Sunday, January 29, 2006

Polman Misses (Again)

Sphere: Related Content

Dick Polman--the Inqy's "Political Analyst"--says that the State of the Union address must be aimed at the conservative base:

It's time once again for the State of the Union address, that annual rite of presidential pageantry, but all the standing ovations won't mask the fact that George W. Bush starts his sixth year struggling to regain his former popularity and needing to restoke enthusiasm among restive conservative loyalists.

Polman starts off on the wrong foot here. Bush has already "restoked" the enthusiasm. Just witness the Alito nomination and the meltdown occurring in the Democratic party because of it. The Alito hearings assured the base that Bush has in fact nominated a true conservative to the highest court, a nomination that will tilt the court even more toward the federalist mindset.

Ostensibly, the State of the Union is a policy document, a laundry list of promises punctuated by soaring rhetoric that is quickly forgotten. But this Bush speech, slated for delivery on Tuesday night, can also be viewed as a political blueprint - a survival manual for the congressional Republican majority, which has a rendezvous with the voters in November.

Polman is an unabashed Democrat and is a liberal to boot, his wishful thinking comes across in this piece even stronger than previous essays. He's buying into the mindset that runs rampant through the lefty chattering classes that Republicans are in real trouble come November.

What the Donks fail to recognize is that ousting an incumbent is a tough task, especially with candidates who have the Kos' of the world to placate. Witness the barrage aimed at Bob Casey for showing support for Alito--the lefty sites went bonkers and are already pushing for a replacement for the man who is far and away their only chance of beating the evil Rick Santorum. Primaries by their very nature are a survival test and always force a candidate to pander to the base. The problem for the Donks is that the base now is up for grabs and the likes of Kos, Atrios and MyDD are the ones driving the daily discussion. Don't get me wrong, these sites are a major force that has serious pull within the donk ranks, and that is what the GOP is banking on. Any candidate who wins a primary will be forced to answer for statements made during said primary and the Republican candidate will bludgeon him with his (or her) own words.

Americans hear what the far left fringes those sites represent have to say and in my opinion, they don't agree with alot of it. The inherent difference between the left and the right is this: the far left dominates the discussion while the far right is virtually excluded. Look at the most popular sites on the right--Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, Captain Ed and Powerline, no matter how much the left bashes them as "fascist" or "Nazi", anyone with a shred of intelligence can see that these statements are false and outright lies. Other sites such RWN and Redstate give daily breakdowns of what is going on without resorting to the outrageous statements you see at the lefty sites.

One thing about the right-leaning sites is that we bash our own extremists with as much venom as we do the opposition. That is not the case on the left.

Dare I say that the right wing commentators seem saner? I think so and the American public sees that also.

Anyway, we continue with Polmans "analysis"

Here's the gist of Bush's problem: He has lost many of the independent swing voters who helped cement his victory margin in 2004. Independents split 50-50 on Bush that November; today, polls show that only 34 percent support him. Pollsters at Fox News now peg his overall popularity at 41 percent, the lowest yet recorded by the network. That leaves only conservatives and Republicans as solid supporters, despite their own qualms about his tenure. Their behavior this year is crucial; Bush and his GOP majority may be doomed unless these people show up en masse on Election Day.

He uses weasel words here such as "may be doomed" so he can go back and say he wasn't wrong. He also uses polls, which have been shown time and again to mean nothing ten months out. I guarantee that the numbers are far different come October/November.

This is what Polman wants to happen, not what history has shown will happen. Again, his wishful thinking tends to cloud his "analysis" of the issue and to me that's just fine.

No comments: