From Bob Cesca.Com:
"CNN: 61 Percent Now Support the President’s Strategy on Syria
Posted on September 11, 2013 at 9:18 am by Bob Cesca
A majority of Americans who watched President Barack Obama’s prime time address to the nation on Tuesday said they favor the approach to Syria that the president spelled out in his speech, according to an instant poll.
But an exclusive CNN/ORC International survey of speech-watchers conducted immediately after the conclusion of Obama’s address also indicates that those who tuned into the address were split on whether the president made the case for military action against Syria.
Sixty percent of those questioned said it was not in the national interests of the U.S. to be involved in the bloody two year old Syrian civil war, and more than half said the speech did not change their confidence in the president’s leadership on military and international issues.
According to the poll, 61% said they support the president’s position on Syria, with 37% saying they oppose his response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens."
****************
Poll: 69% of Americans Viewed Obama’s Syria Speech Positively, 61% Favor His Approach
President Obama has been fighting an uphill battle to win support for an authorization to strike Syria in retaliation for an Aug. 21 Sarin gas attack, but a CNN/ORC poll taken following Tuesday night’s East Room address shows good news for the President’s Syria policy.
In that speech, Obama made the case for the necessity of a limited strike, but also for allowing time to let a burgeoning diplomatic solution play out.
CNN’s poll found that 61% of Americans favor “the approach to Syria that Barack Obama described in his speech.” Additionally, 69% of respondents said they felt “very positive” or “somewhat positive” about the speech.
If you drill down on the poll results, though, it appears that approval for the President’s approach relies heavily on the possible success of the diplomatic solution that suddenly became possible on Monday.
From CNN: The poll indicates that nearly two-thirds of those who watched the speech think that the situation in Syria is likely to be resolved through diplomatic efforts, with 35% disagreeing. But Obama said that he’s ordered the U.S. military “to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.”
According to the poll, those who watched the president were divided on whether Obama made a convincing case in his speech for U.S. military action in Syria, with 47% saying he did and 50% saying he didn’t. Virtually a tie with a +/- margin of error.
*******************
President Obama’s job rating holds steady despite Syria strife
Mark Murray, NBC News
20 comments:
I think it would be a mistake to take this as a shift in public opinion, though. It seems the majority still oppose use of military force in Syria. The reason more of them approve of Obama's approach is that, with the diplomatic option, his approach has come more into line with what they wanted.
True, Infidel753. I posted it only to demonstrate to those who believe President Obama is a lame duck that they shouldn't be doing a victory lap just yet.
Why must everything (or so it seems) be phrased in the terms of Hate or Like? Isn't approve or disapprove more accurate and less divisive?
Off to whatever...
Why? Because "Obama Haters" is accurate.
If you don't believe that, you should read the comment section of any conservative blog.
Interesting take from Andrew Sullivan's blog on presidential character:
"You seriously need to read James David Barber’s Presidential Character, about the primary traits of presidents and how they can predict presidential behavior. It will give you a good idea of what Obama is doing at any given moment because once you figure out what an Active-Positive is capable of then you know what Obama is capable of.
The key trait of an Active-Positive is Adaptive. Lincoln, for example, constantly looked like he was wavering between every issue during the conduct of the Civil War but in fact he was trying out every possibility towards a larger goal. Much like he wrote to Horace Greeley in that famous letter, if Lincoln had to free the slaves to preserve the Union he would; if he couldn’t to preserve the Union he would; if he freed only a portion of the slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation) he would do that. Lincoln was proved right: the Proclamation effectively blocked any European involvement and made more Union supporters into supporting the eventual end of slavery.
Adaptive A-P Presidents are more keen on compromise than the other three types (Active-Negatives won’t, Passive-Negatives might but would rather let someone else do it, Passive-Positives never want to rock any boat), and are certainly more creative in their solutions and in seeking alternate solutions as well. While the Active-Positive may look like a flip-flopper (especially to the more extremist wing of the president’s party) he’s actually shrewdly calculating the “long game” of getting his enemies to trip over themselves and his allies standing there gawking like they’ve never seen the Hand of God before.
