US public pissed at Dems, EVEN MORE pissed at Reps, study finds - Page 2 - Political Forum

Bird of Prey · #11 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainMike

I can remember the public outrage with the Vietnam War going into the 1972 elections. It was no random accident that Nixon signed off on a peace treaty just before the elections. The polls were indicating he would not win if we were still engaged in the Vietnam War.

We need more of the same type of public outrage.

You know, I just don't think any amount of public outrage would work with the current administration. I think philosophically, it's a very different ballgame. Bush is essentially a Neoconservative, a man philosophically committed to revamping countries in a US image and forcibly creating allies. That means war. He's been at this war - Iraq - for how many years? And unlike Nixon, who was still somewhat in touch with public opinion, Bush - in the face of public opinion - has been risking yet another war, ratcheting up the rhetoric with regard to Iran. He's actually willing - regardless of this economy - to go to war with Iran. Wow. That's a whole new animal imo.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #12 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainMike

You are welcome to your opinion, but what the Democrats need is a young Tip O'Neil, someone that work within a bipartisan environment and broker compromises to get bills passed. So we are really not talking about me being a liberal, progressive but my calling for greater efforts at all the skills House and Senate leaders have demonstrated in the past. Those are social skills, interpersonal communication skills, being able to twist arms when needed, or being able to cajole when needed.

I see much of what is wrong with both parties are the longterm veterans being in control, and that doesn't have much to offer for the future of America. Both parties need fresh energy. For example, Obama for the Democrats and Mike Pence for the Republicans.

Check this out: a new poll out today from the Washington Post/ABC.

Poll Finds Americans Pessimistic, Want Change - washingtonpost.com

Similar results as the poll posted here.

Neither Tip O'Neal nor anyone else can turn lead into gold. The political calculus in competitive districts and states does not allow Democrats or Republicans to significantly cut off funding for the soldiers in Iraq. The majority of Americans want the troops to keep their current numbers in Iraq till at least next summer.

While "Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan", they don't want to cutoff funding to the troops as indicated by the poll results below:

Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut

Quote:

In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush's plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction, and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.

Bird of Prey · #13 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 05:59 AM

WEB, I read that WP article. What I think it really suggests is confusion as to how to proceed in a quagmire. But the overwhelming majority - at least what I've read - is against the war, furious about the enormous funding of it and looking for an exit strategy now. The trouble with questions like that asked in the WP is that it is confusing as to whether people are actually in support of the war effort as opposed to an abrupt withdrawal. They are not in favor of the war effort; they are looking for an orderly withdrawal plan. . .in place now, preferably yesterday. The Democrats have yet to deliver. And I think there is frustration in that regard. Again, I think 2008 is the year for the independent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #14 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:19 AM

The question can be asked in many different ways, as you will see from this link. I think this question is the most relevant on capturing that a lot of Americans are pissed off at the Iraq situation, but think that we still have to stay. Above all else, regardless of how tired Americans are in the war, they will not support cutting funding for troops in the field. That is how it will be perceived by the mainstream: stabbing the troops in the back, and that is why no one, not Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tip O'Neal or the Tooth Fairy can wield the cut off funding option.

Iraq

Quote:

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

10/12-16/07

Less Than A Year 45%
One to Two Years 27%
Two to Five Years 12%
Longer Than Five Years 5%
Unsure 11%

Get them out in less than a year = 45%
Follow Bush's plan = 42%

So as you can see the country is still evenly split on the surge.

WEB

Bird of Prey · #15 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

The question can be asked in many different ways, as you will see from this link. I think this question is the most relevant on capturing that a lot of Americans are pissed off at the Iraq situation, but think that we still have to stay. Above all else, regardless of how tired Americans are in the war, they will not support cutting funding for troops in the field. That is how it will be perceived by the mainstream: stabbing the troops in the back, and that is why no one, not Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tip O'Neal or the Tooth Fairy can wield the cut off funding option.

Iraq

Get them out in less than a year = 45%
Follow Bush's plan = 42%

So as you can see the country is still evenly split on the surge.

WEB

Well, there is a nuance here that I feel I should point out. I'm not sure if Americans are split on the "surge," aka Bush's plan as much as an actual timetable for withdrawal. It seems insignificant but it's not imho.

I'll tell you why: as the economic health of the country erodes, so will support for expenditure in Iraq. I think it's important to note that Americans that are pro-extended troop stay are not so much in support of the war as they are divided on an exit strategy. As the war clearly becomes a drain on the economic health of the country, the long-term strategists will become short term because they are simply not that dedicated to the effort there.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #16 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Well, there is a nuance here that I feel I should point out. I'm not sure if Americans are split on the "surge," aka Bush's plan as much as an actual timetable for withdrawal. It seems insignificant but it's not imho.

I'll tell you why: as the economic health of the country erodes, so will support for expenditure in Iraq. I think it's important to note that Americans that are pro-extended troop stay are not so much in support of the war as they are divided on an exit strategy. As the war clearly becomes a drain on the economic health of the country, the long-term strategists will become short term because they are simply not that dedicated to the effort there.

Our economic decline is something that is (1) long term and also (2) cyclical (short term). We have done long term damage to the economy by the constant devaluation of the dollar as well as our insane national debt. However, I believe that we are due for a recession and the economy does tend to boom and bust. Perhaps if there is a recession in half a year or so, then what you say about an increasing demand to get the troops home could be true. A recession will probably necessitate a precipitous withdrawal.

WEB

Bird of Prey · #17 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

. . . . Perhaps if there is a recession in half a year or so, then what you say about an increasing demand to get the troops home could be true. A recession will probably necessitate a precipitous withdrawal.

WEB

Yes. Agreed. My thinking exactly. And I think a recession is inevitable in the near future. I am actually wondering about a depression. Oil may strike the hundred dollar mark, and although that price is based on speculation, it translates to a cataclysmic curb in American buying power. That, coupled with the devaluation of the dollar as you mentioned, is not boding well for Bush's last year in office.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #18 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 09:48 AM

Well I think that we won't crash. The world really does depend on our prosperity. If they let us down, they pay too. Even when the whole housing market melted down, they felt it even in China's stock market.

Bird of Prey · #19 (**permalink**) 11-07-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Well I think that we won't crash. The world really does depend on our prosperity. If they let us down, they pay too. Even when the whole housing market melted down, they felt it even in China's stock market.

WEB -

You sure? You know, the EU is acting as an attractive alternative/shield for our deteriorating dollar. Dow dropped 360 today. Nobody likes a worthless dollar in conjunction with worthless real estate in conjunction with expensive oil in conjunction with thirsty SUV's and big houses on the onset of. . .winter.

It's not so far-fetched to think in terms of a depression, just. . .incredibly depressing.

Bird of Prey · #20 (**permalink**) 11-07-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainMike

A depressing depression. And inflated inflation as the price of gas will increase everything.

WEB:

"Above all else, regardless of how tired Americans are in the war, they will not support cutting funding for troops in the field. That is how it will be perceived by the mainstream: stabbing the troops in the back, and that is why no one, not Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tip O'Neal or the Tooth Fairy can wield the cut off funding option."

And it makes me want to urp when I see Bush on TV giving a speech saying that we can't cut off funding for our courageous troops. The public might get images of troops in the field in fox holes reaching for ammo, but without funding it has run out. It is a guaranteed direct hit on public patriotism.

But then our liar in chief never says anything about the funding hidden within that bill to retrofit B-52's to be able to drop his new non nuclear bunker busting mega bomb. And the bomb has been developed over the past year in secret, as it suggests the underlying agenda is airstrikes on Iran no matter how many Americans and people in congress are against it.

And here comes the second urp. Once the public has heartfelt support for our troops and demand the funding, guess how many legislators will attach yet more extremely shameless pork projects to the funding bill (as if a war was not even going on).

Interesting, MMike, but if I may just interject here. . . I think Bush has been giving Iran a second thought for fear of riots in the street. You see, it's the economy, and as it's much worse than the Feds will admit, he's a little reluctant to have the White House stormed by what once were middle class employed homeowners, now homeless and stuck living in their SUV's. . . which are permanently parked along 95 because gas is seven bucks a gallon.

Seriously, though, I think he's backed off his militant position, at least a little, regarding Iran.