{"id":66736,"date":"2005-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-25T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/25\/mais-ou-sont-ses-partisans\/"},"modified":"2005-08-25T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-08-25T00:00:00","slug":"mais-ou-sont-ses-partisans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/25\/mais-ou-sont-ses-partisans\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2026Mais o\u00f9 sont ses partisans ?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p> Effectivement, et pour poursuivre sur ce qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de chronologiquement dans ce Bloc-Notes, la question est bien de savoir o\u00f9 et qui sont les partisans du Pr\u00e9sident-partisan. A l&rsquo;heure o\u00f9 la prudence n&rsquo;est plus de mise, m\u00eame dans les grands m\u00e9dias conformistes de l&rsquo;<em>establishment<\/em>, le Washington <em>Post<\/em> publie <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2005\/08\/23\/AR2005082301243.html?\" class=\"gen\">un article d\u00e9vastateur de Dana Milbank<\/a> sur l&rsquo;\u00e9tat d&rsquo;esprit du pays. Les sondages de soutien continuent \u00e0 baisser et avoisinent d\u00e9sormais ceux de Bush-p\u00e8re et de Carter avant d&rsquo;\u00eatre battus, respectivement par Reagan (1980) et Clinton (1992). Bient\u00f4t, nous atteindrons les eaux nixoniennes du Watergate, lorsque Nixon \u00e9tait soutenu par un peu plus de 20% des sond\u00e9s. Comme GW a encore trois ans et demi devant lui, il devrait d\u00e9passer Nixon vers le bas et \u00e9tablir un nouveau record,  ce qui lui en ferait deux : record d&rsquo;impopularit\u00e9 et record de la dur\u00e9e des vacances.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tEnfin, pour faire bref : quand Fox <em>News<\/em>, le m\u00e9dia le plus extraordinairement allum\u00e9 en faveur de GW et de la guerre d&rsquo;Irak, allume le repr\u00e9sentant du pr\u00e9sident comme il l&rsquo;a fait le 23 ao\u00fbt, on doit se dire que les \u00e9v\u00e9nements deviennent significatifs. Quelques extraits de l&rsquo;article de Dana Milbank:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>You knew it was a bad day for the White House when even Fox News was piling on President Bush&rsquo;s counselor, Dan Bartlett.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>E.D. Hill, one of the Fox &#038; Friends&rsquo; morning show anchors, said she thought the Iraq war was a justified one but now worries that there&rsquo;s not a plan to actually win that ground war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Well, E.D., I can assure you that&rsquo;s not the case, Bartlett assured her. Allowing that it&rsquo;s been a bumpy process with difficult days, he asserted: We have the right strategy to prevail. Hill was not reassured by this assurance. I guess I&rsquo;m not convinced, she replied.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Nor, it seems, is most of the country. A nationwide poll released Monday by American Research Group showed Bush&rsquo;s approval rating at 36 percent  a new low that, if accurate, would put him in the unhappy company of his father just before his 1992 loss to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter before his loss to Ronald Reagan. Antiwar demonstrators dog Bush at his ranch and at every stop on the road, and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) has said we should start figuring out how we get out of Iraq. Constitutional negotiators are bickering, and some talk of civil war.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 25 ao\u00fbt 2005 \u00e0 09H10<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Effectivement, et pour poursuivre sur ce qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de chronologiquement dans ce Bloc-Notes, la question est bien de savoir o\u00f9 et qui sont les partisans du Pr\u00e9sident-partisan. A l&rsquo;heure o\u00f9 la prudence n&rsquo;est plus de mise, m\u00eame dans les grands m\u00e9dias conformistes de l&rsquo;establishment, le Washington Post publie un article d\u00e9vastateur de Dana Milbank sur l&rsquo;\u00e9tat&hellip;&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3288,4003],"class_list":["post-66736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-fox","tag-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}