New AP Poll: America Does Not Support Democrat Congress’ Iraq Withdrawal Plan
Friday May 11, 2007 11:16 AM
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.
The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month.
That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.
“It’s mostly Iraq” plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP’s campaign committee. “These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn’t matter if you have an R or a D next to your name.”
Democrats agree the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year’s session of Congress while producing little more than this month’s Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say.
“People are unhappy, there hasn’t been a lot of change in direction, for example in Iraq,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of House Democrats’ campaign effort.
The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I remember some of my more ‘liberal’ friends having a whoop ass session after the elections while I sat back and said “uh, let’s see what gets accomplished before we go patting ourselves on the back here”
“It’s mostly Iraq” plus a lack of progress in other areas” — that is just rich. Idiot.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:21 amThere are 2 significant points
1st POINT: Bush disapproval is based - in large part - on liberalist-taught hate of goal oriented authority; while Congress disapproval is based - in large part - on crapy stewardship of job responsibility - mostly of democrats.
2nd POINT: Bush disapproval is focused at one person, Congress disapproval is focused - in large part - at democrats & their misrepresentation of the people by distortion/projection of populist claims.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:22 amI’m a strong Republican, and voted for Bush twice, and now I regret every vote. There are many reasons, but his foolish stand on immigration is killing this country. And when I saw him holding hands with a Saudi , well, I totally lost it, there.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:05 amNot at all surprising, but we all know the Dems will still claim a “mandate”. Scumbags.
I would love to see a grassroots campaign to vote out ALL incumbents.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:00 amI forget when I made the posting explaining how the politcal polls are done, perhaps our happy mediator could link it? If so and as an addendum, poll questions are worded so as to allow the tally taker to be able to interpret the answers as they want, i.e.
Do you approve of how the War in Iraq is being handled?
The replier may state they are against how the media/ liberals/ what have you are treating the war, the pollster has the freedom to state that is a vote against the war, a vote against how Bush is handling the war, or any number of ways…
May 11th, 2007 at 11:19 amBane
I agree to some extent, but bush is better than any democrat position - no matter what. No …..Not defending Bush stand on border security.
I have been sending stuff to congress using the following
May 11th, 2007 at 11:57 amhttps://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet
What we need is a present day Churchill to lead us into victory over the Islamic 4th Reich Fascists. Churchill tried to warn Britain Parliament on the dangers of talking and dealing with Hitler. Instead the Parliament ignores Churchill warnings and proceeds to deal with Hitler in peaceful talks. When Prime Minister Chamberlain went over to Germany and sold out the country of Czechoslovakia to buy peace he thought that would satisfy Hitler thirst for land. Instead in one year later Hitler and his
Army attack Poland and later went on the rampage thru out Europe. PM Chamberlain was finally was ousted from Parliament and Churchill became the new Prime Minister. I am afraid that the only way Americans will wake up is when we have another more terrible terrorist attack to wake us up. I guess it is our nature to always to re act instead of pre empting the terrible situation. How sad! How very, very sad!
May 11th, 2007 at 12:24 pmBush is my guy. I voted for him twice. Doesn’t mean that I agree with all his positions, namely immigration/border security and government spending, but he’s better than what the Democratic party is offering.
I think if Congress would spend less time worrying about keeping their jobs than actually doing their jobs, this country would be better off. It seems to me when you have to worry about raising money for the next election, you lose focus on why you are really there. I always liked the idea of term limits.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI don’t even know if another attack would change anything, Duke. The yellow dogs in Congress would just hang the whole thing on Bush and claim that ‘diplomacy’ could have prevented it.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:38 pmWhat ever happened to those “first 100 hours”…
Funny we don’t hear about what came out of those first hundred hours that we heard so much about from Ms. Pelosi…
Of course, that day they took off for the College Football BCS bowl championship doesn’t count…
What a joke. Over promise, under deliver.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:05 pmBane,
Remember too that it was Bush’s father (&Reagan) that provded Saddam with military aide & intelligence in the 80’s…at a time he killed his own people and gasses Iranians!!!
If Saddam was still behaiving in 2000+ W Bush would gladly support him.
Remember Noriega…this “brutal dictator” was a friend of USA (even on CIA role they say)…he had USA support when suppressing his own people, killing human rights/labor activists….as long as he protected US economic interest.
BUT….then Noriega got out of line (I believe he discussed nationalizing propert or business, not sure) and Noriega HAD TO GO…in came the marines!!!
And we all know about another USA backed brutal dictator by the name of Pinochet!!! And Fujinori!!
Democrats hands are not clean either…Carter supported ruthless right wing dictator Suharto as he oppressed his people & killed those who fought for justice.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:27 amI am an alan keyes republican myself. Keyes would have handled this situation better than bush, but bush is still better than any defeatocrat.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:55 amthis just in from AP,
A recent poll suggests most liberals think the polls are people from a european country. News at 11.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:55 amDenis
May 14th, 2007 at 6:47 amBring something of value next time.
Denis,
You want to continuously bring up past alliances that you use to make the US and it’s past Presidents look bad, perhaps if you were to look at those alliances in the proper historic perspective, such as who did we ally ourselves with during the cold war in which the US was trying to defeat communist Russia while avoiding nuclear war. It is known as chosing the lesser of 2 evils.
Why don’t you start looking at where the world would likely be if the old Societ state were still around, how many countries would be under their control if we had not worked to avert that?
May 14th, 2007 at 7:17 am