Americans opposed to Bush detainee policy.
By on Sep 20th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Americans opposed to Bush detainee policy.
An NYT/CBS News poll released tonight shows that 63 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should follow international agreements on detainee treatment (v. 32 percent who think the U.S. should “do what it thinks right, regardless of what other nations think”). Also, 56 percent say torture is never justified, while 35 percent say sometimes it is.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, I guess 32-35% of our nation is mentally ill. That's the only explanation that makes sense, assuming that our government hasn't been lying to us for the past 5+ years. Or have they been?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:11 pmSpeaking of polls, Gallup has Bush at 44%.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:14 pm32% Probably the same folks, mostly all Republicans, who think beating a child is ok.
Might is Right!
September 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pm44% [-6%= 38%] and it only cost 45 million of smear propaganda to raise Bush Poll by about 3 points!!
I don't think that's anything to bragg about Jason Schindler
September 20th, 2006 at 7:18 pmIf one doesn't have any moral opposition to the use of torture, then at least one must think of it selfishly: if one of our soldiers is captured, we would have no ground to argue for fair treatment of prisoners.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:19 pmOne can make all the arguments about an enemy state vs. non-state, or hypotheticals about what if there was a time bomb, etc., the evidence is that under torture, the information obtained is mostly bogus.
We already went into a war of choice on dubious intelligence and look what we have.
Bush refuses to talk to terrorists, so he has effectively closed the door to anything except the primitive: war, torture, killing, and fomenting more of the same. If only the size of his ego and his intellect were reversed.
#4, btru,
You mean, all the congressional elections since 1994 in which the Republicans took control and held both houses?
I do find it humorous that the only thing progs hold onto is how high Clinton's approval numbers are during and after his presidency. It shows how shallow you all are. When people talk about Reagan, it's about his winning the Cold War, not his poll numbers. Clinton will have NO such legacy.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:22 pmI mean think about it Jason..45 million dollars for smear campaigns..your party has to issue smear, propaganda and pound lies into the heads of Americans just to keep themselves in power..isn't that crazy Bizarro opposite world?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:25 pmIt matters not one whit what the American people think with this unilateral government.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:27 pmWhen people talk about Reagan, it’s about his winning the Cold War, not his poll numbers
You still trying to hold up thatsockpuppet Ronnie who cut and run from Beirut after the terrorists blew up the marines?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:27 pmBush admin crimes against humanity, etc. all well documented on one handy page;
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#geneva
They don't even mention the supreme Cheney admin crime which violates the very essence of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. What the WH and their disgraceful sycophants have Orwelled to "pre-emptive" war is nothing if not a war of aggression and choice. In whose wake were the Nuremberg trials held again?
Those grave transgressions can be viewed here;
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:09ophl5Q_ZoJ:www.bushcommission.org/Indictments/War%2520indictment.doc+geneva+convention+war+of+aggression&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
September 20th, 2006 at 7:29 pm#11, Dick,
Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut was short sighted, but at the time, with the Cold War drawing to a close, it was politically untenable to have troops vunerable in the middle east with no history of terrorist aggression worldwide.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:30 pmJ: "When people talk about Reagan, it’s about his winning the Cold War..." - - No, Republican people do. When I talk about Reagan it's Iran-Contra and cutting and running from Lebanon after Marines got blown up in their beds. My best memory of Pres. Reagan is his level-headed son, Ron.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:31 pmThe changes he wrought in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system
The Stalinist system was unworkable Jason Schindler, Reagan had nothing to do with it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:31 pmClinton's approval rating in the midst (a word Dubya can't pronounce, btw. I'll be using it whenever and wherever I can!) of the Lewinski investigation: 70%.
Eat it, George! You are a total ass.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:33 pmI do find it humorous that the only thing GOPigs hold onto is Clinton’s Clenis
September 20th, 2006 at 7:33 pmbtru,
Momentum is with Republicans, and Dem candidates are already taking very desparate measures. Your shrill diatribes against the Bush administration have made voters immune at this point - you just aren't getting through when the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents are ranting at the UN and muslims are rattling sabers at the Pope.
