Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOnly one in five American voters believe the United States is heading in the right direction, and the overwhelming majority of them have lost confidence in President Bush to right the country's course.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the voters appear to be in the process of losing confidence in the opposition party to do much better than Bush.
According to the latest Associated Press/Ipsos poll, a mere 21 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. was on the right track.
Bush's approval rating, which had trended modestly upward earlier in the spring, fell back to the all-time low for AP/Ipsos surveys: 32 percent. And the number of Americans who expressed satisfaction with president's handling of the Iraq War is at just 28 percent.
That's bad news for Republicans, but it is not particularly good news for Democrats.
Americans are actually more dissatisfied with the direction of the country than they are with the president.
Translation: The Democrats who are in charge of the Congress have not created a sense that they are turning things around.
In fact, with their failure to effectively challenge Bush's management of the war in Iraq, their struggling with issues such as health care and immigration, and their inability so far to hold Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to account, Congressional Democrats are starting to look to a lot of Americans like part of the problem.
Congress still gets higher marks than Bush -- 39 percent approval in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, 35 percent approval in last month's AP/Ipsos survey. But the numbers have declined as it has become clear that Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are unwilling to hold their ground in confrontations with Bush regarding the war and a host of other issues. And the messy, often confusing and increasingly bitter debate over immigration reform won't help.
What's happening is that the Democrats in Congress, who as recently as April maintained a dramatic approval rating advantage over Bush -- 24 percent better in ABC/Washington Post polling -- have essentially lost their advantage.
Why are Democrats falling in the public esteem? According to a smart analysis by ABC News Polling Unit director Gary Langer, "In terms of their overall approval rating, the damage is almost entirely among people who strongly oppose the war in Iraq. In this group 69 percent approved of the Democrats in April, but just 54 percent still approve now -- a likely effect of the Democrats' failure to push a withdrawal timetable through Congress."
There is no evidence to suggest that the decline in Democratic fortunes will benefit Republicans. And Democrats still do a good deal better than the GOP when voters are forced to choose between the two parties. But the dual-disenchantment factor ought not be underestimated.
The intensity of enthusiasm for the Democrats is dwindling. And the decision of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to give Bush a blank check to pursue his war of whim is a big factor in the shift.
Rather than accepting the mandate of the voters to stand in opposition to the Bush-Cheney administration, Pelosi and Reid have in the eyes of a growing number of Americans made Democrats the partners of the president and vice president.
Defenders of Democratic leaders argue that this is an unavoidable circumstance because of divisions within the ranks of the party's House and Senate caucuses.
But that excuse does not appear to be cutting it with voters. Nor does the suggestion that pushing for a bring-the-troops-home time line will identify the Democrats as being weak on national defense; 53 percent of those interviewed for the Washington Post-ABC News poll -- a new high -- said they do not believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States.
It is said that the problem with contemporary policymaking is that too many politicians "read the polls." But perhaps the problem is that Democrats aren't reading the polls closely enough.
The voters are sending a message, and it is every bit as powerful as the one they tried to send when Democrats were given control of Congress last fall.
If Congressional Democrats don't get this message, and adjust their approach on Iraq appropriately, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could soon find themselves pulling even with Bush in the disapproval sweepstakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
NICHOLS: Americans are actually more dissatisfied with the direction of the country than they are with the president.
There is a malaise in the lands and I attribute it to the diminishing hope among many, including me, that our political divides can be closed! Like the fragmentation of TV viewing habits and the explosion of alternatives in just everything we do (too much liberty!), it is simply getting harder and harder to be "United" on anything. Of course, the pols knows this well and are twisting themselves into ever more grotesque-looking preztles to try to cover as many `fragments' as possible.....looking ever more hypocritical and ridiculous!
Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 12:57pm
Well, couple of points...
Logically, of COURSE, if the Dems aren't actually trying to get us out of Iraq (as 65-70% of America wants) they'll go down in the polls. But you're right Mr Nichols, this isn't "good news" for the Republicans, as the Congress still polls higher than Bush.
Nor is it a "good opportunity for a 3rd party" (FREE, ZERO, Empty Spence, etc.)....since everybody will be willing to give the Dem Congress one more chance under a Democratic Presidency.
Likely as not a lot of Democrats are pissed, but not suicidal (and of course you've got the Pelosi defenders, like DARLADOON, and the Hillary-Is-Okay-In-My-Book types like FRANKGRITS).
The Repubs?...tough haul. Bush loved by the 28% Crowd (ACOOK, etc) is burning bridges with them on immigration and DARING to speak to a member of the "Axis of Evil" (Iran)....and unless a "real conservative" (like Thompson) gets in the race, their base isn't going to the polls in big numbers come November 2008.
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 1:23pm
Mask,
I trust that your mischaracterization of me is deliberate...so well done.
There will not be a viable third party candidate...not because the American people want to give the Dems "one more chance", but because the corporate structure will not allow it. How in the hell do you suppose a third candidate would raise $500Million to basically get on the ballot? Joe and Ellie Davies can give about $25.00 but that's it! Or do you reckon they'd make it with a grassroots campaign....how long do you think the corporate media would keep reporting on a candidate that could potentially ruin their gravy train....8 minutes? 11 minutes?
Frankly, we're doomed to the same ol' same ol raping and pillaging....we've become serf's to our corporate puppet masters.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/07/2007 @ 1:37pm
California, Nevada and Michigan all allow recall elections. It's time to hold Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Conyers responsible for their cowardice, and their refusals to end the Iraq war and impeach Bush and Cheney.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 06/07/2007 @ 1:37pm
Congress members seem to be more preoccupied with breaking laws than making them.
Posted by tyrodin at 06/07/2007 @ 1:55pm
but zero would never, ever want to live in a marin villa and sip chai. nah.
p.s. pelosi voted AGAINST THE FUNDING BILL! zero, why don't you STFU and get a life!
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:13pm
would someone who is not on zero's ignore list please inform him that PELOSI VOTED AGAINST THE FUNDING BILL. and also, she lives in NAPA, and not marin.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:14pm
Frankly, we're doomed to the same ol' same ol raping and pillaging....we've become serf's to our corporate puppet masters.
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/07/2007 @ 1:37pm
Then FREE....what the HELL is the point of you posting on a political blog? Nothing you suggest, recommend, or support will be implemented (by your own count) for "20 years or more!" And if even "The Nation" is helpless against the "corporate puppet masters"...then is this just to keep your fingers from becoming arthritic (by exercising them on a keyboard)?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:14pm |
Will somebody NOT on DD's Ignore list please inform her that nobody buys that "poor Nancy is doing her best at cat-herding" crap anymore...and if she's powerless, then replace her with somebody who ISN'T!
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 2:22pm
furthermore, if EVERYONE voted as pelosi has the last 5 years, the following would be realities:
a) we never would have gone into iraq b) even if we had gone into iraq, funding for it would not have continued without accountability c) even if accontability were managed, funding would not have otherwise continued
in other words, zero's words are completely, utterly and totally without any merit whatsoever. pelosi has been on the good side since day 1. as have several others (not enough, but several).
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:24pm
would someone who is not on zero's ignore list please inform him that PELOSI VOTED AGAINST THE FUNDING BILL. and also, she lives in NAPA, and not marin.
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:14pm |
Will somebody NOT on DD's Ignore list please inform her that nobody buys that "poor Nancy is doing her best at cat-herding" crap anymore...and if she's powerless, then replace her with somebody who ISN'T!
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person
That's actually funny enough to repost!
Posted by freedomplease at 06/07/2007 @ 2:25pm
yes, she has many several mistakes in her home city/state, but what do you expect? if she had not privatized the presidio, we can be certain that the presidio would have continued to be neglected.
i'd rather have lucas's offices living on 5% of the property than have said property rot into oblivion.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:26pm
Will somebody NOT on DD's Ignore list please inform her that nobody buys that "poor Nancy is doing her best at cat-herding" crap anymore...and if she's powerless, then replace her with somebody who ISN'T!
uh, earth to freedom please: even obey (D-WI) himself criticized his own legislation by voting against it. do you people have any idea how the process works? yes, they could have filibustered with 40 votes, but that would never have ended the war.
the only option is to refuse to fund the war by not introducing any new bills at all. but that is irrelevant until the next segment of funding runs out.
you people! i can only shake my head and wonder how the hell you can criticize ONE WOMAN over the 280 who voted for this fucking bill.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:29pm
for all those pelosi-bashers, please inform us of nancy's singular options in this scenario.
come on, enlighten me. if you can't, then you are all full of shit (or just totally ignorant of politics).
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:30pm
serious, what can pelosi do? FYI: SHE DOESN'T WRITE LEGISLATION!
she votes, and tries to gather votes, and tries to herd support, but beyond that, he role is merely symbolic vis a vis war funding. she cannot single handedly end the war. impossible.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:32pm
On Nichol's previous post I made a long list of repub corruption and incompetence. That dems are having to send the message that we're not them is a tall order considerring that they're only been in control a few months compared to 6 years of repub mayhem.
I don't doubt that any slip by the dems will be magnefied 100 fold to the repub 100:1 crime-spree.
On the other hand -- that dems are being held to a higher standard isn't necessarily a bad thing. I wish though that dems are in power long enough that the higher standard once again becomes the minimum standard and that corruption isn't viewed as a necessary political evil.
I miss the outrage-- the public out-cry, whenever a politician commit a violation of our constitution or commits secret corporate no bid deals losing us billions, appoints and honors incompetents and failure, lies to us-- continually, outs a spy, on and on and no marching nor continuous protest outside 1600 Penn Ave.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 2:41pm
er, commits
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 2:48pm
That's actually funny enough to repost!
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/07/2007 @ 2:25pm
Thanks FREE. Thing is, poor DARLA is in a trap. On one hand she has to be proud of Speaker Nancy and credit her with all the "good stuff" (minimum wage hike, etc.)....
but on the other hand, claim she's "powerless" and "cat herding" when it comes to the Iraq War.
So basically, her rationale is "Nancy is a great and effective leader....AND she's a helpless cat-herder, who can't do anything politically dangerous (like de-funding the war)!"
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 2:51pm
I don't understand the point of this article. The Nation Magazine will continue to back the Democrats even if they put forward a rabid skunk to run in the next presidential election. If it hadn't plunged a knife into Nader's back in the last election, progressive forces would be much stronger in the USA today. All in all, this pathetic charade reminds me of Social Democratic "lesser evil" policies in the Weimar era.
Posted by lnp3 at 06/07/2007 @ 2:52pm
And Democrats still do a good deal better than the GOP when voters are forced to choose between the two parties. But the dual-disenchantment factor ought not be underestimated.
Dual-disenfranchisement might be a better way of phrasing it.
Posted by HAPPY 06/07/2007 @ 12:57pm
Conducting a poll is a standard, scientific process. You either have a random sample, or you don't. Your argument seems to suggest that polls typically do not have a random sample that is representative of the U.S. population. I think this is a rather dubious position. Do you have any facts to support this idea of yours?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 1:23pm
I agree that most people will still vote Democratic - but a few will start voting for a 3rd. More will if nothing happens - and I don't see a big change in policy with the likely Democratic candidate in office.
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:32pm
Maybe she can call Tom Delay for some tips? Ouch! Sorry, but couldn't resist.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 2:53pm
uh, i never made the claim attributed to me in srjenkins' last post....
care to correct that jenkins?
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 2:55pm
And let's not forget this stinker:
The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Date____Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor
4/20-23/07_______22______________74
2/2-5/07_________26______________69
XXXxxxxXXXXxxxxXxXxxXxXXXXxxxXXXXxxXXxxxXxx
Wonder where Harris has the congressional repubs now.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 3:03pm
So basically, her rationale is "Nancy is a great and effective leader....AND she's a helpless cat-herder, who can't do anything politically dangerous (like de-funding the war)!
the reality is, i have never, ever praised nancy for anything, just defended her against non-sensical claims......like those which zero has made.
and still, not a single person has disputed my claim that she is, in effect, powerless on the issue of funding the war. she did not write the legislation. she voted against the legislation. she has voted against the war since day 1.
what more can she do?
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 3:05pm
Would not the perfect solution for everyone concerned, we the people especially, be to impeach the hsuB/cHeney admin? It would help both the congressional repubs and as well as the dems! Think about it. Clearly 2/3's of the US citizenry wouldn't mind.
PollingReport.com
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls
Survey_______Dates__________Approve______Disapprove____Unsure____Dif
AP-Ipsos___6/4-6/07 ________32 __________66________*_____-34
AP-Ipsos_____5/7-9/07 __________ 35____________61 _________*______-26
Pew____5/30 - 6/3/07________29__________61________10____-32
Pew_______4/18-22/07 ___________35____________57_________8______-22
USA T/Gallup_6/1-3/07________32__________62________6 ____-30
USA T/Gallup__5/4-6/07 ___________34____________63_________3_____-29
CBS/NY Times_5/18-23/07______30__________63________7____-33
CBS/NY Times__4/20-24/07_________32____________61_________7_____-29
D/Hotline RV__5/16-20/07______32__________64________4____-32
D/Hotline RV___4/26-30/07 _________35____________62_________3_____-27
Gallup____5/10-13/07_________33__________62________5____-29
Gallup_______3/11-14/07 __________35____________61_________4_____-26
Newsweek___5/2-3/07_________28__________64________8____-36
Newsweek_____3/28-29/07_________33____________60 _________7 ____-27
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 3:26pm
Both the congressional repub's and dem's poll numbers would go up once they started articles of impeachment against the hsuB/cHeney admin.
And Pelosi can vote against it.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 3:31pm
And Pelosi can vote against it
she would never, ever vote against it. are you out of your mind? that would make her president, at least temporarily.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 3:40pm
and this clearly (!) refutes all claims that pelosi is only interested in power.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 3:40pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 2:53pm
SR...the basic questions---
How MANY will (vote third party...BTW, I assume you mean "Green"...not "Libertarian" or "Constitution"?)?.....Nader got 2.88 million in 2000. In 2004, between him and David Cobb....583,511.
Why did the 2.3 million Nader voters ....disappear? (or vote Kerry)
And what is different from 2004 and 2008?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 3:55pm
Darla,
All I meant was-- since 'Pelosi' took impeachment 'off the table' and per your contention that all she can do against legislation she isn't 'for'-- is to vote against it, then when the articles of impeachment for the hsuB/cHeney admin are brought up to the floor and allowed to be voted on, she doesn't look like she went back on her word: she can vote against it.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 3:56pm
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 3:05pm
How about keep sending the same bill back to Bush...as John Edwards suggested, DD?
And getting on every talk show, every weekend and making the case that it's BUSH who isn't supporting the troops and that Congress is providing MORE money than he asked for...and all he has to do is some BASIC guidelines for the Iraqis to take over and we to "stand down"?
Or she could just jet around the Middle East for photo ops with Bashar al-Assad...or go to Greenland to...WATCH ICE MELT!
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
Wonder where Harris has the congressional repubs now.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/07/2007 @ 3:03pm
Maybe somebody should inform HSUB, that ....the Republicans aren't the majority party in Congress anymore, nor can they be until 2009....so who GIVES a rat's gluteus maximus what THEIR poll numbers are, since it does nothing to affect what comes out of Congress!
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:00pm
Or she could just jet around the Middle East for photo ops with Bashar al-Assad...or go to Greenland to...WATCH ICE MELT!
is it really (come on, mask) up to pelosi how the media covers her public life? she has made so many concise and eloquent public statements on her position since she became speaker, that i don't even know where to begin. in other words, her position is abundantly clear. and your argumentation is so weak, so pathetic, so amateurish, that i don't even know how to respond (what, because she went to greenland, she can't adequately address the war? and is global warming not a top priority for congress?).
mask, get a grip, dude. you STILL have not disputed my claim that pelosi, single-handedly, cannot get us out of iraq.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 4:03pm
Now now Masky, we all know that there weren't the votes for the same funding legislation the second time around.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 4:03pm
basically, all arguments against pelosi are completely baseless, especially en lieu of her voting record, public statements, etc.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 4:04pm
so who GIVES a rat's gluteus maximus what THEIR poll numbers are, since it does nothing to affect what comes out of Congress!
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 4:00pm
Credibility, Masky, are you familiar with the concept? Perhaps not... But of course, Masky thinks I paid the millions of dollars to the pollsters to see what us people think of the congressional repubs standing in our country.... Yes, I'll admit I'm pretty well off-- not that well off.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 4:09pm
Masky, are repubs bothering to even run for president? Well, considering they have absolutely no power in congress and all that means...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 4:12pm
Masky, why do congressional repubs bother to even show up and vote? Since anything they do no longer matters. I'd suspect they've all committed suicide by now anyway... Perhaps that's why congressional repub's poll numbers are so low! 99% of the US polled-- believe suicide is bad....
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 4:20pm
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:32pm
...she votes, and tries to gather votes, and tries to herd support, but beyond that, he role is merely symbolic...
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 2:53pm
Maybe she can call Tom Delay for some tips?
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:55pm
uh, i never made the claim attributed to me in srjenkins' last post....
care to correct that jenkins?
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 2:55pm
I said it. In response to your post. You claim that she is powerless. I'm suggesting, perhaps too indirectly for your tastes, that she is responsible for putting some discipline into the Democratic Party and I am not buying the powerless "what can I do?" stance.
Tom Delay is an abomination to be sure, but it doesn't mean that he has nothing to teach us. Everything else aside, he did manage to get discipline out of Republicans during his tenure.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 4:31pm
is it really (come on, mask) up to pelosi how the media covers her public life? ---Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 4:03pm
I'm sorry, so in addition to being a helpless cat-herder as Speaker of the US House of Representatives....poor Nancy is also a helpless pawn of...the paparazzi?!??! Was she FORCED to take those photos with Assad? or in front of that glacier? Shanghai'ed from perhaps "single-handedly" going on Stephanopolous, Russert, even Fox News Sunday and making a case that sending the same bill forces the President to be the one who doesn't support the troops?
No, no, no....poor Nancy. A mere puppet of other Congress-people and the Media. She can't push a bill forward, barely can vote (if ever), and is a mere figurehead who is like some Lady Jane Grey under the control of some "Northumberland" (Harry Reid?)
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:35pm
HSUB....methinks you are still fighting "the old fight"?
Like some bizarre World War-2 general in May of 1945, after Berlin has fallen, but Japan is still in it, who worries about a resurgence of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe.
What does it MATTER what the public thinks of....the MINORITY party in Congress!?!!? Maybe a "veto-proof majority"...but not until January 2009 (well after your supposed impeachment date).
Actually, if you were a "progressive", you ought to be more worried about the "Blue Dog" Democrats....instead of looking for a Repub under every bed.
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:38pm
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 3:55pm
I'm equal opportunity third party Mask. In fact, the more options, the better.
As for what is different, I voted for Kerry in 2004 - because I thought it was important to get Bush out of office. I have no doubt many people that would otherwise vote third party made the same choice.
I think if people see that Iraq is going to be different when there is a Democratic president in the same way it became different when there was a "surge", people with a strong anti-war stance might decide to give the Democratic party the finger, especially if the Republicans field a Bob Dole act-alike.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 4:38pm
BTW, any history buffs out there want to explain how these guys were NOT helpless cat-herders?
Joseph Gurney Cannon
Nicholas Longworth
Sam Rayburn
Carl Albert
Tip O'Neill
Newt Gingrich
Dennis Hastert
...but the present Speaker is?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:42pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 4:38pm
SR, a little side-bet with you...
the "Greens" (most prominent 3rd party) DO NOT get anywhere close to Nader's 2.88 million in 2004, in 2008....in fact, willing to bet they don't get a million.
Would you take it?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 4:45pm
Arch, you want to impeach, or recall, the dems 'cause they didn't impeach Bush? that'll really help us get rid of Bush, won't it?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2007 @ 4:47pm
What does it MATTER what the public thinks of....the MINORITY party in Congress!?!!?
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 4:38pm
Why are there repub congressional polls if it doesn't matter-- costs millions of dollars, do they not?
As well, goes to show 'why' congressional polls as a whole, sited by new con talking heads, are so low, when you consider there still are repubs in congress, it makes more sense. Dems separated from the repubs, poll a lot better of course. But it's also a barometer of how desparate the repubs in congress will be to separate themselves from the hsuB/cHeney admin. I say when they hit approvals in the teens (cHeney territory)-- they'll be ready to side with the dems to impeach the hsuB/cHeney admin. Otherwise they're fish bait in '08.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 5:01pm
this is why i ignored mask to begin with: here's the maskian logic broken down:
*because pelosi flew to greenland and syria, and allowed photographers to witness it, she therefore has demonstrated why she is fit not to be the speaker of the house, whereas this hapharzard list of white men (previous Speakers), who were NEVER, EVER photographed performing random personal or public duties during their tenure, perfectly demonstrated why if they were currently speaker, we would have long since left in iraq.
*mask, your logic is so weak that i don't even know why i took you off the ignore list: you STILL have yet to demonstrate how pelosi could single-handedly get us out of the mess in which we are currently mired. furthermore, by shifting the discussion to greenland and syria, both missions for which the majority of americans and congressional figures on both sides of the aislse, showed overwhelming support (in polls), you have demostrated why YOU aren't fit to be a man with courage and conviction, but a rat in disguise.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 5:28pm
this is why i ignored mask to begin with: here's the maskian logic broken down:
*because pelosi flew to greenland and syria, and allowed photographers to witness it, she therefore has demonstrated why she is fit not to be the speaker of the house, whereas this hapharzard list of white men (previous Speakers), who were NEVER, EVER photographed performing random personal or public duties during their tenure, perfectly demonstrated why if they were currently speaker, we would have long since left in iraq.
*mask, your logic is so weak that i don't even know why i took you off the ignore list: you STILL have yet to demonstrate how pelosi could single-handedly get us out of the mess in which we are currently mired. furthermore, by shifting the discussion to greenland and syria, both missions for which the majority of americans and congressional figures on both sides of the aislse, showed overwhelming support (in polls), you have demostrated why YOU aren't fit to be a man with courage and conviction, but a rat in disguise.
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 5:28pm
and that someone is suggesting that pelosi somehow morph into tom 'the hammer' deal, a convicted criminial, is simply ludicrous, or that she just become more 'manly' and strongarm congressmen and women into supporting HER position. oh man, i can't tell you how moronic you sound.....
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 5:42pm
and the ONLY reason why anyone is now speaking about the significance of the Speaker is because a woman has become one. otherwise, it's just business as usual, i.e. "if a man is playing the role, clearly he's getting things done."
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 5:45pm
can anyone elighten us and tell us what o'neill did under his role as speaker? did he manage to overcome insurmountable odds like lebron against detroit? oh please!
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 5:47pm
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 4:45pm
Nope. I rarely bet, and in this case, there are too many variables. I don't know: who the Greens are fielding, how many states will have them on the ballot, who the respective main party candidates are - so forth and so on. Maybe when I have a better sense of the probabilities.
If Al Gore were running Green, I'd probably take the bet. But, I don't even know if I'll vote Green at this point.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 6:07pm
Repub congress gives hsuB the business about Iraq, Frito, DoJ exposed as new gastapo tryout, immigration shot down, repub candidates ridicule hsuB while he's in a foriegn land and at a time of war, hsuB/congressional repubs/cHeney poll numbers at a all time low, hsuB ever closer to worst pres ever,...
Er, this may be a sign of how it starts to unravel towards a hsuB/cHeney admin impeachment:
Cheney to have routine heart checkup
Thu Jun 7, 2007 12:29pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney, a survivor of four heart attacks including a mild one shortly after the 2000 election, will have a routine heart checkup on Friday, his office said on Thursday.
"The vice president will visit his doctors at the George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates tomorrow morning for a scheduled routine cardiology check-up," said his deputy press secretary Megan McGinn.
In January 2006 he was treated for shortness of breath that was believed to have been triggered by a reaction to medication for a foot ailment.
Additionally, in March 2007 a blood clot was discovered in his leg after he returned from a nine-day trip to Asia and the Middle East. He was treated with blood-thinning medication.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type= politicsNews&storyid=2007-06-07T164609Z _01_N07210285_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHENEY.xml
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 6:08pm
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 5:42pm
I raise a valid point about party discipline and you make it into a gender question. Don't you realize that turning issues that are not about gender - into issues of gender - you undermine legitimate gender issues? Presumably you have heard of the little boy that cried wolf?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 6:12pm
The Democrats have had control of Congress for not even six months. I think we should give them (and Pelosi) a little more time before passing judgment.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2007 @ 6:13pm
and still, not a single person has disputed my claim that she is, in effect, powerless on the issue of funding the war. she did not write the legislation. she voted against the legislation. she has voted against the war since day 1.
what more can she do?
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person
Well she could have left out all the pork which I note she voted for.
She was instrumental in segregating the vote on this bill so that everybody wins except the majority of the American people. Pelosi got her pork to pay off political debts old and new and the President got a blank check. How nice. Legislative sleight of hand should be deplored not commended. Pelosi and Reid have demonstrated their incompetence and should be replaced with strong leadership. I hope this happens before the election. If it doesn't, I see Congressional seat losses on the horizon for the Dems, and maybe even the Presidency if Repubs can get their act together.
Posted by OneVote at 06/07/2007 @ 6:19pm
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 5:47pm
Oh, and I'll be the first to say it. Democrats in general have a problem with party discipline. Tip O'Neill was as effective at implementing universal health care as Nancy has been doing anything substantive to get us moving out of Iraq. What was that Will Rogers quote?
"I am a member of no organized party - I'm a Democrat!"
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 6:28pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/07/2007 @ 6:13pm
It's a two year gig and 6 months is enough to get a feel for what's going to get done - and nothing on Iraq is getting done. Bush is in the same position now as he was when there was a Republican Congress.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 6:32pm
Hey Masky, what did I say a few months ago, or it close to a year now? Impeachment of hsuB/cHeney and Gore entering the pres race. Yep, they are both on cue.
Washington Post-ABC News Poll, The Washington Post, Monday, June 4, 2007
(ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?
NET LEANED VOTE:
______________6/1/07____4/15/07_____2/25/07
Hillary Clinton____35________37__________36
Barack Obama____23________20__________24
Al Gore__________17________17__________14
John Edwards______8________14__________12
XXXXXxxxxXXXxxxxxXXXXxxxxXXXXxxxXXxxXXXxxXx
USA TODAY/Gallup Poll results
Asked of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party)I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for President in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else.
____________06/1-3/07__05/10-13/07__05/4-6/07__04/13-15/07
Barack Obama_____30_______26_________23_________26
Hillary Clinton _____29_______35_________38_________31
Al Gore___________17_______16_________14_________15
John Edwards______11_______12_________12_________16
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 6:51pm
Bush is in the same position now as he was when there was a Republican Congress.
Posted by SRJENKINS 06/07/2007 @ 6:32pm
NOT.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 6:54pm
HsuB/cHeney admin are getting oversighted out the wazoo by a dem congress and discovery of obstruction of justice to change our DoJ into a gastapo, subpoenas, congressional repubs giving hsuB the talk on Iraq, rideculing hsuB during the repub pres debate while in a foriegn country-- while at a time of war no less, everything is currently moving to hsuB being screwed via Iraq in about 2 months by dems with repub help.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 7:11pm
Anyone not seeing this coming has got to their eyes checked out.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 7:15pm
er, (ha), Anyone not seeing this coming has got to 'get' their eyes checked out.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 7:17pm
It's a countdown folks.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 7:17pm
Going for a jog-- later.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 7:21pm
and the ONLY reason why anyone is now speaking about the significance of the Speaker is because a woman has become one. otherwise, it's just business as usual, i.e. "if a man is playing the role, clearly he's getting things done."
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person
Pretty scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wonder if "Lil Nanci" will use the "woman discriminated against" card in the future. Maybe she is saving it for a rainy day. Here is a splendid example of why America can't make good choices. If she is a WOMAN and a DEMOCRAT she deserves my vote of confidence. Heaven help us. I don't think women's suffrage envisioned women as having such a simplistic view of the criteria to judge their own gender by.
Posted by OneVote at 06/07/2007 @ 7:28pm
Pelosi got her pork to pay off political debts old and new and the President got a blank check
proof?
and, again, SHE DID NOT WRITE THE LEGISLATION.
second, the other "pork", or the embarcadero development earmarked for san francisco, is wholly unrelated to paul pelosi's property nearby. that was substantiated in the chron last month....
so, still, no evidence that this is pelosi's failing. and nobody has suggested (which is the ONLY back up plan) a filibuster. not a single person. just this guy who suggests (w/out) evidence that pelosi failed.....
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 7:57pm
it's easy to claim that this is pelosi and reid's fault, as if leadership were the only criterion on which to base claims....
second, why is leadership so important???
third, why is a unified party so important?
Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 7:59pm
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 5:28pm
DARLA, there is one specific reason why you put me on Ignore....I make you mad with a round of logic and reason, for which your emotion-based thinking cannot respond.
Those other Speakers (Cannon, Rayburn, O'Neill) were able to take a multi-faceted Congress and LEAD it in a direction they wanted. They nearly challenged the President for who was in charge.
Say it as many different ways as you want...the ONLY excuse you can offer for Nancy Pelosi is....she's weak and powerless.
Now...why is she...and those other people weren't? And no...I don't think it's due to her gender (Margaret Thatcher and Benezir Bhutto were women and strong leaders).
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 8:10pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/07/2007 @ 6:51pm |
Less than 5 months to go, HSUB.
Cat-herder Nancy will be getting those bills of impeachment out of the House and ol' Al will simply announce and the Hillary/Obama/Edwards campaigns will collapse into dust.
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 8:15pm
it's easy to claim that this is pelosi and reid's fault, as if leadership were the only criterion on which to base claims....
Posted by DARLADOON 06/07/2007 @ 7:59pm
Wish they would stop referring to themselves as the "Democratic leadership"....and call themselves the "Democratic guys who are nominally leaders, but merely part of the pact and nothing special".
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 8:17pm
80 percent of real actual American Citizens want and demand that S.1348 get killed Thursday June 7th.
These same real actual Americans demand ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS.
The anti-Americans in the Senate and White House want to wave their white handkerchiefs in surrender to terrorists and other Illegal Aliens.
Are you pro-American or just another mindless one-worlder trying to erase sovereignty?
Posted by tucanofulano at 06/07/2007 @ 8:21pm
You're a retired veteran of the US Coast Guard, Rese? I'd better they're pretty selective anyway.
I agree with Mr. Darladoon that Pelosi shouldn't be vilified, but obviously the frustration level is pushing previously seen limits of endurance, n'est ce-pas?
Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 9:28pm
I'd wager, rather, any military organization can afford to be very selective what with alternative minimum wage, dead end service positions in mid-management to toil at as a prospect for the patriotic youths
Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 9:31pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 06/07/2007 @ 9:28pm
Okay, again, is LEW the "Mr. Rogers" of The Nation blog or what?
BTW, DARLA is a self-identified female, so it's "MS DARLADOON".
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 10:27pm
Of course there is another angle on this. Perhaps Pelosi and Reid and George are OK and there is something wrong with 70 percent of those Americans who vote and respond to pollsters. They never seem to get it right. I mean they say they are against the war so to prove it they voted enough pro-war GOP, Dems and Libs back in last November in order that the war wouldn't be stopped.
I ask you, who is stupid? JM mentioned the poor state of the Public education system over there. He might be on to something.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2007 @ 10:57pm
Cat-herder Nancy will be getting those bills of impeachment out of the House and ol' Al will simply announce and the Hillary/Obama/Edwards campaigns will collapse into dust.
Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 8:15pm
You said it Masky (tm).
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 12:58am
Oh what oh what will the repubs in congress do when the dems push for the articles of impeachment for the hsuB/cHeney admin? Them pushing away from hsuB so much, will they defend hsuB and thus have hsuB's disasters stick to them-- owning his polls as well -or- will they side with dems alienating their new con insane base? Uhmmm, what to do, what to do...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 01:04am
Too bad so many "wasted "their vote on Bush, Gore and Kerry. If Nader had been elected, I bet the county would think we were headed in the right direction, away from a corporate duopoly.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 10:10am
Come on Democrats! Dont worry! Of course people are pissed, but all the Democrats have to do to regain approval ratings, is attack Bush harder. Get Nastier against Bush. Where's the subpoenas. Get Hardcore. Instant Approval!!!!
Posted by conshame at 06/08/2007 @ 10:14am
Crabwalk, Nader said in 2000 he wasnt running to actually get elected. He said he was running to 1) build the Green Party, and 2) qualify the Green Party for $43 million in federal matching funds in 2004 by getting 5% of the popular vote. Nader did not say he was running to actually get elected, Crabwalk.
Posted by conshame at 06/08/2007 @ 10:17am
Too bad so many "wasted "their vote on Bush, Gore, Kerry, and Nader. If Cobb had been elected everything'd been cool.
Posted by conshame at 06/08/2007 @ 10:18am
For all you lefties out there, this is what happens when you get lied to.The dems lied to get elected saying they would end the war pull out etc. As ABC reported, Iran is arming Al Quaida in Afghanistan and Iraq. Militant Islam wants to kill us. If you carefully listned to the smart pundits, they predicted this would happen. Faced with leadership, you still have to deal with the war on terror. Since it is real, you just can't run and hide. You libs are going to continue to have angst because this is the real deal and your leaders, at the end of the day, won't be that much different than Bush. Oh what a surprise!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by blue devil at 06/08/2007 @ 10:58am
BLUE DEVIL,
Now it's off to the ignore bin with the rest of your aliases. See ya.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2007 @ 11:22am
Well, there you have it..its all you need to know...
Frank never stops entertaining...what will he do if Fred Thompson enters and kicks Hillary around like and old soccer ball in Nov...my god, the wailing will be heard for miles.....
Posted by john maasch at 06/08/2007 @ 12:03pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/08/2007 @ 12:03pm
Ahh, to dream. Be real easy to tie Fred Thompson to special interests given his many years as a lobbyist.
What else does Fred Thompson stand for? He is in favor of the war on drugs, free market fundamentalism, flip-flopper on abortion, Iraq war supporter (particularly interesting in light of his balanced budget positions - going to pay for that with more taxes Fred?) and so forth.
I think Fred Thompson has quite a few weaknesses that are going to come to light when he declares himself. If he gets the nod, he's going to have his lunch eaten. He's not Ronald Reagan nor is he the Republican party great white hope for 2008.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2007 @ 12:57pm
Hey John, Al can take Fred easily. I'd suspect even if Clinton wins the dem nom, per that 2% chance Gore decides not to run, he'd still most likely campaign for her as well as would Bill. Fred will look awfully silly with his fake truck spouting free-Libby rhetoric, juxtaposed to just those 3 dems with 600 times better Fred's experience and approval ratings. I have little doubt the dems ability to trounce any repub at this point.
My more immediate interest is how far the repubs have to go to rid themselves of the current hsuB/cHeney admin noose around their necks. Obviously they're stuck in a connundrum when the dems decide to move on impeaching the hsuB/cHeney admin in a few weeks. If the repubs appear to be protecting hsuB/cHeney admin in any way-- they're also stuck with all hsuB's diasaters and possibly polls in the 20's if not teens. If the repubs in congress side with the dems to rid themselves of the hsuB/cHeney admin concrete shoes, their new con pro-MIC/death of other people's family and ME-looking types or their 'insane-base', will turn on them. UUuuhhmmm.
Why does the term 'check-mate' pop up all of a sudden...
And why is this not surprising:
GOP Senators Now Say They Want Iraq Troop Reduction
LA Times | June 8, 2007 09:16 AM
XXXXXxxxxxXxXXxXxXXXxXXXxxxxXXXXXxxxxxXXXXxxXXxXxx
"Pentagon sources are telling NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that Defense Secretary Gates has replaced Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with Adm. Mike Mullen. He is currently the Navy's chief naval officer."
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 1:12pm
er, disasters
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 1:14pm
Phreds defense of Libby should have everybody questioning his integrity. Unless he is planning on pardoning Clinton for lying under oath when no underlying crime had been committed. Then there would at least be some symmetry to his argument, if not an understanding of law.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 1:32pm
Fred wants his order before law...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 1:50pm
PSYCH
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 2:16pm
Here we go:
Democrats May Subpoena N.S.A. Documents
By JAMES RISEN
Published: June 8, 2007 WASHINGTON, June 7 -- Senior House Democrats threatened Thursday to issue subpoenas to obtain secret legal opinions and other documents from the Justice Department related to the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program.
The subpoena threat came after a senior Justice Department official told a House judiciary subcommittee on Thursday that the department would not turn over the documents because of their confidential nature. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, did not assert executive privilege during the hearing.
The potential confrontation over the documents comes in the wake of gripping Senate testimony last month by a former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, who described a confrontation in March 2004 between Justice Department and White House officials over the wiretapping program that took place in the hospital room of John Ashcroft, then attorney general. Mr. Comey's testimony, disclosing the sharp disagreements in the Bush administration over the legality of some N.S.A. activities, has increased Congressional interest in scrutinizing the program.
At the same time, the Bush administration is seeking new legislation to expand its wiretapping powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have argued that they do not want to vote on the issue without first seeing the administration's legal opinions on the wiretapping program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/washington/ 08nsa.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 2:23pm
So, post-de-Baathification, 4 years and 3500 of our troop's lives later:
U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 2:31pm
ABC says that Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams is behind the covert action against Iran, which reportedly stems from a "nonlethal presidential finding" signed by Bush to launch a plan that "includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions." But the CIA has consistently told this White House it can't do anything about the mullahs in Tehran short of strangling the country economically, in particular cutting off finished fuel products. That could take years, which is too long for the Bush Administration. (Both the White House and CIA refused to comment to ABC about the report.)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624993,00.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 2:42pm
Send the Subpoenas! What is all this "threaten" to send subpoenas? The reason people are pissed at the Democrats is because of things like this. Arent we at the point yet, with Bush, that you can send a subpoena without threatening to send a subpoena? Subpoena everything. The Democrats will get their approval poll points, when they get hardcore.
Posted by conshame at 06/08/2007 @ 2:44pm
Democrats May Subpoena N.S.A. Documents ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/08/2007 @ 2:23pm
Isn't "may" slightly different from "will"?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2007 @ 3:09pm
ConShame,
I think the avoidance to automatically 'go to the matresses', since that's basically war, and in this case-- it would be more like constipation. Why not just do it? Because the dems need the repubs especially in the senate to get anything done. Now that repubs have finally realized they need to separate from hsuB/cHeney admin in order to get re-elected, dems will be able to get more assertive and not lose the repubs, which are needed to pass anything substansive w/out a veto cancelling it all out. And then there is impeachment. It won't work without repubs backing the dems up. So it's best to biuld that common cause opening. Attacking hsuB early would make the repubs more attached to the hsuB/cHeney admin; not divide them up. The old- the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. Notice how repubs are less and less feeling the need to back the hsuB/cHeney admin? Soon, very soon, about 2 weeks, and it'll be the congress using the courts to get what they're demanding. Another reason to try getting what they need without going to court. One never knows if a court will be insane, rule against you just 'cause, or stretch it out... And another reason to open the door for repubs to back the dems and not go the mats before the repubs in congress are in the fight too, but on the dem side. Which they're now getting the to point of. If the dems had gone it alone to the courts at the very beginning and lost, hsuB/cHeney would be viewed as more powerful the repubs in congress would tend to do more of nothing. I think the dems in congress are doing a lot better than most can realize, succeeding in small incremental steps and it's about to pay off 'big time'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 3:32pm
The problem is that there are still too many republicans in congress for Pelosi to get a majority to end the war. America woke up in November, but is still not "awake" yet.
Posted by je po at 06/08/2007 @ 3:34pm
Isn't "may" slightly different from "will"?
Posted by MASK 06/08/2007 @ 3:09pm
RHE 101
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 3:36pm
The first test:
June 8, 2007
Gonzales will face a Senate no confidence vote on Monday.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate will hold a "no confidence" vote on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this Monday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, announced.
In a statement released Friday, Schumer said if all senators followed their conscience, "this vote would be unanimous."
"However, the president will certainly exert pressure to support the attorney general, his longtime friend," Schumer added. "We will soon see where people's loyalties lie."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/08/ gonzales-to-face-no-confidence-vote-monday/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 3:51pm
Green lights are popping up all over:
Gingrich Warns of GOP Losses in 2008
Jun 8, 2:10 PM (ET)
By BEN EVANS
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.
"If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to" win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.
He has roundly criticized the Bush administration in recent interviews, describing the White House as dysfunctional and saying the president has driven the party into collapse. While he refrained from direct criticism Friday, he cited failures in Iraq, border security and the response to Hurricane Katrina as signs of a broken government.
His comments come just days after a Republican presidential debate in which GOP candidates criticized Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.
The biting words surprisingly have been uttered while the president is overseas attending an economic summit with other world leaders.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070608/D8PKPNVG0.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 4:00pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/08/2007 @ 2:31pm
With the decision at the outset of the war to guard oil wells but not weapons caches, we've been arming insurgents in Iraq since the beginning.
Can't wait to see how many cats ole Chimpy can herd for the no-confidence vote.
Posted by nathanhale at 06/08/2007 @ 4:27pm
Insurgents and al Qaeda and kids with nothing better to do...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 4:57pm
urge
lurch
surge
purge
in-surge
de-in-surge
re-de-in-surge
inter-re-de-in-surge
ex-inter-re-de-in-surge
pro-ex-inter-re-de-in-surge
counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
semi-counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
retro-semi-counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
sub-retro-semi-counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
neo-sub-retro-semi-counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
ex-neo-sub-retro-semi-counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 5:14pm
ah yes, the right are uneducated and uninformed. Just read the posts. ABC lies, everything is made up....Bush blew up the towers. One cannot read these blogs (most of them) and find any hubris.
Posted by blue devil at 06/08/2007 @ 5:44pm
Blew Drivel,
? hsuB, blew-up the towers-- really! And also was able to sit around on both of his thumbs simultaneously for seven whole minutes without flinching! (Otherwise they'd be in his mouth.) And what kind of a role model would that be for the kids!!! Talk about multi-masking....
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 6:12pm
Oh I forgot. Blew Drivel just now reminded me of one for some reason:
post-ex-neo-sub-retro-semi-counter-pro-inter-re-de-in-surge
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/08/2007 @ 6:18pm
The problem is not Bush or Pelosi. The problem is that too many humans have an affinity for violence, destruction, terror, explosions, blood and guts, domination and exploitation. These are the same people who served in the Nazi SS, and who volunteer to commit these horrendous acts all around the world. They simply enjoy all types of destructive behavior.
Posted by co1469 at 06/09/2007 @ 09:35am
Posted by CO1469 06/09/2007 @ 09:35am
Who EXACTLY in this country are you comparing to the SS?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 10:52am
yes, yes indeed there is evil in the world. The problem with most of you libs is that you contend the evil is the good ole US of A. Tell that to the family of the guy in the netherlands who lost his head because he said something bad about Islam. Nice folks, those Islamic Jihadists. I am sure John Edwards would stand up to them.........right.
Posted by blue devil at 06/09/2007 @ 11:53am
Masky, Blew Drivel, I don't think he's comparing them or us, exactly, but rather stating that our world is full of retrohumans that have the inclinations to side with or feel comfortable in that world of torture, cruel fascination, providing opportunity or permission to commit painful, horrendous acts to others with every and sometimes any, excuse. I contend that as increases in graphic and psychological violence in film and multi-media occur in our society, so to violence in our name via our gov's of the world, in a global punkal mosh pit slam dance with evil performing it's best song, war.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/09/2007 @ 11:58am
Masky,
Looks like Pew is on cue as well: Gore and impeachment:
THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER
Released: June 4, 2007
The enthusiasm advantage Clinton enjoyed in February has all but disappeared, as the percentage of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters saying there is a good chance they would support her has dipped from 52% to 44%.
