose me. The only thing that concerns me here is the fact that people who know better -- those who understand the actual policies -- insist on focusing on the rhetoric and quoting the worst of the sound bites. This is why it bugs me when Birdseye misquotes Bush and then defends his misquote because "that's how people understood it, even if it was meant differently." If you know better, you should be out there dispelling the misunderstandings and promoting better understanding, not repeating the misunderstandings and promoting division.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:23 am

People who base their decisions on soundbites and headlines will *always* be divided, and that's not really something to be concerned about (unless you're a campaign worker

Welcome to reality.

This is why it bugs me when Birdseye misquotes Bush and then defends his misquote because "that's how people understood it, even if it was meant differently."

The president understands how the media works. Every word is planned, there are speech writers... it is not like these things are largely off the cuff remarks. These are planned public relations statements that simply failed. I haven't misquoted Bush (less a few jokes), but perhaps I have highlighted poor language but haven't talked about the other significantly less important reasons to go into Iraq (do remember I am of the mantra that the reasons to go were many, but that the key reason was WMD/safety concerns).

Presidents know what they say will turn into a soundbyte. Especially phrases like "with us or against us" - These things are planned policies of "diplomacy."

I for one didn't dig the public relations guru. Fire the idiot in Bush 2, please!

If somebody can't be bothered to learn more than what the soundbites or quotes tell them, I'm not terribly concerned if they oppose me.

Hehe, you also don't care if they agree with you. Welcome to America. Almost nobody here reads all the speeches and is really informed. Remember that study about how many Bush voters were confused about Bush's own stances?

I just think you need to be more careful with words. There have been presidents who have made hard choices going to war, and they didn't bungle the public relations this bad.