A new poll shows that the lack of forceful opposition to Administration counter-terrorism policies, especially from Congressional Democrats, has led to them becoming broadly popular. This is true even for controversial policies like the continued presence of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, or drone strikes abroad.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He pledged during his first week in office to close the prison within a year. But he has not done so.
Even the party base appears willing to forgive that failure.
The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.
Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.
The president only recently acknowledged the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.
But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.
To anyone surprised by these findings, consider the top-line messaging on these issues. We hear from the Administration that these policies are necessary, even if they maintain that they still want to close Guantanamo but have had their hands tied by Congress. We hear from Republicans who, despite the evidence, claim that Obama is weak on national security. And we hear the White House consequently defend those policies, to the extent that the brief, ten-word motto for re-election that many, including the Vice President, has been using lately is “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.”
So where are the voices of those opposed to the basic policies from the left? They are either marginalized or complacent. Groups like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights and others are great, but they require validation among the top line of the Democratic Party in order to break through. And the party has done nothing but defend their President on these matters. They either agree with the policies, or they don’t want to break ranks. And therefore, the public really gets only the message of belligerence and toughness, rather than the civil libertarian view. Democratic politicians didn’t agree with these policies when George W. Bush engaged in them, and the base followed them. Now that it’s Obama engaging in them, the opposition has been muted.
Without courage among the political class, you’re just going to have bipartisan agreement on counter-terrorism policy.




83 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Guess I’m in the minority……AGAIN. I am NOT giving him a pass on this. And, if Obama MAKES me vote for Rick Santorum I’ll never forgive him.
Change and hope 2012
“Courage”, DDay, and the political class, which includes the media, do not have the same profiles.
If “the people” of the United States of America, are depending on the political class discovering courage, or reason, or even basic humanity, then nothing has been learned.
I predict very hard times, economically, endless war, and, eventually, one hell of a meeting with reality when BOTH of those things, especially war, comes home … with a well-deserved vengeance.
Ah, well …
DW
I hate these assholes.
Tell the people what they want to hear, do what profits your benefactors the most, when the two are in conflict, lie.
Thanks David for echoing GG today. People need to be confronted with this “repulsive hypocrisy.” That is exactly what it is.
Hold up a mirror and let them know how bizarre it is they’ve become what they used to despise.
Me too.
Gives me an appreciation for insurgent Tea Party congress persons, at least they’re not sheep.
Torture and drone everyone. Slippery slopes is only for DFHs.
Lived thru the McCarthy era when I was too young to remember anything other than its demogoguery and unfairness.
This is a lot worse.
USA #1, USA #1, USA #1! Whatever Glorious Leader decides to do, it is the correct and only thing to be done. If we go bankrupt invading all of these countries where there is no chance to come out with a peaceful ending, so be it. It is all glorious. There can be no downside. Enriching the banksters and giving them a pass on past criminality is a small price to pay so we can say, with pride, that we are: USA #1, USA #1, USA #1.
Will underground nuke shelters in your back yard be next.
Never again do I want to hear that Democrats are smarter than Republicans. This proves that they are not.
This is a multi-pronged propoganda blitz and it’s only just beginning. Barack is firing marshmallow cannons (what a cool guy!), Michelle wins a sack race! Simultaneously, idiot polls reassure everyone, it’s okay to be fascists, it’s the latest fad!
Kim Jong Il would be proud.
I think the claim was that progressives were smarter than conservatives (i.e., both major political parties).
Hey, don’t speak Il of Kim Jong. He was a U.S. movie fanatic. Coulda had a subsidiary site at FDL.
I was speaking of the elected class. And as far as I can tell, there are no real elected Progressives. Or they are just cowards.
I’d say he is just as Bush was…being a bullying authoritarian doesn’t make one strong on national security.
