Despite polling to the contrary, NBC's Gregory asserted that "Bush's strength" on foreign policy, terrorism helps GOP candidates
On the April 8 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert compared the results of a March 29-April 1 Diageo/Hotline poll that asked respondents to pick between a "generic" Democrat and a "generic" Republican in the 2008 presidential election, with the results of a March 27-28 Fox News poll that offered respondents specific 2008 matchups between candidates from both parties. Russert noted that while Democrats led by a substantial margin in the Diageo/Hotline poll, the Fox News survey showed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) trailing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) in individual matchups. NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory responded that this difference was partly due to "a carryover of Bush's strength in the Bush years, which is management of foreign policy and management of the war on terror." But Gregory's suggestion -- that GOP candidates are benefiting from public support for President Bush's handling of "foreign policy" and "the war on terror" -- is contradicted by recent polls showing that a plurality of Americans disapprove of Bush's performance in these areas. For instance, a March 28-29 Newsweek poll found 45 percent of respondents approved of "the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security," while 49 percent disapproved. In the same poll, 28 percent approved of "the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq," while 65 percent disapproved. Similarly, in a March 23-25 USA Today/Gallup poll, the approval-disapproval numbers were 45 percent-50 percent on "terrorism," 33 percent-63 percent on "foreign affairs," and 28 percent-69 percent on "[t]he situation in Iraq."
Similarly, on the April 6 edition of NBC's Today, Russert claimed that "Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy issues," However, as Media Matters for America noted, polling does not back up the common claim that Bush and Republicans are "always" seen as stronger on these issues. In fact, several polls in the past year found that Democrats had an advantage on national security and foreign policy.
On Meet the Press, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne responded to Gregory by asserting that "national security has become Iraq. So I don't think it's the advantage it once was."
From the April 8 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Before we go, I want to end with this because it's quite striking to me. This was a poll about attitudes towards a Republican candidate, Democratic candidate -- generic. "Who would you support?" And let's look at it. The Democratic candidate, people say 47 percent, that's who we want. The Republican candidate, 29 percent. And yet, when you do the horse race between a specific Republican and a specific Democrat, look at this. McCain-Clinton, 47-43, the Republican. We do Giuliani-Clinton, 45-44. Giuliani-[Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL], 43-43.
Chuck Todd [NBC News political director]?
TODD: I think I had one Democratic operative from one of the second-tier Democratic candidates, he said, "Could it be that Clinton and Obama are the only two Democrats that can't win in 2008?" But I think, when you look at this, it's -- it does show a weakness in the Republican Party. Look, every -- even blowout presidential elections are still decided within a margin of eight to 10 points, as far as a national vote's concerned. So you're going to have a case where it's -- whoever the Republican nominee's always going to be sitting in those mid-40s. The problem is, for the Republicans have is that there clearly is a change movement inside with, sort of swing, independent votes, and independents look like they're going to largely, right now, go Democratic. Generically --
RUSSERT: We saw that in '06. Will we see it in '08?
TODD: -- pull the Democrat.
GREGORY: But I think there's also a carryover of Bush's strength in the Bush years, which is management of foreign policy and management of the war on terror. And I think Democrats -- one of the reasons they do want to assert themselves on foreign policy is to persuade voters that "we can own this issue, and we can be trusted with it."
O'BEIRNE: Well, that traditional advantage Republicans have enjoyed that's helped so much in presidential races, national security -- national security has become Iraq. So I don't think it's the advantage it once was. The Republicans have a real brand problem, brand-name problem. It used to be people thought they might not much like big government, but they can run it. Now they seem to like it fine, but not be able to run it at all. A Democrat has to be favored in '08.
RUSSERT: No matter who it is?
O'BEIRNE: I think any Democrat has to be favored in '08, yeah. I think Republicans have a real brand-name problem. It's become a competency problem. We see a competency primary going on on the GOP side.
Greory is all wet. Pelosi is changing these numbers to be in Democrat favor.
GREGORY: Putting Bush in charge is a major coup for future republicans. I mean, how can you argue against competency when the republican message is "We already put the worst possible choice in charge, what are the odds we can find another one?"
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giulliani
and the golden boy John McCain
Don't worry. There's still two more years to go. Bush could begin nuking Iran and declare martial law and suspend elections and declare Dick Cheney Emperor of the World. Two years is a lot of time.
that sounds like a dictatorship to me, impossible under constitutional rule.
True...but the Constitution has pretty much been shot to peices in the last two decades. Neither side seems intent on giving it CPR, both are trying to drown it.
David Gregory is repeating the outdated notion that voters still consider Republicans stronger on national security and foreign policy issues.
I can't figure Gregory out. This guy has gone after THIS administration many times. I'm a bit surprised that he's so eager here to misstate reality.
I believe Gregory has lost credibility not to mention this is a man that appears regulary on the racist Imus program.
Probably because he knows Congress and Pelosi poll even lower than George Bush.
Actually, they both poll much higher than W, but once again you've refused to let facts get in the way of an incompetent lie.
Wrong-o. I am not one to really take polls all that seriously, but your are factually mistaken:
"Overall approval for Congress is 40 percent. The survey shows Bush's approval ratings remain in the mid-30 percent range..." --AP
"Bush's strength in the Bush years, which is management of foreign policy and management of the war on terror."
What a blatant, friggin lie. Puddinhead George has wrecked our foreign policy, and wrecked our military. This is perceived as "strength"? Well, maybe so. After all, in the land of the Troglodytes, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
Now now, remember all the great things Bush has done. He stopped 9/11... wait... he caught bin Laden... wait... Afghanistan... Iraq... Iran... North Korea... wait, he did nothing good for any of those issues.
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I'm strong on foreign policy and national security. I certainly haven't done any worse.
Strength?
I wonder if Gregory meant strong like bullschit, horseschit and chickenschit are strong?
I'd have to agree with him if that's how he was describing Duhhbya's reign.
Somehow, I don't think he was.
Does anyone really believe Gregory even believes this? It's the latest in a half-decade trend of journalists having to throw bones to the intimidating right wing to not be accused of that demonic "liberal slant".
Man, Malkin and her scum sure are good at what they do.
The Republicans never have and do not now own the issue of national security. They just own divisive hate-spewing commentators, spineless journalists and lazy reporters who then turn around and claim to the public that the Republicans "own" issues such as national security and the war on terror...
Let's see, less than a year into Bush's presidency, we had the most colossal military, intelligence and defense f*ckup in the history of our nation.
As horrible as 9/11 was, it was a tragedy that could have won us the sympathy and support of the world .Instead, world opinion of the US is at one of the lowest points in history.
Heckuva job!
Is that what liberals want from the world, HB? Sympathy? If you want to know why Americans don't trust liberals with foreign policy, take a look at some of the responses from the Arab world regarding Pelosi's foreign escapades in Syria: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD153707
So what was so telling about your link? Some used as propaganda, some were for, some against.
I saw nothing that noted the US positions in the region are compromised. Not to mention, please explain to me how any of Bush's current policies as relates to the Middle East are helping the US strategically.
Are you serious, TBONE? Either you are willfully blind to what the Syrian Information Minister said or you are incapable of comprehending plain English. Try reading ALL of the comments on the link again with an open mind (humor me and ditch the belief that Pelosi and the Dem's are infallible) and try to tell me that Pelosi didn't undermine the current administration's policies in the region and harm the cause of democracy in Syria.
Do you really believe that GOP foreign policy has accomplished positive results?
After all, this thread is about the GOP. Pelosi's name was not even mentioned by MMFA.
Try reading ALL of the comments on the link again with an open mind (humor me and ditch the belief that Pelosi and the Dem's are infallible) and try to tell me that Pelosi didn't undermine the current administration's policies in the region and harm the cause of democracy in Syria.
In other words, she got off her laurels and did something besides bomb Iraq?
No, she's done that too.
I wrote "besides bomb Iraq". And she's heading the anti-war Democratic House now, so she's better than nothing.
But the Democratic House is PRO-war. And she's their leader. Don't be fooled...behind that little mousy smile of hers is the cold ruthless mind of a sociopathic killer.
They're more anti-war than the rubber stamp Republican congress we had five months ago.
As for her being a sociopath... more or less so than Cheeney?
If they're so anti-war, why did they just hand Bush more funding for the war crime than he asked for? And yes, she's just as cold and calculating as Cheney.
