Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline

[adios]

Where's grey when you need him? Honestly I think these polls don't mean all that much. From the bastions of conservative thought, an ABC-Washingtonpost Poll on the President's job performance and his Iraqi policy.

Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900924.html)

What I found the most interesting:

Sixty percent said they do not believe he has adequately explained why the United States is in Iraq, and almost the same percentage said the administration does not have a clear plan for success there. But even more Americans (74 percent) said the Democrats in Congress do not have a plan either.

Please post a link to the DNC Iraqi plan.

[andyfox]

Comedian Lewis Black's summary of the two parties seems apt: The Democratic Party is the party of no ideas; the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas. Congress works this way: a Republican gets up and says, "I have a really bad idea." Then a Democrat gets up and says, "And I can make it shittier."

FWIW, Howard Dean recently said, "We all agree that 2006 must be a transition year in Iraq. While we may have different ideas about tactics and timing, it’s clear we must change course. The vision of strategic redeployment set forward by Brian Katulis and former Reagan Defense Department official Lawrence Korb offers a likely roadmap to success that we can coalesce around."

Here is a link to the Katulis and Korb plan that Dean apparently favors:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-t...oints-headlines (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-toptruk4515718nov17,0,7373450.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines)

[ QUOTE ]

Please post a link to the DNC Iraqi plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are five days late (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4069495). What happened?

[Dynasty]

The ABC News/Washington Post poll which puts Bush's approval at 47% is an outlier.

The RCP Poll Averrage (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_ja.html) has him at 44.8%. That's usually a good indication of where he really is.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sixty percent said they do not believe he has adequately explained why the United States is in Iraq, and almost the same percentage said the administration does not have a clear plan for success there. But even more Americans (74 percent) said the Democrats in Congress do not have a plan either.


[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that the democrats have no need to have a plan. They are not in a position to even influence the course of events let alone to make any decisions.

The problem is, and has been, that the Iraq adventure was done without proper objectives and a proper plan. We are stuck in the middle of the hand not knowing where we came from and not knowing where we are going. A HBS study for how not to execute a project.

[Jdanz]

i'm against the war for the most part, but i think it's pretty irresponsible to say, "hey what you're doing sucks, you should elect me and i'll do better" and then say you don't "need" a plan.

[adios]

I was out of town for awhile. Anyway Wesly Clark the point man for the DNC? Too funny.

[ QUOTE ]
I was out of town for awhile. Anyway Wesly Clark the point man for the DNC? Too funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. You have posted that "democrats" have no plan". That is false and untenable, and so now you are trying to retreat into saying the "DNC" has no plan. That's sad. When people out-of-power want to advance plans, they do so in op-eds and through think-tanks. See, for example, here (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20051122.htm) and here (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=839805&content_id={9DF9 C363-8A7C-42F0-AD2F-542936FC0C14}&notoc=1). Why not just man up and admit that you are wrong?

I look forward to your ingnoring this post and these plans as you did my post two threads ago. And I look forward to your bi-monthly false "democrats have no plan" post in another two weeks or so.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was out of town for awhile. Anyway Wesly Clark the point man for the DNC? Too funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. You have posted that "democrats" have no plan". That is false and untenable, and so now you are trying to retreat into saying the "DNC" has no plan. That's sad. When people out-of-power want to advance plans, they do so in op-eds and through think-tanks. See, for example, here (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20051122.htm) and here (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=839805&content_id={9DF9 C363-8A7C-42F0-AD2F-542936FC0C14}&notoc=1). Why not just man up and admit that you are wrong?

I look forward to your ingnoring this post and these plans as you did my post two threads ago. And I look forward to your bi-monthly false "democrats have no plan" post in another two weeks or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wesley Clark is not an elected Democratic official. If you have to stoop to quoting plans from private citizens who happen to be Democrats, you have just proved the point that no one of the few hundred elected federal office holders of the Democratic Party seems to have a plan.

The statement "Democrats do not have a plan" is more true than not. And they certainly do not have a plan that they agree to as a party.

[BluffTHIS!]

adios, just change your wording to "has no viable plan that achieves our purposes in quashing terrorists/rogue nations and their supporters and places long term strategic considerations over short term myopic thinking" and you will handily rebut Elliot.

[ QUOTE ]

Wesley Clark is not an elected Democratic official. If you have to stoop to quoting plans from private citizens who happen to be Democrats, you have just proved the point that no one of the few hundred elected federal office holders of the Democratic Party seems to have a plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a private citizen that happens to be a Democrat. Wes Clark and the folks at Brookings and CAP most decidely are not just that. But if adios concedes that his original statement that "democrats" don't have a plan was wrong and wants to rephrase it along the lines that you are suggesting, we will proceed from there.

BTW, I want to make sure that you see this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4242715&an=0&page=0#Post 4242715). Bush lied, right?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I want to make sure that you see this thread. Bush lied, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't been proven at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I want to make sure that you see this thread. Bush lied, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't been proven at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, have you read the thread? Have you been paying attention at all? I look forward to your post in the other thread explaining how the quoted statement was not a lie.

[Beer and Pizza]

When talking about a party's plan, it is obvious that we are talking about elected democrats in high office. I mean any fool can change their registration to Democrat as a private citizen. If I changed my registration to Democrat, would you accept my plan as the "Democrat's Plan"? If yes, I may just do that. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

btw, the out of context quote of Bush is not a lie, it is an attempt to stretch an unrelated quote into a different context than it was stated in.

If today I say "It is Cold", and someone comes along next July and says "B&P lies, he said it is cold but it is 95 degrees outside", does that make me a liar?

[ QUOTE ]
When talking about a party's plan, it is obvious that we are talking about elected democrats in high office. I mean any fool can change their registration to Democrat as a private citizen. If I changed my registration to Democrat, would you accept my plan as the "Democrat's Plan"? If yes, I may just do that. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
btw, the out of context quote of Bush is not a lie, it is an attempt to stretch an unrelated quote into a different context than it was stated in.

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony of you making these two arguments in one post almost made me laugh out loud. Let's take the second one to the original thread, where I look forward to your explaining yourself. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[etgryphon]

Elliot...

I'm in full agreement with you that Bush is looking like he lied and was not forthcoming on this wiretapping issue. I do think that it is suspect that he never went to the FISA court even after the fact which the law allows.

..with that being said...

The Democratic Party does not have a plan for Iraw or the GWOT. If they do it isn't very clear, feasible, very agreed upon or they are doing a poor job getting the message out.

Don't be disengenuous like Bush on this matter. It is a real weakness on the part of the Dems. They need to man up and come up with a coherent plan.

Hammer away at this wiretapping thing... It has real traction. Bush is looking pretty poor in my eyes about this. And don't start bringing in stupid conspiracy theories about Bush listening in on Kerry. It really is a distraction and outlandish and hurts your case.

-Gryph

PS: Still wouldn't have voted for Kerry...

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic Party does not have a plan for Iraw or the GWOT. If they do it isn't very clear, feasible, very agreed upon or they are doing a poor job getting the message out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree that there is not a single plan or even a reasonable harmonization of multiple plans that can be presented to the public as a single, coherent plan. But that is an unfair standard, in our system, to which to hold a party on this kind of issue. The truth is that there is as much disagreement on the right about what the administration is doing as there is on the left. But the president is actually in power so his is the only right-wing "plan", such as it is, that matters. Similarly, when the presidential race starts in 2008, then the "democratic" plan will emerge, Until then, there is no need for a single plan. It is sufficient to attempt to influence the administration to make its "plan" better.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]


I will agree that there is not a single plan or even a reasonable harmonization of multiple plans that can be presented to the public as a single, coherent plan. But that is an unfair standard, in our system, to which to hold a party on this kind of issue. The truth is that there is as much disagreement on the right about what the administration is doing as there is on the left. But the president is actually in power so his is the only right-wing "plan", such as it is, that matters. Similarly, when the presidential race starts in 2008, then the "democratic" plan will emerge, Until then, there is no need for a single plan. It is sufficient to attempt to influence the administration to make its "plan" better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly think the Dems are attempting to influence the plan to make it better? It just looks like they are rooting for it to fail which doesn't play real well.

Murtha is the only person to step up and offer a semi-coherent plan. The Dems need to start consolidating a plan of action for the GWOT. They need to look less giddy when something bad happens and they need to be encouraging when something good happens.

The problem is that they are afriad that if the cheer some good news from Iraq that is some how undermines their opposition to how the war was run/is being run. This couldn't be further from the truth. The Dems need to act like the adults in the situation and encourage the good news and breing contructive criticism where it is needed.

Dems are looking really good with this whole wiretapping bit if they can not look like they are partisan attacking the president. They have a real good opportunity to be the good guys fighting for Americans.

They are also looking real good with the Patriot Act filibuster. Schumer is pulling the correct card about looking reasonable but still opposing provisions in the act. The Dems have a real opportunity to look like a viable opposition party to garner support in the next coming year.

-Gryph

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I will agree that there is not a single plan or even a reasonable harmonization of multiple plans that can be presented to the public as a single, coherent plan. But that is an unfair standard, in our system, to which to hold a party on this kind of issue. The truth is that there is as much disagreement on the right about what the administration is doing as there is on the left. But the president is actually in power so his is the only right-wing "plan", such as it is, that matters. Similarly, when the presidential race starts in 2008, then the "democratic" plan will emerge, Until then, there is no need for a single plan. It is sufficient to attempt to influence the administration to make its "plan" better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly think the Dems are attempting to influence the plan to make it better? It just looks like they are rooting for it to fail which doesn't play real well.

Murtha is the only person to step up and offer a semi-coherent plan. The Dems need to start consolidating a plan of action for the GWOT. They need to look less giddy when something bad happens and they need to be encouraging when something good happens.

The problem is that they are afriad that if the cheer some good news from Iraq that is some how undermines their opposition to how the war was run/is being run. This couldn't be further from the truth. The Dems need to act like the adults in the situation and encourage the good news and breing contructive criticism where it is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with you here for the most part. The simplest way to gain politically is to offer an alternative. I posted a link to the DNC platform in 2004 and what it states about the GWOT. A complete joke. IMO the major contributing factor to Kerry's defeat in 2004 was the lack of a coherent Iraqi strategy and to a lesser degree a lack of a coherent GWOT strategy (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth be damned /images/graemlins/smile.gif). Kerry literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[ QUOTE ]
Dems are looking really good with this whole wiretapping bit if they can not look like they are partisan attacking the president. They have a real good opportunity to be the good guys fighting for Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This remains to be seen. Hearing reports today that Clinton and of all people Carter basically did the same thing. I will try and find out more info on this.

[ QUOTE ]
They are also looking real good with the Patriot Act filibuster. Schumer is pulling the correct card about looking reasonable but still opposing provisions in the act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree totally. I think the Democrats are losing politically on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
The Dems have a real opportunity to look like a viable opposition party to garner support in the next coming year.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll see as I'm all for a viable opposition party. I agree with your implication that the Democratic party has to change course to become a viable opposition party.