One message that I have been trying to get through to progs, is that foreign issues will dominate politics in the future - islamo-fascism, illegal immigration (could be considered a domestic issue), Chinese / Indian economic dominance and Chinese military growth. All those other things on the list of American priorities in which Dems are strong will be overshadowed ONLY BECAUSE DEMS ARE SOOOOO WEAK ON TERROR.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:35 pmAlso, when the HECK is this site going to be normal again?
I have high speed cable, but I still have to wait 5 + minutes for my post to show up?
C'mon, you've had 1+ week.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:35 pmTime to fix the errors, TP.
I always think of Reagan as that guy who was always napping and eating jellybeans between photo-ops
September 20th, 2006 at 7:37 pm#20, btru,
NO, Russia was already pulling out of the middle east, so we didn't need to be there anymore, or so the theory at the time went ....
September 20th, 2006 at 7:40 pmFavorite Reagan quote: "Mommy?"
September 20th, 2006 at 7:41 pmJim Webb is on Chris Matthews, and Chris has Webb's voice cracking. Webb looks and sounds tired, frazzled and losing control as his campaign is now slipping through his fingers. Chris keeps hammering about the bloggers running with the Jewish ethnicity question, and Webb is just looking sick having to deal with it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:43 pmMomentum is with the Democrats and even Republicans admit it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:44 pmJason,
What makes the Repukes so strong on terror? Their strong endorsement of torture? Give me a break.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:44 pmTrue: "Also, when the HECK is this site going to be normal again?" - - I think you might want to consider that the way the site is now IS normal.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:45 pmJason,
What does this:
Have to do with this:
You piece of sh!t republican twat. Can't you answer a god damn question without asking another one. You are worthless.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:47 pmI'm with trueblue, there's no sense in responding to Jason. He repeats the same arguments on any handy thread, so you end up just playing whack-a-mole with him. We've all already argued the same points with him, why don't we give it a rest?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:47 pmYeah, because lord know you people won't be able to hold onto that with Bush.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:48 pm"Dems are weak on terror" is nothing more than a Republican mantra. 9/11 happened during a Republican administration because Republicans are weak on terror. Republicans need to stop the name-calling. Anyone, Republican or Democrat, can see how juvenile that is.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:48 pmBadmoodman,
September 20th, 2006 at 7:49 pmIt is not normal.
It never took 5 minutes for a post to show up.
I posted. It was there.
Just like every other site I go to.
I don't think of democrats as weak on terror, i think of republicans as strong on cowardice. whhaaa, islamo-fascists.....boooo....the caliphate.....roooaaaaaar.....the mighty cave-dwelling al-qaeda. yeah, so much to be afraid of. For a group of people that prides itself on being strong and courageous (small group to be sure) the rightwing sure are fearful of a lot.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:50 pm#29, trublue,
Yes, progs, who sink to tactics like "outing" family members as lesbian or Jewish or whatever else they can find in a desparate attempt to harass a candidate and his family can't be dealt with reasonably, and their ability to wage campaigns of any kind must be destroyed by any / all means.
You espouse policies that lead to the deaths of 100's of millions of people in the great communist experiments in the last 100 years. You espouse abortion, euthenasia (yank those feeding tubes) and destruction of embryos to serve the all powerful state. You can only be destroyed.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:50 pm#31, spudgeboy,
My question pointed out that Clinton's poll numbers did not make a dent in the Republicans success in congressional races in ALL elections since 1994, was that too nuanced a response?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#33 I've noticed that Roger_Roger does the same thing. He posts the same arguments on every thread. Even after people point out where he's wrong he repeats the same argument on the next thread. Funny thing is he keeps getting responses.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:53 pmThere are so many people who watch TV and mix it up with the real world.
It's not that suprising that 35% think torture is justified. I mean, special agent Jack Baur does it on 24! Even the Governator did it in a bunch of his movies. So did Mel Gibson and he made Passion of the Christ!
September 20th, 2006 at 7:54 pmsince it's related to the cheney admins other crimes, from the Nuremberg Principles:
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
September 20th, 2006 at 7:55 pmGotta run guys, Jericho is premiering tonight - I don't want to miss it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:57 pmguys, the delay is probably a spam filter. post a single word and then post something with 9/11 or nazi in it, bet there's a big difference. you can't be too demannding of your hosts unless you help pay the freight. Free democracy....don''t get cranky.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:59 pmJason: "Gotta run guys, Jericho is premiering tonight - I don’t want to miss it." - - Wow, that's sad on so many levels.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:59 pmTrue: It is not normal. It never took 5 minutes for a post to show up. - - Well, my point was that it may be normal now.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:01 pmWell, I hate to post and run, but I have to leave, too. Enjoy your evening, everyone!
September 20th, 2006 at 8:01 pmWho are these people who get polled about Bush's approval rating? How does it go from 39% on Monday to 44% on Tuesday? Do people get up on Monday and say, "It's Monday so I think I don't support George Bush today." Then on Tuesday they say, "Hmmm...It's Tuesday so I think I'll support George Bush today." These polls are crazy.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:03 pm"Gotta run guys, Jericho is premiering tonight - I don’t want to miss it'
Honestly, these people crave fear. It's their drug...they want their big, powerful "leaders' to protect them from the evil-doers. Same folks that support the troops but only from a VERY safe distance.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:07 pmThe polls are bullshit. The same big corporations that cover this administration's ass (Times, Gallup, CBS, et al) are conducting polls and publishing results that defy common sense.
If the mega-corps that conduct these polls (and we all understand whom they support politically) can convince the American public that Bush is more popular than we all know he truly is than it makes it much easier for them to hack the vote. If the polls say there's a 15% discrepancy between Republican A and Democrat B, makes it much harder to get away with purging voter rolls, tossing absentee ballots, Diebolding the tallies, intimidating minorities, etc.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pmFrom TPM :
BREAKING: House Judiciary Reconsiders, Backs Bush Torture Bill
By Justin Rood - September 20, 2006, 5:28 PM
The House Judiciary Committee just reversed itself, calling a re-vote and passing a controversial detainee treatment bill that has White House backing, according to House sources.
Earlier today, the panel had voted down the measure, 18-17, with three members not voting. The re-vote swung the tally to 20-18 in favor of the bill.
Update: WSJ's Washington Wire has more details (and a better vote tally -- we'd originally reported 17-20). "The amendment might have passed had two Democrats not missed the vote; the two were at a news conference on the Medicare drug benefit."
September 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pmYeah, don't want to miss the Republican wet dream. You guys could declare martial law and round up all of us liberals if a terrorist set off a nuke, eh? I hope you got enough vasoline.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:29 pmBush's average approval rating for the last year is 37%. Bush's dismal ratings put him well within range of the country's recent failed presidencies, like the one of his father, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. That's the historical company Bush keeps, although you'd never know that from journalists who refuse to connect the dots and refuse to treat Bush's second term as the failure that a majority of Americans say it is.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:41 pmdiebold will decide the coming election.
the house of representatives has just authorized torture AND the suspension of habeus corpus.
The mad dictator in the White House now has the authority to black bag anone on EARTH and call them "terrorists".
To the 32% -- what makes you so sure it won't be you? Well here's some food for thought:
You will be the only ones with wealth, since that's all been redirected. Your greed and acquisitiveness and gated communities will delude you into thinking you are exempt.
But soon, your wealth, property and very lives will start to look good to this bloodlusting, murderous regime.
Then.... who will stand up for you?
no one? That is correct.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:44 pm#11, Dick,
Reagan’s withdrawal from Beirut was short sighted,
I agree. He was short sighted indeed. But if Reagan was say George Bush jr, okay, what would your answer have been?
I'm guessing 'Short Sighted'
And if that person was Clinton?
September 20th, 2006 at 9:01 pmThat immoral moron 9/11 was all his fault! *(&*#%@%&!
[typical limbaugh style rant here]
. What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity'? --GWB
Thats pretty simple, you don't grab up, whisk away, and hold them indefinitely, on nothing more than suspicion. Leaving a mans family to wonder his whereabouts is undignified That in itself is a undignified act perpetrated against a human. Torturing people, 70-90% found innocent, in a country that the United States has set itself upon in the cause of freedom and Democracy is undignified.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:08 pmActually the behavioral health profession does believe that about 30 to 35% of the population is mentally ill.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:39 pmWell Georgey, why don't you give your best shot at telling the class what you think outrages to human dignity are, here's a hint, things you wouldn't want done to yourself.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:46 pmLOL, Hendler, you love being a minority eh? As for Clinton's popularity having nothing to do with the congressional races, you are right. Now...start looking at the individual polling. Your neo-cons are screwed. You WILL lose and we WILL send you criminals to jail.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:49 pmwhen other countries pick up the Bush policy of torture and they torture our troops we can thank ourselves for not doing anything and we can thank George W. Bush. Let's make sure none of the friends of Bush join the military just those other Americans. I remember the White House spoke person Tony Snow called the dead troops numbers not humans so now we know our country is divided.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:42 pm#2
Speaking of polls, Gallup has Bush at 44%.
Speaking of polls, right-leaning pollster Rasmussen Reports has Bush dropping from 47% a week ago to 40% yesterday and 41% today.
You just go ahead and get pumped over the Gallup Poll, though, Jason. It's so much fun to see you get excited over a "blip", only to get dejected over the inevitable drop back into the 30s.
What do you think that 63% says about Bush's credibility and the 'genius' of trying to use the torture issue to paint the Dems as weak? I think Rove blew it again. You better hope he does a better job of suppressing the vote and working the GOP secretaries of state than he does picking fights with the Dems.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:02 pmthe fact that 30-35% of Americans suffer from mental illness is not particularly funny.
It's sad.
How did they get that way?
Genetics?
Trauma?
not a funny topic.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:09 pm#7 JMH
I do find it humorous that the only thing progs hold onto is how high Clinton’s approval numbers are during and after his presidency. It shows how shallow you all are. When people talk about Reagan, it’s about his winning the Cold War, not his poll numbers. Clinton will have NO such legacy.
How about record budget surplus, which Bush promptly turned around into record budget deficit?
How about catching terrorists (real ones), prosecuting them, and putting them in jail?
How about successfully putting a stop to the ethnic cleansing and war in Bosnia?
All of Clinton's foreign policy failures put together don't come anywhere close to the fiasco in Iraq that's going to be Bush's legacy. And now you can add the loss of Afghanistan to that, too.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:12 pmFun fill in the blank question.
1. The people who stigmitize mental illness the most are the _______ .
September 20th, 2006 at 11:16 pmFor Truth,
Ummmm,,,,,,
I'm going to take a wild stab at this....
Call me nutty........
The Republicans?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:22 pm#13 JMH
Reagan’s withdrawal from Beirut was short sighted, but at the time, with the Cold War drawing to a close, it was politically untenable to have troops vunerable in the middle east with no history of terrorist aggression worldwide.
I don't know who you think you're kidding with that. Maybe yourself. Check the timeline again. "Beirut massacre" and "end of Cold War" were six years apart.
