Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Poll: Bush Approval Rating Hits New Low

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
bdot Donating Member (298 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:38 AM
Original message
Poll: Bush Approval Rating Hits New Low
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush...

(excerpts of the article)
More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of
President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. If only they had realized this 6 years ago......sigh. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Born Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Makes no difference...
as long as they count the votes, they control who is in charge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yeah, but you'd think the guys stealing the votes could spot a doofus.
While the rest of America is finally figuring out that this guy is a fool, I think I've finally figured out what's going on with the people who lead that ignorant narcissist around by the nose.

How is it, I've heard it asked, that this incompetent buffoon can so brilliantly steal elections and our money and manipulate the public through fear and disinformation, yet can't do anything else right?

I think the answer is that the President himself can't do anything right, and his handlers don't care about anything other than stealing our elections and our money and our future.

They don't care about America or Americans. They don't care about our future, or who they have to smear, murder and maim to steal it. They're worse than anti-American, they're a-American. All the shit that's important to Americans, that's the doofus' job, and it's not important at all to them.

So we get the worst of both worlds, criminal masterminds lining their own pockets, and an incompetent buffoon and his bible-thumping sycophants screwing up everything that doesn't make the criminals rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #8
38. Oh, he was spotted alright!
That was the whole idea. An Americana mouthpiece so pathetically unfit for the job that, once instated through maneuvers and deceit, no one could admit to the absurdity of his "being in charge".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. Doesn't matter those dumbass repuke's will still vote for corrupted SOB's
:spank: :argh: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. ... in that poll (just to clarify the headline)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. In reality the fudge factor takes junior into the high twenties.
Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him and them politically.

"When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win," said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. "Okay we know that they know he sucks BUT they also know ...
that you suck so if you try to latch onto his sucking it will only be worse for your sucking so why don't you join the team and come in for the big win?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. Free-fall without a bungee cord for the Worst President Ever
My faith in my fella murkins may yet be restored.
:bounce: :party: :popcorn: :bounce: :party: :popcorn:
:bounce: :party: :popcorn: :bounce: :party: :popcorn:
:bounce: :party: :popcorn: :bounce: :party: :popcorn:
:bounce: :party: :popcorn: :bounce: :party: :popcorn:

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. But He HAS a Bungee Cord That Pulls Him Up In Time for Every sElection
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 10:42 AM by AndyTiedye

Who Cares What the People Think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is what happened to Nixon I think. Drip drip drip
I think Bush and Co have for got this, you can not burn the bridge if you may wish to recross it. Even his
'friends' see how Bush must always come out smelling like a rose and to hell with what happens to you. Sorry about such old saying but some times they are so fit. Bush has been hitting at every part of this govt. and many over seas. I have often read that the one place no one was to cross was the CIA and he did that early when he blamed them on bad info or did not hear what they were saying and put them in a bad place. Then you know he had to cover his ass by putting a party man in to the CIA and I bet that has really gone over well. He has sort of done this in every govt. dept. plus half the world. Bush must not be hearing Gods words right. :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thing is
if we want Bush to go the way of Nixon, we need control of congress.

Bush's only advantage over Nixon is that he commmands more loyalty than him by the far right (and especially the RR - which wasn't really active back then).

But these are awful numbers that basically show that history will judge his presidency as a failure - and possibly one of the largest (if not th largest) in American history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. That is true but it is still one error on another.
What will be the next one? We are sure not going to be-able to put Iraq back together. Either they do it them selfs or we will be their forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durtee librul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
37. that's what scares me...
What WILL be his next error?

We can't afford (literally) anymore of his f**kups.

I just know something is going to happen with his numbers so low - they may know he is not electable, but the Rove machine ain't about to let dimson fade away without going out with a 'bang.' I'd say more, but I guess after reading the posts, Agent Mike may be lurking - - - aw,what the heck. :hurts:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. hee hee.
and they're dropping further. and faster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
10. Too little too late....NT
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:22 AM by vi5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. After Fitz puts Rove in the slammer, expect the Chimp to slip 10 more pts.
Senators and House members will treat him as if he had the plague when they begin their 2006 campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rooboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. Lucky Bush doesn't have his finger on the nuclear button... uh... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah.....Only Dick Does....... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Yeah, and we saw what Dick does with firepower.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
14. Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low
Mar 10, 7:26 AM EST

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer


AP Photo/EVAN VUCCI


WASHINGTON (AP) -- More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq - the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February. "I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote Republican. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues - port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example. The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

"You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate. "People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency. Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_AP_POLL?SIT...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. So 74% of the GOP will vote more of same. Just need a plausible story
- maybe a terra attack or another war - and another election will go to the crime family, who after all, couldn't afford real investigation as to what's gone on under bush:

I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote Republican. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."
...
Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. People Have Stopped Wondering. They Know Bush** Sucks.
If only our opionion actually mattered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
28. My favorite part is up there in the first sentence: "...question his
character."

