Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
RE: [Marxism] No polls on "DEscalation"?
- To: "'Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition'" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [Marxism] No polls on "DEscalation"?
- From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:29:28 -0500
- Thread-index: Acc40ium2HaBRB6vQdOxPBi6y3eOpAADSWDw
Nestor: "It would be most interesting if someone would give data on the
strictly opposite question 'Do you support DEscalation'?"
That is essentially what polls are asking in questions about withdrawal "as
quickly as possible" or "by Jan. 1 2008."
A USA Today-Gallup poll shows 15% for immediate withdrawal, 39% for
withdrawal by Jan 1, 2008; 31% for withdrawing but taking as many years to
do it as needed "to turn control over to the Iraqis"; 12% for sending more
troops. Those were the four options offered to the question as to what the
U.S. should do in Iraq.
That poll was taken last week just before Bush's speech but when his
proposal to increase troops was already known.
An earlier Pew Center for the People and the Press survey (early December)
said "Half of the public (50%) now says the U.S. should bring its troops
home as soon as possible, while 44% believe the U.S. should keep troops
there until the situation has stabilized." Sentiment against the war has
continued to crystalize since December, and especially after Bush's speech.
More and more people are talking in terms of "another Vietnam," but I don't
see signs of that sentiment turning into motion yet.
But that can happen VERY quickly once a majority consolidates around an
antiwar position and becomes conscious that it is the majority, which
appears to be happening now.
On Sunday, Bush and Cheney said on TV there was no way for Congress to stop
the "surge" -- the fine print is that Bush has the unrestricted funds he
needs already in the bank from previous appropriations and of course any
congressional bill to impose new restrictions on already approved funds
would be vetoed and the veto sustained (34 votes in the Senate).
This, in a way, lets the Democrats have their cake and eat it, too. They can
pass the stanchest anti-escalation language without any risk of it having
the slightest effect. Of course, that would commit them to an antiwar
position, which the Democrats only a week or two hoped to avoid or keep
ambiguous, a la Hillary. But with the way poll numbers are moving, they
don't really have other good options than to go into open opposition on
Iraq. Even back in December, 70% of Democrats were telling Pew out "as
quickly as possible" and sentiment in the Black and Latino communities is
even stronger.
Joaquín
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
- Thread context:
- Re: [Marxism] Socialism and Islam, (continued)
- [Marxism] The latest from Stan Goff: Petraeus! Is Baghdad Burning?,
Joaquin Bustelo Mon 15 Jan 2007, 19:47 GMT
- [Marxism] The Cuban road,
Nestor Gorojovsky Mon 15 Jan 2007, 18:19 GMT
- [Marxism] No polls on "DEscalation"?,
Nestor Gorojovsky Mon 15 Jan 2007, 18:19 GMT
- [Marxism] Red-tail hawk sighting: Hawks and me, a short essay.,
dwalters Mon 15 Jan 2007, 18:09 GMT
- [Marxism] Echoing King in New York, Edwards Calls for War's End,
Walter Lippmann Mon 15 Jan 2007, 16:37 GMT
- [Marxism] Anti-Zionist orthodox Jews,
Louis Proyect Mon 15 Jan 2007, 16:10 GMT
- [Marxism] Immigration policy forces researchers out of West Bank : Article : Nature,
Les Schaffer Mon 15 Jan 2007, 16:04 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]