Poll: Americans want Democrats, not Bush, at helm (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Gotta love those polls!

Yes, Americans have finally awoke, just in time to kick those Republican rascals out, and now, to place their trust in the Democrats to lead our great nation, that's awesome!

The Cons had their chance and they blew it mightily now it's the Democrats turn, let's just pray they do the right thing.

Is this country great, or what?









Poll: Americans want Democrats, not Bush, at helm - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — Democrats have taken control of Congress this month amid a wave of good feeling from a public that places one issue at the top of their to-do list: Iraq.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows that Americans by 2-to-1 — 63% to 32% — want congressional Democrats, not President Bush, to have more influence over the direction the nation takes in 2007...

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Democrats may or may not get the "healm". We'll see in 2008.

 

[Intransigent Atheist]

Gotta love those polls!

Yes, Americans have finally awoke, just in time to kick those Republican rascals out, and now, to place their trust in the Democrats to lead our great nation, that's awesome!

The Cons had their chance and they blew it mightily now it's the Democrats turn, let's just pray they do the right thing.

Is this country great, or what?









Poll: Americans want Democrats, not Bush, at helm - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — Democrats have taken control of Congress this month amid a wave of good feeling from a public that places one issue at the top of their to-do list: Iraq.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows that Americans by 2-to-1 — 63% to 32% — want congressional Democrats, not President Bush, to have more influence over the direction the nation takes in 2007...

I have to be honest with you, I'm a Democrat but I still don't like what most politicians do, and that is lie through their teeth about anything to get elected.

 

[disneydude]

This is exactly why the Democrats have to have the balls to stand up to this warmonger administration and say enough is enough. The majority of the American people get it. If the Democrats wimp out and continue to give Carte Blanche to this administration than they deserve to lose the support of the American people. The next year will be a good indication of the leadership capability of the Democratic party. It is theirs to run with. They will succeed of fail by their own doing.

 

[Iriemon]

This is exactly why the Democrats have to have the balls to stand up to this warmonger administration and say enough is enough. The majority of the American people get it. If the Democrats wimp out and continue to give Carte Blanche to this administration than they deserve to lose the support of the American people. The next year will be a good indication of the leadership capability of the Democratic party. It is theirs to run with. They will succeed of fail by their own doing.

Do you think the Dems should vote to withhold money for continuing the war (assuming they can do this) even if Bush is determined to stay the course? Someone asked that in a different thread.

 

[KidRocks]

I have to be honest with you, I'm a Democrat but I still don't like what most politicians do, and that is lie through their teeth about anything to get elected.

I agree with you. Do you think I like all Democrats just because I am a Democrat? I don't like all Democrats, especially the latest batch, they seem to 'stiff' to me, we need another Jack Kennedy in the bunch, maybe Obama.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Do you think the Democrats should vote to withhold money for continuing the war (assuming they can do this) even if Bush is determined to stay the course? Someone asked that in a different thread.

How is it "staying the course" with the President outlining new policy tomorrow night - which is what you liberals have been clammoring for anyway? Make up your mind.

 

[disneydude]

Do you think the Democrats should vote to withhold money for continuing the war (assuming they can do this) even if Bush is determined to stay the course? Someone asked that in a different thread.

I think that is EXACTLY what the Democrats should do. That is what the American people said during the November elections and what the current poll speaks to. The American people want the Democrats to take a stand...if they don't....then like I said....they deserve what they get.

The American people want a change in direction.....not a "surge" in the same "Stay the course..." or whatever Bush and his cronies are calling it these days.

 

[reaganburch]

I think that is EXACTLY what the Democrats should do. That is what the American people said during the November elections and what the current poll speaks to. The American people want the Democrats to take a stand...if they don't....then like I said....they deserve what they get.

The American people want a change in direction.....not a "surge" in the same "Stay the course..." or whatever Bush and his cronies are calling it these days.

Joe Biden had an interesting answer to this exact question from Tim Russert on MTP yesterday morning...

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I think that is EXACTLY what the Democrats should do. That is what the American people said during the November elections and what the current poll speaks to. The American people want the Democrats to take a stand...if they don't....then like I said....they deserve what they get.

The American people want a change in direction.....not a "surge" in the same "Stay the course..." or whatever Bush and his cronies are calling it these days.

Not surging would be to stay the course. Your spin is in overdrive, son.

 

[disneydude]

Not surging would be to stay the course. Your spin is in overdrive, son.

Ok.....how is increasing troops but doing exactly the same thing....not staying the course?

Changing direction would be to come up with a new plan (not just increasing numbers).....

See again.....this is just like a compulsive gambler......If we just send more troops in......maybe we'll hit the jackpot....

