EBOLA: AMERICANS AGREE WITH THE GOP

The Washington Times Weekly - - Politics - BY JEN­NIFER HARPER

Much of the na­tion is in agree­ment with the GOP’s call for tem­po­rary travel re­stric­tions and stricter en­try reg­u­la­tions when it comes to West African na­tions bur­dened with Ebola and its man­age­ment. Why, it seems like just yes­ter­day that Repub­li­cans were get­ting blamed for Ebola by mem­bers of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, se­lect Democrats and noisy pro­gres­sives who broadly cited “bud­get cuts” as their ra­tio­nale. Time and the pub­lic nar­ra­tive quickly march on, how­ever. Poll­sters have gauged cit­i­zen sen­ti­ment on the sit­u­a­tion, and their find­ings sug­gest that big ma­jori­ties fa­vor GOP pru­dence about Ebola — voiced by, among many oth­ers, House Speaker John A. Boehner, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Here’s a sam­pling of what’s out there:

Ninety-one per­cent of Americans fa­vor stricter screen­ing for peo­ple trav­el­ing to the U.S. from West Africa; 66 per­cent support a flight ban (Wash­ing­ton Post/ABC News Poll re­leased Oct. 14); 89 per­cent fa­vor stricter screen­ing of trav­el­ers in­bound from af­fected ar­eas (Har­ris/Health Day poll re­leased Oct. 10); 79 per­cent would avoid in­ter­na­tional travel if an Ebola out­break oc­curred in the U.S. (Reuters/Ip­sos poll re­leased Oct. 16); 72 per­cent fa­vor a quar­an­tine of trav­el­ers from af­fected ar­eas; 56 do not ap­prove their en­try into the U.S. (The Economist YouGov poll re­leased Oct. 15). anal­y­sis of “po­lit­i­cal divisiveness” among Americans re­leased by the Pew Re­search Cen­ter.

“Con­sis­tent lib­er­als are more likely to stop talk­ing to some­one be­cause of pol­i­tics. Roughly a quar­ter (24 per­cent) have done so, com­pared with 16 per­cent of con­sis­tent con­ser­va­tives and around 10 per­cent of those with more mixed po­lit­i­cal views,” the re­search says.

Lib­er­als also tend get more riled by their so­cial me­dia con­tacts than their con­ser­va­tive coun­ter­parts.

The re­searchers queried Face­book users to see if they “have ever hid­den blocked, un­friended or stopped fol­low­ing some­one be­cause they dis­agreed with some­thing that per­son posted about pol­i­tics.” The re­sults: 44 per­cent of lib­eral re­spon­dents said they had ended that re­la­tion­ship — com­pared to 31 per­cent of con­ser­va­tives, and 26 per­cent of the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion.

“When it comes to get­ting news about pol­i­tics and gov­ern­ment, lib­er­als and con­ser­va­tives in­habit dif­fer­ent worlds,” the re­search noted. The find­ings were based on a survey of 2,901 U.S. adults con­ducted through­out March and April; the anal­y­sis was re­leased Tues­day. that rep­re­sents hun­dreds of lu­mi­nar­ies rang­ing from Al Pa­cino to Charles Krautham­mer. The or­ga­ni­za­tion does not dis­close Miss Lewin­sky’s fee, nor do they rep­re­sent ei­ther Mr. Clin­ton or Hil­lary Clin­ton — who both earn a re­ported $250,000 a speech. All that said, Miss Lewin­sky held her own dur­ing her speech, and man­aged to get some 12,000 press men­tions be­fore the day was through.

“My name is Mon­ica Lewin­sky. Though I have of­ten been ad­vised to change it, or asked why on earth I haven’t — but, there we are. I haven’t. I am still Mon­ica Lewin­sky,” she told her au­di­ence, re­call­ing the mo­ment she “fell in love with her boss” and be­came part of his­tory.

“Overnight, I went from be­ing a com­pletely pri­vate fig­ure to a pub­licly hu­mil­i­ated one. I was Pa­tient Zero. The first per­son to have their rep­u­ta­tion com­pletely de­stroyed world­wide via the In­ter­net,” Miss Lewin­sky noted.

Comments

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.