Swing voters are exhibiting a nuanced view of the situation in Iraq — and that isn't good news for antiwar Democrats.
They want the United States to get out, but they don't want a hasty retreat — and they want American involvement there not to have been in vain, according to focus groups and other survey research conducted for the Democrats.
"Swing voters are torn," says a Democratic strategist with close ties to the national party. "They aren't sure immediate withdrawal is a good idea" — and, as President Bush says, they don't want the sacrifices of U.S. troops to go to waste.
Even so, many Americans recognize how complex the situation in Iraq is, and they want their political leaders to make their positions clear, even if those positions are controversial. On the day after the congressional vote to fund the war and not impose timetables for removing U.S. troops, party insiders are very worried about the political effect of it all.
"It works into a negative narrative that the Democrats are not standing up and fighting for what they believe in," says the strategist. And many voters are linking that perception to their longtime concern that the Democrats are weak on national security. "A lot of people think, if you won't stand up and fight for what you believe in" — pulling out the troops — "then you won't stand up and defend us."
Someone is delusional here, either the US News reporter or the Democratic strategist. There is no logical way to get from:
They want the United States to get out, but they don't want a hasty retreat — and they want American involvement there not to have been in vainto,
"A lot of people think, if you won't stand up and fight for what you believe in" — pulling out the troops — "then you won't stand up and defend us."
So which is it? Are swing voters really displaying "nuanced" thinking on the war, or are they pissed that Democrats are not acting categorically enough?
Really folks, those positions are mutually exclusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment