Bush v Sheehan — only one has majority support

August 30, 2005

For the better part of August, as Cindy Sheehan’s protest has generated attention for her cause and heartburn for the White House, the Bush message machine has tried to marginalize her, suggesting she represents a small, dovish minority.

It just isn’t true.

Slightly more than half of the country says President Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed last year in Iraq, who is leading a protest against the war outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 52 percent of the public says Bush should talk to Sheehan, who has repeatedly asked for a meeting with the president, while 46 percent said he should not. Fifty-three percent support what she is doing while 42 percent oppose her actions, according to the poll.

The Post report on the data suggests Sheehan’s efforts have been widely recognized, but aren’t having an impact. Poll respondents had heard about her protests, the Post noted, but Sheehan hasn’t changed many minds. What’s more, support for Sheehan, predictably, falls largely along partisan lines.

But there’s more to the numbers than the Post seems to recognize. Cindy Sheehan has what the president doesn’t — majority support. According to the poll, a clear majority supports her protest and believes she deserves to ask Bush directly about the noble cause for which her son died. In contrast, a clear majority disapproves of the way Bush is handling his presidency and objects to the way he’s dealt with the war.

This is no small feat. The president has the benefit of a massive political operation that, among other things, has gone after Sheehan with a vengeance. And yet, after a month of back-and-forth, 53% support Sheehan’s efforts to question the war and 58% disapprove of Bush’s efforts to manage the war.

At a minimum, this should be a morale booster at Camp Casey.

How dare she expect to hold the president responsible for his actions, even in such a small way. Didn’t she know we already had an accountability moment, and the president passed, therefore he is free from all accountability and can do whatever he pleases?

  • And now imagine how much stronger Sheehan’s support would be if the Rethugs didn’t try to destroy her.

  • Sheehan’s critics jumped the shark when that truck ran off the crosses.

    It was probably worth a few points in the poll right there.

  • #3 While I agree with you to a point, I’d also say that the way the rethugs are smearing a grieving mom helps America see their true colors, which helps Cindy.

    Maybe if blind America could see the pattern of bushco & friends’ behavior they would wake up. Is there a collection up anywhere (of the smearing of opponents)?

  • Doesn’t Cindy Sheehan understand that Dear Leader is infallible? How dare she criticise him! One would think we had freedom of speech or something in this country.

  • In my Western Civilization class last night we were speaking about this war, and how it relates to Vietnam, and so on, and eventually the class began to realize that no war has ever really done much for anyone. Then our Jesuit professor stated the obvious: “Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again thinking you will get a different result?” It struck a nerve. And given that our president’s faith does center around these being the “last days” of prophecy, why wouldn’t he use the nuclear option? He believes in an Armageddon scenario. I would think we would have some sort of rule against electing a president who believes in an Armageddon scenario… I’d hope our president would have hope for the future, if not some semblance of ethical and intellectual curiosity.

  • Mark,

    eventually the class began to realize that no war has ever really done much for anyone.

    I know its off-topic from the original post, but that statement demands a response.

    I think it would be pretty easy to argue that a few wars from our history really did do much for quite a few people.

    The Revolutionary War. Seperated the citizenry of the nascent USA from the dictatorial power of a monarch. Allowed for the birth of modern democracy.

    The Civil War Fought over the emancipation proclamation which outlawed slavery. I’d think you’d have to admit that outlawing slavery did change a few peoples lives.

    World War II Citizens of France, England, China, Korea, Phillipines, Thailand and a whole lot of other countries had their lives demonstrably improved after the German, Italian and Japanese aggessors were defeated.

    Having said all that, I am not in favor or war in general terms and certainly not in favor of our current Reign of Error in Iraq.

  • Not to split hairs, but the Emancipation Proclamation did not cause the Civil War, the war caused the Emancipation Proclamation to be issued.

    The EP was issued about 2 years after the war started for the purpose of disabling the Confederate war machine (which was run, in part, on slaves), and did not apply to non-rebelling, slave-holding states.

    But the war did free the slaves in the end, as the victory over the rebelling states was used as a bludgeon by the Union to enact the 13th amendment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

  • I suppose I should have been more specific. No invasion and occupation has ever done much for anyone. The argument for insanity stands, I think, fairly well supported.

  • Thanks Rian for correcting my error.

    And Mark thanks for the clarification. Given that, I tend to agree.

  • During my lifetime, (I was born in 1970) the meaning of “war” has changed somewhat. When I think of war now, I’m actually thinking of an “Operation” ie; invasion and occupation of a foreign country. I served in Korea from ’89 to ’92 in the Army, and I’ve seen that our occupations tend to be thinly veiled fronts for US corporate and federal exploitation of the occupied country… Are we still a federation? A democracy? Do we fit any description better than fascism? Canada is beginning to look like a mighty fine place to live right about now.

  • I’ll try to keep a moderate tone.

    Mark: The allies invaded and occupied both Germany and Japan, and I think most people in the world, including those countries, are okay with that. In the case of Germany, we invaded a country that hadn’t attacked us.

    In the case of the Civil War, southern blacks would have fared a lot better if the Northern army had stayed around longer and enforced the new freedoms on the books, rather than allowing for another century of brutal discrimination and oppression. Occupations aren’t always a bad thing.

    As for corporate and federal exploitation- well, you were in Koreas and I wasn’t, but from the outsdide, I’d say the fact that South Korea has pulled of perhaps the most substantial economic turnaround in the world over the last forty years means that our influence can’t have been all bad.

    Edo (and others): I understand the view that accepts war as necessary at times but most often counter-productive. I respectfully pose the following question:

    If you don’t support the military invasion of Iraq, what do you propose as the alternative course of action?

    I myself am highly skeptical of our ability to implant a functioning democracy on a foreign country with no democratic tradition. But the situation in Iraq was dire, if not concerning WMD, certainly along humanitarian lines. Aside from the documented ethnic cleansings and general oppression, Amnesty International estimated that approximately 5,000 children were dying every month due to a lack of food and medicine, while meanwhile Saddam was building more palaces.

    I know what Pat Buchanan would say: it isn’t America’s job to worry about things like that. But I imagine you and I can’t abide by that sentiment. The UN policy had run its course. As Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria (a man who certainly isn’t a neo-con) stated in his support of the war: Saddam was sitting on a mountain of oil, sanctions weren’t working, and given the fact UN dipolomacy, with its countless resolutions promising that “this time we really mean it!”, had run its course, it appeared that a military solution was all that would fix the situation. By no means was it a “good” solution, but it was the best of a series of bad options.

    Any thoughts?

  • Let me amend my final statement: going to war was not the “best” of a series of bad options, but rather I think that none of the options outside of the war were “good”, which gave the idea of a war an appeal it otherwise wouldn’t possess. Needless to say, at this juncture it’s safe to say war was not the best option.

  • don’t think we “invaded” Germany, that was a declared war, and I don’t think we have to argue why we took this DEFENSIVE action against expansionist imperialist Germany. However, in recent years we have not fought any such righteous wars. We have occupied countries for financial and strategic gain. This recent unilateral invasion was by all accounts unwarranted, especially considering the lies our government fed us to justify it. Now, considering the extreme loss of human life and the extreme environmental destruction that has been wrought, I just have to ask if it was worth it. I mean for the few who make lots of money when gasoline prices are high, well sure. But we’re supposed to be above that. We have held the ethical high ground in the world for a good part of our history as a country. This action is a blatant departure from that tradition. As regards human rights and conditions in pre-invasion in Iraq, there is no evidence to support that anything will improve once we leave, much like Somalia. As far as Korea goes, the economy isn’t everything. Yes, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Americorp and thus have managed to prosper economically, but at the cost of the rich and diverse culture of the Koreans, as well as the environment. This was a country that was industrialized withoud any consideration for the environmental and cultural impact. South Korea is a country in crisis. Identity crisis, environmental crisis, and so on. I do not think they have benefitted from American imperialism. As far as the “war” in Iraq, it was not the best of options unless you factor in who was president. Of course, under George Bush, that was the best we could hope for. A more intellectually curious president, with the backing of the UN and a coalition of our allies may have been able to effect change without resorting to the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi men, women and children, not to mention the American losses. Were this truly an action to “defend America” I think I could get behind this. But the Downing Street papers make clear that this was not the case. The fact is, our government has lied to us. Yes, it’s happened before, but that should by no means lessen the immensity of the crime. I would say Bush’s actions fall well within the definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as set forth in the constitution. A final note: Why, if we are trying to track down terrorists (which is akin to finding a needle in a haystack) have we not gone after Saudi Arabia or any of the other Middle Eastern countries who footed the bill for the terrorist attacks, and whose country donated the manpower to carry out such attacks? Why have we not focused on the relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families? There was a time when we didn’t have to lie to our own people to do what was right. And if you HAVE to lie, could you possibly be doing the right thing to begin with? If we are truly a democracy then what would the government have to fear by telling the truth to the American people? If everything Bush has done has been for the safety and security of the American people, why did he find it necessary to lie to us in order to garner support for his actions?

    • Comments are closed.