Reuters article uncritically quoted "expert" who said Dems face "nightmare scenario" on Iraq
SUMMARY: A Reuters article
uncritically quoted Matthew Woessner, a professor at Pennsylvania State
University-Harrisburg, saying
that Democrats face a potential "nightmare scenario" over Iraq if "the sum total
of the pressures from their constituency groups, are out of step with mainstream
America." The article
didn't cite any polls to back up Woessner's claim; in fact, polls show that a majority of
Americans oppose the war in Iraq and believe that some or all troops should
be withdrawn from Iraq.
An August 22 Reuters article by David Alexander headlined "Democrat split on Iraq may hurt '08 chances: analysts" reported that "[f]ailure to end the Iraq war has so divided Democrats it could jeopardize their chances of consolidating power in U.S. elections in November 2008, analysts said." The article uncritically quoted Matthew Woessner, an assistant professor of public policy at Pennsylvania State University-Harrisburg, who said that if a September administration report on Iraq is "positive," "It will be the Democratic left, which is probably immune to any news of success in Iraq, against the middle-of-the-road America." Woessner added that on Iraq, Democrats face a potential "nightmare scenario" "when the pressure, the sum total of the pressures from their constituency groups, are out of step with mainstream America." In the article, which was posted on ABCNews.com and washingtonpost.com, Woessner added: "That's a prescription for electoral disaster." Alexander also wrote: "[L]iberal Democrats, prodded by influential Internet bloggers, are pressing harder than ever for action to bring U.S. troops home." But the article didn't cite any polls to back up Woessner's claim that the position being pushed by Democratic "constituency groups" is "out of step with mainstream America" or the suggestion that it is "liberal Democrats" alone who are advocating withdrawal from Iraq.
Woessner, whose articles have been published by the conservative Hudson Institute and the conservative website FrontPageMag.com, was identified in the article only as "a political expert at Pennsylvania State University."
In fact, polls continue to show that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and believe that some or all troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, and that Americans favor Democrats over Republicans on the issue of handling Iraq:
- An August 8-12 CBS News poll asked: "From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now?" The poll showed that 31 percent of respondents wanted to "decrease" troops, and 30 percent wanted to "remove all" troops.
- An August 6-8 CNN poll asked: "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?" Thirty-three percent were in favor and 64 percent were against.
- As Media Matters for America noted, an August 1 Rasmussen Reports survey showed that "Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties." Specifically, Democrats lead Republicans 47 percent to 35 percent on the war in Iraq.
- A July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that on the issue of "dealing with Iraq," respondents favored Democrats 38 percent to 23 percent.
- A July 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post poll asked: "Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?" Fifty-six percent wanted forces decreased, while 16 percent wanted forces increased. The same poll showed that 55 percent supported "legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring," while 43 percent opposed such legislation.
Additionally, a July 20-22 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 30 percent of Americans approve of "the way Democrats in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq," while 22 percent approved of "the way Republicans in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq."
From the August 22 Reuters article:
Failure to end the Iraq war has so divided Democrats it could jeopardize their chances of consolidating power in U.S. elections in November 2008, analysts said.
Nearly a year since the party parlayed discontent over the unpopular war into a majority in Congress, liberal Democrats, prodded by influential Internet bloggers, are pressing harder than ever for action to bring U.S. troops home.
[...]
Democratic divisions may grow after Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, reports to Congress in September on the results of President George W. Bush's policy of building up troops as a way to stabilize Iraq.
Even a positive report is unlikely to sway the anti-war liberal Democrats, but it will make it difficult for centrist Democrats from more conservative districts to support pulling out troops, the analysts said.
Democrats who had hesitated to vote for timetables and various withdrawal schemes "are going to be even more hesitant now," [Ethan] Siegal [an analyst for The Washington Exchange, which monitors Congress for institutional investors] said.
"It will be the Democratic left, which is probably immune to any news of success in Iraq, against the middle-of-the-road America," said Matthew Woessner, a political expert at Pennsylvania State University.
NIGHTMARE SCENARIO
"A nightmare scenario for any party is when the pressure, the sum total of the pressures from their constituency groups, are out of step with mainstream America. That's a prescription for electoral disaster," he added.
And liberal Democrats, who felt marginalized by President Bill Clinton and his centrist supporters in the 1990s, don't seem inclined to let up. They have gained substantial influence in the party over the past decade with a well-organized network of bloggers, fund-raisers and activists linked through the Internet.
Successful bloggers, like Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, regularly use the Internet to debate ideas, editorialize and criticize Democrats who compromise liberal principles. Fund-raising sites like ActBlue.com have collected tens of millions of dollars for Democratic candidates.
"The explosion of the success of the left-wing blogosphere has placed the Democrats under even more pressure from their left," Woessner said.
Iraq IS an ongoing nightmare scenario. This is what "mainstream America" is finally waking up to. This is why the Brookings boys had their little jaunt and posted their stupid "things are looking up" propoganda.
Whilst the reporters and retorters pontificate about polls and horse race, they seem oblivious to the policy disaster that is killing the bodies and minds of Iraqis and our soldiers.
When George W. Bush is your president, who needs any other "nightmare scenario"?
They may get another chance soon to be an actual 4th estate. I see few even trying.
This "nightmare scenario" guy isn't even a tenured professor: he's "Assistant Professor Matthew Woessner"
What, Reuters can't afford to seek out faculty at least tenured, when they seek out opinions at Penn state Harrisburg?
What a joke, a non-tenured guy at PSU Harrisburg, is a qualified "seer" on Iraq and National Policy and Democrats...
Matthew Woessner, wearing a cape, and a turban with a big phony jewel in the front of it... and he's holding a sealed envelope to his forehead, and with eyes closed, he intones:
"I see divisions and fractures and revolt among Democrats..."
"I see bloggers and liberals and MMFA and Arianna Huffington and Jon Stewart and that little guy from DailyKos, all tearing at one another..."
"I see explosions and mayhem and carnage..."
"I see doom for Democrats, on Iraq..."
"It's a nightmare scenario I see!"
And as he goes to tear open the envelope, Ed McMahon asks him "Oh Woessner the Magnificent, do you see also whether you'll get tenure here at PSU Harrisburg?"
"I friggin better get tenure!" Woessner the Magnificent says, "You don't think I'm kissing Academic Butt for nothing, now do you?"
And he opens the envelope and reads what's inside and says...
"Damn!"
"What... what is it?" asks Ed McMahon, "Is it a nightmare scenario?"
"You bet it is!" says Woessnor the Magnificent...
"I didn't get tenure! Damn!!"
"Oh well" says his faithful sidekick Ed, "It's back to Ohio State for you then... there must be about a thousand Academic Butts you haven't kissed there yet!"
"Oh How I Hate, Ohio State..." groans the untenured "seer".
Thought you might also like to know, that this "seer", the untenured guy at Penn State Harrisburg named Matthew Woessner, his only apparent publication is something he co-wrote with his wife (because it's awful hard to write stuff on your own).
It's title is:
"My Professor is a Partisan Hack: How Perceptions of a Professor's Politcal Views Affect Student Course Evaluations"
And if you think that's a joke I'm making, I am not.
Here's a link to the pub...
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PSJul06Kelly-Woessner_etal.pdf
...I'm not about about to waste my time reading this "seer's" insights: MMFA saved me the trouble, by forewarning me above.
DEM:
Ah, another VICTIM whine from rightwingers, this time because they got bad grades in political science.
Can't be that these partisan student's ideology is unsupportable by FACTS, and so their resultant papers and essays are fatally flawed. Or maybe they can't think or write for crap. No, it must be that the PROFESSOR is "biased", and so discriminates against the poor rightwinger.
Thanks for the link. Be sure to share the link that has Woessner and his wife enlisting in the military in order to put their guts where their mouths are, in support of Bush and the War. I won't hold my breath ... these guys are whiners, not fighters, just like their "hero", George W. Bush.
They reached fairly deep into the barrel, when they pulled this apple out.
It's sort of amusing I guess: a guy at Penn State Harrisburg, sweating whether or not he'll be granted tenure (and you have to appreciate how select and narrow a group of "experts" that is, the 'untenured faculty'... there must be only about twenty million of them in this country alone!)...
...he's an "expert".
There's quite a premium right now, on people whose opinions on Public Policy we might appraise as being "expert".
All the Legislators in Washington D.C., and at all the State Legislatures, are on the look-out for Public Policy "experts"... in the various State Houses and our Executive Branch too, the many Governors and the President, and all their aides and assistants, are scanning the horizon day and night, like sailors lost at sea, looking for a beacon...
...looking for an "expert" in Public Policy.
I don't see how so many Legislators and Governors and the President himself, and all their look-outs too, failed to spot this "expert", this "seer", this Matthew Woessner at Penn State Harrisburg.