"No history of terrorist aggression worldwide?" Ask the Brits, Germans, French, Italians, and Japanese about that. Remember Achille Lauro? Remember TWA 847? Does IRA ring a bell? How about Red Brigade? There were hijackings and bombings throughout the 80s.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:26 pm#72, 1983 was that the year of the 'Evil Empire' speech that had old Yuri 'may your balls wither' Andropov reaching for the red button?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:31 pmJMH is long gone.
Remember, he needed to watch "Jerico"
(whatever the Hell that was. Probably some fox show crap)
He only posts a couple of things to get us all worked up, anyway.
I for one would love to have the absence of his name for the rest of the night.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:32 pmThe rest of my life was not available, so I'll settle for this!
;)
screw this long wait for a damned post to come up!
I'll be @ Late Night FDL.
TRex is a riot, and you can actually (GASP!) say Hello to each other without retribution!
When you post is when it comes up!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:36 pmHow about that!!!!!
Anyone notice progressasaurus rex is gone?
FDL!
We met up a couple nights ago.
Who was on Keith Olbermann tonight?
Jane H. - FDL.
I'd stay with TP, but you are too darned SLOW!
Please fix it.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:39 pmThanks.
#38 JMH
Yes, progs, who sink to tactics like “outing†family members as lesbian or Jewish or whatever else they can find in a desparate attempt to harass a candidate...
Go find out what rumors Rove was spreading about Ann Richards in the Texas governor's race. I won't spoil it for you.
You espouse policies that lead to the deaths of 100’s of millions of people in the great communist experiments in the last 100 years.
Do you drink a lot? I can't think of any other explanation for that statement. You seem to be slurring your thoughts.
You espouse abortion,
That's silly. There's a huge difference between espousing abortion and wanting women to be allowed to make their own medical decisions when it involves their own bodies. You might not like the decisions they make, but it's none of your goddam business.
euthenasia (yank those feeding tubes)
Oh yeah, you're right about that. Nobody should be allowed to carry out the wishes of their spouse and let them die in a dignified manner. The all important thing is the symbolism of life, not the quality of life. Jason, I'm sure you'll want your vegetative body to lie around in a bed for 30 or 40 years if necessary as long as it pleases the right-wing bible-thumpers. If it costs your family every last penny of their insurance and retirement income to keep you there, it'll be well worth it. Right? You're just the picture of compassion, aren't you.
and destruction of embryos to serve the all powerful state.
Currently, "the state" is solely owned and managed by the Republican party. Remember?
You can only be destroyed.
Huh?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:46 pmHendler is a stellar example of how far Republicans are willing to lower the bar for their guy Bush simply to avoid confronting their mistake in supporting him.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:48 pm#21 JMH
Momentum is with Republicans,
Keep telling yourself that.
and Dem candidates are already taking very desparate measures.
Desperate measures? Like declaring that they're putting all of their money into negative advertising? Like robo-calling and push-polling by the Swift Boat Liars? Like pushing an unnecessary voter ID bill in the last two months before the election in the hopes of suppressing voter turnout? You mean those kind of desperate measures?
My god, Jason, you're a freakin' joke.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:51 pm#79 or pushing 40m dollar propaganda films on national TV
September 21st, 2006 at 12:00 amInteresting how most Americans are in favor of invading the middle east countries that are extremists. So I guess if Bush invades Iran, he is doing what the people want.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:13 amRogx2 - where did you see that 'most Americans are in favor of invading the middle east countries that are extremists'? They'll need a draft for that - are you up for it?
September 21st, 2006 at 12:23 am"[I]t seems highly unlikely Democrats will experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994..."
New York Times, 9/21/2006
September 21st, 2006 at 2:19 am"Republicans continued to hold a slight edge over Democrats on which party was better at dealing with terrorism...
[T]heTimes/CBS News poll found a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who said they approved of the way Mr. Bush had handled the war in Iraq, to 36 percent from 30 percent. The results also suggest that after bottoming out this spring, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy have returned to their levels of about a year ago, both at 37 percent. The number of people who called terrorism the most important issue facing the country doubled to 14 percent, from 7 percent in July
[T]he poll found that Democrats continued to struggle to offer a strong case for turning government control over to them; only 38 percent said the Democrats had a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared with 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan."
