Pew Poll: Dem Leaders Not Going Far Enough

Collected before this story broke about Harry Reid and timelines, this Pew poll reflects data taken Sept 12-16:

Dem Leaders Not Going Far Enough

By nearly two-to-one, more say Democratic leaders in Congress are not going far enough, rather than too far, in challenging Bush's policies in Iraq (42% vs. 22%). A quarter of Americans believe that Democratic leaders are handling this about right.

Opinions about the Democrats' approach on Iraq have been largely stable since March. However, somewhat fewer Republicans say Democratic leaders are going too far than did so in July (50% today vs. 63% then). The current balance of opinion among Republicans is closer to where it stood in June and March.

Meanwhile, a 61% majority of Democrats think Congress is not doing enough, up from 54% in July. And by a wide margin, independents also would like to see Congress do more to challenge Bush on Iraq. Currently, 48% of independents say Congress is not going far enough in challenging Bush's Iraq policies, up from 43% in July.

The Pew subheading was Increases in Optimism Mostly Limited to Republicans and reflects observations made here before:

• people have made up their minds
• gains in polling from Bush/Petraeus are R’s only (also true for Bush approval, still 29% in CBS poll)
• majority view is Dems do not go far enough (Harry Reid's move is what the public wants, including independents)
• more want gradual than immediate withdrawal, but majority wants withdrawal

Along with the CBS poll and the USA Today/Gallup poll, minds (outside DC) have not been swayed by the Bush speech and Petraeus testimony. That's not surprising, because no one likes Bush and no one trusts him, except Republicans – and they are a distinct minority (and they're not so keen on him, either).

Compared with public attention to Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress, far fewer Americans took note of President Bush's Sept. 13 address to the nation on Iraq. Among those interviewed Sept. 14-16, 55% say they had read or heard nothing at all about the speech; just 16% heard a lot, while 28% had heard a little. About half of Republicans (54%) say they heard a lot or a little about Bush's speech, compared with 44% of independents and 39% of Democrats.

So, do you think the media and the pundits will now reflect the reality of the situation? Do they have enough polling data? Don't hold your breath.  Regurgitating conventional wisdom is much easier to do than doing your homework.

•  Ya think these results . . .

  . . . had anything to do with the Democratic Caucus' suddently stiffer spine?

  I think these two news events, together on the same day, should change the Traditional Media's CW on Iraq. If they don't, then it is pure smoking-gun proof that they are lazy sycophants who are more concerned with getting to the next cocktail party on time than on informing their readers and viewers.

  by jmart on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:24:22 PM PDT

  •  I think it did

    It seemed like all that premature capitulation talk was Democrats hedging their bets.  I think they saw the propaganda offensive building and wanted to be on safe waffle-ground in case it succeeded.

    Now that the George and Dave Show has fallen as flat as Britney's comeback, Democrats are starting to come out of the defensive crouch and screwing up their courage for another charge up the hill.

    As the eyewitness diary yesterday told us, Steny Hoyer hates the base.  Good.  It's our job to make his job a living hell until he does the right thing.

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:32:48 PM PDT

    •  But...but...

         ...that newspaper ad!!!!

         It changed EVERYTHING!

      by Buzzer on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:50 PM PDT

      •  Maybe it DID change somewhat

        Hey, I've always been a proponent of extremist cheerleaders in order to make what was previously considered extreme more palatable.

        The right does it all the time.  Michelle Malkin wants concentration camps and all of a sudden Guantanimo looks like a rational middle ground.

        Shift that political center, moveon.

        by FreeCrime on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:20:44 AM PDT

    •  And now civilian and diplomatic travel in Iraq

      is limited to the Green Zone.

      The United States on Tuesday suspended all land travel by U.S. diplomats and other civilian officials in Iraq outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, amid mounting public outrage over the alleged killing of civilians by the U.S. Embassy's security provider Blackwater USA.

      So how's that surge thing workin' for us?

      Not at all, I think. How much courage do the dems need?

      by MrSandman on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:01:38 PM PDT

      •  Dirty Little Secret

        Without being able to use Blackwater to run security - the troop levels Bush doesn't mention because of all the work they do - we don't have enough regular troops for the job. So much for 'progress.'

        by xaxnar on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:15:54 PM PDT

      •  It is a sign of success that we need no long

        engage in unnecessary travel outside the Green Zone.

         

        by Thomas Twinnings on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:56:35 PM PDT

  •  I read today's news as capitulation, not spine

    ("Capitulation" in the sense of giving up, not giving in.)

    They no longer expect to succeed in any legislative action, so they're boldfacing the symbolic value of doomed measures.

    Playing to the peanut gallery.

    Results are not cast in stone, but at this point we're playing for the highlight reel - not the pennant.

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:09:33 PM PDT

    •  Results are not cast in stone!!

      Give 'em Hell Harry!  We are right there with you.

      by Thomas Twinnings on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:59:09 PM PDT

  •  Must have

    But whatever it was, I sure was glad to hear the news from Reid. To echo Kos, "hallelujah!"

    by AggieDemocrat on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:57:02 PM PDT

•  Can't scare the middle!

   The Dems can't move too aggressively on Iraq! It'll scare the independents away!

   [/dlc]

   I swear, the Beltway crowd is nothing but a flock of Iraqi Information Ministers.

  by Buzzer on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:26:32 PM PDT

  •  Well If You Can't

    stop the war because of a lack of enough votes why would you want to do something that could cost you the election? That is something that is not discussed on this site. People don't think of the ramifications of losing in '08. But if they did they would understand why 'Show Votes' that you would lose anyway are hardly worth pissing away America's future.

    by talex on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:31:22 PM PDT

    •  Did you READ the poll?

        48% of independents think the Dems have been too soft on Bush.

        18% think the opposite.

        The Dem leadership keeps claiming its inaction is due to its fear of turning off independents. This poll blows that myth out of the water.

        And yes, it's going to be hard to END the war. It's a lot less hard to hang the Republicans with it. And that's what more aggressiveness on the part of the Dems will do. Even if it doesn't ultimately bring the troops home.

       Just ask the independents.

      by Buzzer on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:37:43 PM PDT

      •  Well You Read Reid Today

        He is 'hanging them with it'. He gave them a chance to be reasonable. They declined. So he upped the ante and is going for timelines. So he started bipartisan and then got tough. Works for me.

        by talex on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:47:22 PM PDT

        •  I'll believe it when he accomplishes...

          ...something tangible that improves the situation. Until then it is just so much cheap talk brought on by all the bad publicity his piss poor leader ship has occasioned. As far as I can see the man is a K-Street puppet sold out to the highest bidders.

          by Bobjack23 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:53:02 PM PDT

          •  Well you are going to

            be disappointed then because without Repub votes there is nothing tangible we can accomplish alone. I'm amazed that you and others think the Dems have some kind of hidden power to bypass the constitution.

            by talex on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:09:07 PM PDT

            •  That argument has become soooo...

              stale and for my money revealing.

              We can't accomplish anything so why try...right? Hell lets just assist Bush’s criminality like in the recent passing the bill legalizing his abuses of the FISA law.

              They have the power to impeach Cheney and Bush and investigate the hell out of every unconstitutional and crooked thing they have done making anyone who refuses to vote to impeach or convict look as guilty of malfeasance as Bush and Cheney are. In short the have all the power they need to Remove the bastards or sweep the next elections with such a majority that no one like you can bring up this pathetic numbers game to defend the status quo in domestic, trade and foreign policy, no matter who we elect to a majority.

              by Bobjack23 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:54:26 PM PDT

•  The Dems need to choose their battles better

  I am angry that they seem to be spinning their wheels so much and putting their efforts into things which lead to nowhere instead of things which would lead to impeachment.

  For example, spending so much time and energy on investigating those attorney firings when they should have been putting all their energy into proving "Bush Lied Us Into War" and investigating the way intel was disseminated to/from the Administration in the run up to the war.  

  by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:27:43 PM PDT

  •  The Attorney firings attention was well worth it

    After all, Alberto is gone and now chimpy has to negotiate a new nominee. What pice that? It is all interconected--- if you can't get chimpy, get everyone around him. Weaker and weaker he gets....

    by eastvan on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:30:57 PM PDT

    •  I disagree

      Gonzalez was an incompetant idiot who created most if not all of the problems he got himself into. Getting rid of him, just allowed the GOP to breathe a sigh of relief that the Gonzalez chapter was behind them.  In fact, getting rid of Gonzo, made Bush and the GOP stronger in the same way that someone who cuts out a cancerous growth and is in remission is stronger.

      But think of all the time and energy the democrats spent on "getting rid of him" when they could have used that time for something that could do some real damage, permanent damage, like proving that "Bush Lied Us Into war".

      And Bush could care less if he gets "weaker" and "weaker" on everything -- except Iraq.  And it is all about running out the clock for him now.

      The attorney firings were a minor issue, a time waster that the democrats bought into when they should have been doing the  investigation that the American people really wanted (and still want) and that's to prove that "Bush Lied Us Into War" -- do that with the gravitas and prestige of a congressional investigation behind it -- and that would mean automatic impeachment.

      by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:43:26 PM PDT

      •  And I disagree a bit with you

        though in principle, you make sense. However, the attorney firings were the Achilles' heel of the Bush Administration. It was the tip of an iceberg that led to the heart of the Bush/Cheney machine. The attorney firings were covered up, first of all, because they were politically motivated, which is against the law. They were also covered up because their exposure would lead to the underbelly of the underhanded and illegal deeds throughout this administration, including vote tampering, voter disenfranchisement and harrassment, which leads all the way back to 2000. Once the canaries start to sing, it'd be quite a chorus. Now, with confirmation of Bush's nominee apparently being tied to forthcoming documentation about the firings, the missing emails, the illegal use of GOP National Committee computers to conduct government business, the attempt to coerce the anesthetized and barely conscious John Ashcroft to bypass the acting Attorney General to permit warrantless wiretaps -- it all leads to one thing -- the criminality of the Bush Administration, through and through.

        As you say, there may be other avenues to get there, but this was a realistic, though painstakingly slow one by the Congress.

        by RevJoe on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:01:46 PM PDT

        •  And I agree with you...

          Damage was done to the cheney/bush misAdministration. They are less able now to defend themselves over the bigger questions. Small battles can lead to big victories.

          by eastvan on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:15:18 PM PDT

          •  Small battles can lead to big victories

            I agree

            Unfortunately, sometimes small battles are fought and won, while the big battles are fought somewhere else entirely and the Victory goes the other way.

            Maybe I'm too linear and not enogh of a gambling man.  But I like small battles where the outcome is all but predetermined, and the big Victories to come as a direct result of those efforts.

            All this tangential scatter shot "battling" hoping that something, anything will stick is way too imprecise, frustrating and uncertain to resemble a real strategy for winning.

            by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:35:20 PM PDT

            •  The Hookegate Gangs Still Being Indicted & Jailed

              The Hookergate case that Carol Lam got sacked for investigating has got lots of legs.

              That is the bribery and money laundering case that includes the Pentagon, Congress, White House, and the CIA.

              Did I mention it has HOOKERS?

              by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:43:30 PM PDT

            •  It becomes increasingly apparent

              that chimpy is becoming the lamest of ducks. He has little ability, if any, to force his will on Congress. And as soon as the Congress understands that --- wll then...

              by eastvan on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:04:30 PM PDT

        •  this thread was about ...

          Americans being upset that democrats have not gone far enough.  Which I agree with. They had many battles they could have fought -- and more often then not they chose the time consuming, uphill climbs with uncertain outcome instead of the "slam dunk".

          Everything you say above could very well prompt a constitutional crisis over the attorney firings, but thats not a slam dunk -- and the complexity of the case means it may extend judicially at least into the next administration.

          As for your comment, "Now, with confirmation of Bush's nominee apparently being tied to forthcoming documentation about the firings..." all I can say is "Why would the democrats do that?"

          Maybe I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here
          On a political level, that seems like it could be a losing position that makes the Democrats look spiteful and partisan-- especially after the democrats succesfully made the case that the Justice department was in chaos, it's reputation destroyed by an AG that was an idiot, a psychopath and everything in between.

          So now you believe the the Democrats are going to hold up the hearing on  Mukasey and perpetuate the chaos, preventing the Justice department from rebuilding its trust by making the needs of the American people for a competant Justice department take a backseat to the Democrats desire to prosecute the president and Gonzalez?

          I don't think they will do that.  

          But They might allow the hearing to go on and then try to get Mukasey to agree to honor the subpoenas etc. Which, of course, he would never do.

          Let the fireworks begin.

          by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:28:11 PM PDT

          •  My pie-in-the-sky assumption was not my own

            but was based on an article in this morning's NYT, headlined -- "Democrats Tie Confirmation to Inquiries" and subheadlined -- "Challenge to Nominee for Attorney General"

            The article, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (love that middle name) and David M. Herzenhorn states:

            Two Senate Democrats warned Monday that the Judiciary Committee would delay confirmation of President Bush's choice for attorney general unless the White House turned over documents that the panel was seeking for several investigations.

