Poll: Obama supporters strongly opposed to deal extending Bush tax cuts
By Greg Sargent
Washington Post: 12/7/2010
Okay, we now have our first poll measuring the impact on the Democratic base
of Obama's support for a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts.
Suffice it to say this is a major, make-or-break issue with them that could
have real political ramifications for the President and Congressional
Democrats.
The poll, done by the respected non-partisan firm Survey USA, surveyed over
1,000 people who contributed time or money to Obama in 2008, and found
intense, overwhelming opposition among them to Obama's support for a
temporary extension of the tax cuts for the rich. This supports the notion
that there may indeed be a serious liberal revolt in reaction to it.
Indeed, majorities of people who contributed to Obama in 2008 say they
are *less likely* to support Obama and Democrats because of his backing for
the temporary extension.
I got an advance look at the poll, which was commissioned by MoveOn, and you
can read the polling memo right
here<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/PollMemo_FINAL_120710.pdf>.
The key findings:
The poll shows clearly that *these contributors are deeply opposed (74%) to
a deal* with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax breaks for those making
over $250,000 a year. The depth of opposition to a deal is severe with
former Obama contributors saying that *they are less likely (57%) to support
Democrats who support this deal in 2012.*
A majority of the former Obama contributors surveyed also say that the
President's deal also makes them *less likely (51%) to contribute to his
reelection campaign in 2012.*
So 57 percent of Obama contributors say they are less likely to support
Congressional Dems for reelection if they back the temporary extension,
meaning there could be a political cost for Dems for embracing it. And more
than half, 51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for
Obama's reelection in 2012, suggesting it could damage his ability to turn
out the same coalition that elected him in 2008.
These findings goes directly to the heart of a question that commentators
are starting to ask: Does the left's anger matter? Will it have any impact?
No doubt some will argue that it can only help Obama to anger the left.
But clearly there's also a real risk that this kind of deal -- and the
broader strategy the White House appears to be embracing -- could further
demoralize the base. While Adam Serwer is right to
note<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/a_liberal_revolt_over_the_tax.html>that
over time passions on the left could subside, particularly if Obama
delivers on other core liberal priorities such as the repeal of don't ask
don't tell, it's also perfectly possible that trading away core liberal
priorities will levy major political costs on Obama and Democrats in
general.
***
From: "Sid Shniad" <shniad@gmail.com>
*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*
December 7, 2010
4:00 PM
*CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) <http://www.accuracy.org/>*
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures
WASHINGTON - December 7 - The following statement was released today, signed
by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray
McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are
associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.
WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle,
and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying
desperately to stuff the genie back in. The people listed below this release
would be pleased to shed light on these exciting new developments.
How far down the U.S. has slid can be seen, ironically enough, in a recent
commentary in Pravda (that's right, Russia's Pravda): "What WikiLeaks has
done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically
apathetic ... After all, the evils committed by those in power can be
suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing,
especially when ... government evildoers almost always get away with their
crimes. ..."
So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes
about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and
torturers to walk freely upon the earth. ... the American people should be
outraged that their government has transformed a nation with a reputation
for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a
backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and
hypocrisies.
Odd, isn't it, that it takes a Pravda commentator to drive home the point
that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history. Most of our
own media are demanding that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange be hunted down
-- with some of the more bloodthirsty politicians calling for his murder.
The corporate-and-government dominated media are apprehensive over the
challenge that WikiLeaks presents. Perhaps deep down they know, as Dickens
put it, "There is nothing so strong ... as the simple truth."
As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary
over the weekend has tried to portray Assange's exposure of classified
materials as very different from -- and far less laudable than -- what
Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg
strongly rejects the mantra "Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad."
He continues: "That's just a cover for people who don't want to admit that
they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive
foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and
Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at
the time."
Motivation? WikiLeaks' reported source, Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, having
watched Iraqi police abuses, and having read of similar and worse incidents
in official messages, reportedly concluded, "I was actively involved in
something that I was completely against." Rather than simply go with the
flow, Manning wrote: "I want people to see the truth ... because without
information you cannot make informed decisions as a public," adding that he
hoped to provoke worldwide discussion, debates, and reform.
There is nothing to suggest that WikiLeaks/Assange's motives were any
different. Granted, mothers are not the most impartial observers. Yet, given
what we have seen of Assange's behavior, there was the ring of truth in
Assange's mother's recent remarks in an interview with an Australian
newspaper. She put it this way: "Living by what you believe in and standing
up for something is a good thing. . He sees what he is doing as a good thing
in the world, fighting baddies, if you like."
That may sound a bit quixotic, but Assange and his associates appear the
opposite of benighted. Still, with the Pentagon PR man Geoff Morrell and
even Attorney General Eric Holder making thinly disguised threats of
extrajudicial steps, Assange may be in personal danger.
The media: again, the media is key. No one has said it better than Monseñor
Romero of El Salvador, who just before he was assassinated 25 years ago
warned, "The corruption of the press is part of our sad reality, and it
reveals the complicity of the oligarchy." Sadly, that is also true of the
media situation in America today.
The big question is not whether Americans can "handle the truth." We believe
they can. The challenge is to make the truth available to them in a
straightforward way so they can draw their own conclusions -- an uphill
battle given the dominance of the mainstream media, most of which have
mounted a hateful campaign to discredit Assange and WikiLeaks.
So far, the question of whether Americans can "handle the truth" has been an
academic rather than an experience-based one, because Americans have had
very little access to the truth. Now, however, with the WikiLeaks
disclosures, they do. Indeed, the classified messages from the Army and the
State Department released by WikiLeaks are, quite literally, "ground truth."
How to inform American citizens? As a step in that direction, on October 23
we "Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence" (see below)
presented our annual award for integrity to Julian Assange. He accepted the
honor "on behalf of our sources, without which WikiLeaks' contributions are
of no significance." In presenting the award, we noted that many around the
world are deeply indebted to truth-tellers like WikiLeaks and its sources.
Here is a brief footnote: Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence
(SAAII) is a group of former CIA colleagues and other admirers of former
intelligence analyst Sam Adams, who hold up his example as a model for those
who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power. (For more, please
see here <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/24-8>.)
Sam did speak truth to power on Vietnam, and in honoring his memory, SAAII
confers an award each year to a truth-teller exemplifying Sam Adams'
courage, persistence, and devotion to truth -- no matter the consequences.
Previous recipients include:
-Coleen Rowley of the FBI
-Katharine Gun of British Intelligence
-Sibel Edmonds of the FBI
-Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan
-Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army
-Frank Grevil, Maj., Danish Army Intelligence
-Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret.)
-Julian Assange, WikiLeaks
"There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that
will not be made known. Everything you have said in the dark will be heard
in the daylight; what you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed
from the rooftops."
-- Luke 12:2-3
The following former awardees and other associates have signed the above
statement; some are available for interviews:
*DANIEL ELLSBERG*
A former government analyst, Ellsberg <http://www.ellsberg.net/> leaked the
Pentagon Papers, a secret government history of the Vietnam War to the New
York Times and other newspapers in 1971. He was an admirer of Sam Adams when
they were both working on Vietnam and in March 1968 disclosed to the New
York Times some of Adams' accurate analysis, helping head off reinforcement
of 206,000 additional troops into South Vietnam and a widening of the war at
that time to neighboring countries.
*FRANK GREVIL <frank@grevil.dk>*
Grevil, a former Danish intelligence analyst, was imprisoned for giving the
Danish press documents showing that Denmark's Prime Minister (now NATO
Secretary General) disregarded warnings that there was no authentic evidence
of WMD in Iraq; in Copenhagen, Denmark.
*KATHARINE GUN*
Gun <http://www.accuracy.org/gun> is a former British government employee
who faced two years imprisonment in England for leaking a U.S. intelligence
memo before the invasion of Iraq. The memo indicated that the U.S. had
mounted a spying "surge" against U.N. Security Council delegations in early
2003 in an effort to win approval for an Iraq war resolution. The leaked
memo -- published by the British newspaper The Observer on March 2, 2003 --
was big news in parts of the world, but almost ignored in the United States.
The U.S. government then failed to obtain a U.N. resolution approving war,
but still proceeded with the invasion.
*DAVID MacMICHAEL <dmacmi@centurylink.net>*
MacMichael is a former CIA analyst. He resigned in the 1980s when he came to
the conclusion that the CIA was slanting intelligence on Central America for
political reasons. He is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.
*RAY McGOVERN <rrmcgovern@gmail.com>*
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, whose duties included preparing and
briefing the President's Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence
Estimates. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity.
*CRAIG MURRAY <craigmurray1710@btinternet.com>*
Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, was fired from his job when he
objected to Uzbeks being tortured to gain "intelligence" on "terrorists."
Upon receiving his Sam Adams award, Murray said, "I would rather die than
let someone be tortured in an attempt to give me some increment of
security." Observers have noted that Murray was subjected to similar
character assassination techniques as Julian Assange is now encountering to
discredit him.
*COLEEN ROWLEY <rowleyclan@earthlink.net>*
Rowley, a former FBI Special Agent and Division Counsel whose May 2002 memo
described some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of Time
Magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She recently co-wrote a Los
Angeles Times op-ed titled, "WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? Frustrated
investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors
bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism
attacks<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015,0,5616717.story>."
*LARRY WILKERSON*
Wilkerson, Col., U.S. Army (ret.), former chief of staff to Secretary Colin
Powell at the State Department, who criticized what he called the
"Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal." See recent
interviews<http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5949>
###
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public
Accuracy<http://www.accuracy.org/>(IPA) represents an unprecedented
effort to bring other voices to the
mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to
broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication
with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
No comments:
Post a Comment