Dems hit new low...

There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time.
Click to expand...

Oh - and this is from Gallup last year in April 2006 - when the republicans had control.

Public approval of the job Congress is doing has dipped to its lowest level of 2006, and is now the worst Gallup has recorded since the closing days of the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. The current approval rating for Congress is a near-record low according to Gallup survey trending.
Click to expand...

SO lets dispense with the "Holier then thou" tenor. Fact of the matter is I believe their poll numbers would be alot higher if they did exactly what you abhor -- cancel funding for the war completely. SO dont spout off about them questioning the war and then talking about the poll numbers.

Just to toss one more digg out there for ya

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs

"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as speaker of the House of Representatives?"

Approve 45%
Disapprove 42%
Mixed 5%
Click to expand...

and

USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 4-6, 2007.

"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Hillary Clinton?"

Favorable 50%
Unfavorable 47%
Unsure 3%
Click to expand...

And - as of right now - the polls are showing that in 2008 - the repubs LOSE no matter who runs in the general election.

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
 
MonsterMark said:
This is a Gallup Poll mind you so you know they spun the results the best they could.


http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589

Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Click to expand...

What I find telling is that the 29% rating for congress, while on the down swing and is the lowest since Dems took over, is just as high as the PEAK of 29% while Repugs were in charge.

ALSO, the claim of Bush "steady at 33%" is dishonest. The last 4 points on the graph show a clear downward trend. Even more interesting, is that the reason for that downward trend is the falling opinion of Bush by both Repugs and Independants, NOT Dems.
 
No, the peak with the Republicans was higher than 29%, just not, according to that chart, within the last year. But this is a "new" congress. A "new" leadership. Pelosi and Murtha and Reid. It's only May and they are losing approval. I would consider that to be a trend. Apparently, they didn't spend the first 100 days doing the work Americans though were important. Apparently, they didn't even satisfy the majority of their own voters.
 
Calabrio said:
Apparently, they didn't even satisfy the majority of their own voters.
Click to expand...
Looks like the Dims are down to the 29% that are the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth-with-no-front-teeth moonbats.:rolleyes:

2008 is shaping up to be a triumvirate for the Republicans as people toss the Dims out on their arses and put the good guys back in control of all 3 levels of government.

Even the media won't be able to brainwash the masses out of this landside.
 
Apparently, they didn't spend the first 100 days doing the work Americans though were important.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest is the Iraq war. Many Americans want us OUT -- not timelines, not "stay the course" --- OUT.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

SO do you want to criticize the dems for low poll numbers or for completely pulling war funding?
 
Joeychgo said:
One of the biggest is the Iraq war. Many Americans want us OUT -- not timelines, not "stay the course" --- OUT.
Click to expand...
Many Americans want us IN -- without timelines, not "cut and run" --- WIN!


Joeychgo said:
SO do you want to criticize the dems for low poll numbers or for completely pulling war funding?
Click to expand...
You seem confused. If so many Americans want us out and would support pulling the funding completely, why are the Dems so afraid of doing just that?


Many want us to kill the bad guys before they kill us. Many want us to have a presence in the Middle East to stabilize the region and prevent rogue nations like Iran from holding the world hostage over oil by closing the Strait of Hormuz. There are a lot larger, more important issues looming before us that take precedent over what I feel is the selfish Democrat solution. Cut and run and bury your head in the sand solution and hope the bogeyman goes away.
 
Read the polls--- ony 44% approved of GW's veto --- 57% favor withdrawing from Iraq.

Now, as far as why the dems dont do that? Because some of them know that we cant just leave because things will likely get worse. Which, if true, will come back and bite them later.
 
MonsterMark said:
Many want us to kill the bad guys before they kill us. Many want us to have a presence in the Middle East to stabilize the region and prevent rogue nations like Iran from holding the world hostage over oil by closing the Strait of Hormuz. There are a lot larger, more important issues looming before us that take precedent over what I feel is the selfish Democrat solution. Cut and run and bury your head in the sand solution and hope the bogeyman goes away.
Click to expand...
...as opposed to burying your head in the sand and pretending everything is going just swell. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a fixed number of "bad guys" and that all we have to do is "smoke 'em out" and kill them and then we can pack up our gear and and bask in the glory. As long as we're over there killing innocent civilians along with the bad guys, there will be a never-ending stream of hate-filled zealots to fill the ranks. Personally, I'm convinced this is the plan, i.e., keep the "war" on terrorism going for perpetuity.
 
TommyB said:
Personally, I'm convinced this is the plan, i.e., keep the "war" on terrorism going for perpetuity.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you have yet to realize that we are in a war of perpetuity. We are in a clash of civilizations. The West against radical Islam. Only problem is now the radicals will soon have the ability to wipe out tens of millions of people at a time. They will be able to wipe out our whole government in Washington in a millisecond.

You guys just don't get it and it is too frustrating to keep banging the head against the wall.:Bang:

You'll finally get it but by then it will be too late.
 
They may have that ability soon, but that will be because we attacked the wrong country. Iraq wasnt a threat. Iran is. But because GW took us to Iraq, on inaccurate intelligence (being nice and not calling it lies), and then has horribly mismanaged things (even most repub Pres Candidates are saying this) --- We have no chance of getting anyone, our own citizens nor other countries, to agree on military action against Iran. Iran knows this and accordingly, could care less about GW's saber rattling.

Thats your Boy.
 
Joeychgo said:
Thats your Boy.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my boy. My Boy gets it. He understands what is at stake and is not willing to sit around and wait for fate to deal its unkind hand.

Take a very close look at the following map. I'll get back to you after you have figured it out.;)

middle_east.jpg
 
Yes, that's my boy. My Boy gets it. He understands what is at stake and is not willing to sit around and wait for fate to deal its unkind hand.
Click to expand...

See, what you dont understand is this. I dont have a quarrel with his mission -- I just have a problem with how he has managed it. I mean, mismanaged it.

What am I suppose to get from the map?
 
We surround Iran right now. Pakistan is on our side (for the moment) and we are in Afganistan, UAB, Iraq, and we have many other bases over there. We have 2 carrier groups in the Gulf. If the American people had any balls, they'd let Bush deal with Iran and it would be over and done with (nuclear program that is).

Invading Iraq was a key component to dealing with Iran. It is so obvious and the strategy is sound.
 
MonsterMark said:
We surround Iran right now. Pakistan is on our side (for the moment) and we are in Afganistan, UAB, Iraq, and we have many other bases over there. We have 2 carrier groups in the Gulf. If the American people had any balls, they'd let Bush deal with Iran and it would be over and done with (nuclear program that is).

Invading Iraq was a key component to dealing with Iran. It is so obvious and the strategy is sound.
Click to expand...


I am the one who SAID that to you years ago!

I even said it in a post a few months ago - and Fossten said I was nuts

This is yet another reason we should have total militart commitment in Iraq. We should have had double the troops we have.
 
Joeychgo said:
One of the biggest is the Iraq war. Many Americans want us OUT -- not timelines, not "stay the course" --- OUT.
Click to expand...

So it looks like the Dems don't want to fulfill the wants of the people, eh?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070516/D8P5I9S80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.

[snip]

Dems can't even stay together on what they want. Great leadership!
 
Neither can the republicans. Virtually every candidate last night talked about how the war has been mismanaged and how there is a need for change in washington. Lets not forget mcCains great comment - We've been spending like drunkin sailors.
 
Well, this didn't take long.

Looks like the Dems are crying like little babies and want to change 200 years of precedent because, whaa, whaa, they can't get their way. LMAO at the clowns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour. LMAO. Every 5 minutes would be better.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
 
When are the good people at CNN/MSNBC and the MSM going to cry outrage over such an outrageous gesture by Pelosi, such as they did when the Republicans were considering the "nuclear option" to force Democrats to vote on on the President's nominations?
 
Its Fox's turn -- I dont see you criticizing them when they dont cry outrage over the repubs BS games either.
 
Calabrio said:
When are the good people at CNN/MSNBC and the MSM going to cry outrage over such an outrageous gesture by Pelosi, such as they did when the Republicans were considering the "nuclear option" to force Democrats to vote on on the President's nominations?
Click to expand...
Who exactly in "CNN/MSNBC and the MSM" were expressing outrage over the nuclear option?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 153 (members: 0, guests: 153)
Back
Top