            The two Democrats were Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Chuck Schumer of NY.

            by RevJoe on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:45:02 PM PDT

            •  I know what they said

              I just don't think they will go through with it.

              Why would Leahy and Schumer hold up the hearing and leave the Democrats open to charges that they are obstructing the process when they can put their party in a much better light by pressing Mukasey in the hearing on these various issues and try getting him on the record to say he plans to play ball with the Congress, honor the subpoenas, and help them in any way he can to show that the Justice department is "for the people' and not just the President.

              And if Mukasey  doesn't agree to play ball, then the democrats have a reason to kill the nomination entirely.

              by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:51:59 PM PDT

•  61% of Democrats

  and less than 50% of Independents think we haven't gone far enough. That isn't a majority of the American people. It's the same polarized viewpoint that has kept us making any real headway into real, passable legislative opposition to Bush's policies. Why would this type of legislation work when it has failed before?

  Get ready for the same Feingold-Reid amendment failure by reaching for extremes. Why can't we start with the Jim Webb troop readiness bill and work on that success to go forward?

  Why do we keep going from one extreme of over-reaching to the other extreme of caving without any fight? There are a lot of other options than just those two strategies?

  by blueintheface on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:28:06 PM PDT

  •  Webb Is Still Up

    I was just reading that his amendment will still be voted on. I don't know that it would be the first amendment up for vote but I agree with you that it should be.

    by talex on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:33:36 PM PDT

    •  That's all I ask.

      Please start the funding legislation debate after winning a few battles and getting the GOP on their heels. November 2008 is too close for them not to feel the heat if we start winning and they won't all stand up for Bush when they see the writing on the wall.

      These are Republicans, remember. As the war and the 2006 election shows, they don't know when they've lost until it's too late.

      by blueintheface on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:38:59 PM PDT

    •  Anyone who opposes the Webb bill

      and claims they support the troops is a hypocrite, and the Democrats should have the spine to call them hypocrites.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:43:19 PM PDT

•  This is so utterly key

  The Dems in congress must be convinced that not only the netroots, but the so-called "rank-and-file" Dems will not abandon them if they do stiffen their spines.  

  We need more proof such as this.

  by GOTV on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:28:19 PM PDT

•  This is awesome news. Let's hope the

  Dems throw away the "conventional wisdom" as delivered by the DC punditocracy and embraces the COMMON SENSE of the American populace.

  by Chrispy67 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:28:29 PM PDT

  •  Embrace the COMMON SENSE, and proclaim it.

    Time to get on TV now and start to explain why we are passing bills that we know Bush will veto.  Time to explain what we are going to do about it.  What we say to the public in the next few weeks will determine if we can hold the line.

    by Thomas Twinnings on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:06:20 PM PDT

•  Those spikes are interesting

  To me, that says that a concerted all-out White House PR offense can move opinions, but only very very temporarily.

  -dms

  by dmsilev on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:31:46 PM PDT

  •  that's exactly right

    but the spike is typically weakly R voters.

    by DemFromCT on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:07 PM PDT

    •  The base

      I've seen comments that the whole Petraeus dog and pony show wasn't about the rest of us - it was all about shoring up the Republican base!

      by xaxnar on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:18:14 PM PDT

      •  I'm One Who's Said That Much of Their Present

        messaging and policy is more for the base right now than for the country.

        The base now, and more in posterity. They always keep the future in mind in much of their messaging. The more preposterous it is, the more you have to consider that it's for the purposes of future re-historying.

        I can't back this up with stats but it feels plausible, much of this fits messaging we've known for certain to be base dog-whistling.

        by Gooserock on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:54:28 PM PDT

      •  also for the media and pundits

        I honestly think Propaganda Week was to sell the surge to the Serious Pundits.

        by whitewidow on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:28:24 PM PDT

  •  Can't admit it.

    Sometimes, folks just can't admit that they're wrong.  What the polls mean is that everyone knows how much BS their leaders are peddling, and when they get a phone call, they're going to stick to their guy.  Same 15% who spike the polls are the ones going to the bar later and talking smack about Bush, and how they'll never vote for Hillary, with their buddies, secretly hating themselves inside but unwilling to admit that they were wrong.

    I talk to people every day who thought I was unreasonable years ago, who were Bush supporters, or at least all for going into Iraq, and now they claim that they never said this or never thought that.  It is a weakness people have to not be able to admit they were wrong.

    by mmuskratt on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

    •  You have put your finger

      on one of the key reasons people have stayed so blindly, loyally, devotedly attached to Bush -- not so much their undying love for him as a president, or even a man. But these folks bet the ranch on Bush. They still have bumper stickers affixed to their cars. Their neighbors recall all the lawn signs supporting Bush's reelection in '04. They made a pact with the devil, and there are witnesses. They've sold their souls, and there is no going back.

