Poll: 53% Support Dem Efforts To Cut Funding For More Troops
Here's a key number buried in today's Washington Post/ABC News poll on President Bush's speech: A surprising 53% support Democratic efforts to cut off funding for additional troops, while only 44% oppose it. The survey also found that only 36% said they support Bush's escalation plan. A solid majority -- 61% -- oppose escalation, with 52% opposing it "strongly." The poll was taken after the President's speech last night. Meanwhile, the new Associated Press-Ipsos poll finds an even larger majority against escalation: 70%.
Advertisement
Wait until the mighty Wurlitzer starts up.
January 11, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 53% plus one more voter.
January 11, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that Bush will send in more troops anyways, and then claim that the Dems were unwilling to pay for them to have body armor, didn't want to pay for their salaries, etc.
Btw, I'm new here, and it seems that this site runs about 95% or higher anti-Bush. Is this just since his approval ratings have tanked or has this site always had a strong liberal/Dem/whatever slant? (Not exactly a Democrat, but most definitely not a Republican.)
January 11, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that Bush will send in more troops anyways, and then claim that the Dems were unwilling to pay for them to have body armor, didn't want to pay for their salaries, etc.
That's exactly my concern. Not the political ramifications, but the further danger it could put the troops in.
January 11, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The actual danger is more important than the political "danger", but I still suspect Bush of planning for the political danger. Of course, perhaps I'm giving him too much credit for planning skills.
January 11, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no "actual" danger that Dem bills regarding funding will bring. It is entirely "political" danger.
The funding bills can be written extremely specifically and allow for contingencies. That's what has happened in the past. The Dems can expressly include armor, etc. Bush cannot then just ignore Congress and send troops anyway if it passes a bill forbidding the spending of additional funds to, say, transport troops to the theater absent specific authorization from Congress. If Bush does, he must be impeached in order for the rule of law to prevail.
Read p. 12 of this Congressional Research Service Issue Brief about cutting off funds to Honduras and the Nicaraguan Contras.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data//1987/upl-meta-crs-8841/IB85080_1987Mar31.pdf?PHPSESSID=02b0ad45569a8ef630aa91282db56087
Now expand 1000-fold and you can get a very basic idea of how the Congress would go about setting its priorities through extremely specific funding bills.
The war will go on forever if the Dems don't defund it. Who's going to explain why more soldiers died between today and January 2009 as we were waiting for Bush to leave office and take his incompetent strategies with him?
January 11, 2007 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
benhocking said: has this site always had a strong liberal/Dem/whatever slant?
No slant. just true patriots pointing out and telling the truth
January 11, 2007 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
BenHocking, Speaking for myself only, TPM attracts me because of its SKEPTICISM toward Bush.
I want lots of scrutiny applied to all politicians, Right and Left. I was extremely impressed with TPM, postelection, for pointing out the 6 or so reelected Democrats who deserved our vigilance.
I'll say TPM has a slant but moreover it seeks the truth for us.
January 12, 2007 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But doesn't information itself have a liberal bias?" -- Colbert
January 12, 2007 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, I'm going to take that as a yes. ;) It's not exactly a complaint (although I do always appreciate intelligent, dissenting voices), it's just a question. The first political web-site I went to was Daily Kos, which also has such a slant, but which (to me) seems much more immature and strident.
January 12, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch yourself Ben. If you start accusing us folks around here of maturity or reasonability, you're itchin' for a fight. (:^)}
But welcome to the snakepit. I think you'll occasionally find some pretty high-level discourse both here and on the Reader Blogs.
January 12, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink