Dr. Dean Emerges From The Pack
Coming out of the DNC cattle call shute with the momentum, the media is still trying to figure out a way to cast Dean in an "AntiWar'" mold, boxing him in:
But Dean isn't holding a "far left" stance, even though the Republicans are portraying it as such. The new Gallup poll out, shows just how centrist Dean's position on invading Iraq remains. The polll also shows how alienated that Bush and the other Democrats (especially) are on their pro-invasion stance. The centrist UN approach that Dean advocates for is quite different from the avid war protesting group that's against invading Iraq even with the UN's approval.
Dean, by advocating for the UN's approval, is positioned with the majority, either way:
In otherwords, amongst the partisans, the war is a wash of deep conviction, whereas amongst the 40% in the middle, it's just not an issue they are involved with deeply.
Candidates Gephardt, Lieberman Kerry and Edwards are counting on the war to be history by the time next year's Iowa’s caucuses roll around. But as they start out on the trail, it is Dean who not only is in sync with Democratic voters and fundraisers on an issue they care passionately about, but who is coming off as bold and authentic in comparison to the carefully scripted members of Congress.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff put out similar poll numbers last week and gleefully predicted a "Democratic Party meltdown" over the Iraq issue. The conventional wisdom is that the Democratic anti-war message is too far to the left and candidates who articulate it will be badly positioned in a general election.
But Dean isn't holding a "far left" stance, even though the Republicans are portraying it as such. The new Gallup poll out, shows just how centrist Dean's position on invading Iraq remains. The polll also shows how alienated that Bush and the other Democrats (especially) are on their pro-invasion stance. The centrist UN approach that Dean advocates for is quite different from the avid war protesting group that's against invading Iraq even with the UN's approval.
Dean, by advocating for the UN's approval, is positioned with the majority, either way:
These results underscore the pivotal role that a new United Nations vote can have in helping Americans formalize their views on the pending war. As can be seen, about two-thirds of Americans (66%) can be characterized as opposing a war without a new U.N. vote. At the same time, about the same number (70%) can be characterized as supporting the war if the United Nations does in fact authorize it. Right now, it is unclear whether the United States can get enough votes in the U.N. Security Council -- without a veto from France, Russia, or China, -- to get that authorization.
These results are very similar to those reviewed above based on an analysis of the intensity of public opinion. About 3 out of 10 Americans are on either end of the spectrum -- those who generally support war regardless of what the U.N. does and/or are unlikely to change their minds, versus those who generally oppose war regardless of what the U.N. does and/or are also unlikely to change their minds. The remainder have more mixed feelings about the situation, and can be swayed by the specific conditions under which movement toward war may come about.
In otherwords, amongst the partisans, the war is a wash of deep conviction, whereas amongst the 40% in the middle, it's just not an issue they are involved with deeply.
Comments