Greg Sargent, who knows all about carrying water for the White House and has become Team Obama’s Head Cheerleader, as Wonkette mentions re the 9th Cir Gay Marriage decision:
http://wonkette.com/462746/appeals-court-mandates-that-all-californians-get-gay-married
whoops, WaPo meant to say:
fixed it for ‘em.
All I can say is that three plus years in, anyone who railed against these policies in the past but who support them now under Obama owe Dubya and Darth Cheney a huge apology. Me? I say if it was evil then (and I think that it was) then it is evil now. And that’s why I can’t and won’t support Barack Obama (or whatever candidate we get running against him from the other wing of The Money Party.)
In 2008 I thought there was a possibility that electing a strong Democratic majority to both houses of congress would get us a more progressive result with a president McCain who would have been forced to work with those Democrats in order to get anything done. Three years into the Obama presidency, that line of thinking appears to be even more plausible, because under Obama, Democratic/progressive resistance to these abuses has been neutered by the fact that Obama wears the label of Democrat. What were once atrocities are now bi-partisan consensus. And that bi-partisan consensus, made possible by Obama himself, is a huge part of why I now self-identify as a liberal independent and not as a Democrat.
eCAHN, way, way a long time ago when I went to college, I was in a freshman class where many of us we already adults who had been around the block once or twice. One of the women the class told us that she and her husband had saved up to make a trip to Europe. Instead of the trip, they had panicked and spent the money on building a fallout shelter in the back yard. The rest of us could hardly believe it. She was a sweet person, but really naive.
Dday, I love the snark! “Bipartisan.” Ha! As in, preznit is not really a Democrat, so if the Democrats in Congress agree with preznit, we have “bipartisan consensus.” Beautiful.
BTW, I don’t believe most of those poll numbers. If I have time before I am forced to dive back into the capitalist cesspool, I will try to dig up the raw cross-tabs. I am suspicious how WaPo and ABC weighted their sample for “self-identified liberal Democrats.” Also, I think we will find some sharp divergence in the age & gender & education cross-tabs. Naturally, WaPo and ABC are jingoist and staunchly pro-war (esp. Disney-owned ABC teevee; Disney is one of the most right-wing & bizarre corporations in the country).
totally agree, well said.
Yes, but I have one quibble: the concensus is not bi-partisan. That requires that there be two different parties. What we have politically is a two-headed uniparty whose DNA requires that it responds only to money or power (which are generally synonymous now).
Can someone help me? What does this mean?
Both groups have been “breaking through” fairly regularly with their aggressive lawsuits. What does Dday mean?
This just in …
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/drones-coming-soon-to-an-airspace-near-you/
Maybe small room with concrete block walls was more attractive than Gothic cathedral. There’s no accounting for taste, ya know.
The voice in the wilderness is Mr. Paul, again. What a decision to make regarding 2012. Vote for the Statists heading up both parties or vote for the candidate, who last night, quoted good ol’ Ben himself and pointed out the detention policies of NMAU. When it comes to this country I thought it meant to die as ” free men ” rather live under the arbitrary and caprious rule of tyrants. My bad. What the king speaks is not the law! What the Constitution says, plainly read, is! The fact that a majority of Dems support this should not shock anyone. There leaders are fearmongers and misinformers of the first order. The lies of the DLC from 1984(funny that) forward have put us all in this miserable place. We need a 3rd Party block! Paul received 27% of the R’s vote in Minn. last night. He certainly could get that from the D’s. This election needs to be tipped over and both parties reduced to the fools they pander to. The rich and religious are both driving this crazy train. And they appear to own all of us, one way or another.
I also agree but I think we must move past disappointment with the Democratic Party and into something positive. I believe the Left can have an outsized influence as soon as 2012 if we can coalesce rapidly around a SINGLE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. Frankly, I don’t care precisely who the candidate is (so long, of course, as the person truly is a bona fide Progressive). If, however, the disaffected Left remains politically splintered much longer we will be completely irrelevant in 2012 (as usual). Obama has a very weak Left flank and we should ATTACK him mercilessly by quickly settling on and advancing a Third Party Leftist candidate. Real leakage on the Left WILL get Obama’s attention but a genuine threat can only be made through the vehicle of a single spokesperson and a unified candidacy. Those on the Left who ignore this and proceed in their own self-interest should be shunned now and later. The sad truth is that the American Left cannot afford to be diluted or splintered. We must be sharp and focused to leverage our power.
I would like to hear other people’s thoughts on this.
I don’t know specifically what is meant, but it could be that those orgs are considered to be part of the “professional left,” so they are to be ignored or marginalized as much as possible.
I agree. I think it’s time we got our own softball team.
What position can you play??? :-)
Ooops. How do I camouflage my mj plantation in the back 40.
Just kidding. I already have NYS helo flying over twice/day bc aqueduct to NYC is on the property line & the PTB are under the mistaken impression that could be sabotaged.
You know what they say, “Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean someone’s not out to get you.”
..
..
I’m not worried though. I have one of those “disguise kits”.
I’m old and slow. That means I play first base.
I think DDay means “breaking through” politically. And I agree with him. THe MSM only report messages delivered by the political duopoly or forced down their throats (like OWS). THe reason Progressivism is moribund is because the Democrats have suffocated it. The reason the Left is comatose is that Obama has strangled it. To escape the irrelevancy trap, the Left must focus like a laser beam and find one (or a few) dominant spokespeople. As I mentioned above, a single unified presidential candidacy could do wonders for Progressivism. The American People are ready (and have been since Obama’s candidacy) for true Progressive reform. Someone who can speak the language of the 99% sand use that theme to hammer the plutocracy has no ceiling.
Only Paul is NOT the voice crying in the wilderness. If it were up to him, there would be no wilderness.
Oh, scuse me. I misinterpreted your comment on first read. I mistakenly thought you might have valued wilderness.
That’s cool. I can play there or of.
We need a name…..
Isn’t that John McClain’s job?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsevZ8Ap9io
lol
Jesus Christ is never around when you need him.
That’s pretty funny. I admit to never having seen it before, and with a little luck, won’t ever see it again.
Paul is quite correct on several important issues, but he is an antigovernment free market extremist and that disqualifies him for me. Paul equates economic deregulation with civil rights and personal liberty. Dead wrong, IMO.
It was a pain in the butt to reformat, but here are the results for question #8 in the
WaPo/ABC poll to which Greg Sargent linked:
Yes, Jesus is quite unreliable. So how about Jill Stein? Or Rocky Anderson? Or …
Paul is in favor of liberty, as long as that doesn’t apply to my uterus. Or to people of color.
U.S. will not be saved by a candidate. Only possibility is mass movement like Occupy.
Yes, there is that, too. In any case, Paul isn’t for me even though he is correct on militarism, among other things.
The Obama Adm. has opened up the wilderness to all who can exploit it. The Paul I hear would deconstruct the Federal gov’t to the states and localities of its’ drawn boundaries. Remember the work of the environment begins with what you’re willing and able to defend. Not some white paper from D.C. The fact is plain the Obama is the weakest President we’ve had since Carter at mustering the fight against the status quo. It was after his defeat that the modern environmental movement got its’ legs. Those legs should not belong or bend to the rich and religiously insane. I used to joke, in the 80s, that manned space travel, would continue until NASA was sure there were no redwoods in space. Evidently, they couldn’t find any.
‘Tain’t enuf, newcarguy, ya gots to get one of them drones, like Box Turtle done got.
Cain’t ‘member where BT got it … might been a cereal box, but that’s wot ya need, along with that new disappearin’ technology I heared ‘Murkuh has just dicoverlated.
Then ya got a chance, otherhoo, ya just foolin’ yerownself.
Them’s muh two sense.
Jiggle ‘em if ya got ‘em.
;~DW
Did I say I supported O? Or any candidate?
I’m not looking for a savior. I’m looking for a spokesperson, a focal point, a political vehicle to channel what Occupy represents. And scare Obama and the Democrats with fear of real attrition on the Left. Absent such coherence I suspect the WH (correctly) assumes that most of the disaffected Left will vote Democratic in the end. Enough anyway. But if the Dems actually fear the Left politically there is great progress to be made. And who knows? The thing could even catch fire. There is a lot of energy out there waiting to be tapped by someone politically.
Shore enuf, eCAHN.
Gonna be awhile ’til that’s generally understood, I reckon. Without Occupy it would be a lot longer, even so.
DW
Yea, I’ve watched too many Die Hard movies
Just wait until the NDAA kicks in on March 3rd. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. This is confirmation of the danger of having a corporatist with a “D” on his chest as president. There is no opposition to his policies that undermine and destroy our Constitutional rights or the social safety net. Not that the invertebrates that comprise the “Democratic Party” vigorously objected to the policies of Bush/Cheney either, but at least there was some token resistance.
I’m a proud pop culture moron. But from time-to-time I watch something like a Die Hard. No more though, as I got rid of my TV today.
Yep.
Don’t expect mass round ups right away. Still slightly in the frog boil stage. But sliding down the razor blade of life soon.
No such person exists. Gadflies like Sanders are allowed to exist so we think the species is not extinct.
OT
Just had this pic on teh google ads. Don’t know if it’s his, but it looks like Mark Rain’s work. Here’s his website
Cover it with cheesecloth to make it look like blueberries.
You know the ” blueberries ‘” you grow for da bees
Ya gotta keep up, woman.
Why do you say that? What is wrong with Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein? They may not be perfect but so what, they’re good enough to do the job. It will be up to US to make sure the thing works, not the candidate (figurehead). At least this would give the Left something constructive to do and help develop organizational skills, etc. I really don’t see a downside and I think the potential upside is enormous.
What am I missing?
The poll says voters like killing “suspected terrorists [who] are American citizens living in other countries” by a net margin of 62 points (79 support to 17 oppose) (question #14).*
But the poll also says voters support “raising taxes on Americans with incomes over one million dollars” by a net margin of 48 points (72 support to 24 oppose) (question #8).
Why is it that WaPo makes the hed and lede about support for using drones and not support for taxing the rich? Hmmmm? Is it just because the drones have a 14-point bigger margin of support? Really? The margin of error was four points.
*Question #13 shows support for drones jumps to a net positive of 72 points (83 favor to 11 oppose) if the targets are described just as “terrorist suspects overseas.”
That person would be what they call a “lighting rod “, literally .
“Someone” is NOT the answer, wbgonne, we, all of “us”, are the answer.
This isn’t about political “inspiration” this is about recognizing truth, and discovering, within ourselves, the courage to act upon it.
That is how I see it … and I’ve been paying serious attention for about fifty-three years.
YMMV.
DW
The raw results here do not disclose any of the cross-tabs that would be needed to justify WaPo’s claims about what “self-identified liberal Democrats” support or oppose.
Between Question #8 and Question #13 we see this:
Questions 9-12 held for future release
Typical WaPo bullshit propaganda: report a crucial claim around which the entire article hinges, but don’t give any raw results to verify the claim.
No. But you did mention your fear of Mr. Paul and his position on your uterus. I say switch doctors if your examination, as well as his diagnosis, create extreme poitical discomfort. You could also access and use any type of contraception you care to because Mr. Paul doesn’t push his policies into those areas. As for our current policies regarding people of color: this country is resegregating in certain regions of the country and I say let them. They will become worse backwaters than they are already, if that’s possible. In fact, I’d support turning the U.S. into large provinces, around 12 would do quite nicely. Affinity regions based on tolerance would/should end this donor/donee state nonsense once and for all. Those who still have Confederate currency could spend it as they wish.
Greg Sargent admits here that poll results for what “Democrats” believe are not in the published poll results:
In other words, “the numbers were given to me but not to you.”
Sargent’s numbers are wacky in other ways, so it looks like he did not use “net” numbers but possibly only the “strongly” felt opinions.
I hate it when it is so easy to demolish bullshit poll spinning by WaPo, but it is easy. Try it yourself: here are the raw numbers again. See any mention of the words “Democrat” (besides to ID preznit) or “liberal”? I didn’t think so.
Everybody loves to ridicule the idea of a third party. And, perhaps, it is far-fetched to think one could win first time out, although I think if there was ever a time a dark horse could take the prize, this would be it. BUT, even if third party can’t win this election, it’s worth starting to build a real alternative for next time around. The trick is to get people to understand that if they are not right-wingers, they belong OUT of the Democratic Party and IN the new third party, and that all their political energies should be so directed. A focus on clean government and rule of law should be enought to form a lasting core of support from a diverse spectrum of the population, given what both major party alternatives look like.
I can be third base. (bada-bum)
I’ll go with whichever one is easiest to pin down.
Oh, yeah? Just what would your uterus do if it was completely free? ;-)
Paul is good on a core group of issues-foreign wars, drug war, rule of law and accountability, runaway Fed. Those are issues that any progressive third party should be happy to use as its core plateform.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m thinking of. Furthermore, if we don’t channel our energy into political channels just what ARE we going to do until the election? Bitch nonstop about the lunatic Republicans and the craven Democrats? I’m sick of doing that. What good does it do? We must move forward or else we’ll be bitching and moaning for the next four years, too. That’s not how things change. They don’t change themselves. We must make it happen.
Unless I see a better alternative soon I will likely vote for the Greens across the board in 2012 and I am looking into giving more support than that. But I am convinced that unless the Left coalesces and organizes politically we will once again be utterly ignored and the political duopoly will lurch even further Right.
Yeah, I agree. Paul is good on all those issues. Unfortunately, he is horrible on others so I just can’t vote for him even if he runs Third Party, which I really hope he does. Ironic that the Third Party Republican would be the one to drive the national discussion Left but any port in a storm.
I wish Anderson and Stein would combine. ASAP. Then we can move ahead.
I have great hopes for what we may see as a result of Occupy in the spring.
I hope you’re right but each of us must play our part. I, for one, won’t be camping in parks but there are other things I can do (as an old guy).
No chance of Paul getting elected. None. I just keep bringing him up because without him around, NOBODY would be even mentioning those important issues that he is good on. So I want to see the Rethug nominating process continue as long as possible, just so those issues might get an occasional mention. But I’m all about the issues, never about Paul.
That would be good. They are both invisible on their own so far.
Yes, I hear you. In fact, as I mentioned, I hope Paul sticks around even after Romney gets the nomination. The GOP will freeze him out instantly so then maybe he’ll run Third Party. I hope he does for the reasons you noted.
LOL. Whatever I do will also have to be done as an old guy. With a really torn-up body.
Ya, Man. We can vote and do stuff on the computer and make some phone calls. All it takes is everyone pitching in and working together. We can be the support for the OWS troops. I feel it’s the least I can do since my generation is leaving their generation in a world of shit.
Later.
Romberry.
I really like your name for both parties being morphed into one entity, the Money Party.
I’d like to see it adopted by FDL and any other progressives.
The Money Party. It has an appropriate ring to it.
I think the credit for the term “The Money Party” goes to Gore Vidal who, if I am not mistaken, coined it in the 1960′s, probably 1968. Near as I can tell, the original quote was “There is only one party in this country, the money party, and it has two branches; the republicans and the democrats.”*
I used to think that Gore Vidal quote was overly cynical. (Pretty much the same for much that has been said and written by Noam Chomsky.) I don’t think that anymore.
*This is how Vidal put it in an interview with The Progressive in August of 2006: “I have been saying for the last thousand years that the United States has only one party—the property party. It’s the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican.”
I am not surprised by the numbers. How many supported Nader. Or Kucinich? And on the right, how many support Ron Paul? Your average American voter is an Imperialist.