“Even as Republican voters continued to support President Bush and the war in Iraq, including the recent increase in the number of American troops deployed there, they said a candidate who backed Mr. Bush’s war policies would be at a decided disadvantage in 2008.”The second half of that sentence makes sense, but the first half is completely illogical.
However, I thought I should read further in the article to see if I missed the numbers showing that the majority of Republican voters support Dubya on the war, including the surge (I know Nagourney doesn’t say “majority,” but that is clearly implied).
Well, the problem is that no polling numbers are presented to support Nagourney’s claim (further, this TPM/Greg Sargent link provides a clearer picture of the non-support towards Dubya and the Repugs on Iraq).
Here is another excerpt from the Times column…
…the poll found that Republican voters remain largely loyal to Mr. Bush and his positions on the issues. Among Republicans, 75 percent approve of his job performance, and by overwhelming numbers they approve of his handling of foreign policy, the war in Iraq and the management of the economy.I’ll tell you what; here is a link to the Times story, including the graphic of the poll Nagourney is talking about. Don’t take my word for it, as they say – check it out for yourself.
Propelled by this Republican support, the poll registered an increase in the percentage of Americans who say they approve of Mr. Bush’s performance; it has increased to 34 percent now from 29 percent last month.
I see absolutely nothing in this graphic that measures Republican support of Dubya’s overall job performance, as well as that up-tick to 34 percent of an approval rating from 29 percent (both of those numbers are beyond pitiful, of course).
If I were to somehow get a job as a New York Times political correspondent, could I make up imaginary polling numbers for John Edwards showing him far outpacing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and get them printed on the front page also?