May 10 2007

More Bad News For Surrendercrats

Published by at 10:57 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

We all know the SurrenderMedia will hide information that negatively impacts their liberal puppet masters in Congress. They can no more face reality than the Surrendercrats. But those polls that show support for benchmarks and a timeline (aka – a plan) also show little support for the Surrendercrats, who clearly do not relfect America:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


“Do you think President Bush strongly supports, only moderately supports, or does not support the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq?”

Strongly Supports: 57
Moderately Supports: 26
Does Not Support: 15
Unsure: 2

“Do you think the Democrats in Congress strongly support, only moderately support, or do not support the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq?”

Strongly Supports: 31
Moderately Supports: 42
Does Not Support: 25
Unsure: 3

Pause and consider the fact the Surrendercrats are getting little credit for their supposed ‘support for the troops’. Stunning numbers if you look at the ‘strongly’ numbers. This shows the public believes the President is motivated by his support of the troops, while the public has reservations about the Surrendercrats. And there is more – who get’s the blame for hurting the troops?

“Who do you think is MORE responsible for the fact that the U.S. troops currently in Iraq have not yet received additional funds: President Bush, because he vetoed the Iraq funding bill passed by Congress, OR, the Democrats in Congress, because they passed an Iraq funding bill that they knew Bush would veto?”

President Bush: 34
Democrats In Congress: 44
Both (vol.): 14
Neither (vol.): 4
Unsure: 4

The Surrendercrats were getting most of the blame after one veto round. Who do you think will get it after two? And remember, if the voters EVER want to take their frustrations out on the politicians the only ones they can get at in 2008 are the Dems. My bet is the numbers in the “both” column will swing into the Dem column if they push another guaranteed-veto bill. Just like they are about to do this morning. And when the blame for lack of support to our troops passes 50% for the Dems it will be all over. Note that in this SAME poll Americans arew NOT for cutting funds and yanking the troops:

“One proposal would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to withdraw all its troops by March 2008. Would you favor or oppose that bill?”

Favor: 39
Oppose: 60
Unsure: 2

The Surrendercrats are proposing the ONE solution that American are clearly rejecting. America is tiriing of the deaf, dumb and blind Congresses. We had the Rep version last round and now we have the Dem version. We can keep switching until they all get a clue.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “More Bad News For Surrendercrats”

  1. scaulen says:

    Term limits, they pay for health care, and they don’t get to vote for their own raises. Time to cut out some of the dead wood in the petrified forest.

  2. Soothsayer says:


    Rudy G. – the Warpublicans thrice-married, twice-divorced consorter with mobsters has managed to get a teat in the wringer over his involvement with the Oxy-Contin business.

    OxyContin: The Giuliani Connection

    Rudolph Giuliani and his consulting company, Giuliani Partners, have served as key advisors for the last five years to the pharmaceutical company that pled guilty today to charges it misled doctors and patients about the addiction risks of the powerful narcotic painkiller OxyContin.

    Federal officials say the company, Purdue Frederick, helped to trigger a nationwide epidemic of addiction to the time-release painkiller by failing to give early warnings that it could be abused.

    Prosecutors say in the process scores died.

    Geeze, I wonder if notable drug-addict fataboy Rush Limbaugh was scoring his Oxy from Rudy???

  3. roylofquist says:

    Soothsayer, ad hominem arguments are the most obvious logical fallacy. Numero uno if you Google “logical fallacy”.

    As to the Democrats, they are on a high wire without a net. The MSM are biased. This is not a criticism but an observation. They, management and reporters, matured in a world where the Democrats prevailed. They, very understandably and logically, sought out those who were in power. The Democrats are their friends. If you were hostile you didn’t get access. They were doing their jobs.

    However we have seen shots fired across the bow of the Democratic ship. The WAPO, Chicago Tribune, LAT and even the NYT have been cautiously critical of the tilt to the anti-war wing of the party. They are, even if you disagree, conscientious serious professionals. They are not about to jump the shark.

    Seasoned Democratic elected politicians have been expressing reservations about the current direction of the party. They are aware of the current polls but they also realize that in the the only definitive poll vis a vis the war Joe Lieberman scored a decisive victory. They are also aware that the Copperheads in the election of 1864 destroyed the party for almost 40 years. George McGovern sent them into such disdain that they are still struggling to reestablish their national security credentials.

    I have no idea what lies ahead. We may boogie out of Iraq and the Middle East and the world without dire consequence. It would be a first in recorded history.

  4. scaulen says:

    When was that 2003-2004?? Hillary had a walk in closet especially built for all her skeletons, it’s going to be so great getting to see them all again. I think it’s time for Hillary to have her false FEC statements investigated. Get her subpoenaed to testify under oath about the million dollars.

    (snip)Hillary Clinton’s largest contributor to her 2000 Senate race delivers demand that Hillary finally admit to the voters that she did accept more than $1 million as a campaign contribution from Peter Paul in 2000 and that her role in suggesting his contribution made it illegal. Hillary’s latest FEC report, filed January 30, 2006, filed as part of an attempted settlement with the FEC of her campaign’s violations of Federal Election Laws, now admits for the first time Paul contributed $839,000 through his two personal holding companies, Paraversal and Excelsior, while continuing to hide Paul as the true source of the funds expended by those companies for Hillary’s campaign.(snip)
    Then once she’s sworn in we can ask her all about how she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in 10 months. We can open up white water again, and travel gate, Vince Foster, Filegate… I’m getting writers cramp just from her, so I’ll stop here on Hillary. Let’s see Pelosi, pelosi,hmmm… Oh yeah earmarked money to help her husbands company, Tunagate, she voted against a ban on lobbyists, took money from Abramoff (along with 89 other Democrats), she broke campaign finance regulations. It’s just so easy to dig up dirt on any one who has been in the public. Way to easy. Still waiting for a Democrat to debate what their plans are, not their ideas, and not some ones skeletons.

  5. Soothsayer says:

    Ad hominem attacks are one thing in a rational debate — but Rudy G., is in the middle of a political campaign – and only a fool would think the same rules obtain. When you’re in a popularity contest – hanging out with corporate criminals and drug dealers is not a very viable option.

    And we’re not talking about skeletons here – Monica Goodling will provide flesh and blood testimony about her boss – the slimey Alberto Gonzales:

    A federal judge immunized the former White House Liaison to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Friday morning, protecting her from prosecution on a limited basis for testimony she may give to Congress on the firing of US Attorneys.

    Monica Goodling is a critical witness to this ongoing investigation and we look forward to hearing her testimony as promptly as possible.

    Thomas Hogan, the federal district judge who issued the order, said Goodling could no longer claim testifying would result in self-incrimination. Monica Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so

  6. lurker9876 says:

    It probably shows that Monica has nothing to tell to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

  7. lurker9876 says:

    Besides, the Americans outside the Beltway aren’t interested in the Gonzales story.