Lee P. Butler

“Karl Rove, President Bush's political lieutenant, told a closed-door meeting of 2008 Republican House candidates and their aides Tuesday that it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party's defeat in the 2006 elections,” Washington insider Robert Novak recently wrote.

He also added, “Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington. Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley. In effect, Rove was rebutting the complaint inside the party that George W. Bush is responsible for Republican miseries by invading Iraq.”

Okay folks, it’s time to really analyze the whole ‘Republicans lost the 2006 election because Americans want the troops out of Iraq now’ mantra that has been so prevalent in the liberal elitist media.

Rove is partly correct in his alleged assessment, but there were many more factors than just Iraq and the media driven perception of a ’culture of corruption’ that led to the loss and overall it was a district by district battle that simply added up to a Democrat victory.

Not a sweeping, powerful embracing of the Democrat Party by Americans, as they have contended and continues to be promoted by liberal media elitists.

Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans in the district-by-district cases were buoyed by the fact that a large percentage of Conservative and Independent voters simply chose not to vote, which allowed the Democrat to win in most of those districts, some by the skin of their teeth.

In spite of that, the liberal media keeps flogging for the Democrats. In a recent Associated Press report titled, ‘GOP wait for nominee to emerge’, the liberal reporter refers to two Republicans who point out that President Bush is or will soon be a non-factor in the upcoming election and they are waiting for the GOP presidential nominee so they can move ahead.

That is not an attack on President Bush or a distancing of Republicans from him as was asserted by the liberal reporter writing the piece, but a standard issuance of feeling that in the upcoming election President Bush is not running for re-election and another Republican hopeful is vying for the job he is vacating.

Then the story that was supposed to be about the Republican presidential nominee turned into a ‘promote the Democrat agenda power-point’ presentation. “Democrats dismiss such comments as wishful thinking. They won control of the House and Senate in 2006 largely because of voters' unhappiness with Bush and the war. They are banking on Bush's even lower popularity now to help them to further victories next year.”

Okay, what does that have to do with Republicans waiting for a candidate to emerge, which was supposed to be the premise of the ‘news report?’

Besides, why would Bush’s low popularity as a whole… but still stands at 63% with Republicans… have anything to do with how a future candidate for president would connect or fail to connect with the American electorate?

Remember, we’re talking about the primaries here (Party members choosing their Party‘s presidential representative), not the general election.

What the elitist media continues to portray to the public is that most Americans are against the war (that‘s the real subject of this Democrat hit piece designed as a ‘news report‘)… the polls liberal media elitists create showing American dissatisfaction qualifies this assertion for them… and because of that Americans want the troops to come home now.

End of story.

Well, let’s pull over to the sidewalk and take a look at these purported polls the liberals taunt as their Holy Grail of the claim that ‘Americans are against the war’ mantra.

In the most recent CBS/New York Times poll (July 20-22, 2007) this question was asked, "From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

The results; Increase: 12%, Same: 15%, Decrease: 30%, Remove all: 36%.

Now, even though ‘remove all’ had the largest number; and would ultimately be used by the media to make misleading headlines, only 36% wanted to remove all the troops from Iraq the way leading Democrat presidential candidates are calling for.

Looking closely, you’ll clearly see that the other three choices want some troops to remain in Iraq by a count of… hold your breath… 57%! Realize, more of the respondents could have chosen to remove all, but didn’t. Having been given alternate choices to increase, keep the same or simply decrease levels, a clear majority chose one of those three.

That’s not the story being painted by liberal media elitists and it‘s their own polls they are manipulating as they try desperately to justify their coverage and hide their liberal bias.

In a July 11-12, 2007 Newsweek poll this question was asked, "Which of the following four choices comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should do in Iraq? Begin an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq. OR, Start withdrawing troops by the fall, with all troops out by next spring. OR, Leave a substantial number of troops in Iraq, but have them fall back to their bases and concentrate on training Iraqis and targeting Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders. OR, Make no cutbacks in U.S. troops."

The results; Immediate withdrawal: 19%, Out by next Spring: 24%, Fall back to their bases: 40%, Make no cutbacks: 13%.

Again, look at the results without the media mantra Democrat talking points. Only 19% wants an immediate withdrawal the way the Democrat presidential hopefuls are saying they want. A whopping 74% of respondents want the troops to stay in country at least until next Spring.

Now I ask you, did the Democrats win control of Congress because the American people want the troops to be removed from Iraq now? And, as the polls clearly reflect, since they want the troops to stay there in some form or fashion how can it be portrayed without it being a blatant outright lie that America is against the war?

As an aside, just to galvanize the point that the majority of the media are liberal cheerleaders for Democrats, here’s another question asked in that same Newsweek poll, "Which of the following do you blame MOST for the current situation in Iraq: [see below]?"

The results; The White House: 40%, Iraqi leaders: 33%, Congress: 13%, The U.S. Military: 2%, Same/Equal/Unsure: 12%.

Notice anything strange about that? You tell me, why wasn’t ’terrorists’ one of the selections for the respondents to choose from?

Of course to liberals, terrorists aren’t the problem. America and it’s Imperialistic endeavor to get Iraqi oil is and oh, by-the-way, we’re creating even more terrorists while we fight for Iraqi freedom from tyranny.

The truth is as far as being against the war in Iraq, Conservatives not voting in 2006 causing Democrats to win wasn’t because they wanted the troops out of Iraq, but because they wanted a more aggressive approach to winning the war.

By far the biggest reason Conservatives didn’t vote in 2006 was the fact that so many felt disenfranchised by the members of the Republican Party in congress who in many cases seemed to and in some cases actually did, lose sight of why the people had elected them in the first place… Conservative principles.

They simply lost touch with Conservative constituents and what it means to be elected by the people, for the people and to represent the people. For Republicans to win in 2008 they will have to once again, as they did in the early Nineties, prove to the people that they are worthy of their trust and ultimately their vote.