HALFWAY TO CHINA

Monday, March 8th, 2010 | Uncategorized

Big Socialism just can’t buy a break these days:

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

You mean George W. Bush actually wasn’t the Antichrist?  Dayum.

On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

“The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin,” the pollsters said in their findings.

A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent.

What accounted for the swing?  Stuff like this.

The poll, conducted late last month, found “the administration’s response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion.”

And this.

In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president’s approval ratings.

So what does Big Socialism plan to do about this problem?   Learn a new script to use in front of the rubes.

House Democrats have found a way to address Republicans’ polling advantage on national security: Teach candidates a better way to talk about the issue.

To combat the problem, House Democrats have asked Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, and California Rep. Jane Harman, a leader on intelligence issues in the House, to help lead training sessions on the issue.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) attended one of Harman’s sessions when he was running for office in 2008. Now the president of the Democratic freshman class, he helped lead a session for other Democrats late last month. He said his party has to “avoid the trap of looking soft and weak” and that “there are strong adverbs, adjectives and verbs as opposed to weak.”

One example he offered: “I’m going to fight for American interests abroad” as opposed to “I’m going to defend American values.”

“Not that one is better than the other, but in language, one is more assertive and one’s stronger, and that’s where we need to be. Words matter,” he said. “The other side has paid a lot of attention to which words do you want to use. Democrats don’t always take this seriously.”

In other words, imply that the American people are complete idiots.  While that’s not an electoral strategery I’d personally run with, I’m also a conservative so what do I know?

13 Comments to HALFWAY TO CHINA

Smurf Breath
March 8, 2010

He said his party has to “avoid the trap of looking soft and weak” and that “there are strong adverbs, adjectives and verbs as opposed to weak.”

This is not being done in a corner. I hope this story reaches whoever it is that listens to politicians’ speeches (I am not one and have trouble imagining why anyone would do this, but they must exist, otherwise the Dems would not be engaging in this exercise).

Katherine
March 8, 2010

The ad that the ACLU is running is heavy with irony. It shows Obama’s face morphing into G.W. Bush’s — and they think that’s a bad thing. What has happened is that time after time after time the Obama team has wanted to handle national security issues differently and time after time after time they’ve had to admit that the Bush administration’s way was sensible, legal, and the best idea. So Bush is being validated and the Obama team looks like a bunch of idiots who always have the wrong instincts. Why would we want a gang with all the wrong instincts in charge?

dwstroudmd
March 8, 2010

Katherine, “Why would we want a gang with all the wrong instincts in charge?” So we could have that hope-y, change-y thingy that was so popular in the pre-O time, of course.

Ed the Roman
March 8, 2010

Yeah, these guys are completely screwed come November.

Unless the House passes the Senate bill, in which case the Republicans must repeal, or reconcile themselves to being the seasonal color of a permanent leftist dependency state. At that point it doesn’t matter nearly as much who wins.

Allen Lewis
March 9, 2010

In my opinion, if you have to rely on “talking point” to survive, then you have not given much thought to an issue.
Democrats just do not “get” national security. It is a foreign idea to them. That being said, Republicans do not seem to “get” a lot of domestic issues. They allow the Democrats to demonize them. Republicans need to learn how not to get painted into a corner by a lying weasels who distort the Republican position on policy.

That means you have to know your stuff and actually talk with confidence about your position. The challenge is that the media dotes on “sound bites” and does not really encourage substantive discussion of issues. That is why Democrats normally fare better in the media. They do “touchy-feely” much better and the media likes that.

What does “Hope and Change” really mean? Not a damn thing, but it does sound good. That is what got Obama elected. There was not one ounce of substance in anything the man ever said. But people ate that up like ants on a sugar spill.

Truth Unites... and Divides
March 9, 2010

“What does “Hope and Change” really mean? Not a damn thing, but it does sound good. That is what got Obama elected. There was not one ounce of substance in anything the man ever said. But people ate that up like ants on a sugar spill.”

I am prepared to get dirty looks and hard feelings from the stupid Obama libs in my family and friends when I relay what conservatives really think of Obama and his followers.

Dale Matson
March 9, 2010

What the “Progressives” continue to push is packaging over content. Mr. Obama commented that they had not gotten the message out. This essentially means to him that they had not used the correct words. The reality is no one wants the package no matter how it is described. The Republicans need to go on an apology tour also. First they have to apologize for squandering their eight years when they held the majority. Then Apologize for an inadequate response to the Obama juggernaut and finally, When they take back the white house and congress they will have to apologize to our traditional allies including England for being so quiet when Mr. Obama was being so dismissive. The Republicans have yet to field anyone that I could vote for as a potential presidential candidate.

Jim the Puritan
March 9, 2010

Obama’s latest brainwave, to ban recreational fishing in the U.S. by executive order in order to court his liberal international friends and leftwing environmental groups, is going to make him REAL popular with a yet another whole new set of soon-to-be Republican voters.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

Jim the Puritan
March 9, 2010

I suppose I should have added that if Obama’s policies have gotten to the point where even ESPN is ventilating about their stupidity, the Democrats have a real problem on their hands.

Dale Matson
March 9, 2010

Jim,
Thanks for the Heads up on this. I have a photo behind me of my late father ice fishing in Michigan. Looks like I’ll have to take up fishing again! I didn’t realize that deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill would lead to these folks being involved in political action committees and Government too. Mr. Obama and his administration seem to be completely tone deaf. Bear Grylls (Man vs Wild) may be arrested for eating raw fish on his show. PETA would probably rate it a capital offense.

Smurf Breath
March 9, 2010

Jim, that is fascinating. Worthy of a post in itself.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008.

These people really do have a political death wish.

Remember when Cass Sunstein was appointed and they said he supported the rights of pets to sue people? I thought they were joking.

Smurf Breath
March 9, 2010

Now all we need is a troll nicknamed Polluter.

“Those fish do not possess the Imago Dei!! Kill them all into extinction! Who cares about the planet ?!! Remember 2 Pe 3:10!”

Dale Matson
March 10, 2010

Well,
If worst comes to worst we can become fishers of men. Oh…never mind that’s what we’re supposed to be doing.

Leave a comment

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta