CNN Poll: Majority of Americans Want Congress to Reject the Iran Deal
Two encouraging signs from CNN this morning . . . First, check out these poll numbers on the Iran deal: "Most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52 percent say Congress should reject the deal, 44 percent say it should be approved." Second, a mere three days after the Ayatollah's Tweet depicting President Obama holding a gun to his head, CNN notices! They even ask the administration about it! Sure, there's a lot of excuse-making . . . It's unclear how much involvement Iran's Supreme Leader has in deciding what's posted on the account, @khamenei_ir, which describes itself as providing "regular updates and news" about him. Some of its posts are first-person statements from Khamenei, others refer to the leader in the third person alongside photos of him at events. "The Supreme Leader says many things that we find completely objectionable," White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in response to a reporter's question about the image Sunday during Obama's visit to Kenya. "This is of a pattern of things that give us very serious concern about the Iranian government, whether it's their support for terrorism, their threats to Israel and the United States, or outrageous statements or images that may emanate from the Iranian government," he said. But it's not difficult to draw a line between those two lead stories on CNN this morning. The American people are far less trusting of the Iranian regime than the Obama administration is -- because they see the regime for what it is, and don't just hand-wave away provocations like that Tweet. Most Americans don't buy into the increasingly-rote "that's just for domestic political audiences" excuse. 'Boston Strong'–Enough to Resist the Temptation of an Olympic Bid Jay Nordlinger, for one, wanted to see Boston host the Olympics someday: I'm sorry that Boston rejected the idea of hosting the Olympics. I think it's a victory for American smallness. Americans should host the Olympics, and want to host them. We're a big power. We're a natural for the Olympics. The eyes of the world are upon us, still. We're the primary global nation . . . Boston's shrinking from the Olympics is a sign of just that: American shrinkage, American withering, American smallness. Jay, my heart is with your sentiment, but not my head. Polling indicates that Americans love the idea of America hosting the games -- just somewhere besides their home city, as ESPN observed: Sure, 9 in 10 Americans said they want the Games -- but the survey left no room for ambivalence, unlike a poll published earlier this year that saw much lower support. Josh Dyck, co-director of the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, points out that AP-GfK's question prompted a knee-jerk response. "It's kind of like asking: Do you like the Olympics, and do you like America?" he says with a laugh. When the same pollsters asked Americans if they'd want the event to take place in their "local area," approval fell to 61 percent. It's pretty clear why people are wary of having their hometown host the Olympics. They know what hosting the Olympics means: Gobs and gobs of money being spent, enormous construction projects -- mostly of sports stadiums -- years of preparation, inevitable cost overruns, and two weeks on the world stage. I'm sure Atlanta and Salt Lake City are proud of their experiences, and they should be. But just how much did hosting those events change those cities for the better? How different would either city be today if they hadn't hosted the games? Can all that money being spent on stadiums and infrastructure be put to better use? Is an enormous multi-year disruption to daily life worth economic benefits that are pretty fleeting? Philip Porter, an economist at the University of South Florida who has studied the impact of sporting events, told me that the evidence was unequivocal. "The bottom line is, every time we've looked — dozens of scholars, dozens of times — we find no real change in economic activity," he said. That Times article concluded . . . It's no small matter that surveys routinely find high levels of public support in the host nation before, during and after the Olympics and the World Cup. "It's like a wedding," Matheson told me. "It won't make you rich, but it may make you happy." The trick is deciding how much that's worth. As Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy observed, the numbers for Boston's bid always looked pretty bad for the locals. So it's hard to begrudge them their skepticism and refusal to shell out enormous sums of money: Boston 2024 never had much public support around here, but our city officially stopped being the USOC's city when the mayor refused to sign an agreement that would commit Boston taxpayers to pay for potential Olympic cost overruns. Walsh gets the credit, but it was only a matter of time before Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker dropped the State House hammer on Boston 2024. We don't need this. We never needed this. The Olympics have become the province of autocratic societies. That is not us. We are a free people. And we are still stinging from the Big Dig and February blizzards of 2015. We need to fix the MBTA. We need to fix our schools. It was a mistake to sell the Olympics as a solution for the T, infrastructure, schools, and housing. Years from now, when we look back at the folly of Boston 2024, let's remember that our rejection of the Games was never about three weeks of traffic and inconvenience. It was about taxpayers being on the hook for cost overruns, debt to our children, and another decade of cones and detours. It was about hideous white elephant venues (velodrome, anyone?). Is Anybody Going to Stand Up to Iowa's Ethanol Kings? If you're going to the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines next month, you can see just about every Republican candidate and more than a few Democrats speak, depending upon which day you attend: Thursday, Aug. 13 10:30 a.m.: Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, Republican 1 p.m.: Jim Webb, former U.S. senator from Virginia, Democrat 4 p.m.: Martin O'Malley, governor of Maryland, Democrat Friday, Aug. 14 9:30 a.m.: Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, Republican Saturday, Aug. 15 11 a.m.: Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Republican 11:30 a.m.: Lincoln Chafee, former governor of Maryland, Democrat 2 p.m.: Bernie Sanders, U.S. senator from Vermont, independent, running for the Democratic nomination Sunday, Aug. 16 4 p.m.: Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon, Republican Monday, Aug. 17 10 a.m.: Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, Republican 11 a.m.: Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Republican 3 p.m.: Lindsey Graham, U.S. senator from South Carolina, Republican Tuesday, Aug. 18 10:30 a.m.: Marco Rubio, U.S. senator from Florida, Republican Wednesday, Aug. 19 10 a.m.: Rick Perry, former governor of Texas, Republican Friday, Aug. 21 1:30 p.m.: Ted Cruz, U.S. senator from Texas, Republican Saturday, Aug. 22 11 a.m.: Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, Republican Noon: Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, Republican If any of the speakers are wondering what to talk about, may I suggest the topic, "ethanol mandates stink"? Sure, the corn farmers at the fair may not like it, but it's a winning position in the rest of the country: Voters across party lines oppose requiring increasing amounts of corn ethanol be blended in gasoline. Overall 45 percent oppose, 31 percent favor, and 24 percent remain undecided. Nationally, 56 percent of self-identified Republicans oppose the corn ethanol mandate, as do 44 percent of independents and 36 percent of Democrats. More Democrats and independents oppose the ethanol mandate than support it. Majorities of voters support two bi-partisan proposals before Congress, one to limit the amount of corn ethanol used in gasoline at 10% (54 percent favor), and another to repeal the corn ethanol requirements of the renewable fuel standard (55 percent favor). Strong majorities across party lines favor the EPA reducing the amount of corn ethanol required by law (68 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 71 percent of Republicans). Jazz Shaw: "How many of the POTUS candidates on the GOP side have taken any sort of firm stand on this, when it should be such a no brainer? We've had a few mouthing platitudes about 'not wanting to pick winners and losers' or saying they support eliminating the RFS 'eventually' but the majority of them have once again caved to Iowa primary voters. The only two who come to mind are Cruz and Fiorina, yet sadly they are both currently languishing in the second or third tier of polling at best and Fiorina is in danger of not even making the debates next month." ADDENDA: Everything's nailed down -- I'll be speaking at the Defending the American Dream Summit in Columbus, Ohio, August 21-22. The precise time of my panel is being nailed down, but I'll be speaking about taking your idea for a book from a proposal to publication. Other speakers include some guys you may have heard of -- Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman . . . | 
Comments
Post a Comment