Maybe its time to listen to the Generals....oh...wait....he fired them.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Ok.....how is increasing troops but doing exactly the same thing....not staying the course?

Who told you it would be the same thing? Where di you get that crystal ball? I'm going to listen to the commander in chief tomorrow and see what he and the military plan to do with the additional soldiers -- because I don't know yet. And neither do you.

 

[jujuman13]

Whils't I have a broad idea as to what the President will say tomorrow, I have no intention of attempting to pre-empt with my thoughts by supposition.
Let the man speak, then and only then will you be in a position to comment.
I do not agree that Americans want Democrats, not Bush at the helm.
What I do believe America wants are HONEST Politicians, Politicians that have meaningful policies that help the US, we are all fed up with petty party bickering, with hearing my side is better than yours, no your wronmg my side is better.
This sort of language gets the US absolutely nowhere whatsoever, nothing meaningful gets accomplished, all that happens is that grossly overpaid commentators spread the ebb and flow of party doctrine.
America wants, needs, and in the recent Mid Terms visibly demanded HONEST POLITICIANS.

 

[Intransigent Atheist]

I agree with you. Do you think I like all Democrats just because I am a Democrat? I don't like all Democrats, especially the latest batch, they seem to 'stiff' to me, we need another Jack Kennedy in the bunch, maybe Obama.

I wasn't trying to imply that you like all Democrats. I was referring to the material you posted. Definitely Obama, they need someone who has a good personality, is smart, and able to clearly articulate their platform.

 

[doughgirl]

“The Cons had their chance and they blew it mightily now it's the Democrats turn, let's just pray they do the right thing.”

Did you say “pray“? Pray to whom? Didn’t think you were religious?
If your so sure the Democrats will do right things, why the need to pray?


I noticed you said years of peace during the Clinton administration……what did ya do sleep through, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq,……not to mention a land deal in Arkansas that involved Bill and Hillary? I think they called it the Whitewater scandal. Oh more scandals : fund-raising for the 1996 election, Monica, Paula etc…serial womanizing, trials.


He lied before a grand jury about the affair, obstructed justice, abused presidential power. He can claim however that he was only the second president in U.S. history ever to be impeached. :rofl

Clinton also granted some last-minute pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists that were found guilty for plotting against the United States.

And the thing is the Democratic party stood behind everything he did....ALL EXCEPT JOE LEIBERMAN. He was the only honorable democrat who called Clinton on his actions.

Had Clinton done a better job of tailing terrorists and not caving in, there most likely never would have been a 9-11.

We need to pray if the democratic party follows the Clinton legacy.

I pray they don't.

 

[KidRocks]

Did you say “pray“? Pray to whom? Didn’t think you were religious?
If your so sure the Democrats will do right things, why the need to pray?


I noticed you said years of peace during the Clinton administration……what did ya do sleep through, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq,……not to mention a land deal in Arkansas that involved Bill and Hillary? I think they called it the Whitewater scandal. Oh more scandals : fund-raising for the 1996 election, Monica, Paula etc…serial womanizing, trials.


He lied before a grand jury about the affair, obstructed justice, abused presidential power. He can claim however that he was only the second president in U.S. history ever to be impeached. :rofl

Clinton also granted some last-minute pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists that were found guilty for plotting against the United States.

And the thing is the Democratic party stood behind everything he did....ALL EXCEPT JOE LEIBERMAN. He was the only honorable democrat who called Clinton on his actions.

Had Clinton done a better job of tailing terrorists and not caving in, there most likely never would have been a 9-11.

We need to pray if the democratic party follows the Clinton legacy.

I pray they don't.

Come girl, you can do better than that, trading 3000+ dead American troops for 1 dead Saddam, not to mention 600,000 dead Iraqis and about a trillion dollars to pay for Bush's rage of revenge? Not to mention President Bush with his invading of Iraq, generating hundreds of thousands if not millions of terrorists in Iraq, the Middle-East and worldwide? Not to mention world-wide disrespect and hatred for America?

Yes indeed, compared to President Bush and his lying, corrupt, deadly incompentent administration, absolutely...

PRESIDENT CLINTON: 8 YEARS OF PEACE, PROGRESS, AND PROSPERITY!

God Bless President Clinton!

 

[26 X World Champs]

Do you think the Democrats should vote to withhold money for continuing the war (assuming they can do this) even if Bush is determined to stay the course? Someone asked that in a different thread.

I think that Dems / Congress should vote on money for the surge separately after committee hearings that explain exactly what the actual plan is and how the money will be spent. By separating the funding it's a way for the Congress to stop the surge and still support the troops.

Recall that very few military leaders believe the surge is a smart idea.