      But the biggest problem for them is not Bush, but their own failure, their own incapacity to admit they made a huge mistake. Now who does that sound like? This is the same MO as their fearful leader! It is a sickness, not just some harmless idiocyncrasy or habitual tendency.

      If you look at the sports complex in this country, you find the same thing: blind devotion. Sounds like the military, doesn't it? Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? A good percentage of sports fans are addicted -- not to sports -- but to the feeling of winning. They worship a winner-take-all manifestation of their own personal vices: never having to say "I'm sorry" -- never having to admit "I was wrong" -- never having to say "Someone else's idea was better than mine."

      If you think about this long enough, it begins to make sense. And when that happens, things begin to get really, really scary.

      by RevJoe on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:19:31 PM PDT

    •  Success Has Many Fathers, Failure's an Orphan n/t

      by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:46:21 PM PDT

    •  Elephant In Room: Mostly, They Thought It'd Work

      A great many citizens and a high fraction of leadership we feel should have known better, simply thought this course was going to work.

      Those who opposed it felt they'd have no leg to stand on once the illegal war succeeded, those who favored it felt it'd help them change the system to free us to be the kick-ass nation of their wet dreams.

      A lot of what people were actually wrong about was not the war's legality, but its success.

      by Gooserock on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:38 PM PDT

•  Polls only matter when they confirm existing...

  ...biases.

  Case in point: universal healthcare.

  This comes to mind:

  "What the public wants is called 'politically unrealistic'. Translated into English, that means power and privilege are opposed to it." -- Noam Chomsky

  by Autarkh on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:33:25 PM PDT

•  How are these results possible?!

  Broder, Brooks and Klein are always such infallible barometers of national sentiment.

  by peckcheck on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:36:23 PM PDT

•  will they listen?

  let's hope so.  reid needs to stick to his guns with the timelines plan.  hopefully it will stick in people's minds.  

  by mark without the os on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:38:10 PM PDT

  •  hope it will stick in people's minds?

    We need to MAKE it stick in people's minds.  A PR campaign should be in the works right now.  We need to explain why we are sending Bush bills that he says he will veto:  

    We need to explain that the current course in Iraq has been shown to be a mistake, and that redeployment would be more advantageous as well as saving lives.

    We need to explain that we are seeking a way to save lives, and are wanting to work with members of the other party who are willing to define real goals.  

    We need to stress that we fully and truely support the troops, and expect to generously fund their redeployment and any medical rehabilitation needed. (the repugs are weak here)

    We need to impart the truth that more of our troops should not die for oil.

    We need to be able to successfully defend our short-term funding bills, if/when neccessary.

    Ok, get to work!

    by Thomas Twinnings on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

•  I wish that they would poll me.

  They would get an earful.  I mourn for the Republic, and believe it is up to likes of the riffraff of us to restore it.  Tea, anyone?  Regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:39:21 PM PDT

•  "So, do you think the media and the pundits......

  will now reflect the reality of the situation?"

  Yes.

  And president Bush will announce an immediate troop redeployment, and will effectively resign, turn both he and Dick over to the local authorities for willfully breaking the law, and will drop down on his knees, kiss my Democratic ass and beg for forgiveness.

  You bet.

  by MisterOpus1 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:42:13 PM PDT

•  Call for Steny Hoyer...Call for....

  miserable, ass-kissing syncophant Hoyer. Who's ass is he kissing you wonder?

  Well wonder no more dweller of OrangeLand.

  This  is what it's always been all about....

  Up until now that is. Now, we have the chance to change this thanks to Mr. Decider and Genrul Betrayus the citizens can see the political and military 'leaders' of this nation are doing more than betraying 'the troops' they are betraying the entire nation.

  Let's take advantage of this and dismantle the MI complex and...

  Send the fool Hoyer home.

  by Nestor Makhnow on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:42:52 PM PDT

•  Hallelujah for Harry! (hadda steal that from kos)

       Hard times times call for Hardline!

  hey whadda we got to lose right? certainly not the upcoming presidential election.

  Support our Troops: BRING THEM HOME!

  by PeckingOrder on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:46:12 PM PDT

•  it's not just Iraq

  it's enforcement of basic powers of the Congress. The Democratic leadership refuses to exercise their power to stop Bush Cheney on EVERYTHING.

  That's the impression I get.

  by shpilk on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:46:30 PM PDT

  •  Scratching my head

    The entire mandate for the democratic win in 2008 was to end a war that had begun under false pretenses -- that Saddam had WMD's and that is what made him an urgent or imminent threat that required a pre-emptive strike.

    I will never understand why the democrats didn't put all their energy and resources from day one into making the case against the Bush Administration over these "false pretenses" and proving within the setting of a special prosecutor and/or congressional investigation that "Bush Lied Us Into War" and needs to be impeached because of that.

    And as far as I know, there isn't any investigation going on even now to prove that, or any planned for that matter.

    Still scratching my head.

    by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:58:13 PM PDT

    •  the fact is that

      Americans care more about how to get out than how we got in.

      by DemFromCT on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:59:53 PM PDT

      •  maybe so...

        but if you don't have the votes to get out...then the next  thing is to get rid of the President who committed a "High Crime and Misdemeanor" to get us in in the first place.

        by Bowa on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:03:42 PM PDT

        •  the votes aren't there for that, either

          as of today.

          by DemFromCT on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:49:05 PM PDT

    •  No I Don't Think So--

      Corruption I think polled higher or was nearly as high.

      There was definitely more in the mix than just the war.

      by Gooserock on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:59:49 PM PDT

•  The Republicans Are Laughing Themselves Sick

  Over the lack of initiative on the Democrats side. To me that seems a little arrogant coming from people with very little to crow about.

  by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:48:16 PM PDT

  •  When your party is best known for...

    ....'Wide Stance' Craig and Mark Foley, when your party has declared that methane drilling has priority over property rights in the Mountain West, when your party cannot even organize a dog and pony show in front of Congress, the most gullible audience on the planet, when your party leader is....

    The dumbest fucker on the planet, bar none, yer takes whatever ya kin....

    Get.

    by Nestor Makhnow on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:55:24 PM PDT

    •  That's Exactly Why Dems Are Coasting

      And frankly we want the Democrats slogan to be something other than the "We Probably Won't Molest Your Children."

      Because that'll get them through 2008, but by 2010 it'll be the dems screwing livestock in the coatroom, not the GOP.

      by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:50:53 PM PDT

      •  Oh Iotally agree with this....

        ...and in a way the presence of the 'Bush Dog's will be helpful as it will help us to flush out the corporatist scum and fellow travelers from the party. DiFi and Biden come to mind here.

        Don't laugh, those DINOs and Dogs who think that wearing the lable of 'Democrat' is gonna protect them are going to get rude, uncivil awakening. Looks like Miss Nancy and more importantly 'Gutless' Reid heard something over the recess that's got them worried. I think it's called, 'The voice of the people' as they seem to be at least headed in the right direction now.

        We have a long way to go to remake the party but I feel very hopeful that 'People Powered Politics' is up to the task.

        by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:48:21 AM PDT

  •  Lame Duck Democrats

    Certainly in war time there cannot be such a thing as a lame duck Republican president.

    by Gooserock on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:00:26 PM PDT

•  Hey Dems...here's some quotes for ya!

  "That's not a knife.  That's a knife."

  "Leave it to a GOP to bring a knife to a gunfight."

  "Terminate with extreme prejudice."

  anyone got more?

  by mmuskratt on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:55:36 PM PDT

•  Bush was creepy today and mighty cocky on the

    White House lawn delivering a speech to a crowd of weird old people dressed in red, white, and blue garb.  Pretending to be patriots--all of them. They continue to betray our troops in the worst way--hiding behind this pathological psuedo-patriotism.

  Again the decider's demanding more money for his what should we call it nowadays--exposed propaganda party?

  And of course as soon as Bush announces/demands (whats the difference from him nowadays?) more funding, the Hawk division on hand chants "USA, USA" on cue, fucking all that genuine unity and reaffirmed pride we had as a country post 911.

  by PeckingOrder on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:04:04 PM PDT

•  Bush/Petraeus broke even. That's all ...

  ... they needed.

  Just like guerilla war - the guerillas don't have to beat you, they just have to not get beaten.

  by RonK Seattle on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:04:32 PM PDT

•  Now would somebody please

  fire David Broder, Richard Cohen, and Joe Klein?

  Please.

  At least somebody at CNN show Glenn Beck the gate.

  If being wrong were scientific advances, the pundit class would be safe and universally available cold fusion.

  by LeftHandedMan on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:05:00 PM PDT

  •  Joe must be about ready to explode:

    August 31, 2007 10:18
    Harry Reid, Centrist
    Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (68) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

    Well, it's about time ( Link to Reid Opens Door to Pact With Republicans By Hack Shailagh Murray). The point is to get to 60 votes in favor of a withdrawal. And then to get to 67 votes in favor of a withdrawal.

    UPDATE: Ezra agrees. Klein caucus unanimity a significant turning point in national debate.

    Swampland August 31rst

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:14:13 PM PDT

•  Clinton on NPR on Petraeus

  Melissa Block had a long interview with Clinton today, mostly about her health care proposal, but also touched on Petraeus.

  Also, you told Gen. David Petraeus that his report, when he came before you in Congress, that his report on progress on the war in Iraq required, what you called, "a willing suspension of disbelief." Did you mean that he was misleading Congress?

  You know, if you look at everything that I said, I not only praised his service, I have the deepest admiration for him and I think he's been dealt a very hard hand. He's been made, along with Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker, the de facto spokesman for President Bush's policy. And it isn't any surprise to anyone that I disagree with that policy. I think we are on the wrong track in Iraq. I regret that the president apparently is going to continue this war until the last day he's in office, leaving it to his successor. But I believe that Gen. Petraeus, and the brave young men and women who are serving under him, are doing everything they possibly can to fulfill their mission.

  But were you saying that you didn't think Gen. Petraeus believed in what he was telling you?
  
  I believe that Gen. Petraeus is fulfilling a very narrow mission, but you have to look at the entire context in which that mission takes place. I have no doubt that Gen. Petraeus is doing everything he humanly can. He is a great soldier and he is a great leader, but he's been given an assignment that, by its very nature, cannot succeed.

  You can hear Block trying to lead Clinton into saying something negative about Petraeus, right into the GOP talking points attacking her for daring to criticize the general. Clinton doesn't bite, and better yet, refuses to trash Move On either.

  And if he's a great leader, why not repudiate the ad run in The New York Times by Moveon.org that called Gen. Petraeus, General Betray-us? People say that's a low blow.

  Well, I speak for myself. And I have spoken for myself on numerous occasions, just finished speaking with you about my high admiration and respect for Gen. Petraeus and I will continue to do so.

  Say what you will about Clinton, she does a masterful job here of keeping Block from twisting her message into the GOP frame. (Funny how seldom NPR seems to put GOP candidates to the test like this.) She manages to lay it all at the President's doorstep too. I just wish Clinton had been able to defuse Petraeus a little; the GOP will be dragging out military types all over the place come 2009 to criticize the Democrats on Iraq.

  I would have liked to have heard Clinton turn the interview around - ask Block what she remembers Petraeus testifying to back in 2004, 5, 6 about progress in Iraq, the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police. Get Block to admit Petraeus has always been upbeat, Clinton could then just say his latest statements were not really that surprising or unexpected - and leave it at that.

  One highlight is Block asking how she responds to Giuliani's charge that her health plan is just "a pretty clear march to socialized medicine." Clinton starts her reply with a perfect little laugh that deflates Giuliani's reflex talking point all by itself.

  Love her or hate her, she did quite a job in this interview. It's worth listening to, because the transcript doesn't begin to convey how at ease and in control she sounds.

  by xaxnar on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:10:38 PM PDT

  •  Not bad, I agree, but...

     ...why the PRAISE of Petraeus?

     She doesn't have to SLAM him if she doesn't think it's going to play well. But she doesn't have to fawn over the guy either -- why give him a veneer of credibility he hasn't earned? She can call him "competent" and "capable" if she must, and then move on to the meat of the issue...

    by Buzzer on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:22:54 PM PDT

    •  It's part of the cult.

      The right wing, they loves them some generals, they do - as long as they suck up to Bush. Clinton's driving them crazy by praising Petraeus; finding themselves agreeing with her makes their heads explode.

      On the other hand What Digby Said shows how they feel about generals who don't toe the Bush line.

      This is why the pearl clutching among the right wingers and their media allies is so laughable. On the right, they treat all Generals and troops who disagree with them like garbage, in the most despicable terms possible. Look what they did to John Kerry. Why any DC liberal takes their little "patriotic" game seriously is beyond me.

      by xaxnar on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:40:47 PM PDT

  •  Blech

    She avoids the GOP frame, but she fails to provide her own frame, thus leaving the GOP frame intact.

    Ultimately, the Clintons enable the right wing with their bullshit triangulation.  And don't get me started on Bill's fucking "better strong and wrong" bullshit.  Even on health care, the Clintons will merely fellate the HMOs with government subsidies.   I wish they would simply go away.

    If only Americans had the stones to elect an unknown quantity in place of one of the two ruling dynasties...

    by Subterranean on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:21:57 AM PDT

    •  One More Thing

       I wonder how much of Block's attitudes are shaped by being married to a Wall Street Journal reporter and the people around him.

      by xaxnar on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:53:52 AM PDT

•  So What? WHERE Do Democratic Voters

  go if they are disgusted with their so called democratic representatives?

  they go nowhere-- i.e. they don't show up on election day to vote in the one party system.

  one of the largest Loads subscribed to by many here is-- "we don't want a real "third" (it's actually a second political party) party because OH Horrors! it would weaken the democratic party"!!

  HUH? how much weaker do the democrats need to be before people wake up and realize how totally useless they are?

  by Superpole on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:02:35 PM PDT

  •  They Know We Won't Go Right Which is All They

    care. Clinton taught us this.

    by Gooserock on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:01:11 PM PDT

•  Are Republicans Doing Enough?

  So the public thinks Dems aren't doing enough? Fair enough, but why isn't anyone asking what the Repubs are doing? Why are they not being called to account for stonewalling bills in the Senate that have majority support?

  The public is not blameless here. They re-elected Bush in 2004 and didn't rebel against the Republican congress until 2006. Then suddenly, they want results?

  Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Dems do not hold a majority in the Senate; they have 50 plus Lieberman. So even if all Dems vote as the public now wants, they still need 10 Republicans to invoke cloture -- and 17 to thwart a Bush veto.

  I don't mean to excuse Congressional Dems because they have been a poor excuse for an opposition party, but the public shares an equal or greater share of the blame. If you don't like what's going on, vote out 17 more Republicans.

  by beep52 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:07:49 PM PDT

  •  Let alone ...

    ... another 60 votes in the House to override a veto.  The votes just aren't there in this Congress.

    On Tuesday, 2 November 2004, the American people voted for four more years of open-ended, preemptive war unless 67 Senators and 290 Representatives vote differently.  That's the bottom line.

    by jim bow on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:08:31 PM PDT

•  What Do Minds Outside DC Have to Do With It?

  Clearly, not much.

  by Gooserock on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:50:42 PM PDT

•  Via Glenn Greenwald

  From the Chris Matthews Show.

  DANA MILBANK (THE WASHINGTON POST): And I think he's [Bush] won this battle already.

  MATTHEWS: How so?

  MILBANK: Petraeus --it's no accident he had a Latin name. It looked like he was the Roman general returning to the republic in his gold and purple toga, and they were celebrating him and slaying white bulls. They could not get enough of this man.

  WTF?!!!? This is so perversely bizarre. Milbank comes off like a lovesick college freshman rhapsodizing on his latest sexual obsession, the quarterback of the football team. We may be coming close to understanding Republicans' attraction to people like Jeff Gannon.

  by Tenuous Leemployed on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:41:55 PM PDT

  •  Milbank is a non-entity

    He specializes in speaking without saying anything.  When he does say something, it is without fail 100% Grade A Beltway Bullshit.

    He is best ignored.

    by Subterranean on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:15:02 AM PDT

•  Finally a poll that asks the right question.

  I'm sick of those polls that say 'Do you approve of the job congress is doing?'  Almost everyone says HELL NO!  Republicans (I include DLC) have been using those polls to say the American public wants to stop the bickering and cave in to the WH. Makes me want to scream 'No you idiots!  We want them to grow a spine!'

  Now the truth is out.  The much coveted independent vote will go to the democrats if they start acting like democrats.

  The repugs can have their base and their 'Values' voters.  We don't need them.

  by GMFORD on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:02:45 AM PDT

•  Whoa!

  Without this poll, it would, like, take a genius to figure out that the democratic congress is too timid.

  Coincidentally, I noticed that Reid, realizing the bills have zero chance of passing, has boldly decided to DEMAND withdrawal deadlines.  Thankfully we have dem leadership that will bravely take a stance on symbolic bills.  Somebody had better confirm that their vestigial spines are still non-functioning...

  by Subterranean on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:12:38 AM PDT

  •  So you want Reid to do what, exactly?

    and with what chance of success?

    by DemFromCT on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:20:36 PM PDT