Support for Libyan bombing

[Bucky]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/21/rel5a.pdf
(see page 7)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya?

Yes- 50%
No - 41%

Among Democrats
Yes- 73%
No - 20%

Among Republicans
Yes- 27%
No - 63%


Republican tribalism is strong. The president is bombing people for oil and they're STILL against him. Sheesh

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. I hate to say it but the other side of the coin looks

surprisingly similar.

[ixion]

2. indeed... party loyalty above all

very sad.

[Bucky]

3. There's some validity to that. However, 73% is pretty weak for rallying round the flag

Ghaddafy was sending out thugs to gun down his own people. With such a tepid response (50% support) for stopping a well publicized humanitarian nightmare like Libya tells me something else. Americans have gotten an Iraqi booster shot to enhance our Vietnam syndrome. We're a lot more cynical about our war powers than we were 9 years ago.

I'm not arguing this is a just war, but I think we can reasonably agree that it's a good deal more justifiable than the Iraq intervention.

[bobbolink]

6. You are definitely on the right track with your thinking. There ARE differences.. important ones.

It is not easy for those of us who have protested war all our adult lives to recognize that there are some real differences that require different thinking.

It has been a painful process for us all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I remember when the Democratic Party was regarded as the (sort of) anti-war party.

And, it was the Republicans were the warmongers.

I guess that "dimes worth of difference" has been chiseled down to a wooden nickel.

[Bucky]

5. I don't remember that.

Democrats are traditionally much more susceptible to rally-round-the-leader thinking. When 9-11 happened, or when Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990, Democrats supported the president, regardless of party--we put country first. I mean, yes, we opposed Iraq War II, but only because some of us could smell the lies. A whole lot of Democrats actually did sign up for that debacle, too. As a certain Illinois state senator said in 2003: "I'm not antiwar; I'm just anti-dumb-wars."

Republican patriotism is, historically speaking, contingent upon the party of the president at the moment. As this poll shows, when a Democratic president decides the national interest requires fighting, the only thing Republicans rally to is a "blame the other guy" party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. As I said, "regarded as" and "sort of".

That other glorious cause in SE Asia cleared up any delusions I had about the difference in parties.