 

[26 X World Champs]

How is it "staying the course" with the President outlining new policy tomorrow night - which is what you liberals have been clammoring for anyway? Make up your mind.

Because his "new ideas" are not new. They surged 10,000 troops into Baghdad in August 2006 and things got worse.

Bush said that he always listens to "the generals on the ground" and then fired them after they told him they do not support the surge.

Tony Blair came out today and said he does not support the surge.

Supposedly only 12 Senators in the entire Senate (all Republicans) support the surge.

Bush now has to explain his "thinking" (oxymoron, I know!) to Congress unlike the last 6 years when the GOP led Congress did virtuall no oversight making them complicit in the Iraq War...which BTW is why the new number is 233-202....Americans fired the GOP for their inept and nightmarish handling of the war.

 

[RightinNYC]

I guess USA Today had to find SOMETHING good in that poll....it wouldn't have been such a great headline if they had trumpeted the fact that Bush has had a 15 point net positive swing in favorability since their last poll, would it?:lol:

1. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people?

A. George W. Bush

Favorable
Unfavorable

2007 Jan 5-7 45 53
2006 Nov 9-12 38 61

Or that Bush has a higher total favorability than Nancy Pelosi, who's only at 44.

Aside from that, they didn't deign to release their methodology, so its impossible to judge how good the survey was.

 

[RightinNYC]

Supposedly only 12 Senators in the entire Senate (all Republicans) support the surge.

Huh? You got a source for this? I'm pretty sure I've heard people ranging from Lieberman on down say that they supported the surge. Furthermore, there is no way 88 will vote against it. It's just not politically smart.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Because his "new ideas" are not new.

You haven't heard iut yet, Champs. He hasn't outlined it for you yet. I think your crystal ball is defective.

Bush said that he always listens to "the generals on the ground" and then fired them after they told him they do not support the surge.

I know you guys have been saying this, now prove it. Yes, some military leaders have been shifted around, but show evidence as to the reasons why.

Tony Blair came out today and said he does not support the surge.

Wrong. He said he would not 'match' the surge - and he doesn't need to.
Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq | the Daily Mail
That is not the same as saying he doesn't support it. Your game is getting old.

 

[BWG]

Because his "new ideas" are not new.

Hey, it's a 'new' day, so it's a 'new' idea...LOL...

Bush now has to explain his "thinking" (oxymoron, I know!) to Congress unlike the last 6 years when the GOP led Congress did virtuall no oversight...

Ya mean, no blank checks or rubber stamps?
Do they dare question?
What obstructionists! Those darn Democrats! :lol:

..it wouldn't have been such a great headline if they had trumpeted the fact that Bush has had a 15 point net positive swing in favorability since their last poll, would it?

How many reports it like that? But I guess 15 looks/sounds better than 7 when you're the minority.
Any reason to use the last poll (11/06) to compare? How about the height of popularity? 11/2001 Favorable-87..Unfavorable-11. That would be a net negative swing of MINUS 84.
Point being, you can cherrypick and present however you want.

Or that Bush has a higher total favorability than Nancy Pelosi, who's only at 44.

By 1..and a higher unfavorable number 53 to 22.
Or to put it your way, Pelosi had a 8 point net positive swing in favorability since their last poll.

 

[danarhea]

This is exactly why the Democrats have to have the balls to stand up to this warmonger administration and say enough is enough. The majority of the American people get it. If the Democrats wimp out and continue to give Carte Blanche to this administration than they deserve to lose the support of the American people. The next year will be a good indication of the leadership capability of the Democratic party. It is theirs to run with. They will succeed of fail by their own doing.

Oh puleeeeeze. Give me a break. Dems don't have balls. They are still the spineless cowards they always were. They ONLY reason they are standing up to the administration now is because of public opinion. Where the hell were they when Bush started this war? Silent, that's what - Afraid to stand up because they were afraid it would hurt them politically.

 

[BWG]

Oh puleeeeeze. Give me a break. Democrats don't have balls. They are still the spineless cowards they always were. They ONLY reason they are standing up to the administration now is because of public opinion. Where the hell were they when Bush started this war? Silent, that's what - Afraid to stand up because they were afraid it would hurt them politically.

Exactly!!! That's why I'm not a Democrat.
I favor most of their positions, but sometimes you gotta say 'Go f*** yourself' and not come back with a weak a** apology a few days later.
:shrug:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Huh? You got a source for this? I'm pretty sure I've heard people ranging from Lieberman on down say that they supported the surge. Furthermore, there is no way 88 will vote against it. It's just not politically smart.

Sure, not a problem! Have you ever read Robert Novak's column? Is it fair to say that Novak is NOT a liberally biased media maven?

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge.

Source: washingtonpost.com

OK?