Just take a look at this reporting.
This reporter has decided that Iraq had taken a back seat to domestic issues in the race. Why has he decided this? Well, it can't be the polling because he states the fact that "even though (LOL) polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country". He then goes on to claim that "the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally" and offers no polling or evidence of this. It's just a feeling.
The people still consider this the top issue, sometimes tying with the economy, according to polls. It is the democratic party who has run from this, hoping to stay out of the fray as they divert their campiagns to the economy. They know people are feeling the squeeze. And that's fine, that should be talked about because it is very important and the Democrats do stand on firm ground there.
But they don't want to talk about the war because they have let the r's, once again, define the narrative on it, and the R narrative is that the surge has worked, and if you listen to them you'd think the war was "won" and over anyway. The people, still want to talk about Iraq, amazingly, they seem to have been able to remember we are still in an war and people are still dying, and it was still based on a lie. But Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, gets the feeling that "even though" polls say differently, people just don't care that much anymore. This is exactly what these guys did in 2000. All polls, ALL polls, showed that the American people were very calm during the recounts, and were in no rush. They wanted the right answer. They were holding steady. But individuals in the liberal media, Cokie Roberts for one, but many did it, claimed that Al Gore was going to have to concede the race, because the people were getting really tired of his shit. When it was pointed out to her by some upstart that all polls showed just the opposite, she claimed "but it's starting...they're starting to get tired"
No evidence. This is what they do and this is one of the most insidiuous ways they define the narrative of our elections in this country. The fucking liberal media.
Iraq War Takes Back Seat to Domestic Issues
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
DES MOINES — The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are navigating a far different set of issues as they approach the Iowa caucuses on Thursday than when they first started campaigning here a year ago, and that is likely to change even more as the campaigns move to New Hampshire and across the country.
Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.
The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.
The campaigns are moving to recalibrate what they are saying amid signs of this changing backdrop; gone are the days when debates and television advertisements were filled with references to Iraq.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York recently produced a television advertisement that attacked the Bush administration for failing to deal with “America’s housing crisis.” Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican, has begun talking about expanding health care coverage, an issue of particular concern in New Hampshire.
“People say that health care is a Democratic issue,” he said. “Baloney.”
John Edwards of North Carolina has a ready answer when asked about immigration at rallies here — a subject that rarely if ever came up at Democratic gatherings a year ago. He drew cheers at a New Year’s Day rally in Ames when he said that while he would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he would insist that none could become naturalized “until they learned to speak English.”
Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year. Mrs. Clinton, who once faced intense opposition from her party’s left over her vote to authorize the war, now is rarely pressed on it, though Democrats say it continues be a drag on her in this state. Senator John McCain, a strong proponent of increased troop levels, is off of the defensive and now positions himself as having been prescient about what would work to quell the violence.
“You see much more concern about the economy,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “You see much more concern about health care. When we started it was principally concern about the war, and now it’s a mix of war, the economy and health care.”
Alex Castellanos, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, said much the same thing was happening on the Republican side and suggested that it may have contributed to the success of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas.
“As concern in the economy grows, you’ve seen in both parties this populist strain of appealing to voters,” Mr. Castellanos said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03elect.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
This reporter has decided that Iraq had taken a back seat to domestic issues in the race. Why has he decided this? Well, it can't be the polling because he states the fact that "even though (LOL) polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country". He then goes on to claim that "the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally" and offers no polling or evidence of this. It's just a feeling.
The people still consider this the top issue, sometimes tying with the economy, according to polls. It is the democratic party who has run from this, hoping to stay out of the fray as they divert their campiagns to the economy. They know people are feeling the squeeze. And that's fine, that should be talked about because it is very important and the Democrats do stand on firm ground there.
But they don't want to talk about the war because they have let the r's, once again, define the narrative on it, and the R narrative is that the surge has worked, and if you listen to them you'd think the war was "won" and over anyway. The people, still want to talk about Iraq, amazingly, they seem to have been able to remember we are still in an war and people are still dying, and it was still based on a lie. But Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, gets the feeling that "even though" polls say differently, people just don't care that much anymore. This is exactly what these guys did in 2000. All polls, ALL polls, showed that the American people were very calm during the recounts, and were in no rush. They wanted the right answer. They were holding steady. But individuals in the liberal media, Cokie Roberts for one, but many did it, claimed that Al Gore was going to have to concede the race, because the people were getting really tired of his shit. When it was pointed out to her by some upstart that all polls showed just the opposite, she claimed "but it's starting...they're starting to get tired"
No evidence. This is what they do and this is one of the most insidiuous ways they define the narrative of our elections in this country. The fucking liberal media.
Iraq War Takes Back Seat to Domestic Issues
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
DES MOINES — The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are navigating a far different set of issues as they approach the Iowa caucuses on Thursday than when they first started campaigning here a year ago, and that is likely to change even more as the campaigns move to New Hampshire and across the country.
Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.
The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.
The campaigns are moving to recalibrate what they are saying amid signs of this changing backdrop; gone are the days when debates and television advertisements were filled with references to Iraq.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York recently produced a television advertisement that attacked the Bush administration for failing to deal with “America’s housing crisis.” Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican, has begun talking about expanding health care coverage, an issue of particular concern in New Hampshire.
“People say that health care is a Democratic issue,” he said. “Baloney.”
John Edwards of North Carolina has a ready answer when asked about immigration at rallies here — a subject that rarely if ever came up at Democratic gatherings a year ago. He drew cheers at a New Year’s Day rally in Ames when he said that while he would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he would insist that none could become naturalized “until they learned to speak English.”
Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year. Mrs. Clinton, who once faced intense opposition from her party’s left over her vote to authorize the war, now is rarely pressed on it, though Democrats say it continues be a drag on her in this state. Senator John McCain, a strong proponent of increased troop levels, is off of the defensive and now positions himself as having been prescient about what would work to quell the violence.
“You see much more concern about the economy,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “You see much more concern about health care. When we started it was principally concern about the war, and now it’s a mix of war, the economy and health care.”
Alex Castellanos, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, said much the same thing was happening on the Republican side and suggested that it may have contributed to the success of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas.
“As concern in the economy grows, you’ve seen in both parties this populist strain of appealing to voters,” Mr. Castellanos said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03elect.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