But they didn't have the same criteria as Reuters did I guess; and so Reuters scored this guy... and the rest of them, they continue scanning about for "experts"...
...they're still lost.
What was Rueters' secret? What criteria steered them to find Matthew Woessner?
They looked among the ranks of the untenured faculty! That's where they found their "expert", their "seer"!
It must have been one heck of a search Reuters performed, to find this "expert"... it must have took quite a while to sift through the ranks of the untenured faculty (all twenty million of them), before they found this apple, at the bottom of the barrel.
Dem, one of my favorite passages from Woessner's publication, which you cited above:
"Perceptions of professors’ political orientations do appear to influence student evaluations of the course. Specifically,students rate faculty members who they perceived to be liberals more favorably on a number of faculty characteristics measures. As a whole, students are more likely to report that liberal professors“encourage students to express their own viewpoints,” and “work to provide a comfortable learning environment.”
When professors are perceived as either liberal or Democrats, students are more likely to believe that their instructor“cares about students and their success.”
Notwithstanding concerns that liberal instructors may penalize conservative students for their views, the data indicate that Democratic professors are more often perceived to grade assignments “fairly and consistently. "
Thanks Mary, that is interesting.
Where you cite the mentioning of "concerns that liberal instructors may penalize conservative students for their views", well I'd have thought that to be theme of the thesis, which is one of the reasons I didn't want to read it.
Because that's such an old refrain from that side: "Liberal professors in the Universities are cranking out Communists and pinkos and Socialists and Anarchists... and they're smoking pot and they're having orgies and most if not all of them are homos..."
I've heard it already, too many times; it's too similar to what the nazis had in their playbook, where they went after the faculty in the Universities of Germany, for not being "on board" with the National Socialist Party.
As for the main reason I chose not to read the guy's thesis: it's because I saw the picture of him on his web page, sitting at his desk all professor-like (but w/o tenure), and I thought he looked too much like Rick Santorum for me...
...like maybe he was a relative, or a protege, or simply an admirer.
I'm prejudiced that way.
Hmmmm. Instead of "pass-fail", the CONSERVATIVE professors grade on a slightly different scale: "You're either WITH ME, or you're WITH the forces of EVIL."
Instead of a study guide, there is a three word edict from the Conservative Professor: "Take personal responsibility."
The Conservative Professor's slogan? "College is NOT the solution to problems, College IS the problem."
Don't feel like the College is concerned about student's success? The Conservative Professor's stance: "Get over it."
Yeah, I can see where Rightwing Ideology, translated to policy in ANY setting, colleges included, can look cold, stark, unfeeling, insensitive, elitist and without soul. And they wonder why they are not universally LOVED by those victims ... I mean, those STUDENTS.
The real nightmare scenario is that we have a press corps that is either too lazy or too corrupt to do its job. As a result, the Bush administration is slowly dragging us toward Fascism without serious challenge from those who are supposed to be our watchdogs. Why do they think they're mentioned in the First Amendment...so they can keep us informed about Paris Hilton's latest escapades?
There are little rays of hope, however. Last night, I actually heard an MSNBC reporter doing a little "fact check" on President Numbnuts' Vietnamization of Iraq. He pointed out several historical inaccuracies in the speech that Bush recited to the VFW. I found this quite refreshing.
There was a book written about Vietnam called "A Bright Shining Lie". I wonder how historians will view Bush's bogus adventure in Iraq? It's a lie, sure enough...but it's neither bright nor shining.
The most infuriating thing for me is that there seems to be an almost universal consensus among pundits that it was a mistake. How often have you heard them start a sentence with, "We never should have invaded, but..."?
Even though so many think it was a mistake, there seems to be little appetite for holding anyone accountable. That subject is, apparently, off the table for the MSM. They'd rather focus on the nitpickery of the current Presidential marathon. Unfortunately, whoever wins that marathon will inherit Bush' clusterf*ck, and possibly a brand new war with Iran. Heidi Ho.
It's just business as usual as the corpos and Israel pull all the strings behind the scenes. Both parties have the same foreign policies, have for decades. Frankly, I think this war will drag on until the US collapses, much like the Russian Empire did in the 1910s. We can't sustain this mess much longer, no money, army exhausted, enemies mounting, no valid purposes to the war, both parties hell bent on killing arabs for that israel lobby campaign cash. It's a trainwreck waiting to happen. I only hope we survive it and don't go down in a shower of ICBMs at the end.