Heart-ache: 34% say civil liberties restrictions ok, 25% say not restricted enough
posted at 5:28 pm on October 26, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This is where Hewitt should have gone after Sully. He did, sort of, at the end of the interview when he pressed him about doubt, a subject Sullivan makes much of to distinguish his own worldview from the alleged moral certitude with which “Christianists” supposedly see the world.
Hewitt might have asked him, “Do you doubt that America’s ’soul’ looks more like yours than mine?”
Because if he doesn’t, maybe he should start.
Full poll results here. Consider my gob duly smacked:
In other heart-ache news, Cheney obliquely admitted yesterday for the first time that the U.S. is waterboarding terrorists. From the WH transcript:
Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President “for torture.” We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
Question for our three liberal readers. Given all the political trouble “torture” has caused the administration, why do you suppose Bush is so intent upon it? The left maintains a quasi-religious belief, despite the evidence to the contrary, that waterboarding cannot, under any circumstances, produce useful information, so that theory’s out. Which leaves us with three possibilities:
1. He’s a cartoonishly fiendish sadist who gets off on torturing people, even though he doesn’t actually take part in it and isn’t there to watch when it happens.
2. He doesn’t care about torture, he cares about aggrandizing his own executive authority and this is the issue he’s chosen to make it happen. Now that he’s got all this super-important power to belly-slap people — assuming he does, which is unclear — then … what? What’s he planning to do with it? Labor camps for MoveOn.org donors replete with mass belly-slappings?
3. He doesn’t care about torture or executive authority, he cares about keeping Republicans in power and this is an issue he can demagogue to that end. Uh, okay, but in that case, is this really his best issue? Wouldn’t a hard line on, say, immigration make his base happier than belly slaps? Or, for the hawks, a more streamlined, muscular DHS?
Any ideas? Honora? Anyone? Bueller?
Update: Seixon surveys the nutroots for an answer. Looks like the first theory is the leading one, which is what I would have guessed. You’ll rarely go wrong assuming that the left is assuming the worst about you.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Has the DU board gone nuclear yet?
Defector01 on October 26, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Poor Honora! Hot Air’s ever-patient synecdoche for the entire Left…
This is a great question though, one that I feel pretty dumb for not having thought of and now think the political echo chamber on the whole is pretty dumb for not having hashed out earlier. Everyone go around asking it a lot now and let’s see if it can rise to the prominence it deserves, and maybe we’ll even get an answer.
Alex K on October 26, 2006 at 5:48 PM
I don’t believe in God, so I’m basically a liberal. Here’s my thought:
He understands that “torture,” like pretty much everything in life, is subjective. He believes in coercive interrogation, and doesn’t consider waterboarding to be torture. So no matter how much the European elites or leftist civil rights martyrs criticize him for torturing Muslims in secret prisons, he doesn’t care because he rejects their definition of torture. After all, if waterboarding doesn’t leave any physical injuries and is just REALLY REALLY SCARY, it’s hard to classify as torture.
In other words, he’s not “intent” on it, per se – he just doesn’t think it’s that big of a deal. In his mind, his detractors are wrong, and their concerns are to be dismissed. He probably wonders what the hell the hoopla is all about. Ignorant monkey that he is.
Insh’allah.
Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM
33% say Bush is more powerful. 33%. 33%. Everytime it’s 33%. That 33% is the Kos demographic, and as long as that number keeps showing up (and doesn’t grow) the Republicans can hold onto all branches if they really want it.
DaveS on October 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM
I have to file that poll under “…?” seeing as how it came from CNN and got the results it did.
Benaiah on October 26, 2006 at 5:50 PM
That’s where you went wrong. They think that Bush is there and he’s personally the one stuffing the wet rag in a guy’s mouth while Cheny pours the water over his face.
The only debate is if Bush flys to Gitmo to do this, or has the detainee’s specially flown into the White House and the above takes place right in the Oval Office.
EFG on October 26, 2006 at 5:52 PM
GregH must be tortured over this.
JammieWearingFool on October 26, 2006 at 5:55 PM
Geez, EFG, give a little credit! His wife would never let him mess up the carpeting like that! They use the basement!
bbz123 on October 26, 2006 at 6:00 PM
yes we now liberals are against torture, they believe if you’re nice to them / respect their religion & give them a hug once in awhile that the captured terrorist would be more than happy to give our people at Gitmo all the info they want.
