Tastes Great! Less Filling!

This is precious:

Forty-nine percent of 1,007 adult Americans said in phone interviews they believe Bush is a "uniter," according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday. Another 49 percent called him a "divider," and 2 percent had no opinion.

Via Sullivan.

Comments

[joe]

If half the country makes the subjective judgement that Bush is divisive, does that prove that the people who consider him to be a unifying figure are objectively wrong?

[rst]

does that prove that the people who consider him to be a unifying figure are objectively wrong?

It proves that the exercise was a joke. Did you really expect any part of the half of the country who voted for Kerry in November to turn around now nigh on inauguration and attribute any favorable characteristic to Bush whatsoever?

It also proves that people who think that 1,007 adults constitute "the nation" need to be shot.

[Twba]

Don't shoot Joe, he provides good laughs.

[Dave Weigel]

people who think that 1,007 adults constitute "the nation" need to be shot.

With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

[joe]

"Did you really expect any part of the half of the country who voted for Kerry in November to turn around now nigh on inauguration and attribute any favorable characteristic to Bush whatsoever?"

No, rst, I didn't. I was hoping that slightly more than 4% of Bush voters would realize that a guy half the country loathes isn't a unifiying figure. There seems to be some "I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon" syndrome going on.

[drf]

Dave - your suggestion would be strange love, indeed...........

[trainwreck]

Stale.

Marshall had this headline yesterday.

[Gary Gunnels]

I am part of the 2% who don't give a shit. 🙂

[me]

rst: Statistics 101. Yes, it is possible to gauge public opinion with a reasonable degree of accuracy by interviewing a random sample of 1,000 people.

[Gary Gunnels]

This is MSNBC's take:

Bush ratings rise to highest level since March

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6845235/

[Ball of Confusion]

I'm guessing the 49% who think he's a uniter might have been talking about uniting church and state.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Is there anybody here who actually suffers from employment?

[Gary Gunnels]

Bill Clinton as "unifier" in 1997: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/issues/unify.htm

[Gilbert Martin]

"I was hoping that slightly more than 4% of Bush voters would realize that a guy half the country loathes isn't a unifiying figure."

Since the other half loathes Kerry, he wouldn't have been any more of a "unifying figure" either.

It takes at least two to make an argument. Whatever divides exist in the country are just as much the fault of those on the blue side as they are of those on the red side.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

It takes at least two to make an argument. Whatever divides exist in the country are just as much the fault of those on the blue side as they are of those on the red side.

But those on either side aren't checking out what the other side is seeing. And both sides think they're right.

[Gary Gunnels]

Its unfortunate we don't execute the losers of a Presidential election. 🙂

[joe]

"Since the other half loathes Kerry, he wouldn't have been any more of a "unifying figure" either."

True, but irrelevant. The point is not that the left half of the country dislikes George Bush. The point is, 96% of the right half of the country seems to think the left half doesn't exist. I doubt that 96% of Kerry's supporters would have deluded themselves into thinking the country was united behind him.

[thoreau]

Is there anybody here who actually suffers from employment?

Not you, evidently! 😉

It takes at least two to make an argument. Whatever divides exist in the country are just as much the fault of those on the blue side as they are of those on the red side.

Amen!

But I still think that a 49-51 poll on the question of unity is an example or irony. Reminds me of "The Life of Brian":

Brian: You don't need a leader to tell you want to do. You're all individuals. You can think for yourselves!

Crowd: (in unison) We're all individuals! We can think for ourselves!

Lone voice of dissent: I'm not.

Crowd in unison: Hush!

[thoreau]

I doubt that 96% of Kerry's supporters would have deluded themselves into thinking the country was united behind him.

joe, I was with you until you underestimated the stupidity of the Democrats.

[Gilbert Martin]

"But those on either side aren't checking out what the other side is seeing. And both sides think they're right."

It has ever been thus.

Each side is not "seeing" - they are valuing and judging based on their own philosophies and ideologies.

One person observes situation X and says, "This is terrible we (i.e government) must do something about it". Another person says, "Wait a minute, government can't do something about X without infringing on freedom Y". The first person replies that resolving X is more important than preserving freedom Y to which the second person replies, no it's not.

There are no "facts" that prove one side or the other is "right". What is "right" is a function of the values one perceives the facts with.

[Larry A]

Joe: [I was hoping that slightly more than 4% of Bush voters would realize that a guy half the country loathes isn't a unifiying figure.]

The question said "uniter," not "unifyer." The poll has Bush with 49% united for him and 49% united against him. That's 98% united v. 2% undecided. Just how much more of a uniter can he be?

[Gilbert Martin]

"joe, I was with you until you underestimated the stupidity of the Democrats."

Yeah.

They're the ones who thought Clinton's win was a mandate for a Hillarycare socialized medicine system.

[Gary Gunnels]

Bushs sucks. So does Kerry. End of story.

[joe]

'There are no "facts" that prove one side or the other is "right".'

When half the country considers someone divisive, those who say he is unifying are factually wrong.

You don't hear Democrats saying that Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy are unifying figures.

[joe]

"They're the ones who thought Clinton's win was a mandate for a Hillarycare socialized medicine system."

You mean, the election where the Republican candidate also came out in favor of universal health insurance? The health care plan that had around 60% support the day Congress killed it?

A lot of bad history has been written about that episode.

[kwais]

I was watching that poll while I was eating lunch, and thinking what a most pointless poll it was. It is not something I was curious about, and the result is not surprising. What is the point of that inane piece of information?

[Skeptikos]

Silly Mofos. It's funny, half feel the leader...really on so many levels it doesn't matter which man won for this great cosmic joke to be performed, just great timing.....I'm guessing this would be the result....regardless.....it's days like this that I love living in this country....but then philosophically, I could best be described as a zen confucian absurdist erisian. Laugh, the poll is the best of all jokes....it gets better every time I consider it.....

[dhex]

to give us something to talk about, obviously.

[thoreau]

Um, was Trent Lott the master of ceremonies for the inaugural? If so, then I think it's safe to say that W is not interested in unity.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Did he start waxing eloquently about Strom Thurmond again? 🙂

[thoreau]

Gary-

I didn't see the whole thing, so I don't know. But during the part that I saw he kept his mouth shut about Strom.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

He wasn't carrying a placard that said "Thurmond 2008! He'll Fix Our Problems!," eh? 🙂

[dhex]

it certainly tastes of She What Dun It All, that's for sure...

[Gilbert Martin]

"The health care plan that had around 60% support the day Congress killed it?"

60% according to whose poll?

[Gilbert Martin]

"When half the country considers someone divisive, those who say he is unifying are factually wrong."

No, they just quite properly observe that the dissenters are divisively resisting his unification.

[thoreau]

No, they just quite properly observe that the dissenters are divisively resisting his unification.

Um, unification is about succeeding, not trying. If you don't unite people then you aren't a uniter. It doesn't matter how hard you tried, or how stubborn the other guys are. If you don't succeed at it then you don't succeed at it.

Are conservatives now grading on a curve?

[Isaac Bartram]

Gilbert Martin

Any plan that promises "gimme everything I want for free" will get at least 60% support.

This is the American people we're talking about after all.

thoreau

You're on a roll today, "conservatives grading on a curve" hehehehe

[Josh]

Um, unification is about succeeding, not trying. If you don't unite people then you aren't a uniter. It doesn't matter how hard you tried, or how stubborn the other guys are. If you don't succeed at it then you don't succeed at it.

What? If the Eagles lose the NFC title again, does that mean Donovan McNabb's not a quarterback?

[Gilbert Martin]

" If you don't unite people then you aren't a uniter. It doesn't matter how hard you tried, or how stubborn the other guys are. If you don't succeed at it then you don't succeed at it."

Well that's YOUR perception of it. As far as I'm concerned, any divisivess that exists due to leftists insisting on staying left (i.e incorrect) despite a leaders efforts to unifiy in a rightward (i.e. correct) direction is ALWAYS their fault - period.

Or to put it another way, he succeeding in unifying those who should actually count - and that's close enough for me.

[Gary Gunnels]

Gilbert Martin,

Hmm, I'm not a leftist and I don't support Bush. Your analysis appears to be suffering from the fallacy of an underinclusive definition.

[Gilbert Martin]

Sorry Gary.

If you're a square peg, you still have to go into a round hole.

[Isaac Bartram]

does that mean Donovan McNabb's not a quarterback?

You can be a good QB or a bad Qb or a mediocre QB.

You can either unite or not unite, there is no in between.

[Les]

Damn it, Gary! Things are either round or square! It's as simple as that!

You divisive, leftist bastard, you. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Les,

He he he. 🙂

Someday maybe the LP will dominate someone besides a complete lunatic. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

...nominate...

Hmm, the LP and S&M. 🙂

[Gilbert Martin]

Watch it Gary

You're peg is getting squarer by the minute.

[dhex]

he's a uniter, for sure. he unites the notbush crowd into believing he's the worst thing since hitler (instead of an insignificant man living in significant times) and unites the rest of them into believing that the proper millionaire will save them from the scary brown people.

[joe]

"60% according to whose poll?"

I don't remember - one of the nationals (Gallup or Mason Dixon or somesuch), as printed in the Boston Globe.

If I recall correctly, Time Magazine had polling throughout the battle that consistently showed solid majority support.

[thoreau]

Well that's YOUR perception of it.

I guess conservatives are in fact grading on a curve now! Everything's a matter of perception. 😉

As far as I'm concerned, any divisivess that exists due to leftists insisting on staying left (i.e incorrect) despite a leaders efforts to unifiy in a rightward (i.e. correct) direction is ALWAYS their fault - period.

Even if that's true, the fact remains that he didn't unite the country. If he didn't do it, then he didn't do it.

Or to put it another way, he succeeding in unifying those who should actually count - and that's close enough for me.

What do you mean by "those who should actually count"?

[Isaac Bartram]

he's a uniter, for sure. he unites the notbush crowd into believing he's the worst thing since hitler (instead of an insignificant man living in significant times) and unites the rest of them into believing that the proper millionaire will save them from the scary brown people.

Didn't Clinton "unite" people in much the same way?

You could count on a synchronized apoplectic fit from Repubs if his name came up, let alone said anything remotely favorable.

[Gilbert Martin]

"What do you mean by "those who should actually count"?"

If you have to ask - then you don't.

[thoreau]

On the issue of a quarterback:

A quarterback is a job. If you have the job and you work at it then you're a quarterback. You might be a good one or a bad one or an average one or whtaever, but you're still a quarterback.

A Super Bowl winner, on the other hand, is a title that must be earned.

A President is a President. If you win the office you're President. But not all Presidents are uniters. Uniters do something that achieves broad consensus and earns the respect of the other side. Bush hasn't won a lot of respect from outside his base and a portion of the independents. The combo of base + some independents is enough to win an election (of course) but there's more to national unity than winning an election.

Saying he isn't a uniter isn't necessarily an insult. Uniting the country isn't easy, and not all Presidents have succeeded at it.

[bigbigslacker]

If two parties see an arbitrator, and fail to reach an agreement...

OK, can we agree on what the meaning of "is" is?

[thoreau]

Me: What do you mean by "those who should actually count?

Gilbert: If you have to ask - then you don't.

Aw, man, yet another exclusive club that won't have me as a member!

Is it because I'm Catholic?

[thoreau]

If two parties see an arbitrator, and fail to reach an agreement...

Then it could very well be that the arbitrator is in fact good at his job and these two parties are simply beyond reconciliation. But we won't know that unless the arbitrator has succeeded in other cases.

All we know about Bush's skills as a uniter is that he hasn't done much to unite the US. Maybe the situation is beyond any President's skills, and maybe in a less dysfunctional situation he could shine. The fact remains that he hasn't shined in that regard. Whatever the reason may be, the facts remain the same.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Aw, man, yet another exclusive club that won't have me as a member!

Is it because I'm Catholic?"

Naw.

It's because you're not in total agreement with me.

In MY talleybook, all those who disagree with me are expunged from the pages.

[thoreau]

Gilbert-

If you have zero use for anybody who isn't in agreement with you, why waste your time on a site where so many people argue with you?

[joe]

"Uniters do something that achieves broad consensus and earns the respect of the other side."

Or at least make an honest effort. To take this country from the national unity that existing after 9/11 to where we are today requires a real effort to divide the country. Like accusing people who disagree with your policies of aiding terrorists, or not caring about the security of the American people. Or, by using the forum of a presidential debate/campaign to insult people based on the region or state of their birth.

[thoreau]

joe, I was thinking about your hunch that Walter Wallis is really somebody else. And now I wonder if Gilbert Martin might be somebody's satirical take on conservatives. Or maybe even Walter himself.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gilbert-

If you have zero use for anybody who isn't in agreement with you, why waste your time on a site where so many people argue with you?"

I didn't say I had zero use for them, I just said their opinions don't count - it ain't the same thing.

[Gilbert Martin]

"To take this country from the national unity that existing after 9/11 to where we are today requires a real effort to divide the country"

Was there national unity on gay marriage?

Was there national unity on reforming social security?

Was there national unity on whether we should have a national socialized medicine scheme?

I don't think so.

There was an increased national unity of determination to fight the war on terrorism - but the subsequent divisivness that ensued over HOW to best go about that is every bit as much the fault of your side of the political aisle as it is the other side.

[linguist]

But did everyone miss the best headline reporting this story?

"Country divided over whether Bush is a uniter or divider"

It was actually better than that but I lost the link.

[Isaac Bartram]

Yeah, but if you're for gay marriage you're with the terrorists cause they're for.... no wait.....

[Isaac Bartram]

What's all this shit about being UNITED anyway.

I thought the whole point of America was we didn't have to march in lockstep for the GREAT NATIONAL PURPOSE.

But then I've been wrong before.

[ADA Southerlyn]

Thoreau asked:
"Is it because I'm Catholic?"

Wrong question. As of last week's episode of "Law & Order", the proper question to ask is: "Is it because I'm a lesbian?"

😉

[joe]

Gil, there were certainly differences of opinion about all those issues, but there was also a sense that common purpose and identification underlying them - a sense that people can disagree about issues and still be good Americans. When Pat Robertson blamed gays and liberals for the terror attacks, he was roundly condemned even by other cultural conservatives.

Now, being one side or the other of those same issues is widely seen as sorting you into one or another side of the old culture war that seemed, for a time, to be left behind.

[Eric the .5b]

First thought: Actually, both groups can be deluded. Bush can both fail to be a unifying figure and a divisive figure if the country is just plain divided without him. Or, more accurately, if the partisans are especially obnoxious.

Second thought: It doesn't make much sense to blame a president for the fact that the general (but not universal) stress-induced unity, that "Holy shit, there are people out there killing Americans, no matter who they vote for!" reaction, eventually wore off. Might as well blame the guy for people not holding their breath at news bulletins anymore. Human beings go back to normal life.

Third thought: If Bush really has caused division in this country, instead of merely being the lightning rod for existing division, he's had the eager help of a lot of Democrats.