&%#!
Remember back in the day, when we heard endlessly about how some significant percentage of Republicans -- or Fox News viewers, what's the difference, right? -- believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? It was supposed to mean something about Republican ignorance or gullibility or insanity or something.
Well, it appears that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew beforehand about the 9/11 attacks, and another 26% are "not sure." So Rosie O'Donnell is, in some respects, representative of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, the "mainstream media" does a Sergeant Schultz impression: "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"
Well, it appears that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew beforehand about the 9/11 attacks, and another 26% are "not sure." So Rosie O'Donnell is, in some respects, representative of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, the "mainstream media" does a Sergeant Schultz impression: "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"
posted by Kate Marie | 11:27 AM | Permalink
|
6 comments
6 Comments:
1. Back in the day, a substory was that many Americans believed in the Saddam-9/11 link - see for example this. Though I'm sure the percentage was higher among Republicans...
Similarly here, a substory is that a significant minority of Americans believe that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand - from the same poll, 22%.
2. 35% is not a majority, so I think you are being too hasty when you say that Rosie O'Donnell is representative of the party.
3. The media is right to devote more attention to the Saddam-9/11 link given that we went to a war with Iraq. In this case, the belief in a proposition with scant supporting evidence becomes part of a much larger story...
Alex, I say Rosie is representative of the party because she has both promulgated some of the myths about the attacks that have been debunked in Popular Mechanics and elsewhere, and because after spouting those myths she insisted she was merely keeping an open mind, "asking questions," etc. Those positions suggest she is representative of the 35% who believe Bush knew and of the 26% who are not sure. If you want to claim that she can't represent both categories (since her final word, as far as I know, was that she wasn't "sure"), she's actually takes a more "moderate" view than the third of Democrats who believe Bush knew.
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether the media was right to devote more a *lot* attention to one story than the other. I think it's pretty significant when the majority of Democrats either believes Bush knew beforehand, or they aren't sure. In any event, lots of people claimed that the former polls were representative of Republican ignorance, insanity etc. To be consistent, those same people would have to concede that these current polls are representative of Democrat ignorance, insanity, etc.
Ooops, change "more a *lot* attention" to "a *lot* more attention."
- Come on, Kate Marie, thats some fuzzy math :) Using this argument, I could say that Rosie is representative of nearly half of the American people, since the Rasmussen poll has 22% saying don't know, and 22% not sure. Thats close to a half, and factor in margin of error....
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether the media was right to devote more a *lot* attention to one story than the other. I think it's pretty significant when the majority of Democrats either believes Bush knew beforehand, or they aren't sure.
I agree. I also think its significant that this statement is close to holding if you replace "Democrats" with "Americans" - again, 44% vs. majority. But can this really be in the same ballpark as the Iraq war, which is what the Saddam-9/11 thing sheds light on?
Sure, Alex, I'm happy to stipulate that, in this instance, Rosie is representative of roughly half of the American people -- the stupid half. I'd simply note that, in this instance, she is *not* representative of Republicans.
Fair enough :)
Post a Comment
<< Home