Starblazer on October 26, 2006 at 6:18 PM
There’s a whole bunch of personal liberties I’m not using if the government wants them.
And, I finally have to ask: What in the world does “gob smacking” mean.
Well, I guess I could just plug the phrase in the little google search box in the upper right corner of my web browser if I’m really that curious, but, for some reason, that feels like I’m letting someone else win.
frankj on October 26, 2006 at 6:22 PM
fankj, if you use google it will jsut show you pictures of Republicans.
bbz123 on October 26, 2006 at 6:27 PM
Does a bear shit in the woods? Does Rosie prefer her meat uncovered? Is water wet?
Kid from Brooklyn on October 26, 2006 at 6:29 PM
1. He’s a cartoonishly fiendish sadist who gets off on torturing people
This is the obvious correct answer as I hear the Kossacks screaming every day!
Limerick on October 26, 2006 at 6:33 PM
What a leading question, obviously written by a moonbat! No wonder Dems are always ahead in the polls before an election, and then lose big if these are the types of leading questions they ask in their “public” polls. This is a question phrased solely to get as many people to say yes (mistakenly or sincerely). Look at what I mean by taking one word out:
Question: Do you think George W. Bush has more power than any other president in U.S. history? Don’t you think so?
januarius on October 26, 2006 at 6:35 PM
I’m not a pollster, but the numbers in those polls sure don’t look like something indicating a democratic takeover of the House and Senate.
I bet we keep ‘em.
EFG on October 26, 2006 at 6:43 PM
Be nice to Honora and GregH. I may not agree with them but they contribute a lot to the discussions.
Number 2 on October 26, 2006 at 6:45 PM
With 300 Million people in this country, this is hardly enough for a cross section of America.
This poll from CNN. Nuff Said…
I would give it…
Kini on October 26, 2006 at 6:46 PM
I’m sorry, AP, but I can’t see an admission in that. He admits that he wouldn’t have a problem with it being done. Since he doesn’t precisely attempt to distinguish between waterboarding and torture, you can’t quite conclude that as evidence we’re doing it. I can see how it looks that way initially, but it doesn’t quite pass muster.
On the initial topic, how about the numbers in that graphic? Doesn’t make much sense on the surface, does it? Loosely correlated that would mean that fully 1/3 of the people who voted for Kerry in 2004 (48%) currently believe that President Bush does not hold too much power. Which in turn means they voted for Kerry on issues? Like what? Two years later you still can’t pin him down on the substance of a real issue.
Freelancer on October 26, 2006 at 6:49 PM
AP, no one, but no one, other than you, our great in house deity can say:
When I don’t have time to read the thread/s (yet), at a minimum I always look for your one-liners and the one-worders, below the pictures/captions/frames. Wit galore! Sometimes folksy, sometimes intellectual, sometimes just funny. Your American/Italian/Irish clamoring for expression :)
I’ve known about gob-smacked for a long time and looked up today just ‘gob’, though I knew about gobs of money, but only you…so glad we have you and that you let us smack some gobs.
Proud Frank. Let it go, just a little – it’s much easier – she speeketh from experience, my friend, she does :)
Entelechy on October 26, 2006 at 7:04 PM
I always wonder about this when I see the poll question about whether the country is headed in the right direction or not. Some of us might think that we need stronger immigration enforcement, less multicultural tolerance towards Islamic values, a stronger military, and decisive action by a strong war-time president. I know the Kos Kids also think we are headed in the wrong direction. I just don’t think we should be driving over the edge of the cliff.
mkstach on October 26, 2006 at 7:04 PM
It’s a combination of the English slang “gob”, mouth, and smacked. It means “utterly astonished, astounded”. It’s much stronger than just being surprised. It’s used for something that leaves you speechless, or otherwise stops you dead in your tracks. It suggests that something is as surprising as being suddenly hit in the face.
SilverStar830 on October 26, 2006 at 7:13 PM
Allah, how dare you mention Honora, and not GregH or Constantine!
Interesting observation DaveS. Whenever I see some poll being reported on Special Report, etc. I always think the same thing. The approx 33% that always take the opposite/liberal response to a poll question seems curiously close to the amound of the country that are self identified liberals.
RightWinged on October 26, 2006 at 7:32 PM
What about the percentage of us that think that terrorists should be waterboarded until we get the information we need then get a bullet in the melon?
quax1 on October 26, 2006 at 7:47 PM
This just highlights our pathetic public education system. How could anyone – know matter how BDS-stricken they are – think Bush has “more power than any President in history?”
Are liberals just … uneducated?
Roosevelt anyone? 4-terms, stacked the Supreme Court, built real life concentration camps?
Truman? Nuked Japan?
Nixon?
Wait … Lincoln? Suspended Habeas Corpus?
C’mon. You must be kidding. George Dubwa wouldn’t even make the top half of “most powerful” Presidents.
Which is too bad.
Professor Blather on October 26, 2006 at 7:51 PM
First, we have some Atheists over on the conservative side. The two are not mutually exclusive. But isn’t being an Athiest and saying “insh’allah” a bit contradictory???
We all know Cheney is an evil sadist, but hey, that’s what’s keeping this country afloat in this sea of PC! He gets extra points for having a daughter that’s, you know… a lesbian./sarc
NTWR on October 26, 2006 at 7:55 PM
NTWR……she is not ‘a lesbian/sarc’…..she is undercover. Another Rove operative gathering information on anti-republican activities.
Limerick on October 26, 2006 at 8:00 PM
Now there’s an idea………
BacaDog on October 26, 2006 at 8:06 PM
We talked about waterboarding the other day, and many of us (no idea what percentage) didn’t feel that it counts as torture. Belly slapping isn’t even worthy of consideration as torture. Anyone who knows anything about stereotypical male behavior knows that men routinely do worse things than that either to ourselves, to each other, or both–sometimes even sober. Did the candyasses whining about “torture” have no male relatives, frat brothers, or military (oh, wait–they’re liberals, never mind) or drinking buddies?
On a related note, I think we should build a bungee tower at Gitmo and push the detainees off the top as an interrogation technique. (I mean with the cord attached, although yes, it’s tempting.) I think it would work, and I don’t know how the whiny torture bitches could complain when all we’re doing is providing the inmates with recreational services that people pay good money for on the outside. Plus the guards could use it in their off-time, so that would help morale.
ReubenJCogburn on October 26, 2006 at 9:21 PM
…good point…if Mr. B was the totalitarian he’s supposed to be, we wouldn’t hear the sort of bilge about him we hear. He’d get about as much negative press as the head of state gets in, say, North Korea. He would need Rove. The election results would be guarenteed. So far, his adminstration’s sweatted through two presidential and is going into their third congressional election…and the Left is still free to spew.
This brings up a point: back before BDS REALLY kicked in and the Democrat Party establishment advocated surrender and supported sedition, there was a lot of Leftist blather about “root causes” for the anger out on the “Arab street”. Consider that ONE cause for this anger among a bunch of people who actually ACT on their anger is that America actually has consderable efforts afoot to allow homosexuals not only to exist peacefully, but to marry; that our entertainment industry establishment, the products of which are flogged worldwide, can’t get their heads ’round the concept of restraint, ridicule any values other than situational and open-end ethics; that our many in our Western academia seems to proselytize an institutional hostility to the nation state; and that many of our opinion leaders — at least the loudest among them — often see everything through the lens of rights, being blind more often than not to the concept of duty.
…in short, they’re p.o.’d at us because we the Democratic Party. Step One in winning the Terror War: outlaw the Democratic Party. Won’t happen, but the irony is delicious.
Puritan1648 on October 26, 2006 at 9:44 PM
…”moral certitude”…when I was sprout, my Dad and many of the adults I learned from spoke of “the courage of your convictions”. Then again, I was brought up in the ’60’s…the “other” ’60’s, where your parents would actually raise you, no your friends or the TV.
So, I guess that you’re not supposed to have any convictions, or you’re supposed to question them with each situation you encounter, in which case we’re back to square one, as they wouldn’t be convictions then.
…I can’t help it. I was raised by parents who’d today be jailed for spanking, assaulting my self-esteem, and not buying me a pony. Still, being raised by fascists has proven amazingly useful over the years since….
Puritan1648 on October 26, 2006 at 9:49 PM
A hard line on immigration- illegal and legal- would do a lot more to protect Americans. Why should I listen to either side about the security vs. civil liberties issue when mostly all of them are weak on the issue of immigartion? They let anti-Americans, criminals, “reconquistas”, people with no intention of assimilating, and terrorists right into our country!
Megan on October 26, 2006 at 9:54 PM
…here’s an alternative idea: make them actually spend time with the folks who’re “feeling their pain”. Fly Ramsey Clark and his crew, some of the mushroom-heads from the DU, and as many university professors you can round up, and make the Gitmo-im spend time with ‘em…spend quality time…in their cells…up close…close enough to smell their breath.
While they’re sitting there rubbing leather-patched elbows, make ‘em watch an endless loop of “The View”, “Hardball” and Olberman episodes.
…and get Martha Stewart to decorate their cells….
…then, start putting questions to ‘em…”I’ll talk, I’ll talk! Get Rosie outta here!”
Puritan1648 on October 26, 2006 at 9:55 PM
You people minimizing belly slapping … have clearly never been the recipient of a good belly slapping session.
That @#$@ hurts like a mother!@%@^.
Give me panties on my head any day. Much better than belly slapping.
Professor Blather on October 26, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Ow! Damn! My eyes! My eyes!
p.v. cornelius on October 27, 2006 at 2:33 AM
You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch.
p.v. cornelius on October 27, 2006 at 2:36 AM
It’s mostly 3.
He cares about executive authority, as does Cheney, but I don’t think that’s why he’s pushing the torture (”tough interrogation” — whatever) issue.
I don’t buy into 1 at all. I’ve never bought into the idea that Bush is evil. I wouldn’t have voted for him if I had. He’s misguided, and has at once both fascist and socialist tendencies — but his intentions are good.
I think he’s afraid of losing the Hispanic vote, so immigration might not be the best issue. The threat of terrorism is something that can cut across all sorts of boundaries. The threat is real — obviously, but a little exaggeration and hyping of the threat, when coupled with “tough on terror” measures can really rally people behind him. I think the main reason that he’s not been able to ride that issue to a 60% approval rating is his insistence that Iraq is linked to the war on terror. Iraq has sullied the war on terror more than the war on terror has boosted the war in Iraq. The outlook is too bleak and the casualties are too high. The only real weapon the Republicans have is promoting terrorism as a great, imminent and omnipresent threat to America, and making Republicans out to be the only ones who can combat it.
It goes something like this:
All points but the second one are horribly incorrect*, but it is a story that makes sense to a lot of people.
I also think that Bush thinks torture/toughness has a chance of working… again I don’t think he’s evil enough to torture people purely for political gain.
Of course I also don’t think he’s altruistic enough to do everything needed to combat the threat of terrorism. If he were, we’d be plugging border, ports and student visa holes instead of strip searching senators at the airport and banning the liquid state of matter. A lot of this (the majority, I’d say) is for show, which fits right into your number 3.
*Democrats are actually not very strong on civil liberties if you, like me, consider things like owning a gun and keeping the money you earn to be fundamental aspects of any country that wants to call itself “free” … but in the “civil liberties = ACLU agenda” sense, this is correct.
Mark Jaquith on October 27, 2006 at 2:45 AM
Engelbert Humperdink and a simultaneous cherry belly beat waterboarding anyday. (Maybe that’s why VP Cheney is smiling.)
Although I like ‘Rooster’ Cogburn’s suggestion of forced bungee jumps… as long as the Gitmo ‘detainees’ have no idea what it is before it is done to them.
profitsbeard on October 27, 2006 at 2:54 AM
Sad to say I usually never get a straight answer on torture from the Left. They are ideologically opposed to it, or anything that can be construed as torture, no matter what the consequences. Well, until you ask them about a specific set of consequences, when they will then evade answering the question entirely by claiming the scenario is implausible.
At least Bill Clinton was man enough to answer it. Of course, Clinton isn’t exactly a liberal, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Thanks for the link Allah.
Seixon on October 27, 2006 at 3:38 AM
More CNN bias…
That’s a loaded question. How about asking: Do you think the Bush administration has restricted your civil liberties in order to fight terrorism? If so, in what way?
morganfrost on October 27, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Comment pages: