Bush Voters Nt Stupid - They Know More Than You

[duffer]

@Marley23

duffer, I think Bush’s comment was that he didn’t read newspapers (which I’ll take over TV anytime), but let his aides tell him what was going on. And given some of the problems we’ve had lately, I’m not sure about the “better info than we’ll ever have” idea either. A President theoretically has access to that, but he has to actually get it.

Yes, I understand that, which is why I mentioned I knew where rjung was coming from. What I think though, is that the President has access to much more info than the NY Times. Or CNN/NBC, etc. For example. Bush knew when we were going to enter Fallujah. He knew exactly when and how. For a few days all we got from the media was that were gearing up and it was coming any day now.

The point was, the President knows more about what is happening in regards to the policies, and he knows it before the media. To read the papers would be to get a condensed version of what he’s already been told, with a healthy mix of opinion written in. What would be the point?

And I’m confident he still reads the sports section.

[World_Eater]

@LouisB

At least one of whom posts on the SDMB.

Don’t be so hard on yourself.

[World_Eater]

@BubbaDog

We’ve always been at the mercy of morons.
Had Kerry won we’d still be at the mercy of morons.

I totally agree.

[MMI]

@duffer

I know what you’re saying here, but I have a problem with people that actually believe that the Pres has to watch the nightly news to know what’s happening in the world. Does anyone honestly believe that CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN has more access to what’s happening than the NSA/CIA/FBI etc? The President has more info than any of us will ever have. When they have as much info as is available from the highest offices, I’ll start basing my world view on a 22 minute newscast, that uses much of that time to tell us how fat we are.

Pre-war there were plenty of hawks (on this board) who mocked nuclearskeptic and Osamaskeptic doves (or go-slowly-do-it-right hawks) with the fact that obviously the President had double-secret classified information to which not even the House and Senate select committees for intelligence were privy and that all would be proven post-invasion, no doubt. So while I agree that yes the president has access to high quality intelligence, that which he uses does not seem to be demonstrably better (and in some cases seems worse) than that easily available through the commercial media.

@rjung

I fear for a nation where over 50% of the voters (re-)elect a man who gladly admits he doesn’t follow the news to be their leader.

If he follows the same news that those of his constituents (who believe Saddam=Osama, lots of WMD’s found, US actions insanely popular throughout world) do, I hardly think we would be able to tell the difference.

[MMI]

To clarify my previous post - there is a non trivial subset of Bush voters who believe those things. My parenthetical comment was to indicate that I was referring to those individuals, not all Bush voters. Bricker is right, reasonable men can differ, and there are valid reasons to vote for Bush.

[tdn]

@duffer

I know what you’re saying here, but I have a problem with people that actually believe that the Pres has to watch the nightly news to know what’s happening in the world. Does anyone honestly believe that CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN has more access to what’s happening than the NSA/CIA/FBI etc? The President has more info than any of us will ever have. When they have as much info as is available from the highest offices, I’ll start basing my world view on a 22 minute newscast, that uses much of that time to tell us how fat we are. :rolleyes:

Regardless of everything said in this thread, I have to agree with this sentiment 100%. TV news these days is completely devoid of content. It’s nothing more than a relentless assault of images with no in-depth story, and is designed to garner ratings, not inform.

[smartini]

@Kel Varnsen - Latex Division

I am sick of people saying that Bush voters are stupid. I voted for Kerry, but I admit there were things I just didn’t know.

For instance did you know:

Nearly 70 percent of President Bush’s supporters [know] the U.S. has come up with “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.

And:

A third of the president’s supporters [know] weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

And:

And more than a third [know] that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

I bet you didn’t know all this stuff my fellow stupid Kerry voters. I know I didn’t know these things and if I knew this was the opinion of the American people I sure would have believed them. After all, the American people couldn’t be wrong - these non-ignorant beliefs are a mandate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html?ex=1100581200&en=7ff66d7d08c03d52&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[think] does Nt equal [know]

[know] somehow applies more [validity]

[Trunk]

I heard a guy call up a radio show yesterday who said that we were originally going to call action in Iraq, “Operation Infinite Justice” (I don’t know if that’s true of not, but I do seem to recall it. It’s beside the point.)

Anyway, we changed the name because to a Muslim, the only person capable of “infinite justice” was Allah.

This guys point: we changed the name to “Iraqi Freedom” to cater to the minorities in this US.

There are about 3 layers of ignorance you’d have to get through with a guy like that.

How you ever gonna do that?

[World_Eater]

@Trunk

There are about 3 layers of ignorance you’d have to get through with a guy like that.

How you ever gonna do that?

A shovel to the head might do it.

[JSexton]

@duffer

The point was, the President knows more about what is happening in regards to the policies, and he knows it before the media. To read the papers would be to get a condensed version of what he’s already been told, with a healthy mix of opinion written in. What would be the point?

I think it’s worth noting that his “I don’t read newspapers” comment came up during the 2000 campaign. In other words, long before he became president. Long before he had access to secret FBI, CIA and NSA files. Long before he had a Nat’l Security Advisor telling him what happens in the world.

To me, this implies that he grew up uninterested in learning what happened in the world around him, and that continued even as he ran for national public office. I know this is not a universal opinion, but I’m not alone here either.

The fact remains that secret classified briefings are a recent development for this man, and as such, are not much defense.

[Trunk]

@JSexton

I think it’s worth noting that his “I don’t read newspapers” comment came up during the 2000 campaign. In other words, long before he became president. Long before he had access to secret FBI, CIA and NSA files. Long before he had a Nat’l Security Advisor telling him what happens in the world.

That’s not correct.

No wonder Bush doesn't connect with the rest of the country

It was October '03.

Anyway, the beauty of it was this part (bolding mine):

Bush continued: “I appreciate people’s opinions, but I’m more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.”

[JSexton]

Wow. I could have sworn I read this much, much earlier. Googling finds me zero cites for anything earlier than October 2003.

I withdraw my comments above. Apologies.

[rjung]

Even if we accept the notion that the President of the United States can get all the information he wants from triple-secret daily briefings (as long as they don’t have complicated titles like “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US” ), I’d still be worried about a guy who doesn’t bother to read newspapers or watch network news to keep up with what the rest of the populace believes.

Then again, given how Bush is apparently so sensitive to criticism that his campaign rallys all have to filter out anyone who was less than 100% loyal, I can scarcely imagine his reaction after reading a “Letters to the Editor” page filled with unvarnished criticism of his governance…

[JohnBckWLD]

@World Eater

The point is we’re at the mercy of morons.

The continued Confessions of a Cultural Elitist

[Bricker]

@rjung

Even if we accept the notion that the President of the United States can get all the information he wants from triple-secret daily briefings (as long as they don’t have complicated titles like “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US” ), I’d still be worried about a guy who doesn’t bother to read newspapers or watch network news to keep up with what the rest of the populace believes.

Um… the majority of the rest of the populace believed he should get a second term and that the GOP should get more Senate and House seats.

I’d say that Bush is not the one with cognitive problems about what the rest of the populace believes.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@duffer

The point was, the President knows more about what is happening in regards to the policies, and he knows it before the media. To read the papers would be to get a condensed version of what he’s already been told, with a healthy mix of opinion written in. What would be the point?

First off, I suspect that if he relied on newspapers instead of his advisors, he’d be getting a version of what he’s been told, with a healthy mix of opinion left out. Not that newspapers are all objective, but compared to his advisors?

The point of doing this would be to get information from a variety of sources. Certainly Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, and the rest all have opinions. Although there are differences between those opinions, they pale in comparison to the difference in opinions amongst the population at large.

A good leader doesn’t just listen to the people that agree with him: he also listens to the people who disagree with him. Because sometimes they’ve got a point.

And the point they have would be the point to his reading newspapers.

Daniel

[Ghanima]

We’ve always been at the mercy of morons.
Had Kerry won we’d still be at the mercy of morons.

So, so true.

Morons hate it when you call them morons. - our beloved flamingbananas’ sig, if I’m not mistaken. Just sayin’.

[PunditLisa]

Nearly 70 percent of President Bush’s supporters [know] the U.S. has come up with “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.

On a related question, nearly a third (30%) of Kerry supporters thought that Iraq either gave “substantial” support to al-queda and/or were being directly involved in the bombings of 9/11.

A third of the president’s supporters [know] weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

The question reads: “Is it your belief that before the war, Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction.”

41% of Kerry voters either believe that before the war, Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction or are not convinced either way.

And more than a third [know] that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

"Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about having the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:

20% of Kerry supporters think that the world views are evenly balanced and 5% believe the world favors the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf

Re the polling company (PIPA). Notice that thisarticle presented by the researchers (PIPA) focuses almost exclusively on misperceptions by Bush supporters by completely ignores misperceptions by Kerry supporters. For example, a third of Kerry supporters believe the U.S. participates in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.

This suggests a bias in favor of Kerry supporters. YMMV.

[elucidator]

As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I think this PIPA thing needs a GD thread, to bring in people who know more about survey methodology, statistics, stuff like that about which I know squat.

But I couldn’t help but notice a couple things in Pundits take on things:

…On a related question, nearly a third (30%) of Kerry supporters thought that Iraq either gave “substantial” support to al-queda and/or were being directly involved in the bombings of 9/11…

This lumps together two rather disparate points. Might this not result from confusion in the respondents mind as regards distinctions between AlQ and other Islamist movements? For instance, Saddam’s support of Palestinian resistance. A great many ME folks regard the Palestinian movement as entirely legitimate who do not regard terrorism against the US as either justified or desireable. And there is no breakout of numbers between “support” and “direct involvement”. So this doesn’t tell us very much.

…41% of Kerry voters either believe that before the war, Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction or are not convinced either way…

Again, problem of break out. Some respondents regard the question as still open, some believe, contrary to all evidence, that Saddam actually had WMD. Nonetheless, fully 60% of respondents are aware of the facts, which is zip, zilch, nada.

…20% of Kerry supporters think that the world views are evenly balanced and 5% believe the world favors the U.S. invasion of Iraq…

What the heck does “evenly balanced” mean? Balanced like numbers of distinct, individual nations…30 nations yes, 30 nations no…or balanced as regards population…3 billion yes, 3 billion no.

Pundit, you raise more questions than you answer. Besides which, it ignores another possible group (again, just guessing, no facts or figures) of people who strongly oppose Bush for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq. In my own instance, the Iraq catastrophe leads the list, of course. But had Iraq never occured, I would have opposed Bush now just as I opposed him in 2000: firmly, to be sure, but not as fiercely.

[Rubystreak]

@Ghanima

Morons hate it when you call them morons. - our beloved flamingbananas’ sig, if I’m not mistaken. Just sayin’.

Actually, it’s a quote from Catcher in the Rye– Holden Caulfield said after his roommate beat the crap out of him after Holden called him a moron several times.

See, it’s not an issue of Bush voters being morons. They are just un- or misinformed, whether willfully, due to lack of access to unbiased sources, inability to wade through all the lies they hear, or misplaced trust in an administration that sells itself as the protector of All Things American and Patriotic. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that stupidity is the issue here. The actual problem is much more pervasive and hard to address.

How do I know this? My father and brother, both of whom I love dearly, fully support Bush. Neither of them are morons by a long shot, but they are both quite insulated and willfully uninformed, and I know why. They both live in NYC and know several people who died in 9/11. They are extremely angry and scared about the attack and want someone to pay. The Afghanistan/bin Laden expedition was an unsatisfying failure, so they’ve transferred their hatred onto Hussein and Iraq. I know this because every time I stupidly bother to voice questions or disapproval of the war, they both say, “Wow, you seem to forget WE WERE ATTACKED!!!” and that is the effective end of the conversation.

I have no idea how to remedy this. They won’t listen to me and get mad and shut down when I try to counter their wrongheaded arguments. It’s hopeless and that’s that. To maintain peace at mealtimes when I’m visiting them, I try to avoid politics entire because I too get mad and things get ugly. Ah well, Thanksgiving ought to be a barrel of laughs.