Do you think liberals would think different if it had been a democrat?

Question

If we had a democrat president and he made all the same decissions concerning the war how would the american public respond? The largest part of the media is of course liberal based. Would it all been reported differently? Do you really think that today you would have the same attitude?

Media is a powerful tool. Perception is stronger than fact. I dont think you would feel the same way because I really feel it would of been reported differently. Unfortunately many never seek the facts, they accept the media reports.

Mr Bush IG, my grammer is fine. My work or income is not affected by a mispelling or a gammer error. So get over it! I could careless, but if it makes you fell smarter or something, please send me a whole revised edition and I will publish it in my idiots of the world book of intellects.

Answer 1

As a matter of fact I do think it would have been reported and perceived differently....I also think liberals would be on here supporting the war effort instead of bashing it. They have always lived by a double standard.

Answer 2

First of all, I doubt a democrat would have gotten us into this war with Iraq. This was Cheney's war. Without Cheney in office, there would have been no war.
Second, if a Democrat would have gotten us into this war with Iraq, NO, we would not have been behind it at all. I wasn't behind the Bosnian war either.
The media helped get us into this war because they did absolutely no analysis of the intelligence coming in, they capitulated to the will of the President all the way. The media wanted this war and helped with drumming the beat of war through propaganda and perpetuation of lies from the W.H. The media would have questioned a Democratic president and scrutinized his or her decisions all the way from the very beginning. they practically shredded Clinton with any decision he made in anything he did. The fact is, the media is 100% corporate and 100% filtered by corporate owners who are mostly conservative and imperialistic just like Bush. And, who leads them? Rupert Murdoch the ultra conservative corporate owner of Fox News. Even Judith Miller of NYT wrote in favor of the war. There was no analysis in mainstream media leading up to the war, no questioning, no interviews with knowledgable people who knew what was going on in Iraq at the time and were against the invasion, nothing that questioned the president's decision. The media is just as to blame for this capitulation and has lost all journalistic integrity as a result.

BTW, just for the record, I'm not a Democrat either. And, I didn't even vote for Clinton in either of the elections.

Answer 3

I would feel EXACTLY the same about the war in Iraq regardless. I care about this country, it's not just a game to me where I want my "team" to win. I read foreign news sources and liberal and conservative publications and then I form my opinion. I also happen to have a lot of friends and family that have actually served in Iraq. There isn't a liberal bias, the truth just happens to be on the side of those who were against the war. No WMDS, Billions of dollars lost to big corps, Thousands of US troops dead with no end in sight, the stomping on our civil liberties.....

All Americans, Republicans, Democrats and others should be outraged!

Answer 4

No.

You have to remember how Pro-War everyone was after 9-11. People in the media actually lost their jobs for speaking out against the war because it wasnt "politically correct" to do so. Everyone was behind him and supported his decisions, including the mainstream media.

Somehow, Bush managed to waste all of that goodwill and turn a united country against him. How in the world could you do that? At one point, he had more people supporting him that ever would have backed up Clinton, but its gone now.

Media is a powerful tool, but we are so interconnected now with video and the internet, one newspaper editor can no longer control how his readers perceive an issue. It just isnt like it was back in the good ol days.

If anything, I think the talking heads would have been fuming even more if it had been Clinton instead of Bush.

Answer 5

No president has undermined the Constitution as much as Bush. He allowed torture of an American citizen and has conducted illegal searches into the private conversation of Americans...there was no oversight and he basically acted as a dictator. I lean Democrat normally (actually a Libertarian in principle) but the actions of this president has caused me to believe that no Republican should be president again...I voted for Reagan twice by the way. I did not like the way Janet Reno ran the Justice Dept. under Clinton and Clinton had faults, but Bush has mis-managed America

The real answer to your question is that no democratic president has ever deserved opposition more than Bush...so your question is fanciful. But if a Democratic president acted against the Constitution like Bush and acted so arrogantly in doing so, I would be asking for impeachment as well...I am fairly Liberal, at 51 years old, but my party loyalty does not accept the trashing of the Constitution

Answer 6

Not a significant difference.. just as there are die hards that only support Bush because he is a Republican (not saying that's everyone, just saying there are some) there would be some Democrats.. but most of the Nation Supported Bush after 9/11 and into Afghanistan.. it is the mismanagement of what many consider an illegal war that has cost him so much support... and those people for the most part would not support anyone for those actions.

Answer 7

I think that liberals and Democrats would be disgusted with the performance of any president, Republican OR Democrat who was as ineffective and shallow as President Bush. He has accomplished almost nothing in his two terms in office.

President Johnson who also was involved in an unpopular war at least could point to some positive accomplishments, civil rights and highway beautification, and he had the good sense not to run for a second term.

Answer 8

Not me, I'm an Independent. It wouldn't matter which party the President headed up. If the same decisions had been made, I'd feel exactly the same way. Incompetence doesn't magically turn to competence because the name of the party is different.

Answer 9

it'd be about the same. Lyndon Baines Johnson pulled similiar crap and got enough backlash for him to not seek re-election. he was one of the most 'liberal' presidents.

does this sound familiar?

"He [LBJ] often privately cursed the Vietnam War, and in a conversation with Robert McNamara, Johnson assailed "the bunch of commies" running the New York Times for their articles against the war effort. Johnson believed that America could not afford to lose and risk appearing weak in the eyes of the world."

Answer 10

I am a Liberal and I can tell, without a doubt, had everything that's happened with this God-forsaken war since late 2002 happened under a Liberal president, I would feel just as strongly opposed to it as I do now. It's not a matter of political parties because many Liberals in Congress voted for it. It's a matter of what's right and what's wrong and I believe that this particular war is wrong.

Answer 11

A Democrat would not have made the same decisions concerning the war. Another Republican would not have made the same decisions. The war was wrong to begin with and was incompetently run by a bunch of fools. The few people in the administration who gave good advice (like Powell) were drummed out of office.
Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat when he escalated the war in Vietnam. The media and the anti-war movement did not give LBJ a pass, just because he was a Democrat.