Support for Obama is unchanged from February; 40% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters say there is a good chance they would vote for him. Former Vice President Al Gore has gained ground in recent months - 34% say there is a good chance they would vote for Gore today, up from 27% in February.
The survey finds that President Bush's job approval rating has declined significantly since April. Bush's approval rating stands at 29% - the lowest of his presidency - down from 35% two months ago. Bush has lost substantial support from his Republican base. Only about two-thirds of Republicans (65%) approve of Bush's job performance, which also is the lowest mark of his presidency. As recently as April, 77% of Republicans approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=334
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/09/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/09/2007 @ 12:59pm
HSUB, you better head over to the "Curbing Corporate America" thread....
seems there are SOME progressives who STILL don't think too kindly of Al.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 3:21pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/09/2007 @ 12:59pm
BTW, you've been posting Bush approval numbers for months now...and despite all that polling, you've YET to find a significant number of polls showing supporting for impeachment.
Sure...we don't like the guy, but nobody wants a Constitutional crises.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 3:22pm
Sure...we don't like the guy, but nobody wants a Constitutional crises.
Posted by MASK 06/09/2007 @ 3:22pm
Er, Masky, where have you been? It's been one constitutional crisis after another-- just now have a congress that's calling hsuB/cHeney admin on it. I'd rather like to get the constitution back.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/09/2007 @ 4:00pm
Mask:
Given:
One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
But:
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 482,031 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 88%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.2%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 5.6%
I don't know. 1.8%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
And the last 'legit' poll said:
New Zogby Poll, Released: June 30, 2005
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.
Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
And that was when hsuB was at 43% approval... Consider that hsuB's at 29% now and that:
According to a new ABC poll, 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled" the nation in making the case for war.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1278080
Comparable polls in August and September 1998 found only 36% supported hearings to consider impeaching Clinton, and only 26% supported actually impeaching Clinton and removing him from office.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has joined Lynn Woolsey, the other Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Congress Members Yvette Clarke, Jan Schakowsky, William Lacy Clay, Albert Wynn, and Dennis Kucinich in cosponsoring Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney (H. Res. 333). For details, see: http://impeachcheney.org
The list of state Democratic Parties that have passed resolutions urging impeachment of Bush and Cheney has just grown to 15. Meanwhile, 11 state legislatures have introduced such resolutions, which have now been passed by at least 77 cities and towns and a growing list of labor unions and other organizations. These resolutions are all listed at http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list
http://impeachpac.org/node/3829
Of course it is curious that the media is not polling for impeachment considerring the clammer for it. I'd say it may be the hsuB/cHeney admin's play on their extra constitutional powers-- very well be that word went out that that type of polling was traitorous or aiding the enemy somehow...
But then don't forget:
NEWSWEEK Poll
Jan. 24-25, 2007. Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?
Tota____________________________Rep___Dem____Ind
58% ___Yes, wish it was over ___21%___86%____59%
37%_____No, do not______________75%___12%____36%
5%______Don't know/Refused_______4%____2%_____5%
and:
The Harris Poll® #1, January 3, 2007
Just over half (56%) would support investigations into allegations that have been made about various actions of the Bush Administration. A partisan breakdown occurs here, as over eight in ten (82%) Democrats would support these investigations compared to less than one-quarter (23%) of Republicans.
These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,309 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive® between December 12 and 18, 2006.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=717
58 percent want investigating government contracts in Iraq to be a top priority. Fifty-two percent say investigating why we went to war in Iraq should be a top priority.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/09/2007 @ 8:17pm
you libs continue to amaze. You love the polls that have Bush at very low approval. You love to talk about impeachment. You are supposed to be governing!!!!!!!! Let's see how Pelosi, Reid and your Candidates deal with terrorists. It's great to be Anti Bush. Quit bitching and solve the problem, or isn't there one? If there is no problem, your leaders are going to look foolish when another city is on fire.
Posted by blue devil at 06/09/2007 @ 11:53pm
Quit bitching and solve the problem, or isn't there one? If there is no problem, your leaders are going to look foolish when another city is on fire.
Posted by BLUE DEVIL 06/09/2007 @ 11:53pm
But can't you see what the problem is? hsuB can't get his thumbs out of his ass! Impeach him and the problems will start getting solved. And don't even start with Pelosi until you admit the repubs did nothing for six years in congress but chase after underage pages, take bribes, rubber stamp, and basically do nothing. Admit that, then give the dems 6 years to compare and then you're being fair.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 01:42am
Mr. Fool, your hatred for Bush is clear. You cannot govern on the basis of hate. The French and the Germans know of the Islamic Jihadist problem. They have experienced some of their wrath. More will come. At the end of the day, whoever the libs elect will undoutedly govern similarly to Bush and Blair. If they don't and the country suffers from terrorist attacks, you won't win another election for 30 years. How else can you account for the likes of Joe Lieberman a good man and a dem? There are a few on the left who are not demagogues.
Posted by blue devil at 06/10/2007 @ 04:09am
You cannot govern on the basis of hate.
Posted by BLew Drivel 06/10/2007 @ 04:09bm
And obviously hsuB can't govern on the basis of his stupidity. But then you wouldn't know-- to you he appears as a genious!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 04:16am
Mr. fool you are consumed by your hatred of Bush to the point you can't see much else. Never said Bush was a genious. Again the point is that when you are given the people's sacred trust, you govern. You don't govern with hate. Further you govern to protect the people as the oath of office requires. At the end of the day either there is a terrorist threat or there isn't. I believe the facts, around the world, tells us there is. As a result, all you lefties are going to continue to be perplexed by your leaders governance, on the issue of defense anyway, as they will govern very similarly to Bush. One of us will be right. I like my odds. Tony Blair is not conservative, neither is Lieberman, or Ed Koch. We will see who is right. In the meantime, keep hating Bush and fail to lead.
Posted by blue devil at 06/10/2007 @ 3:03pm
Pelosi and Reid are gambling that the public will come around in September when Murtha presents his bill with the backing of many Republicans to defund the war.
The Republicans are saying give the surge a chance to work and if it doesn't they will support a defunding bill. The deadline is September for determining whether the surge is working.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/11/2007 @ 3:31pm
Yes Blew Drivel you're right, I hate liars and people who would con me in a new way, taking my civil rights away via fear, their attempt at fear mongering. Those like you accept that fear more than stand up for our constitutional rights are cowardly morons. Good luck with that, I'm sure you'll go far in life doing whatever a dic'tator tells you is right and right and they're never wrong as you dutifully following like a mindless lemming.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 07:26am