Here's a nice nugget from your link:
An editorial in the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh took a reserved stance on Pelosi's visit: "The exaggerated attention to the differences between the two American parties is illogical, since at the high level, the supreme interests remain, and do not change with a change in leadership, or even with a change of the party [in power].
In other words, even the Saudis don't want to play the Democrats vs. Republicans game! Put away your anti-Pelosi talking points.
As for the anti-Pelosi points, they all sounded like they graduated from the Bush school of diplomacy: pretend like your enemies don't exist, and they'll go away. It's a Catch-22: we try to create a regime change in Iraq, we are monsters. We try to deal diplomatically with the regime in Syria, we are monsters.
Why do you think I posted the link, flurry? Because there were comments from different viewpoints. But in typical MMFA zombie fashion, you glom onto the views you agree with and insinuate other views aren't valid. I'm done with you morons. Good night.
Aw,it went down for its nap again. And without even declaring a draw this time.
Since you are the STUPIDEST poster in the HISTORY of MMFA, let me be the first to say Bye-Bye, we will try sorely to fill the void your departure leaves in our lives.
I'm too stubborn to let this one go. I appreciated the diversity of the quotes you linked to and I didn't insinuate the other views were invalid, I just showed a logical fallacy in the ones I didn't agree with.
You and the others like you sound like the Monty Python argument sketch.
"This isn't an argument, you're just contradicting me!"
"No I'm not."
"Yes you are! An argument is a series of statements backed up by logic and facts!"
"... I give up, you're an idiot."
"That's definitely not arguing!"
"Yes it is."
The Arabs know the truth. They know AIPAC owns both parties. They're not fools. Over thirty years of US helping Israel kill arabs, both parties up to their neck in it. The Arabs know the score.
dvd, what are the current administrations policies in Syria. In your own words, you don't even need to link to any other sites.Your own, original thoughts.
Generally isolating Assad. Not dialoguing with the murderous thug. Not sipping tea with a man responsible for facillitating terrorists who kill your countrymen. Not "talking nice" with a man responsible for murdering government officials in Lebenon. Supporting the opposition in Syria who are pushing for democracy. But Pelosi trashed all of that. She is a disgrace to America.
"Not sipping tea with a man responsible for facillitating terrorists who kill your countrymen."
Bush facilitated those deaths when he chose war.I just knew some idiot would change the subject and insert Bush. It figures it would be you, Loonz. You beat Saloon, HB, Prag and Neo to the punch. Congratulations.
When you talk about the Middle East how can you not bring up our idiot king whose foreign policy is detrimental to the U.S. and its security and the whole world.
Sorry. You do not get to chose the subject. Read this post by MMFA again, it is about the false narrative of Bush's "strong foreign policy."
In other words, you are the one changing the subject and substituting Pelosi for Bush.
First of all, how is "isolating" a leader going to help anything? "Isolating" Kim Jong and Ahmadinejad has just given them a taste for nukes.
Secondly, how do we know that the opposition is any better?
Lastly, what about all the dictators the US has supported in the past, or the Republican congresspeople who performed a similar visit to Syria?
So our policy is basically doing nothing (or not doing certain things) while supporting the opposition (how?), and Pelosi did something, trashing Bush's perfect streak of nothingness.
dvd, do you know that old saying about the man who never makes a mistake ? Could be applied to the man who never admits to making a mistake.
Your site proved NOTHING. A bunch of editorials from both sides giving THEIR SPIN on the Pelosi trip cannot POSSIBLY prove your ludicrous and baseless assertion. This is your usual weak attempt at a point coupled with more baseless assertions you WISH were true.
Continue to close your eyes and enjoy your blissful slumber, saloon.
Continue in your abject ignorance BookerTMoron. Editorial OPINIONS and SPIN about her visit prove NOTHING. When you can cough up some evidence told by someone in the room with no ax to grind that says she was undercutting US foriegn policy you got NOTHING except you WISHING it were true. Keep vying for the title for stupidest poster of all time as of now you have my vote.
We all know that Republicans never stoop so low as to discuss relations with our enemies.
Oh wait...
DVD, Do you understand the sort of incompetence and/or evil it took for a country that experienced the attacks of 9/11 to elicit negative opinions from other countries?
Do you need everything explained to you?
"DVD, Do you understand the sort of incompetence and/or evil it took for a country that experienced the attacks of 9/11 to elicit negative opinions from other countries?" - HBL
Right, HBL. The Arab world just LOVED America before they attacked us on September 11. You are a complete fool. Why do you liberals hate America so much? Why do you constantly condemn America? You hate America as much or more than the Islamo-facsists who have our destruction on their lips and in their hearts every day.
Why do you liberals hate America so much? Why do you constantly condemn America? You hate America as much or more than the Islamo-facsists who have our destruction on their lips and in their hearts every day.
You forgot to mention the pot-smoking and the gay orgies. Not that it matters - you aren't invited anyway. =p
"Right, HBL. The Arab world just LOVED America before they attacked us on September 11. You are a complete fool. Why do you liberals hate America so much?"Before September 11, there were a lot of Arabs who hated us but only a fraction would think of resorting to blowing us up. Now Bush is doing his best to reverse this.“Why do you liberals hate America so much? Why do you constantly condemn America?”
I haven’t seen anyone condemning America. We do condemn Bush all the time though and when he leaves office the U.S. and the world will be better off. He's an albatross on us all.
The "Arab World" attacked us on 9/11 ? There's some thinking.I think it's time for your nap, dvd.
Why are you so IGNORANT? Why do you CLAIM to love this country when you so CLEARLY HATE AMERICAN IDEALS. Why do you work so HARD at being a moron. YOU are so stupid you THINK loving the country means chanting our name and DENYING undeniable truths. WE think loving the country involves demanding each administration uphold the VALUES we associate with our country. YOU want to blur the distinction between who we are and what we sometimes do. When will you complete idiots understand that BUSH is NOT America, that THIS Administration is NOT America. Your Bush idolotry is contemptable. Your IGNORANCE is disgusting and YOU are a worthless piece of human debris
Who says Pelosi is a liberal? She supports the continued illegal occupation of Palestine and US funding for Israeli war crimes. She went to Syria to tell Assad to stop supporting Palestinians, not to make peace.
(DVD) Booker and Bungle
Sittin' in a tree?
At least Booker and Bungle and Gregory all subscribe to the same philosophy: when all else fails (and that is with every heartbeat of any of them), LIE! If the polls favor the Dems, lie about the polls! If events prove the Dems right - lie about events! If we spend a $ trillion or so (more by the time care for injured Vets is totalled) and a few thousand soldiers' lives, and our entire military readiness and fitness, and all of our reputation in the world, in some insane quest for Bush-glory, blame it all on the Dems for "not supporting the troops". If IAVA says there is not a single Repugnant who beat even the weakest Dem on votes to support those troops, ignore that fact, and castigate the Dems for "going on vacation" (simultaneous with yet another Bungle sojourn to "the ranch") rather than removing the timetable from the emergency funding bill, so Bungle could sign it.
Why are you changing the subject, Con? I merely posted a link that gave numerous comments from Arabs in the Middle East regarding Nancy pelosi's trip to Syria. I can't help it if these comments, all footnoted, prove that Pelosi undermined the current administration's policies in the Middle East and harmed the causes of democracy in Syria. Don't blame me. Blame Pelosi.
Why are you changing the subject, Con? I merely posted a link that gave numerous comments from Arabs in the Middle East regarding Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. I can't help it if these comments, all footnoted, prove that Pelosi undermined the current administration's policies in the Middle East and harmed the causes of democracy in Syria. Don't blame me. Blame Pelosi. By the way, what the hell was Steny Hoyer doing meeting in Egypt with Mohammed Saad el-Katatni from the Muslim Brotherhood? And you liberals wonder why Americans don't trust you with foreign policy???
"And you liberals wonder why Americans don't trust you with foreign policy???"
Have you seen the polling?
"I can't help it if these comments, all footnoted, prove that Pelosi undermined the current administration's policies in the Middle East and harmed the causes of democracy in Syria."
She went to Middle East to discuss the Israel/ Palestinian/Syrian situation; to get Syria to do more to stop the flow of fighters coming into Iraq from Syria; to find a practical way to get us out of this boondoggle in Iraq; and to open up a dialogue with the Syrians because the policy of acting like babies and saying “I’m not talking to you” hasn’t accomplished anything.
And I don't see how this trip harms the chances for democracy in Syria. Democracy in Syria was at a standstill before the trip and it will likely remain at a standstill after the trip.
OK, Loonz. So you're admitting that Pelosi was conducting foreign policy on her trip. Great! She should be arrested for violating the Logan Act.
"OK, Loonz. So you're admitting that Pelosi was conducting foreign policy on her trip. Great! She should be arrested for violating the Logan Act."
I'm all in favor of arresting her if everyone who went to Damascus is arrested.
" She should be arrested for violating the Logan Act."
-----
If yoiu've been told once, you've been told a hundred times.
Oh, wait, you have been tols about a hundred times.
The Logan Act applies ONLY to private citizens. It's constitutionality has not been affirmed, nor has it ever been tested.
Members of Congress are not private citizens, therefore the Logan act does not, repeat DOES NOT apply.
But thanks for playing. I'm sure you'll bring up the same lame debunked point again and again, because if you've been told a hundred times, you've been told ten thousand times.
And you still don't understand it.
ETRW, I know the Logan Act is too difficult for you to comprehend but Pelosi is a US citizen. The act applies to her. She should be arrested and tried.
I really hope the President is as stupid as that. I really do. Please arrest her. Please!!!!
Perhaps if you EVER cough up any evidence she was negotiating with Assad in contravention of our foriegn policy goals she will be. Of course I will build a perpetual motion machine first. It is clearly YOU that cannot understand the Logan Act. Either because you are really dumb or because you REFUSE to understand it or it would force you to admit you have been LYING for days. Hundreds of Congressional visits to other countries have gone on just like this one for two hundred years. YOU are incapable of higher brain function so since some rightwing screechmonkey or website TOLD you she violated the Logan Act you will just pretend that MAKES it true. Do the world a favor. Pledge never to pollute our gene pool by breeding.
Hey Easy, I'm wasting too much of my time with pea-brains like you on this site. Will you do me a favor and get me banned? I'll make it "Easy" for you: You and the rest of the schitstains here are complete asswipes and eric alterman isn't worthy to suck George W. Bush's pecker as much as he'd desperately love to. There. Now please flag me. PLEASE!
I think something popped.
Didn't you already give your "NEVAR COMING BACK!!!" speech a few posts ago? Then again, I can't tell the difference between your "can't win the argument so I'll try to get banned" post and your "let me tell you why God hates Nancy Pelosi" posts...
Here is the deal moron. I flush things in the morning with more on the ball than you will EVER have. You are so stupid you redefine the term. George Bush will go down in history as the worst president in history and morons like you will be the punch line of political jokes for a generation. Your ignorance is monumental. The SOCKS I wear have a higher IQ than you do. My goldfish knows more about quantam mechanics than you do about politics. Your only talent is abject stupidity. Please do the world a favor and give yourself a vascectomy with a pair of rusty wirecutters before you accidentally pollute the gene pool, there MAY be a woman somewhere that eventually gets drunk enough to allow you to commit this heinous attrocity to the worlds collective IQ.
"The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any prosecutions or convictions under the Logan Act" - Wikipedia. "The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." - Logan ACT This has to be the biggest non-story of the week
"Despite Polling To The Contrary" ? You do recall the headline? If not, scroll up and look! Seems strange to be accused of changing the subject, when dealing with that, explicitly.
' "Bush's Strength" helps GOP' More headline. Another lie? As in all those wonderful things he has done for us? Didn't I list just a few? How did that change the subject?
As to your link, having read it exhaustively, and viewed some of the sourcing in other publications - best possible take, in support of your contention that it proves something about Pelosi's trip: Arab Opinion Divided Some fear Bungle will bomb Iran because it made him appear the fool (he is); some wish Bungle would extend his policy of not dealing with tyrants to include areas such as Israel, Pakistan, the Americas . . .
I will conclude by conceding one point that you failed to make: any harm done to Bungle's policies, is good for America.
David Gregory is a good reporter, but even he is prone to making mistakes. I'm contantly amazed at how these reporters can go on TV and totally misrepresent what was really said. I feel this is the problem of the 24-hour news business today. Nobody fact checks anything. I was a reporter/columnist for 40 years and I know I was always having my editor fact check what I had written.
Are you sick and tired of right-wing garble? Are you sick of TV journalists and newsmakers reporting right-wing talking points from editorials as "Factual" newsworthy stories? Well, I know of at least one show on one network that does their homework and fact checking...Countdown with Keith Olberman or visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/