« BushWatch: Get Back to Work | Main | Lieberman's Internets Problem »

August 15, 2006

Comments

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

"How can that be? Isn't Ihe White House always affective when they cry "terror"?"

Sure, they're "affective". They're just not "effective."

Nice work, publicus. I wasn't persuaded till the seventh time.

I wonder if the obviousness of the non-improvement in polling will wean more in the press off their "This'll undoubtedly help Bush and the GOP" mantra. It was startling how many latched onto that (possibly fluky) jump in approval-on-terrorism in the Newsweek poll while ignoring the bare movement in overall approval.

I think, as you suggest, the law of diminshing returns has kicked in on terrorism for the Pubs -- as it finally did on "they'll take away Social Security" for Dems in '94 (people forget how loudly that was trumpeted in the final campaign days; of course, now the issue's back in wholly different -- and more believable -- form).

The other element is, "terror" only worked when 1) the GOP had a huge, rather than marginal, advantage on the issue; and 2) it stood alongside at least mediocre numbers on the other myriad issues. 51-49 on terror, combined with abyssmal figures everywhere else, is a recipe for electoral catastrophe.

Ah, the Irony....so to be seen successful at prosecuting a war on terror there needs to be no terrorist attacks in the WEST, but without terrorist attacks in the WEST, the American public starts to care more about wages and social security and wants to see democrats in charge, so a terrorist attack is needed (and exaggerated) to "remind" the public about what's really important, but then a terrorist attack on the WEST means they aren't successfully fighting terrorists. Oh, and Iraq isn't the same thing as fighting the war on terror, but even if it was, it's going so badly it looks like a failure to most people. So they try to connect terror and Iraq at their own peril.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Stay the course now means, "Wait till the paint dries."

Ah, the Irony....so to be seen successful at prosecuting a war on terror there needs to be no terrorist attacks in the WEST, but without terrorist attacks in the WEST, the American public starts to care more about wages and social security and wants to see democrats in charge, so a terrorist attack is needed (and exaggerated) to "remind" the public about what's really important, but then a terrorist attack on the WEST means they aren't successfully fighting terrorists. Oh, and Iraq isn't the same thing as fighting the war on terror, but even if it was, it's going so badly it looks like a failure to most people. So they try to connect terror and Iraq at their own peril.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Stay the course now means, "Wait till the paint dries."

george bush says there are people out there who want to kill us

doesn't Osama Bin Laden one of those people ???

and we know that george just doesn't think about Osama Bin Laden much

so we can deduce that there are people who want to kill us, and george doesn't think about those people much

somebody needs to start running commencials of those two statements side by side

The DSSC has a new ad on the security theme. It seems to me that it does undermine the idea that Bush has not made us safer. What do the rest of you think?

I mean undermine the idea that Bush HAS made us safer.

Mimikatz, it's a start. We need the same idea for the domestic failures--health care, education, a living wage, veterans, day care, legal abuses, you name it.

if the obviousness of the non-improvement in polling will wean more in the press off their "This'll undoubtedly help Bush and the GOP" mantra.

Don't count on it.

On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph "Died From A Story Arc".

Oh, David in Burbank, you are SO out of it. Didn't you see Ken Mehlman on Sunday? He explicitly said nonono, they're NOT running on "stay the course", nononoNO, there's something BETWEEN "stay the course" and "cut and run", the Republicans are running on -- "adapt to win"! He said it a few times -- "adapt to win"! Poor guys, they're running out of one-syllable words...and isn't "adapt" sort of, you know, nuance-y?

why do they call it an ' approval ' rating when it should be called a DISAPPROVAL rating ?? i mean, 75% ( SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT ) of the american population are voting Thumbs Down on the bushnazis and neocons - at this point, shouldn't we be more concerned with the INCREASING number of informed citizens who DISAPPROVE rather than the diminishing number of sheeple who obviously have their heads so far up their rectums that they haven't seen daylight in quite some time ??

I am glad to see this. I was listening to some pundits today discussing the significance of the "fact" that Bush's standing on fighting terror had jumped up 11% since the breaking of the story about the London terror plot.

I wonder where they get that stuff.

I stumbled across your blog while I was doing some online research. The unfortunate thing is that, despite all these homeland security activities and anti-terrorist campaigns, the average American does not seem to feel substantially safer than before 9/11.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad