Well, it may not be a perfect measure of conservative thought but it certainly has a decent correlation to that. The votes for the Authorization of Force resolution were:
House of Representives:
215 Republicans for, 6 Republicans against
81 Democrats for, 126 Democrats against
Senate:
48 Republicans for, 1 Republican against
29 Democrats for, 21 Democrats against
So, while it was true that there was a fair bit of Democratic support for this resolution, the difference in percentages between the Dems and Pubs on this vote is quite stark. Furthermore, many of the Dems who voted for it made it clear that it was not a vote for war in their view but a vote to get the inspectors in (the White House itself was emphasizing this point at the time even though it later flip-flopped and lied and characterized the Democrats who voted for it as voting for war)…which then happened and we went to war anyway.
That is one crazy study. Who knew that the NRA and the ACLU were almost the same in terms of how “conservative” they are? I’m sure {b]Mr. Moto** will be surprised to hear that!
To suggest that all those voting for the war were for it is wrong. Many made a political decision. U.S.Grant said that any one against a war once it has been started will see the end of his political career. It was a political not a moral decision.
It was political calculus . Generals who questioned the war or its tactics were fired. That is why we should respect those who voted against. They are the real patriots. Tho risk their careers at that time was an act of bravery.
It was a nearly perfect act of political malice. Out of one side of his mouth, Dub was talking war, out of the other side, he was talking peace. Don’t forget: he swore up and down that his purpose was to strengthen his hand at negotiations to prevent war! He was also swearing that he was not set on war, that he would exhaust any and all diplomatic avenues before, oh so reluctantly!..going to war.
But I still believe that the Iraq was is a very poor litmus for lefty-wrong distinctions. America went nuts on Sept. 12th, and the Republicans exploited that for every drop of political juice that they could squeeze. But it wasn’t about social issues or class struggle or any of that, it was about wrapping the flag around a turd and calling it patriotic.
How a paper responded to the tax cuts is probably a much better indicator, whether or not they delivered solemn nonsense about tax cuts for the rich as economically stimulating with a straight face, for instance. Sometimes political bias can be conveniently masked as non-partisan, if you pretend that a valid case and utter horsehit are worthy of equal attention.
But I would leave the Iraq war out of it, in terms of how progressive a source is, or alternatively, how enslaved by the Forces of Darkness.
Yes, or perhaps if they deliver solemn nonsense about how tax cuts “disproportionately” benefit those who pay the most taxes or how raising taxes is merely readjusting rates to their previously higher level.
Or, if they don’t call the elimination of tax cuts a “tax increase”. That’s a favorite trick of politicians: We’re not raising taxes, we’re just rescinding tax cuts.