Zogby Poll: 3% approve of how Congress is handling Iraq war; military give Bush negative ratings

[DeepModem Mom]

August 01, 2007
UPI/Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander in Chief
Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

A majority of American adults (54%) lack confidence in President Bush’s ability as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. A majority (60%) said they do not trust the president’s judgment when it comes to the war, while 38% say they have faith in his military decisions.

Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war. This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats – some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq – expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue....

To best show support for the troops, 42% believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, while 34% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding. Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support. Congress has proposed a bill continuing funding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops there by Spring of 2008 – a plan favored by 49% of Americans. But nearly as many (45%) are opposed to this plan.

Slightly more than half (54%) believe the U.S. should set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and 55% believe the U.S. should begin the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that funds the war in Iraq that also sets a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops, but 52% would disagree with a presidential veto, while 44% would approve....

***

Dissatisfaction with how the war in Iraq is being handled is also considerable among past or current members of the military and their families – nearly three in four (71%) give the president negative ratings on his handling of the war and than half (54%) said they don’t trust the President’s judgment when it comes to the Iraq war....

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

[Clark2008]

1. Yet 97 percent of Congress approves of keeping their powder dry.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. You got it, Clark...

(and your little ones are still adorable!).

[Ian David]

8. Who knows what kind of blackmail material those NSA Wiretaps picked-up.

Or the two Republican staffers who admitted hacking into Democrats' computers.

Or what was found in the offices of Democrats while they disinfected after the Anthrax scares.

Or on all those laptops stolen from Democratic campaign offices.

Or what was found while Congress was evacuated during all those false alarms and such.

[Individualist]

13. Fear of blackmail is no excuse

If anyone is letting fear take precedence over doing the right thing, then they need to RESIGN! At any rate, I don't buy the fear excuse. IMO, it's complicity rather than fear which is their motivation, and if elected officials don't get their heads out of corporate asses, they're going to be in for a surprise in '08. Americans don't vote for weakness.

[kenny blankenship]

21. That's easy to say if it's not your goat they have pictures of you having sex with

[Individualist]

22. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution

If, for ANY reason, they are unable to do, they should resign!

Repeating what I said before, I do NOT buy the fear excuse. IMO it's complicity.

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

[bobbolink]

41. From your keyboard to god's monitor!

:yourock:

Everything you said... :yourock:

[PATRICK]

56. More importantly

The unpunished Congressional spying and ordinary observation has shown more than enough what the response of the party leadership will be, looking back on the Vietnam experience, looking back on getting burned for taking such initiatives in the past, looking back and only learning how to lose all over again.

Sadly, this much more than blackmail, this plus DINO's in the Bush pocket still, is the key card. Now for the GOP you have to believe all the closeted crooks are intimidated. Hagel can't even try to run for President and has been sidelined in his so-called 'criticism" ever since. Spector spins so hard back to the Bush game one is never sure he was ever critical in the first place.

But intimidation is 99% atmosphere and even effects super brave saints unassailable in their districts. Bush believes in poisoning the air everyone breathes. That is key too. The other 1% is actual catastrophe
to display power and helplessness to the Bush advantage.

[kenny blankenship]

3. 3% think the Congress is doing what it should do on the war. How long can Dems ignore that?

Steps they've taken, those steps that everyone knows ahead of time won't achieve any result, haven't persuaded anybody. That could be a real problem next year if the leadership remains out of touch and keeps offering symbolic resistance to Bush that doesn't fool anybody.

[GOTV]

4. But look what else it says. Fund the troops and maintain troop levels: 42%

That was the most popular option. So what should they do to boost their ratings

[kenny blankenship]

5. Yeah they should keep that right up-'til Nov. when the voters throw them out for not ending the war

and then the Republicans can expand the funding.

Poll numbers can yield contradictory results esp. when voters don't understand the gov't mechanisms underlying and constraining policy. What is the more important figure? What figure shows the strongest feeling? 97 is greater than 42 by a double margin.

If 97% of people think you're doing a shitty job on some policy matter, you better change your ways!

[GOTV]

9. But they aren't SAYING they want to end the war. So what should the dems do to improve their image?

[kenny blankenship]

17. Now you're just in error-Over half want the end of the war SCHEDULED, and soon

You don't call for a timetable for withdrawal-as over half respondents did- and you don't call for the timetable to start THIS YEAR unless you judge the war either won, and thus not requiring any further commitment from us, or else a miserable failure and so not worthy of any further commitment. We sure ain't winning over there, so that doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Those questions about funding and timetables are about the HOW of our exit from Iraq. Don't think that questions of how a policy is to be implemented overshadow the importance of WHAT our policy is. To the people, the end is always more important than the means. We are supposed to be getting the hell out of Iraq, with or without Bush's agreement. That is supposed to be our policy and that's what Democratic leaders have claimed our policy goal is. That's why voters turned out the Republican Congress last year and that's why Bush's approval rating is hovering in the 20-30% range. We will be judged on how we have delivered on that objective, not on how clever our excuses for achieving nothing have been. Those clever excuses so far aren't working.

The people understand Iraq is a lost cause and the non-existent (3%) approval level for the Democratic Congress shows their frustration at all the empty gestures Congress has made so far towards forcing Bush to bring the troops home. The electorate sees through their shadow-plays and symbolic votes. You can dither and obfuscate and do nothing for now, but November 08 is coming and Congressional Democrats may be surprised by the result just as Republicans were surprised last year.

[Amonester]

6. Maybe if they just put the

Constitution... uhhhhhh... sorry, the Impeachement hearings back on the table...

But of course, they'd have to "multitask" (re: work on... other important matters at the same time)...

Just sayin'...

[GOTV]

11. Maybe, except people aren't asking for that either. How low do you want congress's numbers to get?

[Poiuyt]

26. Quite a few are asking for impeachment

54% want Cheney impeached and 45% want Bush impeached. That's not insignificant.

It should also be pointed out that in the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

[GOTV]

33. Most polls show impeachment is a minority priority.

It might be the right thing to do but there's no reason to think it will improve congress's ratings

[Amonester]

35. How many points have they got to lose now? Three?

Maybe something tells me the General Public just want to see a "real" Final Showdown at what they could call something like "Bring Back The Rule Of Law In The Good Ol' USA By Exposing The Greedy Liars Who Have No Respect Of Human Life And Who Are Destroying Our Democracy Here So They Don't Have To Destroy It There" (I know: too long).

Maybe General Public & And Taxpayers of America (TM) want to see a good fight so they can easily spot exactly who are the cowards they don't wanna go vote for (if there's ever gonna be another election in the future).

What's the difference between 3% and 0%, and why not take a chance at getting it up to 55% or more?

Too much work, I guess...

[Don Claybrook]

7. they should do what is right, irrespective of polling

If they did what they should, i.e., get us out, then the polling would sort itself out and they'd find marked improvement in those polls. Maybe a more direct answer to your question, what should they do to boost their ratings, would be--nothing. They should do what's right by the Constitution and the American public, and not concern themselves with the polls. We've had enough pragmatism and focus groups these last several years to last a lifetime. It would be nice for a change to just do what's right, and I believe they'd be amazed at the public's reaction.

[GOTV]

10. Maybe but that doesn't relate to what the poster I responded to was saying n/t

[Don Claybrook]

12. It has everything to do with what the poster was saying

He said,
"3% think the Congress is doing what it should do on the war. How long can Dems ignore that? Steps they've taken, those steps that everyone knows ahead of time won't achieve any result, haven't persuaded anybody. That could be a real problem next year if the leadership remains out of touch and keeps offering symbolic resistance to Bush that doesn't fool anybody."

The congressional Democrats are seen as taking action for the sole purpose of improving their poll numbers, and not for purposes of actually accomplishing something, something that may be difficult and not popular in every quarter.

Does substance mean anything to you? You seem to concern yourself, in this thread, with the image of the congressional Democrats moreso than with anything of real substance or value. This sort of thinking is longstanding in some parts of the Democratic Party, and it's apparently coming home to roost in the form of a 3% approval rating.

It turns out most people just can't stand a spineless pile of jelly making incremental decisions by focus group when the Constitution is being dismantled and real honest-to-god measures are called for.

[GOTV]

14. The poster I responded to assumes we DO care about the poll numbers

"Does substance mean anything to you? You seem to concern yourself, in this thread, with the image of the congressional Democrats"

Because it was the premise of the poster I responded to. I made no comment on whether anyone SHOULD care.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. So what should they do?

Cut funding? Only 18% support that.

Attach timelines? A sizeable number want that, but the democrats are trying that, and getting vetoed.

The most popular option is to continue funding.

So what should dems do?

[kenny blankenship]

57. Would you at least admit that they took the wrong path?

[Perky]

15. You do realize that the 97% is those who both support and don't support

the war?

NEOCONs and Progressives both are disgusted with Congress

[Aptastik]

18. What's the margin of error?

I find it hard to believe ANYONE supports the way Congress is handling the war.

[DeepModem Mom]

19. Here you go --

"The online survey was conducted July 13–16, 2007, and included 7,590 respondents. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.1 percentage points."

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

20. Since their constituency is so obviously being ignored

the question becomes "Whose pocket are you nestled so snugly in?"

It's obvious they are not working for We The People any more. The two remaining choices are:

-They have been bought by special interests

-They are being blackmailed

Which is it, Madame Speaker? Who owns you, and why? Your employers, the citizens of The United States, want to know.

[Raksha]

49. Let's call it the BBB or 3-B's factor:

Are they Bought, Blackmailed or Both? 3-B's = 3% approval.

[barb162]

23. I think that 3% is the lowest I have ever seen for a ratingon Congress

wow

[BuyingThyme]

24. We are going to lose Congress and the White House if we allow Pelosi and Reid

to keep this shit up. They have to go.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. what should they do?

Look at all the poll numbers. A plurality want the funding to continue.

[BuyingThyme]

28. A plurality got caught in a false choice.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. But what should they do?

there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what approach is most popular.

[BuyingThyme]

32. The most popular approach seems to be in having withdrawal requirements tied to the funding.

"Congress has proposed a bill continuing funding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops there by Spring of 2008 – a plan favored by 49% of Americans."

It's the false choices, which open with nonsensical push language like, "To best show support for the troops..." that makes it confusing.

Policy has absolutely nothing to do with "supporting" "the troops," but these assholes knowingly throw this bullshit push language into the conversation to create false data and thus false perceptions.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. But what should they do?

you think they're going to lose the election because they're doing the wrong thing.

What SHOULD they do that will guarantee they win, in light of this poll?

[BuyingThyme]

36. Well, the poll is the result of Pelosi's guarantee of no more blank checks,

followed by a blank check on the first opportunity she got.

Now we need Pelosi to apologize to the American people and step aside so some real Americans can get to work.

Because of Pelosi, there's no momentum for Democrats, much less a guarantee.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Why can't you answer the question?

In light of the results of this poll, what should they do to guarantee electoral victory?

[BuyingThyme]

38. I don't have an answer for an unbelievably stupid question.

Do they guarantee elections in your world?

[MonkeyFunk]

39. In post 24

you said we'll lose Congress if Reid and Pelosi "keep this shit up".

I'm asking you what action they should take that will prevent us from losing congress.

Do you have an answer? Or do you just like to attack Dems?

[BuyingThyme]

40. False choice. How did you convince yourself that

if a person does not have answers to unanswerable questions, he or she is only interested in attacking Dems? It seems that you'd have to be an amazingly dishonest person to come up with something like that.

So, how is it that you came up with something like that? It's a mystery.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. so you know

they'll lose if "they keep this shit up" but you have no alternative of what they should do? OK, gotcha.

[BuyingThyme]

43. I already told you what they should do, didn't I?

How is it that you keep "forgetting"? It's hard to believe that somebody could "forget" so fast. Another mystery.

Let's do this: You go and read the article, the article from which I quoted the solution which already has 49% support, and then come back if you have anything, absolutely anything to say which is somehow based in reality.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Your solution

was that Pelosi resign.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what they should do about the war.

The options are:

continue funding
fund with timelines
cut funding


Given those options, what should the democrats do to ensure electoral victory, in light of the information in the OP?

[BuyingThyme]

45. Now you're conflating your two (or three) stupid questions.

First you were asking about what to do in Iraq, then you asked about guaranteeing an election, and now you're conflating the two.

I don't understand how you could have come up with something like that unless the truth somehow did not jive with your intentions. Go figure.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Let's start from scratch

You said we're bound to lose both houses of congress if reid and Pelosi "keep this shit up".

WHAT action, regarding the war, would prevent democrats from losing Congress?

You're just running around in circles - answer the question or admit you just like piling on Reid and Pelosi.

[BuyingThyme]

51. Again, I never said anything about preventing Democrats from

undoing the harm Pelosi has done, thus preventing Democrats from losing Congress.

This is something you made up in your head. But since you're so interested in having your question answered, why don't you just go ahead and answer it. (By the way, having conversations with yourself if indicative of... Well, I can't remember.)

[MonkeyFunk]

52. so you think

we can't avoid losing congress?

You said "if they keep this shit up".

I want you to tell me what "shit" is causing this, and what they, or anyone, COULD do to avoid losing congress.

By using the conditional "if", it implies there's an alternative, but you won't state what it is.

[BuyingThyme]

53. Wow, you're breaking records here.

I think you're having trouble with basic English now. The alternative to "if" is not. So, "if" they do not keep this shit up, maybe they "COULD" do something to avoid losing Congress.

What shit? Remember that stuff about guaranteeing no blank checks before writing a blank check at the first opportunity?

Is there somebody available to help you keep up with this conversation? Or teach English?

[MonkeyFunk]

55. You are now going beyond ridiculous

why not simply say what Democrats SHOULD do regarding the war that will improve their electoral chances next year? I've asked again and again, and you can't answer that simple question.

[BuyingThyme]

59. No, you asked, and I answered.

You asked, "But what should they do? There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what approach is most popular."

I responded, "The most popular approach seems to be in having withdrawal requirements tied to the funding. 'Congress has proposed a bill continuing funding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops there by Spring of 2008 – a plan favored by 49% of Americans.'"

Do you understand the concept of questions and answers? Do you understand anything? Why do you keep making things up and then running away from them when I catch you?

[MonkeyFunk]

60. but that

IS the approach being taken by Reid and Pelosi - the approach you say will lead to electoral defeat.

So you DON'T want them to do anything differently - because they ARE supporting funding tied to troop withdrawal.

But I'm done trying to reason with you - I see in another thread you claim "Pelosi led us into this war". That's so far beyond real and into the land of delusion that you're not worth the time.

[JohnShadows]

25. looks like there's disgust at the entire government ..

... n/t

[Perry Logan]

29. The anti-government meme is pushed very hard in the media.

[mmonk]

31. There is dissatisfaction but polls need to be put aside.

The right things need to be done and then explained. Otherwise, we have this current disjointed and confused electorate operating in the dark.

[DJKDJKDJK]

46. I blame this all on the media

It's time to get out. Dennis Kucinich is given no time in the media whatsoever. Most people don't have cable nor would they watch a debate if they do. It's the print, and the basic local tv news media that has ignored Dennis Kucinich and his plan to get the US out that has killed this country and will continue to do so until America, and many on DU, wake up.

[DeepModem Mom]

50. Thanks for your post, DJK -- and a warm welcome to DU!

[newspeak]

47. and these numbers I truly don't understand

:shrug: They're lower than the Repuke Congress. It seems that the administration that lies us to war, didn't protect us on 9/11, de-regulates for their friends, screws up Katrina, withholds information from the public, participates in secret energy meetings, and basically tells the plebiens to f--k off has a higher rating than Congress. Those who have actually created our current situation has a higher rating than Congress? I'm about ready to give up on the population. Studs Terkel said he had faith in the American people-I'm not sure I still feel that way.

Because we have corporate, self-interested media, I'd say some of those politicians have been castrated-the media is no friend of Congress-hell, the media has been selling * for over seven years!!!!! Gushing over his supreme highness, I can remember the talking heads comparing him to Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan and (aghast) FDR. Some may remember, it was after 9/11--I've never seen such media blitz selling to the public. Those with any amount of cojones in Congress are going to get the media bashing treatment--the media is happy to keep those in place who go against this administration. They do it by ignoring them (see, if you didn't watch C-span you wouldn't know which congress critters were really fighting for you) or taking a small incident (Edward's haircut) and make it a talking point over and over again.

Since, Congress is at 3%-will some think we no longer need no stinkin checks and balances? Will we be, Amerika, the new Banana Republic!!!!

[sandnsea]

54. Republicans ALWAYS support each other

They can always count on their 25% core to be there, no matter what. Democrats don't have that. Some Democrats want defunding, they aren't happy. Others want a deadline, they aren't happy. Others want compromise, they aren't happy. Add it all together, nobody's happy. This isn't surprising at all.

[Geek_Girl]

61. Democrats in Congress have done very little to change the status quo

So the people who voted them in are not happy and the 25% of knuckle draggers (Repuplican base) are not going to say they approve of a democratic congress.


If democrats don't do something soon they are going to loose big in '08.

[Flabbergasted]

58. Is there anyway to view the specific precentages for the asked questions in the survey.

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1203


The following questions were asked on this survey:

1. Statement A: The United States should assume a more isolationist foreign policy and focus on securing its own borders and the homeland. Statement B: The United States should assume a more active foreign policy, and with the help of other nations try to address some of the challenges facing the world today.

2. Level of agreement - The United States is the most respected country in the world today.

3. Level of agreement - The United States is the most powerful country in the world today.

4. Level of agreement - The United States is the only country powerful enough to act as a global watchdog.

5. Level of agreement - The United States should serve as the world’s global watchdog.

6. Level of agreement - The United States has a responsibility to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world.

7. Level of agreement - The Iraq war has damaged the standing of the United States in the International Community.

8. Level of agreement - In general, the allies of the U.S. have served America well since September 11th.

9.... ete