I don’t buy into the current “story” that Obama got Kerry to float the chemical weapons solution that the Russian government quickly seized as a viable diplomatic answer. It really does look like Kerry pulled a gaffe. The genius of an Active-Positive President is to seize a gaffe and turn on a dime into making that gaffe work to his advantage."
Oh please, during the Bush terms liberal blogs were just as full of Bush hate, including yours.
All these numbers show, is Americans don't want to attack Syria, nothing new there, except Obama changed HIS mind about attacking right away. It's all up to Putin now. We will be back to talking about striking Syria in a week.
Of course. "Any" conservative blog is an Obama hater. Got it. Don't buy it, but really, it is whatever anyone chooses to make it.
Conservatism equals Obama hate. Any conservative (think fiscal and traditional pre "80") is therefore a Obama hater.
Right. Thanks for the update.
Anonymous: "Oh please, during the Bush terms liberal blogs were just as full of Bush hate, including yours."
I just did a search on my blog of all the posts concerning GWB. Not ONE OF THEM has the vitriol, the slander, and the blood-curdling hatred that can be found on any given day on conservative blogs when the subject is President Obama.
Since you did not give one shred of evidence of this "hate" that was published on my blog, I call your accusation B.S.
Oh, and BTW, this blogpost is about the president's numbers holding steady after certain rightwingers called for his impeachment.
RN: "Of course. "Any" conservative blog is an Obama hater."
Good catch, RN. I should have written "A LOT OF CONSERVATIVE BLOGS." I don't know why you're being defensive, since you're a Libertarian/Independent.
I'm not Wicked. Just watching out for ya! I may not be a great wordsmith (mostly small keys, auto spell check, and not proof reading) but I do pay attention.
Further clarification, and fiscal conservative.
APPARENTLY, IT DEPENDS on WHICH POLLS YOU CONSULT . OPINION DIFFERS CONSIDERABLY. Take a look:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling
Poll: Opposition to Syria strike grows
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579065284261448614.html
President Barack Obama's push for Congress to authorize military action in Syria faces headwinds from an American public that increasingly is wary of overseas entanglements and doubtful that an attack would benefit the U.S.
In a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, just 33% of those polled said Congress should approve Mr. Obama's request to attack Syria, while less than a quarter thinks military action is in the national interest.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove (see trends).
The latest figures include 23% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/welcomead/?ref=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
A Plea for Caution From Russia - Vladimir Putin, New York Times
The Obama Doctrine Has Officially Collapsed - James Carafano, FOX News
Obama Seeks to Affirm an International Norm - Fareed Zakaria, Wash Post
What Was the President Thinking? - Megan McArdle, Bloomberg
Stunning and Inexplicable Presidential Incompetence - Joe Klein, Tim
The Threat of Military Action Worked - Nicholas Kristof, New York Times
The Laurel and Hardy Presidency - Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal
Republican Lawmakers Drop Pretense of Sanity - Jonathan Bernstein, WP
Paul Krugman & the Bogus Wonk Gap Thesis - Tim Carney, DC Examiner
The Public's Foreign-Policy Reawakening - Robert Merry, National Interest
Why Obama's Speech Was So Muddy - Noam Scheiber, The New Republic
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/11/cnn-poll-61-who-watched-obamas-speech-say-they-favor-his-approach-to-syria/
He barely moved the dial on the key questions about whether this would achieve anything or whether it’s even in America’s national interest to do it.
Shaw, while you were not personally involved, there was quite a lot of very offensive Bush bashing, especially during the Katrina debacle.
Claiming, as did many liberals that Bush hated black people and wanted them dead as a reason for the horrible government response was absurd.
Likewise, media star Cindy Sheehan while protesting the Iraq war said frequently, as did many liberals, that Bush wanted Americans to die in Iraq for his political purposes. Another absurdity.
Add these to the 9/11 truthers on the liberal side and it was pretty terrible.
But, and this is where Les and I part company... there was no organized effort to delegitimize the presidency of George Bush. No one called into question with the ferocity we have seen directed at President Obama his right to be elected to the presidency.
Also, RN, Shaw did not say the blogs themselves were the problem. Z's blog is a good example. She does not use offensive language perse, and even though I disagree with her, she is usually polite. But if you look at her commenters, you will see much evidence of what Shaw is talking about.
Few of the regular conservatives who comment there, and I believe they are representative of what is now the dominant strain of the GOP, even bother to follow her example or her rule to "keep it decent, keep it kind, and keep it informative..."
Dave, you're correct.
A lot of the leftwing did go after GWB with nasty accusations and invective. I searched all my posts on GWB and did not find one that vilifies him or calls into question his love of country. I have criticized him for his policies. And I NEVER said a nasty word about Mrs. Bush or her children. Unlike the folks at some of the con blogs have done to Mrs. Obama.
I no longer comment at Geez and AOW, since anytime I do, their regulars attack me instead of my ideas. One of them even suggested that Muslims hunt me down and do me harm.
It's some sort of sickness with them.
Public opinion polls are often skewed according to the leanings of the pollsters, publications, or media outlets that conduct them. Offshore breezes don't impress me; prevailing winds do. We've seen this before - shifts in public opinion over days, weeks and months.
Today, there was op-ed piece in the NYT written by Vlad, the Impaler. It pissed off a lot of people, including this cephalopod. I suspect the op-ed will help Obama's numbers.
Due to obstruction and hostage-taking, our politicians have shot off more feet than an octopus has tentacles. Syria negotiations are at very delicate stage right now, and I hope partisan bickering will not undermine the President at this time.
Did I suggest Shaw did use offensive language?
I, after researching the ligetimacy of Obama's birthplace via all available documentation never questioned his lawful right to serve as President. Nor did I approve of the extreme lunacy of those on the right who continue to do so yet today.
I no longer visit geeeeZ. Reasons should be obvious.
Nor do I visit GeeeeZ anymore. I sent her a detailed explanation as well. She tolerates considerable venom from the right.
Right, in 21 minutes you searched ALL the posts you did on the 8 years of Bush's presidency? Doesn't sound real.
Anon,
you obviously don't run a blog, nor do you know how to look at a blog.
If you knew how to look at a blog, you'd see that I started blogging in December of 2006.
So I only blogged 2 years and 1 and 1/2 months of Bush's administration, not 8 years.
That's one thing you were wrong on.
Second issue you're wrong on: This blog allows me to do a word search, so I plugged in President Bush's name and all the blog posts that I wrote about him came up.
And none had the "Bush hate" you referred to.
And that most certainly is real.
Next time try doing your homework before you write something, m'kay?
Anon @Sept12 and@Sept.16 is also Lib Buster and he/she has reading comprehension problems:
Lib BusterSeptember 16, 2013 at 12:58:00 PM EDT
Shaw must be Superwomen, in only EIGHT minutes, she searched through every blog post, every comment that she has done in 8 years of blogging and found that she NEVER said a curse word about George Bush at all. NEVER! But those bad assed Conservatives do it every day 24/7, all over the blogisphere, and especially over at AOW'S..
Obama's own moderate supporters, that effectively put and kept him in office, are now critically questioning him; as they should.
It reminds me of 2006 when moderate Bush backers turned away from him. Obama was elected. As well, I am reminded of 2010. Dems may suffer serious loses in the House and Senate in 2014.
The pendulum swings by the hand of moderates. Blogs are run by the far ends of the spectrum. Some blogs on the left and right are missing current trending because they have blind spots.
Post a Comment