Dems To Fund Troops - NO SURRENDER DATE

[maineman]

Since the day the Dems took over their approval rating has been going down

that, of course, is a lie.

Latest headline from Rasmussen:

Friday, May 18, 2007

Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters believe that Congress is doing a good or an excellent job. That’s a six point improvement over the past month and reflects that most positive rating for the legislative body in 2007. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 30% give Congress a “fair” rating while 43% say poor. A separate survey found that Democrats have an 11-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The last rating for the outgoing Republican Congress found that just 11% gave the GOP-controlled chamber a good or excellent rating. The first survey after the Democrats took control found 16% giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s team good or excellent marks (see history).

 

[red states rule]

May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
__________________

 

[maineman]

you keep posting that same thing over and over again. I showed you the polls where democrats in congress poll 13% HIGHER than republicans in congress and 13% HIGHER than Bush..... you keep showing the public's opinion of CONGRESS and want to make it all about dems...it is not,and when the public has the opportunity to differentiate, they do..... and your statement about the democrats going down from the day they took power is a lie....or are you claiming that Rasmussen is lying?

lol

 

[red states rule]

that, of course, is a lie.

Latest headline from Rasmussen:

Friday, May 18, 2007

Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters believe that Congress is doing a good or an excellent job. That’s a six point improvement over the past month and reflects that most positive rating for the legislative body in 2007. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 30% give Congress a “fair” rating while 43% say poor. A separate survey found that Democrats have an 11-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The last rating for the outgoing Republican Congress found that just 11% gave the GOP-controlled chamber a good or excellent rating. The first survey after the Democrats took control found 16% giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s team good or excellent marks (see history).

I see you "overlooked" the comments from the Daily Kos

The base is not happy tonight MM

 

[maineman]

no...you don't get it. The far left might be pissed at the democrats for being pragmatic, but really...where are they going to go? they can throw their little hissy fit all they want, but when the time comes to vote, they'll be there because they KNOW that they cannot stand another four years with a republican in the white house....so the rantings of the far left mean next to nothing.

The MIDDLE is supporting the democrats. The MIDDLE of America was behind the democrat's plan to fund the troops...the MIDDLE of America thinks that the democrats in congress are doing better then they were and the MIDDLE of AMerica thinks that the democrats in congress are doing MUCH better than the republicans in congress.....why do you keep avoiding that?

 

[red states rule]

no...you don't get it. The far left might be pissed at the democrats for being pragmatic, but really...where are they going to go? they can throw their little hissy fit all they want, but when the time comes to vote, they'll be there because they KNOW that they cannot stand another four years with a republican in the white house....so the rantings of the far left mean next to nothing.

The MIDDLE is supporting the democrats. The MIDDLE of America was behind the democrat's plan to fund the troops...the MIDDLE of America thinks that the democrats in congress are doing better then they were and the MIDDLE of AMerica thinks that the democrats in congress are doing MUCH better than the republicans in congress.....why do you keep avoiding that?

Pragmatic - try arrogrant


Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?
Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.
March 12, 2007


AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.

It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.

This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.

But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.

Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this critical juncture.

Bush's wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. But he has made adjustments to his team, and there's little doubt that a few hundred legislators do not a capable commander in chief make. These aren't partisan judgments — we also condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President Clinton's conduct of military operations in the Balkans.

Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the United States now faces — to stay or go — and putting their money where their mouths are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iraq12mar12,0,492047.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

 

[maineman]

ho hum....more cut and paste from the moron who cannot speak for himself.

Of COURSE it is pragmatic. We do not have a veto proof majority. But the American people WERE pissed at Bush for vetoing the funding bill with deadlines attached...and they know who's trying to do the right thing and who is standing in their way.

 

[red states rule]

ho hum....more cut and paste from the moron who cannot speak for himself.

Of COURSE it is pragmatic. We do not have a veto proof majority. But the American people WERE pissed at Bush for vetoing the funding bill with deadlines attached...and they know who's trying to do the right thing and who is standing in their way.

Yes, the facts do get in the way of your talking points eveytime

When the liberal media tells Dems to shut the hell up - it is getting bad for them

 

[maineman]

Since the day the Dems took over their approval rating has been going down

and that continues to be a LIE. Why do you have so little integrity?

 

[red states rule]

and that continues to be a LIE. Why do you have so little integrity?

