Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Friday, January 16, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 987)
News, Politics, Polls

WaPo

When comparing a new March 2014 WaPo with a March 2010 WaPo poll, it would seem apparent that it is likely Democrats will be in for a long night come Election Day in the 2014 midterm elections.

I have been beating the drum for weeks regarding what is either an inability or unwillingness by media pundits to acknowledge the political reality of the upcoming 2014 midterm elections. A lot can happen between now and Election Day, as is often the case in politics, but all of the data point to a long, dark night for the Democratic Party. The new ABC News/WaPo poll is just the latest piece of data that spells big, big trouble for Democrats in 2014.

On its surface it doesn’t look all that bad. In fact, the ABC News/WaPo poll found a near even split with 46 percent of registered voters saying they would vote for the Democrat and 45 percent saying they would vote for the Republican. When we look at individual issues tested in the poll, it gets even rosier for Democrats. On health care, the one issue the Establishment GOP wants the midterm elections to focus on, Democrats enjoy a supposed 44 percent to 36 percent advantage. Voters by a margin of 68 percent to 28 percent say the Republican Party is out of touch, while they are split evenly at 48 percent over Democrats.

So, what can account for the tightness of the overall race and what would appear to be a large Democratic advantage inside the numbers?

Looking back at this pollster’s particular record, the answer seems dubious. Just one month before Republicans made historic gains in 2010, in their own words, “this indicator still showed narrow support for the Democrats.” At this point in 2010, Democrats led the March WaPo poll by 47 percent to 43 percent (a 4-point lead as opposed to 1-point now), and also led Republicans on every major issue. Let’s take a look at data from that poll in the table below.

[fourcol_one]Issue[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]Democrats[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]Republicans[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Spread[/fourcol_one_last]

[fourcol_one]Economy[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]44[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]36[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Democrats +8[/fourcol_one_last]

[fourcol_one]Health Care[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]47[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]34[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Democrats +13[/fourcol_one_last]

[fourcol_one]Immigration[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]38[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]35[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Democrats +3[/fourcol_one_last]

[fourcol_one]Budget Deficit[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]43[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]35[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Democrats +8[/fourcol_one_last]

[fourcol_one]Budget[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]54[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]34[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Democrats +20[/fourcol_one_last]

[fourcol_one]Taxes[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]41[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one]38[/fourcol_one] [fourcol_one_last]Democrats +3[/fourcol_one_last]

(Note: The partisan D/R/I breakdown in the survey was 34/24/38, though I do not harp on party ID because it is fluid.)

I hardly think I have to go line-by-line to make my point, but I will note the 13-point lead Democrats had on health care. In fact, the WaPo poll found just a 47 percent to 51 percent disapproval margin for ObamaCare, and shockingly all of the enthusiasm was on the side of reform. Thus, when we see the recent survey found that 36 percent say they are less likely to support a candidate who favors ObamaCare, while 34 percent say they are more likely to support such a candidate, we can make a grim conclusion about Democrats’ prospects.

As far as the House, because of the amount of congressional districts held by members of one party that voted for the other party’s presidential nominee, and due to the fact Republicans’ gains in 2010 mean there are fewer opportunities in 2014, Republican pickup opportunities are likely to be limited. As of now, Democrats lead on the PPD average of generic ballot polling by just .2 percent, and according to our model, Democrats would need a national lead somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 14 points to even be competitive (you can view our averages and model simulations here).

The Senate data, on the other hand, suggest we will likely see fairly dramatic Republican gains. According to the model used to assign ratings to our 2014 Senate Map Predictions, the Republican Party is favored to win control of the U.S. Senate, with a likely net gain of at least 6 — 9 seats, and a less likely net gain of as many as 9 — 13 seats. In the new ABC News/WaPo poll, testing the 34 states with Senate races, 50 percent of voters say they will vote for the Republican candidate and only 42 percent say they’ll vote Democrat.

This is getting a bit warmer to actual reality. Reality, itself, is up for sale in these polls. And the American people should never forget it. When we draw closer to Election Day, pollsters typically begin to poll more accurately, which is no coincidence. From now until then, however, they will attempt to use survey findings to shape the elections, or create an “air of inevitability” for Democratic control.

For instance, while the media made a huge poll push showing support for amnesty or a “path to citizenship” when the Senate bill was being debated, now 38 percent say they are less likely to vote for someone who favors a path to citizenship, while just 30 percent say they would be more likely. We have reported on the support for “immigration reform” bottoming out recently on PeoplesPunditDaily.com, but it is just one of the many issues this method has been applied to in an effort to sway public opinion.

Perhaps, we could say that the most beautiful aspect to the 2010 midterm elections, historically, was that the American people forced the liberal “mainstream” media to release poll findings, albeit late, which would comport with public opinion, rather than release findings to shape it. If the data holds, which there is nothing right now to suggest it won’t, then it will again be the case in 2014.

And that spells big trouble for Democrats.

View our 2014 Senate Map Predictions and read more about or model’s variables

A new WaPo spells deep trouble for

News, Policy, Politics

German homeschool family

The Romeike family, best known as the German homeschool family seeking asylum in the U.S., was denied a hearing by the Supreme Court and now faces certain deportation.

Romeike Family Update –  The German home-schooling family that was facing deportation following the “conservative” Supreme Court’s refusal to hear their appeal is now being allowed to stay in the U.S.

DHS, or the Department of Homeland Security, has granted the family “indefinite deferred status,” according to their family attorney.

That means the Romeike family, who claim the German government is persecuting them because they want to raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs, can stay in the United States without the threat of being forced return to their home country, the family’s legal team told Fox News.

The family moved to Morristown, Tennessee, after facing fines and threats for refusing to send their kids to a state-approved school in Germany, which is required by law in that country. If the Romeikes had stayed in Germany, the government would have forcibly removed their children from their custody. So, just as the Pilgrims set out for the New World in what was known as the Great Migration, to begin to settle and build a “Shiny City on a Hill,” the Romeike family fled to the U.S. in 2008.

Initially, the family was granted asylum in 2010 based on religious freedom grounds, but the Obama administration decided to appeal that decision, and won. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the family’s appeal. 

“While this is the end of the line for normal legal appeals, we are not giving up,” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and lead counsel for the Romeikes, said in a written statement.

Romeike Family Update – The German

News, World

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

In a speech Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to “Recognize the Jewish state.”

In a speech at the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to do something that Israel requires to move forward in talks. “Recognize the Jewish state. No excuses, no delays, it’s time.”

The Israeli Prime Minister also denounced the anti-Semitic, Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions —knows by its acronym, BDS. The movement has been gaining momentum recently, particularly in Europe, where some businesses and pension funds have cut investments or trade with Israeli firms they say are connected to West Bank settlements.

“Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot,” Netanyahu said. “They should be exposed and condemned. The boycotters should be boycotted.”

He also said Iran has not been living up to their end of the deal pertaining to nuclear development, and that the West is being fooled.

Iran “wheels out its smiling president and its smooth-talking foreign minister. But if you listen to their words, their soothing words, they don’t square with Iran’s aggressive actions,” Netanyahu said.

“Iran says it only wants a peaceful nuclear program. So why is it building a heavy water reactor, which has no purpose in a peaceful nuclear program? Iran says it has nothing to hide. So why does it ban inspectors from its secret military sites?” he added.

“Why doesn’t it divulge the secrets of its military nuclear activities? … Iran says it’s not building nuclear weapons. So why does it continue to build ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads?”

Returning his attention to Palestinian, Netanyahu said that by recognizing a Jewish state, Abbas would be telling his people that — although there is a territorial dispute — the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own is no longer in dispute.

The Palestinian response underscored the still-stalemate that is the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Reacting to Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S., Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi told The Associated Press that the Israeli leader went to Washington “ready to allocate blame without, in any way, showing any sign of willingness to do the right thing — to stop settlement activities, accept ’67 borders, accept signed agreements, end illegal actions and move ahead. Instead, he is reiterating his ideological condition of recognition of a Jewish state.”

Palestinians argue that embracing Israel as a Jewish state would, essentially, abandon the so-called “right of return,” which is a central sticking point in peace talks, and a position that time and again has halted progress on the talks. They also claim it would undercut the rights of Israel’s own Arab minority, which is the 20 percent of Israel’s 8 million people who are themselves ethnic Palestinians.

The Palestinians want to occupy and control the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, which were all territories captured by Israel in 1967 when they faced Arab aggression. Israel had already won an independent state before an Arab coalition decided to try their hand at an attack that Israel not only repelled, but subsequently crushed.

Yet, they still demand Israel agree to accept the final borders with a future Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, including small land swaps that would allow Israel to keep some of the Jewish settlements it has built in the West Bank and east Jerusalem since the 1967 conflict.

New Israeli housing statistics showed that Israel began building more than twice as many West Bank settlement homes in 2013 than it did the previous year. The Palestinians consider settlements built on territories captured by Israel in 1967 to be illegal and a deal-breaker.

In a speech Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister

News, Politics

obamacare-news-delays

The Obama administration has decided to front-load bad ObamaCare news, including another delay in the law’s implementation that would allow insurers to sell policies that do not meet the Essential Health Benefit Standards.

The Obama administration is making the decision to front-load bad ObamaCare news in order to avoid negative press in the height of the midterm elections. In fact, they may just delay implementing the law until they believe they have thoroughly avoided being held accountable at the polls.

In the soon-to-be latest instance of lawlessness, Obama is preparing to announce another new delay in the implementation of ObamaCare, which would allow insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet the Essential Health Benefit Standards.

Those requirements, which are responsible for Americans receiving cancellation notices, force people to purchase plans that are far more costly than pre-ObamaCare coverage because it offers coverage Americans do not need in order to subsidize others.

President Obama, under political pressure over widespread health plan cancellations, particularly by Democratic senators in red states they are having a difficult time defending, single-handedly changed the law back in November to allow Americans to keep their current insurance policies for another year, even if their plans didn’t meet the minimum standards, i.e. men buying birth control coverage and seniors paying for prenatal care.

The latest delay, which the administration has decided to announce as early as next week, would again allow insurers to continue selling insurance plans that would otherwise be illegal under the law.

While we have confirmed the extension, it remains unclear how long the latest lawless extension will be, though one official said it is possible that it will last until of the end of Obama’s second term, and even beyond the 2016 presidential election to protect Hillary Clinton running for president.

The extension, they hope, will trick the American people into voting again for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections by avoiding another wave of health policy cancellations expected this fall. The small business mandate, for instance, which was expected to kick in right before the elections, will eventually cause the cancellations of millions of Americans’ policies.

“I don’t see how they could have a bunch of these announcements going out in September,” a health insurance industry consultant told The Hill. “Not when they’re trying to defend the Senate and keep their losses at a minimum in the House. This is not something to have out there right before the election.”

According to the model used at PeoplesPunditDaily.com to assign races to our 2014 Senate Map Predictions, Republicans are currently projected to win at least 6 to 9 seats, with the potential to gain 7 – 13.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner confirmed Tuesday that the total number of new Medicaid enrollments under ObamaCare is not as high as some have suggested. Though some officials have touted that more than 8 million have signed on, Tavenner acknowledged that between 2.5 million and 3 million are actually new enrollments due to ObamaCare, but the number doesn’t include those who have yet to pay.

In other words, the administration is counting those who have simply placed a policy into the shopping cart after exploring options.

Meanwhile, insurers are not happy with the administration’s unilateral, lawless changes to the law since its disastrous rollout back in October 2013. One industry executive told The Hill the changing deadlines make it difficult to price health plans.

“These stops and starts make it very difficult because we set rates based on predictive modeling,” the executive said. “When you change the rules, it has a detrimental impact on your ability to calculate your risk pool and your prices.”

The Obama administration is making the decision

Opinion

ukrainian crisis explained

Once again the failed foreign policy of this nation has been thrust in to the spotlight. Russia has aggressively moved to protect it national interests in a bold strike into the Crimea and frankly, there isn’t much that the world can do about it.

The time to act is long past over in Eastern Europe. President Bush (and Mitt Romney) correctly assessed the danger of Russian expansionism and economic rebuilding as a threat to world peace and a foe to the United States. Bush countered with an aggressive US policy in Poland and Eastern Europe to act as a counterweight. In 2008, President Obama abandoned those plans in hopes of ensuring a brokered plan with Iran on the suppression of nukes. To make matters worse, we have funded the crypto-fascists of the EU and their ambitious plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, thus giving the Russians an excuse to act belligerently. The ‘democracy movement’ in these nations is heavily funded and promoted by the US, and is in violation of the 1994 Budapest agreement.

These plans failed miserably as it provided Putin an opportunity to expand its interests, gave Russia the peacemaker tag in the Middle East, and exposed the US as weak on Iran (which of course, Putin expanded rather than suppressed). America is now faced with a resurgent Russia and a nuclear armed Iran and nuclear proliferation in an area of the world where the native people have the restraint of a hungry Billy goat.

Americans are asking for the world and Obama to do something, with a variety of suggestions. None will work. When an enemy is building tanks and roaring across established borders, the time for diplomacy is long past.

The Ukrainian problem is of our own making by an administration whose foreign policy is shallow and banal at best. The people of Ukraine are faced with being between two world powers and are under the illusion that they are fighting for freedom, when in fact, the banking and financial cartels of the EU may be worse for them in the long run. This is not so much a freedom fight for the Ukrainian people as it is an economic battle between Obama and his fascist thug friends in the EU versus the old style dictator Putin. It is Egypt 2.0.

Russia has not moved out of the Crimea and is protecting the largely Russian population that lives there as well as the bases and economic interests of Russia in the region. Putin did not bluster, or threaten military action — he simply acted, and prepared his nation for Western economic sanctions. He moved his troops into a region that is largely pro Russia; the bases and ports at Sevastopol are critical to Russia’s security. The Russian forces have not moved beyond the Crimea and are substantial enough to repeal any Ukrainian meddling.

Will Putin be viewed as a scoundrel who acted as a bully? Most certainly, and will pay an economic price in the short run. However, in the long run he has ensured security for Russian people in the region and the economic and military interests of his nation. He is not interested in building a “global community.” He is acting in the best interests of Russia.

Our own President could learn a few lessons here about the proper application of force and military influence.

Thomas Purcell is a nationally syndicated columnist and host of the Liberty Never Sleeps podcast hour and author of “Shotgun Republic.”

If you would like to read more about Thomas Purcell’s thoughts on this issue you can read more at LibertyNeverSleeps.com 

Opinion: Once again the failed foreign policy

Policy, Politics

The worst lies of progressivism are its claims surrounding the fairness doctrine, or that government plays the mediator role between a boogeyman and the little man. It’s a crock, and it always has been.

Conservatives can never understand how — with myriad examples across history and the world — Americans can be fooled to believe the false promises of the left. I did my best to explain this from a historical and psychological point of view, making the case that progressivism appeals to the very worst of our human nature, i.e. our propensity to trade valuable delayed gratification for the less-useful and often harmful instant gratification.

Jim DeMint has tried a similar approach. Simply showing Americans it is a crock by highlighting actual policy, particularly a deeply unpopular policy — ObamaCare.

Unlike millions of Americans, lawmakers and their staff have a way to opt out of ObamaCare — it’s called retirement. In an interview with Greta Van Susteren, DeMint explains how Congress passed a provision of the law that allows them to avoid ObamaCare after they retire with a big fat pension, while the rest of us are stuck with ObamaCare and all its lack of choices — no matter what.

Congress passed a provision to allow them

Culture, Entertainment

The media praised Actor Jared Leto for his acceptance speech after winning Best Supporting Actor, but Matthew McConaughey was railed. Why, you might ask?

Jared Leto told the story of his mother who was a high school dropout and single mother, but worked tirelessly to provide him a better life. Time magazine had only praise for Jared Leto today.

Leto won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as a transgender diagnosed with AIDS in “Dallas Buyers Club” on March 2, a role that Newsbusters.org previously explored. Consequently, he also played the gay lover of Greek hero Alexander in the self-titled movie.

When he earned his award, Leto first thanked his mother:

In 1971, Bossier City, Louisiana, there was a teenage girl who was pregnant with her second child. She was a high school dropout and a single mom, but somehow she manage to make a better life for herself and her children. She encouraged her kids to be creative, to work hard and to do something special. That girl is my mother and she’s here tonight. And I just want to say ‘I love you mom, thank you for teaching me to dream.

Leto also spoke about those who “lost the battle to AIDS” and “dreamers” in the Ukraine and Venezuela, whom President Obama will allow to be killed after encouraging them. Never mind that particular hypocrisy, we are moving along.

In Time magazine, Isaac Guzmán said the acceptance speech was “amazing.” Meanwhile, Guzman attacked Matthew McConaughey in Time and mocked him for thanking God during his speech, even if it received a fraction of the media’s attention that was given to Leto.

“What exactly did he mean by all that?” Time wrote. “After winning for his role as Ron Woodroof in Dallas Buyer’s Club, Matthew McConaughey launched into a semi-bizarre tale about his inner life.”

Is this really where Hollywood wants to be in a nation still predominantly made up of Christians? Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their way doesn’t work — like, say, the recent death of Seymour Philip Hoffman that added to a long list of struggling, Godless junkies — Hollywood still mocks the beliefs of those who live lifestyles that are far more healthy.

Both acceptance speeches were, in fact, slightly awkward. That’s to be expected, of course, because it is Hollywood. Both speeches were inspirational in their own way, and should have been praised for their own contribution. However, because one fit a narrative, the liberal media praised it up and down. I just used Time as an example, but it was a widespread media reaction, as MediaResearchCenter.com pointed out.

Just to offer further evidence, Heritage Foundation put up Leto’s speech today that was accompanied by an article that focused on the values within his speech.

The Oscars have forced them to remove the video from the Web.

The media praised Actor Jared Leto for

News, World

us-russia military

The White House announced late Monday that all US-Russia military cooperation was suspended, along with the upcoming trade and investment talks as penalties for its actions in Ukraine.

Both measures were announced mere hours  after America’s U.N. ambassador gave a timid performance at the UN Security Council, but criticized Russia for its “dangerous military intervention” in Ukraine. U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power said Russia was in violation of international law and said “it must stop.”

“Due to recent events in Ukraine, we have suspended upcoming bilateral trade and investment engagement with the government of Russia that were part of a move toward deeper commercial and trade ties,” a spokesperson for the office of the US Trade Representative confirmed.

The Pentagon said the U.S. was putting on hold “all military-to military engagements” with Russia, including but not limited to military exercises, bilateral meetings, basic port visits and even planning conferences.

Amid speculation among the press, which heard rumors of U.S. ship movements in the region, a statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby read, “there has been no change to our military posture in Europe or the Mediterranean; our Navy units continue to conduct routine, previously planned operations and exercises with allies and partners in the region.”

Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin defended the use of Russia’s military in Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, claiming the “legitimately elected authorities” in that region asked Russia to intervene and saying this was “completely legitimate under Russian law.”

However, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power fired back at Churkin, telling a U.N. Security Council meeting “There is nothing that justifies Russian conduct.”

Churkin also claimed Ukraine’s ousted president wrote a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin requesting Putin use the military in Ukraine.

Power added that Churkin’s statements were “without basis in reality” and “self-serving.” She also said there’s no evidence there is any danger to ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.

At the White House Monday night, President Obama, who didn’t even bother to attend an emergency meeting when Putin first ordered the seizure of Crimea, actually met with members of his national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Earlier today, Obama said that Russia is “on the wrong side of history” and threatened that the U.S. will “isolate” Putin and Russia if he didn’t pull back troops from the region. Obama, before a meeting in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the world largely is in agreement that Russia is “in violation of international law.”

He said Moscow’s actions are deeply troubling, and said this would be a “costly proposition” for Russia if it continues with the aggression.

“We are examining a whole series of steps — economic, diplomatic — that will isolate Russia,” Obama said.

The White House announced late Monday that

News, US

German homeschool family

The Romeike family, best known as the German homeschool family seeking asylum in the U.S., was denied a hearing by the Supreme Court and now faces certain deportation.

The well-known German homeschool family who was seeking asylum in the United States is facing deportation after the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would not hear their case.

The justices rejected an appeal from the Romeike family, led by Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who was being persecuted by the German government because they want to raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs, which is in direct conflict with the German public-provided curriculum.

The family moved to Morristown, Tennessee, after facing fines and threats for refusing to send their kids to a state-approved school in Germany, which is required by law in that country. If the Romeikes had stayed in Germany, the government would have forcibly removed their children from their custody. So, just as the Pilgrims set out for the New World in what was known as the Great Migration, to begin to settle and build a “Shiny City on a Hill,” the Romeike family fled to the U.S. in 2008.

Initially, the family was granted asylum in 2010 based on religious freedom grounds, but the Obama administration make a conscious decision to continue with their assault on religious freedom and appeal that decision.

“While this is the end of the line for normal legal appeals, we are not giving up,” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and lead counsel for the Romeikes, said in a written statement.

The family argues that German laws violate international human rights standards. But the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that claim and ruled that U.S. law does not grant asylum to every victim of unfair treatment.

According to Germany’s highest court, the country’s ban on home-schooling was created to make sure that religious home-schoolers do not become a “parallel society.” In other words, they want to raise and mass produce individuals that meet the state’s muster.

The family’s last hope was to plead their case to the so-called “conservative” Supreme Court, which is a joke by every measure. However, Monday’s decision by the justices not to hear the appeal essentially paved the way for the Obama administration to force the family to return to Germany. Ironically, at least 12 or 14 million illegal immigrants are living in the United States, some that send their children to public schools and some who don’t send their children to schools, at all. Yet, the Obama administration seems to have no beef politically with them, and picks a fight that strikes at the very heart of our nation’s founding.

“We will pursue changes to the asylum law in this country to ensure that religious freedom is once again vigorously protected in our policy,” Farris said. “I am just glad that the Pilgrims did not face this anti-religious policy when they landed in Plymouth Rock. After all, the Pilgrims left England to find religious freedom, but they left Holland to find a place that was both safe for their children and which provided religious freedom.”

“It’s a denial of the essence of America,” Farris told Todd Starnes. “The Pilgrims left England to go to Holland to seek religious freedom. They came here to seek religious freedom and parental rights for their children. Had this administration been waiting at Plymouth Rock, they would’ve told the Pilgrims to go back home.”

The German homeschool family who was seeking

Polls

ukraine intervention

The administration said the International Monetary Fund is working on an assistance package, but last week Jay Carney said the U.S. will give Ukraine foreign aid to “strengthen its social safety net.”

Several surveys have been released since the onset of the Ukrainian crisis, and they have found there is no broad support for a Ukraine intervention by the United States.

A March 03 Rasmussen survey found Americans are evenly divided over whether the United States should try to punish the Russians diplomatically. The survey didn’t even as respondents about a military option, but judging by the weak support for economic sanctions, there seems little reason to have done so.

Rasmussen Reports found that 37 percent of likely U.S. voters think the United States should take diplomatic action if Russia gets directly involved in the political situation in Ukraine. However, just as many, or 36 percent, disagree and oppose diplomatic action against Russia, while 27 percent are not sure.

From the very beginning, whether due to the lack of coverage by the media or other factors, the American people didn’t seem to care too much about events occurring in Ukraine. An earlier survey released February 24, found there was little enthusiasm for getting involved in the Ukrainian crisis, with just 17 percent saying the United States should get more directly involved.

Looking at these poll numbers it is obvious why President Obama immediately took the military option off of the table, particularly since he is so inclined to do what is politically expedient rather than strategically correct. However, one might wonder why pollsters, and even the media for that matter, have yet to ask or cover a very important factor that Americans should know. If the idea of a Ukraine intervention is put forward, whether economical or militarily, we should be hearing the actual facts from both of these shapers of public opinion.

But, we’re not, so here they are.

In 1994, Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – who were then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine — signed the Budapest Memorandum. The treaty obligated the U.S. and U.K. toward Ukraine, because they promised to defend them against Soviet and Russian aggression, and in return Ukraine gave up its aspirations of becoming a nuclear power.

The treaty was just one part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which begs some very serious questions. Are the American people unwilling to keep their promises? And if so, are they even aware of the dangers — both physical and psychological — that would face the U.S. if they became a nation known around the world as one who doesn’t keep their promise?

Further, as state previously, there are many of these treaties and Putin could anticipate we are unwilling to honor any of them. If so, then where does a country’s aggression end? Does that translate into more aggression by other, observing nations in other regions?

If Barack Obama and his naive foreign policy has taught us anything, then it is the answers to such questions. And it is unfortunate that Americans truly seem to be incapable of answering them.

Several surveys since the onset of the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe