More proof that the Democrat's decision to cave was a wise political move.

[Pale Blue Dot]

:sarcasm:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19037437/

Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.

Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents and liberal Democrats. While independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved, 54 percent disapproved. And among liberal Democrats, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 18 points.







Emphasis mine. Nice job, Dems.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Ahhhhh FUCK! And The Election's Tomorrow Too! GODDAMMIT!

....Oh. Wait. It's not? ...My bad.

[gatorboy]

5. Heh!!

Best post today. :rofl:

[MLFerrell]

40. If by best, you mean "most asinine"...

Then I wholeheartedly agree.

[OzarkDem]

29. Yeah, its ok to lie to new supporters

on the first important legislation they're watching.

Dems in Congress have plenty of time, money and brains to keep farting around before they get enough guts to do something. Voters are endlessly patient and its not like Iraq is serious problem, running up our national debt and screwing up our economy.

:sarcasm:

[bigtree]

2. So 'liberal Democrats' will do what now?

become republicans?

enable republicans by withholding their vote for our nominee?

cast themselves out into the political wilderness by joining some splinter party?

By the way, nice job "independent" and "liberal" legislators in generating enough support in this Congress to effect your proposals and initiatives to end the occupation . . . not.

Republican numbers are just as bad. Remember, it's Bush and his republicans who are responsible for prolonging the occupation, not Democrats who are working to end it with their support of an exit date in legislation.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. The key word was highlighted.

As I've said before, my father is an independent who voted for Bush in the last two elections. In 2006, he voted straight Democrat, hoping that the Democrats would stop the war and impeach Bush. All of this has fueled his belief that "there is no difference between the parties."

Anyone who has watched any TV, or talked to ANY real-life people, know that the Democrats are seen as caving in to the President now. This was extremely predictable. The Democrats are seen as weak.

Democrats can't even claim they stood on principle, since a majority of Americans feel that the "principle" was in the opposite direction.

It was, simply, a stupid, stupid move.

[OzarkDem]

25. Agree, Independent voters want us out of Iraq

that's why they voted for Dems who turned around and screwed them over.

I want my party back.

[PinkyisBlue]

37. I just hope that independents like your dad don't take out this Iraq disaster on the Dems.

People like your dad will hopefully take out their anger and frustration on Bush and the Repubs. who lied to us and got us into this mess in the first place. And people like your dad are guilty for voting for a megalomaniac like Bush in the first place; don't tell me he had no idea this guy would be a walking disaster. A lot of people voted for Bush simply because they believed they would pay less in taxes. (I don't mean to pick on your dad, but I'm so angry about some of these voters who helped put this guy into office, who voted for Bush not once but TWICE, and then later are surprised that things are so bad).

Has your dad listened to Dennis Kucinich, who has been against this war from the start and has good ideas about dealing with the mess? And why didn't he vote for John Kerry, who had a plan for de-escalating the Iraq War, in 04?

[earthside]

10. Yeah, It's Just Blood

U.S. troops killed in Iraq -- 3,496 ... tens of thousands of Iraqis killed.

But, hey you know, where are those "liberal Democrats" and "independents" going to go?

It's blood or votes ... get real.

Do you want to win in 2008, or save a few lives by stopping Bush/Cheney?

:sarcasm:

[Pale Blue Dot]

12. "Do you want to win in 2008, or save a few lives by stopping Bush/Cheney?"

I think it's entirely possible that we'll do neither.

[monktonman]

31. I'd like to save a few lives by stopping Bush/Cheney

In fact...If the war ended tommorrow, I wouldnt care who the next president was.
The only reason the Dems have me for now (for now) is because they are our best chance of ending the war as soon as possible.
As soon as this war is over (if ever) the Dems are gonna have to work really frickin hard to keep my vote.
In the mean time, it would be nice if they could get some other stuff done too, but alas, thats not to be either.

[depakid]

15. If things continue along this path, there probably WILL be a strong 3rd party

The Democratic "leadership" is creating a political vacuum- and whenever there's a vacuum, there'll be someone to fill it.

Not to mention, of course, that there are a whole LOT of people who'll just be that much more cynical- and they'll stay home rather than make a choice of evils.

[PassingFair]

16. How about NOT supply shoe leather for your SUCKING candidates.

If Al Gore runs, your days are numbered.

Laugh now while you can, monkey boys.

[Pale Blue Dot]

17. I'm actually not happy with Gore being an apologist for this crap.

He was on my top tier of candidates, but now I'm not sure.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. "Don't you realize your whole planet is gonna be destroyed?"

[TahitiNut]

19. "Either you support me or you support the terrorists!"

There seems to be a spongeform virus going around. :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

30. Maybe we should start acting more like pro-Lieberman, pro-Bush, DLC traitors?

Would that impress "moderates"?

[mopinko]

33. do what? run!

grassroots dems are running for office, and putting themselves on the line. THEY are the reason that we took back the congress. the claire mc caskell's, even the ned lamont's and the christine cegelis's, that lost, brought many, many new people into the process. and dfa, pda et al, are moving in on local parties, and changing the way things are done.
like howard dean says- you want an A in democracy, run for something.

[youngdem]

4. post deleted by author.

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. Did you READ my post?

I hate the sarcasm smilie, but I guess I'll have to put it in there.

[youngdem]

9. missed your sarcasm...post edited. sorry.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Cool, You Edited. :o)

[jilln]

7. Is there a word missing in your headline?

Namely, "not"?

[Pale Blue Dot]

8. I added the "sarcasm" smilie

because people don't get it unless you slam them in the face with it.

[slowry]

11. I require a string of at least 3 sarcasm smilies, to denote actual sarcasm.

Otherwise I just assume it's meant to be ironic.

[jilln]

38. Or maybe people are just used to reading sloppy writing.

[EFerrari]

14. You have to remember, you ARE the party.

Don't stand down.

[TahitiNut]

18. "Who cares what they think?"

Funny how that attitude seems to be so pervasive. :eyes:


Cake anyone?

[leftchick]

20. they keep listening to DLC asssholes like Shrum

they never learn. Wash Rinse Repeat! While More people fucking DIE......


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/053007b.html

Now we read in the Boston Globe how John Kerry, preparing to campaign to be Commander in Chief, voted in 2002 for the Iraq War after his political consultants informed the would-be leader of the free world that he would not be “politically viable” unless he voted yes.

This followed the disclosure that Bob Shrum advised John Edwards to send young men and women to die as a way of improving his weak national-security resume in 2002.

Why Democratic officials listen to this is beyond me.

Here are the presidential campaigns that Bob Shrum lost: 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004. Here are the presidential campaigns Mr. Shrum won: none.

Nice work, if you can get it.

By the way, Republican consultants are no better. They loved the Iraq War when they could use it to run television ads, accusing Democrats of being unpatriotic. Now they are reduced to gibberish about “surrender dates” while their members run to the White House and whine to the President, waving their polls, then vote for it again.

From the moment of the Democratic victory in the congressional elections of 2006, many of these Democratic consultants told party leaders that it would be wrong to make a powerful and principled stand against the Iraq War policy.

The majority consultant view was summed up early in the Democratic Congress by Celinda Lake, quoted in the Washington Post as believing that Democrats were not elected to solve the Iraq War, and that waging a politically heroic fight for change would be a distraction.

[Pale Blue Dot]

21. What's really disturbing is that their ONLY excuse for doing this was political.

Now that the vote has had the effect that any child could have told them it was going to have, they have NO defense.

Even those who have responded to this thread who obviously support the Democrat's decision really can't defend it anymore. If it was bad for them politically, what other reason could they possibly have?

[PassingFair]

22. Except for the mocking bullshit you see above...

the "where ELSE are you going to go?" crap.

That's their "defense".

:puke:

[leftchick]

23. exactly right...

and as stated in the article I posted....

<snip>

Here’s my view, as an unyielding opponent of the war policy and unyielding supporter of troops and vets: Who cares about the politics? War is a moral and patriotic matter that should be decided on the grounds of high principle and high honor.

We have just ended one election, which neither party now honors with regard to Iraq, and the next election is about a year and a half away.

Here is the state of play, rounding off the numbers. Seventy percent of the American people disapprove of the current policy; disapprove of President Bush; disapprove of Republicans in Congress; and now disapprove of the Democratic Congress.

It is America versus Washington.

On matters of patriotism, honor, war and peace, reasonable people can disagree about the policy. What is extraordinary and unique in my experience is that on this matter the truth is that 98 percent of Democrats in Congress, 70 percent of Republicans in Congress, perhaps 100 percent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly oppose the current policy in private but then act to continue it in public.


.... It makes no sense. Unless of course they are profitting from war.

[TahitiNut]

26. As an indie, I certainly agree. The partisan calculus is absolutely detestible to me.

It's something that brainwashes partisans and, not being more than human, I cannot possibly allow myself to affiliate and find myself defending the indefensible ... or having my reality twisted to the degree I see it happening to some folks'.

(Every time I hear people talk about John McCain's "independent voice" I cringe.)

[OzarkDem]

24. Stupid is as stupid does

They really need to stop listening to the beltway "advisors" and start listening to voters.

I guess when you are stupid enough to think you won a majority because Bush has low approval ratings, you're also too stupid to understand the voters' mandate - get out of Iraq.

[Terri S]

28. was anyone really surprised?

Of course their approval rating plummeted. They were elected to DO SOMETHING! And I don't think that was all anti-war liberal doing. The people of this country.. a whopping 70% wanted a timetable to get out. If I may give my interpretation of the poll numbers..."Stop giving excuses why you just can't. Show some freaking backbone for crissakes!!!!! "

[Pale Blue Dot]

32. I'm not surprised at all.

I thought this vote was cowardly and immoral, and was destined to have exactly the opposite political effect of whatever it was they thought it was going to have.

Democrats have to remember that they are not running against George W. Bush in 2008. They will be running against moderate Rpublicans who will say that they will take action to stop the war. You can bank on it.

[cascadiance]

34. Maybe if they do a poll of corporate leaders, the Dem's ratings would go up!

That's what this vote was all about. Serving the DLC's paymasters!

[sallyseven]

35. Maybe there should be a reality series

on the Constitution. Including the Bill of Rights, and the amendments that have been passed. There are laws about what can happen and what is not allowed. If you don't have the f king votes you cannot do the job. No if ands or buts about it. No magic wands or screaming from the populace can change this. The republicans are scared shitless of the Gestapo that is running the white house. They will never vote against bush. Bet rove has the book on all of them. We have to keep pushing for the 2008 election.

[mzmolly]

36. We don't know what the polls would indicate if we went against 87% of the public.

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

39. Americans' current political dissatisfaction

is not issue-specific, although it focuses around Iraq. Voter anger is not really directly about the illegal occupation of Iraq, or the catastrophic foreign policy for which it is the centerpiece. Dissatisfaction is really centered on the issue of trust. As long as (ignorant) American voters feel like they can "trust" a politician, that they'd like to have a beer with him or her, they'll overlook crimes, mistakes, failures. The reason the public turned on king george is not that he is a miserable failure and a criminal, it is that he is a liar and voters no longer trust him.

The "democratic" weaseling and triangulating on issues instead of following through with their harsh anti-occupation campaign rhetoric has moved them solidly into the "we don't trust them either" camp. The voters didn't want them to win; they wanted them to try. The electorate, after a generation of RW media propaganda already didn't trust "liberals" or "democrats." The last 6 months were the window in which the "democrats" could have turned that around. They failed. Miserably. Utterly. Boy, did they screw this one up.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

41. As was pointed out up thread

They feel the election is far enough off that they can get away with not representing the will of the people. A risky move at the best of times. Considering the stakes and the potential this has to backfire on them, I'd go so far as to call it foolish.

Hundreds of US soldiers are going to die this summer in Iraq and the media isn't going to be shy about laying their deaths at the doorstep of the Democratic Party. It's going to be hard for people to get over feeling betrayed and let down when they have constant reminders being thrust in their face.