BINGO. THERE! That's IT. Slam and Dunk.

Does make you wonder what took 'em so long. But 70 percent thinking the country's on the wrong track? SEVENTY percent? SEVEN out of every ten Americans. I don't keep close tabs on that particular public opinion gauge, but neither do I remember it reaching that high in the "right direction/wrong track" arena. SEVENTY percent.

That's almost how high Clinton's job-approval ratings were at about this same time in his second term. Even with all the pissants trying to chip away at him from every direction.

SEVENTY percent? Nor do I remember the "wrong track" numbers being that high when any Dems were running things. My memory could be faulty and I certainly haven't gone back and researched poll numbers from earlier years. But this still stands out GLARINGLY.

Yeah, show me yer "popular wartime president," republi-CONS. Show me your "aw, despite all that I really like the guy," Tweety. Wonder how many people would still like to go have a beer with the asshole now? I'm thinking I'll write my next column about this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wookie294 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
15. 37% approval is still too high
Who are these nimrods who still support the monkey? LMAO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. Polls don't matter! What matters are the machines that count the votes!
And as we have seen in the recent Texas primary where they had problems with the touch screen machines, we have yet to have a common position on this issue. Paper ballots are the answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. Actually, the Hart Intercivic eSlate isn't touch screen...
but it is DRE and doesn't create paper ballots.

We need to keep hammering home that we want and need the paper ballots and that they have to be counted by hand (not receipts, not paper trail, not like FL's f'd up have to count 'em by machine and then you're FORBIDDEN BY LAW to count 'em by hand).

You can allow for a quick count by machine if you really feel we need to know preliminary results the day of the election on who won, but the real binding-under-the-law count needs to be done by people and with paper ballots.

The only time that there should even be a need to do more than a standard recount is when the paper ballots count out to more than the number of people who voted.

I've been pressing all the 'pukes I know on this, and explaining that having DREs without paper ballots is like having ballot boxes with no seals, and no chain of custody, and no physical guarding of the ballot box at all times. It just allows anyone to tamper with the vote any old way they want. I explained that there have been multiple tests of ALL the DRE systems and it takes one person with knowledge less than five minutes to completely and untraceably alter the outcome of an election, and do they really want to leave it in the hands of whoever is last to hack the database?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurtyboy Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
19. "The biggest losses were among white males."
Trouble, with a capital 'T', and that rhymes with 'D', and that stands for "Draft"--right here in River City....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. I'm just guessing here, not being a white male, myself, but from what
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:05 PM by calimary
I've read and heard and observed, I've gained the impression that the angry white male that's gone so solidly for the GOP is there because of a resentment over inroads in the job market made by women and minorities, and immigrants, legal AND illegal who are perceived as "taking jobs." I'm guessing, also, that there is a HUGE wound in the white male psyche in this country as these men see their traditional dominance from the 50's all but vanished. It used to be that the husband's single paycheck was enough to support the traditional family of mom/dad-two kids/dog/station wagon/house-with-picket-fence in Suburbia USA. It used to be that guys only had other guys to compete with at the office and at the plant (you know, back when plants weren't closing and rusting out all over the country and the operative words weren't "lay-offs" and "outsourcing").

Many men are seriously and deeply WOUNDED in this country. Walking wounded. And frankly, I can understand why. It used to be that the woman in the office was the secretary or receptionist and didn't pose any threat or competition (save, for example, the odd Lois Lane "career-gal" here and there). Women were referred to as "housewives" and they seemed to want nothing more than a new washer-dryer every so often, and their Valium prescriptions, and that was that. Life was simple, easy, predictable, and there was a large measure of control. It stopped being that way decades ago, but I imagine that for many men, those were the good old days. I'm JUST GUESSING here, of course, and my own husband never did fit that mold. He says he always felt like the odd-man-out in his family of all boys and a domineering father and submissive mother (who dealt with her frustrations in a passive/aggressive way by crawling into a liquor bottle during the day - her feelings were certainly nothing anyone sat down together and actually talked about). I know I was something of a jolt to their equilibrium when I married in there, because they just weren't used to having a lot of women in the family, no less an "uppity" one.

I get the feeling that there are many men (I'd say - not all that many in havens like DU here, though) who hate the Age of Enlightenment and Progress that liberal leadership brought to this country. It was far better when potential competitors were suppressed and didn't make any trouble. Back when Blacks were slaves, or just coming out of slavery and not quite finding their footing yet, and Hispanics were housekeepers and farm workers AND NOTHING ELSE (and since they didn't speak English, they were assumed to be "stupid"), and Asians only offered laundry service and Chinese food restaurants, and we laughed at them in Charlie Chan movies. And gays? They were even more cartoony than Charlie Chan, but they did design nice hats for the ladies' auxiliary luncheons.

While I'm no psychologist, it seems to me that people who have inferiority complexes only gain self-esteem if/when others around them are less - either perceived as such already, or made to be that by the person with the complex. I think you see evidence of that in bush's own inclination to give everybody nicknames. We're little more than pets to him, at best - lower life forms to whom he can assign names and identities, and who are subject to his overlordship, as though he were some self-styled Adam in the Garden. Just as, when many of us were kids, we were told you NEVER address an adult by his/her first name. It was ALWAYS Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. On the other hand, the adult, whoever he/she was, was perfectly free to call us kids by our first names - a recognition of pecking order and who's on top versus who's on the bottom. The enlightened, well-rounded, well-grounded, secure person doesn't need to diminish those around him or her to feel good, personally. But too many, especially, it seems, in the red states, flock to somebody like bush who evokes that dominant male crap to which they resonate. I mean, just look at the choice of spouse between bush and John Kerry, and how many people were threatened by a happening woman like Teresa, or like Hillary or Nancy Pelosi (who's being demonized in republi-CON in-house fire-up-the-troops videos), versus how popular quiet, submissive little Stepford laura is. People seem to prefer their First Ladies as anachronisms.

I think the reason republi-CONS are seeing big losses now coming among white males is because white males put all their money on the GOP and its sometimes-unspoken message about bringing back the good ol' days (when men were men, women shut up and found a friend with a coathanger, and everyone else was securely closeted). If they could not BE or ACHIEVE that in their own lives, at least they could sidle up to it - true pack mentality and the alpha male syndrome. But they've seen, especially over the past five years, that what the republi-CONS are selling just doesn't fit, and certainly doesn't work. After all, where are the good-paying, secure jobs-with-benefits that allowed the man to be the king of his castle so the little woman wouldn't have to go out and supplement the family income? Where is the economy with lower prices and a lower cost of living that would allow for a family to rely on one provider only? Where is the America-Stands-Tall-In-The-World when we've lost YET ANOTHER WAR (as if Vietnam wasn't bad enough - the memories of which have NOT faded) and it's dawning on the public that we're far more reviled around the world than we once were? Our military - the symbol of the virile, all-powerful, domineering male - doesn't get us the glowing victories we expected, and there's no Viagra prescription to remedy it. Hell, even the strong, silent, reliable cowboy paradigm has been blown to smithereens with "Brokeback Mountain." And at home, we can't even take care of our own - which Katrina brought so painfully home last year - the difficiencies we STILL SEE AT THIS VERY MOMENT. The "strong, dominant male" ethic that the GOP loves to boast about is as big a wimp as bush's dad was EVER perceived to be, because that "strength" and "dominance" has produced NOTHING of "strength" or "dominance" value. The GOP cardboard cutout has been utterly neutered, and if your delicate ego is riding on the perception of a "strong, dominant male" figure, you'll probably chafe like crazy against the realization that you're a mere eunuch. There's no satisfaction from the usual quarters anymore - which, I think is why hate radio has become such a powerful force in this country. Many of these angry white men wouldn't dream of seeking counseling or other help (REAL men just don't do that), so all they can do is stay mad and threatened like crazy, and lash out.

If the angry white males perceive that the GOP has failed them, their feelings of betrayal will be VERY real, and I doubt they'll forget. I think it is TREMENDOUSLY, GINORMOUSLY significant that the biggest losses are among white males. I think that tells the whole story then and there.

Aw crap - ran on again. Sorry this is so long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
momster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Brilliant examination of genus American Male
You have made some wonderful points, esp. about how threatening men who, in the past, could have done well because the competition was less. Women and minorities had to be better than a white male, as well as harder working, to get the same benefits he could achieve simply by 'knowing somebody'. This is why, I think, so many voted for the 'c student'. They saw themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
21. Cynicism Warning: So there is an 11 point spread....
Does that mean when the Republicans retain control of Congress thanks to more people will ponder whether us tinfoil hat sporting conspiracy theorists might have been on to something after all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piscis Austrinus Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
39. 2002 was the test ground for this sort of thing
Georgia's senatorial and gubernatorial results in this election are instructive for what we can expect. In both cases, the Democratic candidate held a significant lead only a few days before the election, only to see a large swing (15% or more) registered in the actual election. There has been evidence emerging since then that the vote totals were almost certainly tampered with. This took place in what is pretty well considered to be a GOP stronghold, so it hasn't raised the hue and cry one might expect.

What we need to be looking at here is the big picture. We all saw in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 that the major election battlegrounds were known in advance by the GOP and that the groundwork for the chicanery was laid well in advance of the general election.