Geem when they came into office they had a 44% rating

Now it is 26%

Seems like the number is going down to me

 

[maineman]

seems like you ignore the quote from Rasmussen to me

 

[red states rule]

seems like you ignore the quote from Rasmussen to me

Gallup presents another view

One you want to ignore

The liberal media sees the Dems are in trouble - why not you?

 

[maineman]

Geem when they came into office they had a 44% rating

Now it is 26%

Seems like the number is going down to me

and puhleeze show me where DEMOCRATS in congress ever had a 44% rating and where DEMOCRATS in congress now are at 26%

 

[red states rule]

and puhleeze show me where DEMOCRATS in congress ever had a 44% rating and where DEMOCRATS in congress now are at 26%

Dems are in charge

Dems are the ones rasing taxes, pushing for surrender, and breaking their promises

 

[maineman]

Gallup presents another view

One you want to ignore

The liberal media sees the Dems are in trouble - why not you?

Gallup's view is of congress in general...not the democrats in congress....



and in any case, gallup is all of a sudden the end all and be all and rasmussen is now chopped liver?

you might want to rethink that...you yourself have used rasmussen often in the past.

 

[maineman]

do I need to go back and rub your nose in the Harris poll which differentiates between D and R performance in congress?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ho hum....more cut and paste from the moron who cannot speak for himself.

Of COURSE it is pragmatic. We do not have a veto proof majority. But the American people WERE pissed at Bush for vetoing the funding bill with deadlines attached...and they know who's trying to do the right thing and who is standing in their way.

Yes yes, you demand proof and evidence and then HO HUM when provided, choosing instead to claim that personal opinion is more important. BUT wait, when given personal opinion you demand evidence other than personal opinion.... which is it?

Lets refresh your demands, shall we? Here you demand RSR tell you what HE thinks, yet when I or someone else tell you what we think you demand to know what evidence we have used, whether we have read specific books or agree with specific authors that you agree with.

Make up your mind? Or is this just part and parcel of your obfusication?

 

[red states rule]

Yes yes, you demand proof and evidence and then HO HUM when provided, choosing instead to claim that personal opinion is more important. BUT wait, when given personal opinion you demand evidence other than personal opinion.... which is it?

Lets refresh your demands, shall we? Here you demand RSR tell you what HE thinks, yet when I or someone else tell you what we think you demand to know what evidence we have used, whether we have read specific books or agree with specific authors that you agree with.

Make up your mind? Or is this just part and parcel of your obfusication?

Dems said they would end the war, yet they are now funding the war. They are still adding pork into bills, threatening Republicans on the House floor, and there are many ethics issues hounding high ranking Dems

No wonder the base is PO'd and their poll numbers are in the toilet

 

[red states rule]

do I need to go back and rub your nose in the Harris poll which differentiates between D and R performance in congress?

Keep a stiff upper lip MM


Democrats capitulate on war funds
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 23, 2007


Congressional Democrats yesterday backed down in the standoff with the White House over war funds, abandoning their veto-instigating effort to link deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq to President Bush's request for more than $100 billion in emergency spending.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said the new measure will have benchmarks backed up by the threat of cutting off U.S. aid to Iraq -- a concept Mr. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just days ago denounced as too weak.
Mr. Reid said it will be the first time Mr. Bush does not get a blank check for the war, but the concession caused consternation in the Democratic caucus and was called capitulation by the party's war opponents. Even Mrs. Pelosi indicated she wouldn't support it.
"It's the president's legislation, not the Democrats'," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus. "It's going to take Republicans to pass it."
Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat and one of the chamber's loudest antiwar voices, called the benchmarks "toothless."
"There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action," he said.
The House is expected to vote on the bill, which is still being drafted, tomorrow, followed by a Senate vote that evening, completing the legislation before the Democrat-led Congress' self-imposed deadline of May 28, when lawmakers take a weeklong Memorial Day recess.
"Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
But the White House said Mr. Bush does not see the bill in "Capitol Hill terms" of winners and losers.
"What will be seen as a victory is providing ... the funding and flexibility the forces need," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "That's what we've wanted all along."


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070523-123736-6145r.htm

 

[red states rule]

do I need to go back and rub your nose in the Harris poll which differentiates between D and R performance in congress?

Now that the "majority" as surrendered, maybe SOMETHING will get done in D.C. MM, it is time to shred all those talking point memos.