New York Times, 9/21/2006
September 21st, 2006 at 2:46 am"Mr. Bush has had some success in convincing the public that the Iraq war is part of the broader war on terror. Forty-nine percent of Americans now feel the two conflicts are connected, up five points from a month ago."
CBSNews, 9/21/2006
September 21st, 2006 at 2:55 am(CBS) An overwhelming majority of Americans believe Islamic fundamentalism is a real and growing threat — and that terror groups like al Qaeda ultimately want to destroy the United States...
September 21st, 2006 at 3:12 am“[I]t seems highly unlikely Democrats will experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994…â€
New York Times, 9/21/2006
Comment by Exley
Was there an active, two-front war in '94, with Clinton threatening to start another?
Was there a failed emergency response, showing how inept Clinton was?
Was there a demonstrable democratic "culture of corruption" so great that the Feds had to triple the number of investigators just to keep up?
Was there a "Terri Schaivo moment" in '94 when democrats exposed their hypocrisy by jettisoning their belief in the "sanctity of marriage" to pander to a political subset?
In '94, were there a large number of republican war vets running for congress, fresh from serving in a war the democrats started?
Were there 2,600 + dead soldiers, twenty thousand wounded, and thousands of Iraqis killed in a war the democrats started in the election of '94?
Were we shipping $4 billion tax dollars a month to a quagmire in '94?
Were we being ruled by a president in '94 that acknowledged no restaints on presidential power?
Were Americans being wire-tapped illegally in'94?
Were democrats in the House rubberstamps for Clinton's policies in'94?
Did we have a company like Halliburton, providing substandard services to our soldiers at a time of war, while overcharging the taxpayer in '94? Was that company tied to Al Gore?
Who was the democrats' Jack Abramoff in'94?
The sleaze bucket is full, Exley, and starting to stink. The American public will be looking for someone to take the trash out - and as democrats have always had to clean up republican messes in the past, who do you think they'll pick this time?
September 21st, 2006 at 4:14 amonly 38 percent said the Democrats had a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared with 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan.â€
New York Times, 9/21/2006
Comment by Exley — September 21, 2006 @ 2:46
The problem for republicans is that their "clear plan" has left America stuck in a ditch politically. So the question becomes, do you trust the guys who arrogantly put you in the ditch, or try something new?
"Strong and Wrong" hasn't worked for the last six years.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:20 am#84
“[I]t seems highly unlikely Democrats will experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994…â€
Which columnist wrote it? David Brooks? If you ask a non-partisan analyst like Charlie Cook, you'll hear that conditions are even more ripe for a turnover than they were in '94 and have been for a lot longer. Cook said that the Republicans aren't likely to turn these numbers around. As he put it, "This cake has been baked."
The Republicans' only hope is massive negative campaigning, lots and lots of lying (nothing new there), and an all out campaign of voter suppression.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:53 am#86 Exley
only 38 percent said the Democrats had a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared with 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan.â€
Think about it, Exley. They're saying that they know what the Republicans' plan is and that they want to vote for Democrats. What can you interpret from that about their opinion of the Republicans' "plan"?
For the benefit of Jason M. Hendler, who was getting a woodie over the Gallup Poll numbers, you should have mentioned what the Times Poll gave Bush for an approval rating: 37%.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:01 am#91 Not David Brooks, nor any opinion writer....That quote is from the page one, above the fold story in today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/us/politics/21poll.html?hp&ex=1158897600&en=ef00c357f1e7980c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
September 21st, 2006 at 10:20 amTruthout had a link this A.M. I believe that said 73% of the public are fed up with this congress....A poll I think...Well guess we will all have to wait and see what the voter's do ..Huh....Blessings
September 21st, 2006 at 11:43 am