What's Wrong with Twenty-Six Percent of Americans?

it's a tough call for republicans. if hastert stays, it might give the impression they don't care about their image. but if hastert resigns his leadership (not his seat - that's never really been an option except to the voters of his district), it acknowledges the faults of the party and his leadership, practically guarentees his seat will be lost, and definitely hurts the republican image of confidence so necessary to maintaining an election.

its the confidence thing. better to LOOK confident than to look insecure and like a "flip-flopper".

As such, Hastert is simply riding the same party attitude that still has Rumsfeld in the White House. it's the only party line they know...

well, that doesn't start with 976... ;-)

It's #3. they are not thinking.

Most people, to one extent or another, treat politics as a matter of tribal or sports loyalty. They don't bother to decide every issue based on a concrete philosophical worldview; they simply find out what their team stands for and root for that position by repeating the approved talking points. This is how otherwise intelligent people can support completely contradictory positions, like calling themselves pro-life while supporting the death penalty. It is possible to rectify being anti-abortion and pro-death peanlty, but the sanctity of human life argument is not the way to do it.

Fortunately, most people really do have some kind of core philosophical worldview on which their values are based and can be made to rebel against the team when it forces them to make too many compromises. Think of the liberal hawks who became conservative after 9/11 or the libertarians who are abandoning the Republican Party over privacy and rights now.

Tribal thinking is just a matter convenience or laziness. The best propagandists understand how to manipulate this laziness. Look at how hard some right-wing have tried to convince conservatives that they must support creationism to be "real" conservatives. Or how to be Christian you must be anti-environment and pro-capital.

I think he should remain speaker, because---

---it will utterly horrify all of the population that he's still in there despite his massive coverup... except for the radical 26% fringe. That may be enough to tip the balance in the upcoming elections so that he'll no longer be Speaker anyway, and it won't be the Party of Bush deciding who gets to be the next Speaker.

I think he should remain speaker because it's tactiaclly the worst thing possible for his party.

-Rob

Maybe this sample had a high proportion of Democratic strategists.

surely almost 50% of Americans have double digit IQs?

Maybe Hastert should follow the example set by the Dems.In 1983 Gerry Studds (D-MA) was caught having sex with a 17-year-old male page, and of course Tip O'Neill immediately resigned in disgrace.

Oh, wait...no, he didn't...and in fact, Studds was reelected six more times.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

This is right in line with the 27% crazification factor discussed elsewhere.

Maybe Hastert should follow the example set by the Dems.In 1983 Gerry Studds (D-MA) was caught having sex with a 17-year-old male page, and of course Tip O'Neill immediately resigned in disgrace.

Which number is this on the talking point list again?

For those who choose to ignore details, the difference in these two cases is that O'Nell and the Democratic leadership responded as soon as they found out about it. Studds was censured by the House, although he turned his back on the House in protest while they were doing it. And the fact that Studds was reelected following the incident is irrelevant. O'Neill can't control the voters in that district and tell them whom to vote for. He wasn't Karl Rove, for Pete's sake.

The issue here is that it appears Hastert and perhaps others may have known about this situation long ago and done nothing. The reason Hastert is being pressured is not because a fellow Republican committed unsavory acts, but because Hastert may have covered up those acts. I say "may" because we don't really know yet who knew what when, but don't confuse the two situations which were materially different.

Don't forget, too, that a Republican, Dan Crane of Indiana, was also caught having relations with a page, but it was a chick so apparently that was OK.

Best wishes for a long vacation.

Of course, Dan Crane did (at least publicly) express remorse and apology, whereas Studds maintained that he'd done nothing wrong. Evidently Studds' strategy worked, because Crane wasn't re-elected, whereas Studds was. That either of them was re-elected says sad things about a lot of things.

But, yes, it's all irrelevant to what's going on right now, because evidently there was a long-time highly hypocritical coverup.

-Rob

For those who choose to ignore details, the difference in these two cases is that O'Nell and the Democratic leadership responded as soon as they found out about it...
The issue here is that it appears Hastert and perhaps others may have known about this situation long ago and done nothing.

Yeah, that's the difference...Hastert may have known something, but of course Tip "All politics is local" O'Neill couldn't possibly have had any idea what a rep from his own state was up to until it hit the papers.

I think he might as well remain Speaker as long as the Republicans are in power. Anyone they'd choose as Speaker is going to be just as bad, and it's silly to think he was the only one covering this up.

O'Neill couldn't possibly have had any idea what a rep from his own state was up to until it hit the papers.

If you have evidence that O'Neill knew anything, please share. I do not recall that whether the leadership had covered up either Studds' or Crane's activities was a big part of the controversy at the time, but I don't know. And you don't either.

Also, that all happened more than 20 years ago. I'm not sure why anyone should think it has any bearing on today. The Republicans, under Hastert, Frist, et al, are the one currently screwing up the country. Heck, if you're concerned about who should lead us during time of war, Roosevelt and Truman were Democrats and they won WWII, so by extension all Democrats of today would make good wartime leaders. It's the same flawed argumentation as saying Tip O'Neill did something wrong (which I dispute), therefore Dennis Hastert is absolved from taking responsibility for his own misdeeds.

Face it folks, the jig is about up.

Back to the original question: What's wrong with twenty-six percent of Americans?
Maybe they mistake the drivel on FOX for real news? Maybe they think they are getting real information there--you know, stuff that's actually TRUE?

What's wrong with twenty-six percent of Americans?

They think this behavior is SOP for politicians.

As was discussed on a Blog Around the Clock with a poll there, the number to look for is the total that don't blame the Republicans at all. In all of those polls it added up to 38-39%. Here it adds to 35% (26% remain plus 9% not sure). This is consistent with the long held (though never rubustly demonstrated) that 1/3 of America is going to support the Republicans no matter what they do, 1/3 ditto for the Democrats, and its the middle 1/3 over which the battle rages.

What's wrong with 26% of Americans?
The same thing that's wrong with the other 74%:

1. People are lazy.
2. Thinking is work.

That's my theory, anyway.
(Actually, these days I ascribe stuff like this to people's pathological need for Certainty, but that explanation's not nearly as easily stated...)

My cynical theory:

While we're all sitting around exchanging thoughtful comments about the news of the moment, it's very easy to forget that our vaunted Western Civilization represents a thin froth floating upon a population of occasionally-sentient primates, many of whom are capable of responding constructively to events not actually within their sensory range. That 27% Crazification Factor represents the primates who are instead responding reactively, according to animal instinct as modulated by the communications of nearby primates.

Punk bird discovered in Columbia.