So, we go into the 2006 elections looking at numbers that strongly indicate a sweeping change in Congress. The GOP cannot afford this. The loss of even one house of Congress will open the rest of the government to scrutiny through Democratic-ordered investigation. Imagine John Conyers with subpoena power, and what he would do with it. Imagine the damage that would be done to the Republicans if a Democrat, and not Pat Roberts, held the chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee. These kinds of scenarios would put the GOP in a devastating lose-lose position: either they would have to go along with an investigation, which we all know would result in the publication of facts that would sweep away the tattered remnants of the Republicans' credibility in their few remaining "strong" issues, or they would resist and stonewall any investigation, which would lead to a confrontation in the public eye that they no longer can win. Too many people in this country have seen what this administration and their quislings in Congress have been up to: Iraq, NSA wiretapping, the bankruptcy bill, the K-Street project, Katrina, and most recently the Dubai ports fiasco. If the GOP tried to fight an investigation, I think most of the public would conclude - correctly - that this administration is hiding something. Or a lot of somethings. The cost in 2008 would be far greater than in 2006.

The GOP has to know this. They showed in 1994 that they know how to count. I am quite sure that they have already looked at the entire country, district by district, and have selected their positions.

What we need, and what we must do, is exactly the same thing. We should not be asking ourselves, "which races can we win?" We should ask the simple question: "If I were in the GOP, which combination of races would yield the lowest-cost, most-effective way to prevent the loss of one or both Congressional houses?"
If we look at it in this light, we probably would have a much clearer idea of exactly what to expect and where to expect it. Part of this calculation would have to include a margin of error; if the GOP expects to have 20 critical House races, expect that at least 25 races will be targeted as a cushion.

Does anyone know whether there is any type of online news database concerning the activities of voting machine companies, election officials, etc. by district? This would enable us to be able to match up what we think can happen with anything untoward that is going on now. I certainly expect that there already are pieces being moved into position on the 2006 chessboard. If we have countermeasures in place well before November, we can counter or neutralize their actions and assure that the elections are not rigged.

Remember this in 2006: the GOP has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Do not expect a clean election; I sure don't, but if we are ready to jump in the moment that something goes amiss, or better, before it goes amiss, enough damage might be prevented to stem the scum tide.

Peace
PsA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
22. hmm
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 09:54 AM by Tiggeroshii
"...and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks"

How is that surpising again? Afterall they've been doing a pretty bad job for the last 12 years... right? Also, given past precedent, this is really not a surpising thing, just another predictable lapdog move by the msm.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
30. Poll: Americans say Iraq civil war likely (Dems & Repubs Agree!)

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/iraq/topstories/0310...

Poll: Americans say Iraq civil war likely

02:38 PM CST on Friday, March 10, 2006

Associated Press


WASHINGTON, D.C. Republicans and Democrats have found something about Iraq to agree on - the country is probably headed into civil war.

An AP-Ipsos Poll found an overwhelming majority of Americans - including 70 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats - saying it's likely that a civil war will break out in Iraq.

"I can see why we went in there, but I look at it as a hopeless cause," said Mary Jo McCarthy of Medina, Ohio, who leans Republican. "The president is committed to doing what is right and those people want to have a democracy, but there are so many radicals over there."

The poll found that almost four of every five Americans think it's likely that Iraq is heading toward civil war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. civil war=excuse for longer occupation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. You people who think this is what Bush wants are crazy.
This is his worst nightmare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Not according to the top military pooh-bahs
Every damn one thinks it's just another speed bump on the road to Iraqi freedom.

Talk about having job security................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Neocons knew and wanted civil war (LINK)
like terrorism, wmd, cheap oil, and democracy, a peaceful unified Iraq wasn't expected or part of the plan.

Counterpunch dug up these nuggets of neocon wisdom:



http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh03092006.html



March 9, 2006
Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq as "Strategic" Policy
Daniel Pipes Finds Comfort in Muslims Killing Muslims

By JOHN WALSH


"Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to "expedite" such a collapse anyway."


Yet the line persists that the neocons had no idea what they were getting into. This cannot be correct as they think a lot about what they do and they plan carefully. Not only is that charge absurd on the face of it, but it is arrogant on the part of those who level it. And it is the worst political mistake possible underestimating your adversary.

Now the neocons are beginning to advocate for civil war in Iraq quite openly. The clearest statement of this strategy as yet comes from pre-eminent neocon and ardent Zionist Daniel Pipes. In a recent piece in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes spills the beans. He writes:

"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. Iraq's plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility, nor its burden. When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gr8dane_daddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
36. You know its getting tougher...
to point out the newest "Lowest Poll Numbers for bush" threads....maybe we should date the new thread subject line so we know the latest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC