Support for Bush Continues to Drop, Poll Shows

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/politics/15poll.html?hp&ex=1126756800&en=835384024f7e4005&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/14/politics/15poll_graphic.gif


WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 - A summer of bad news from Iraq, high gasoline prices, economic unease and now the devastation of Hurricane Katrina has left President Bush with overall approval ratings for his job performance and handling of Iraq, foreign policy and the economy at or near the lowest levels of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

For the first time, just half of Americans approve of Mr. Bush's handling of terrorism, which has been his most consistent strength since he scored 90 percent approval ratings in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 6 in 10 now say that he does not share their priorities for the country, 10 percentage points worse than on the eve of his re-election last fall, while barely half say he has strong qualities of leadership, about the same as said so at the early low-ebb of his presidency in the summer of 2001.

More Americans now distrust the federal government to do the right thing than at any time since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And the poll revealed a sharp racial divide. While half of all respondents disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled the aftermath of Katrina, nearly three quarters of blacks do. (Mr. Bush won only about 10 percent of the black vote last year.)

The hurricane, alone, does not appear to have taken any significant toll on Mr. Bush's overall job approval rating, which remains stuck virtually where it has been since early summer. But the findings do suggest that the slow federal response to the hurricane has increased public doubts about the Bush administration's effectiveness. Fifty-six percent of Americans said they were now less confident about the government's ability to respond to a terrorist attack or natural disaster.

Taken together, the numbers suggest that a public that has long seen Mr. Bush as a determined leader, whether it agreed with him or not, has growing doubts about his capacity to deal with pressing problems. More than 6 in 10 said they were uneasy about his ability to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq, and half expressed similar unease about his ability to deal with the problems of the storm's victims.

Mr. Bush's support remained strong among Republicans, conservatives, evangelical Christians and those who said they voted for him last fall. Nearly twice as many people - 63 percent - said the country was "pretty seriously" on the wrong track as those who said it was headed in the right direction, equal to the worst level of Mr. Bush's presidency during a spate of bad news last year.

(more)

[yg17]

Mr. Bush's support remained strong among Republicans, conservatives, evangelical Christians and those who said they voted for him last fall.


Talk about ignorance.

[ham_man]

Talk about ignorance.
And you wonder why Democrats struggle to woo new voters...

[Rod Rod]

Talk about ignorance.Those people aren't ignorant. They're enlightened with the knowledge that God Himself has installed GWB. The President's mission is to catalyze the Rapture, when all who are Saved by the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be swept up to Heaven, with the non-believers "Left Behind" to fend for themselves in this world.

[ham_man]

The President's mission is to catalyze the Rapture
Doesn't the Anti-Christ catalyze the Rapture...? :eek:

[Rod Rod]

Doesn't the Anti-Christ catalyze the Rapture...? :eek:The conditions have to be just right before the Anti-Christ appears. My Evangelical friends who come into my home by way of the television tell me that it's a Christian's duty to help God in bringing the Rapture - whether it's blanket support for Israel, school prayer or teaching intelligent design in science class. The Biblical prophecies of the conditions for the Anti-Christ's appearance have to be fulfilled. We can help God in fulfilling those prophecies. It's true because it's in the Bible, at least the way my Evangelical friends explain it.

[rickvanr]

Rod Rod, are you mocking or do you actually belief in that fluff? If you're mocking, well done.

[Rod Rod]

Rod Rod, are you mocking or do you actually belief in that fluff? If you're mocking, well done.Yes I'm mocking . . . I tried to come across as serious but I think the first part of the second sentence in the post I wrote previous to this one is sort of a giveaway ("My Evangelical friends who come into my home by way of the television tell me.")

I think the one serious point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of people out there in America who sincerely believe in catalyzing the Rapture, who believe that the United States of America is a Christian (Protestant, but Catholics should vote Republican) country with a Christian (Protestant, but we don't mind support from Catholics like Sean Hannity) mission to spread Democracy (although Ann Coulter let it slip that we should spread Christianity) throughout the world in order to bring forth (their version of) God's will.

[rickvanr]

Just checking. I have nothing against religion, I just think that they need to redraw the line between Religion and State. They are supposed to have nothing to do with each other, nothing at all.

Edit: Look for a CBC episode of 'The Fifth Estate' entitled "Sticks and Stones". It showed a very good picture of how the extreme ring winged Republicans are using the media to spread their lies and ignorance onto the people. Showed how inept people like Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coultar truly are. Bill O'Reilly makes up facts, and Anne Coultar just doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. If you want I could provide examples.

[solvs]

If you want I could provide examples.
No need to provide links to established fact. :p

And you wonder why Democrats struggle to woo new voters...
You don't have be a Dem (or non-religious for that matter) to think Bush is doing a bad job. But I guess it helps. Do you think he's doing a good job? Because I would like to know why. Seriously. Why?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush is doing a Fanatastic Job if you are Haliburton, if you are a Pharamacy giant, if you sell bombs and planes, If you are in Iraq, If you dont have a Hurricane, If you Dont care about truth, if you dont care about our Borders, If you care only about the Corporations he is doing a Fanatastic Job. Now if we are talking about Americans in Our country well then.......it looks a little iffy.

[Don't panic]

i think a lot of people respond in autopilot (read party-lines) to these questions, and the real approval rate is lower.

It's sad the trend throughout the presidency is consistently negative and if it wasn't for the patriotic surge post 9-11 his approval rate would be single digit.

[3rdpath]

Doesn't the Anti-Christ catalyze the Rapture...? :eek:

so you're saying it's cheney's job?

[jelloshotsrule]

...Anne Coultar just doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

you just get scared when you see a strong, independent WOMAN doing her thing!!

[rickvanr]

you just get scared when you see a strong, independent WOMAN doing her thing!!

You're kidding right? Sex has nothing to do with idiocy.

[jelloshotsrule]

didn't my line sound awfully similar to the oft spouted garbage about hillary? :)

[Thomas Veil]

This is really a gift to the Democrats. One of the major factors among large blocks of Bush voters was that he (and by extension, the Republicans) was stronger in a crisis. Well, now we know that isn't true.

This would be a very good time for someone like Howard Dean to propose, on behalf of the Democratic party, exactly how FEMA should be reorganized, to decry the incredible GOP indulgence in patronage appointments, and to talk about spending our money more sensibly.

(No, I'm not blind to the fact that patronage exists among the Dems as well, but then Clinton never hired any Arabian horse show organizers to run FEMA, either.)

The basic idea is, look Presidential when Bush does not. That'll go a long way to helping the Democrats win in 2006 and 2008.

[Mike Teezie]

This is really a gift to the Democrats. One of the major factors among large blocks of Bush voters was that he (and by extension, the Republicans) was stronger in a crisis. Well, now we know that isn't true..

No joke! One of the most oft repeated phrases I heard right after the election ended was, "Well, I voted for him because I feel he's better at dealing with Terrorism."

Hate to say I told you so, but come on! The whole bunch of them folded like a wet napkin when Katrina hit.

Wait, what am I talking about? Of COURSE they have a contingency plan!

Terrorist attack?!?! Bomb Peru!!!

[Don't panic]

Of COURSE they have a contingency plan!

Terrorist attack?!?! Bomb Peru!!!

ha!
and what if the terrorists were from Peru?

[Rod Rod]

ha!
and what if the terrorists were from Peru?In that case it'd be Venezuela's fault. The Honorable Reverend Dr. Pat Robertson has already sent out the invitation to Chavez for U.S. covert forces to "take him out" to dinner (or kidnapping or assassination).

[Don't panic]

In that case it'd be Venezuela's fault. The Honorable Reverend Dr. Pat Robertson has already sent out the invitation to Chavez for U.S. covert forces to "take him out" to dinner (or kidnapping or assassination).

wow! so this time they really covered their bases!

[ham_man]

You don't have be a Dem (or non-religious for that matter) to think Bush is doing a bad job. But I guess it helps. Do you think he's doing a good job? Because I would like to know why. Seriously. Why?
Democrats seem to be very good at pointing fingers instead of proposing solutions. Instead of stepping up and saying "This is how we would have done it, this is how it should have been done" they just blame the President...

[IJ Reilly]

Democrats seem to be very good at pointing fingers instead of proposing solutions. Instead of stepping up and saying "This is how we would have done it, this is how it should have been done" they just blame the President...

I actually agree with this sentiment. (You see, it can happen.)

A cardinal rule in politics: don't help your opponent commit suicide.

[skunk]

A constructive alternative would be nice, for a change.

[rdowns]

This is really a gift to the Democrats. One of the major factors among large blocks of Bush voters was that he (and by extension, the Republicans) was stronger in a crisis. Well, now we know that isn't true.

This would be a very good time for someone like Howard Dean to propose, on behalf of the Democratic party, exactly how FEMA should be reorganized, to decry the incredible GOP indulgence in patronage appointments, and to talk about spending our money more sensibly.

(No, I'm not blind to the fact that patronage exists among the Dems as well, but then Clinton never hired any Arabian horse show organizers to run FEMA, either.)

The basic idea is, look Presidential when Bush does not. That'll go a long way to helping the Democrats win in 2006 and 2008.

Except Howard Dean would stand up and say something stupid, as he usually does. The Democrats need to go back to Marketing 101, they have no clue.

Until they get their act together, I see Bush annointing a successor shortly. How sad that would be.

[miloblithe]

Democrats seem to be very good at pointing fingers instead of proposing solutions. Instead of stepping up and saying "This is how we would have done it, this is how it should have been done" they just blame the President...

Well maybe, but in this case though you're closer to being wrong. I've read a lot of arguments (from democrats and republicans) that Bush has done far too little to facilitate coordinated responses (government reform) and to adequately fund increased capicity for responders.

[mactastic]

Democrats seem to be very good at pointing fingers instead of proposing solutions. Instead of stepping up and saying "This is how we would have done it, this is how it should have been done" they just blame the President...
Well I'm hardly a Democrat, but how about we do it the way it was done under Bill Clinton for a plan? Put someone in charge of FEMA who actually has emergency management experience before a disaster hits? Those are the kind of people likely to do the job right.

[Deepdale]

More than 6 in 10 now say that he does not share their priorities for the country, 10 percentage points worse than on the eve of his re-election last fall, while barely half say he has strong qualities of leadership, about the same as said so at the early low-ebb of his presidency in the summer of 2001.


It won't be long before pollsters will have to quantify their results by grading this Yalie on a curve.

[Thomas Veil]

I am a Democrat, and I am forced to agree that my party is a lot better at finger-pointing than at recommending solutions.

The guy who stands up and exhibits leadership right now is the guy who will jump to the forefront of presidential candidates for 2008.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, doing that.

[solvs]

Democrats seem to be very good at pointing fingers instead of proposing solutions. Instead of stepping up and saying "This is how we would have done it, this is how it should have been done" they just blame the President...
Because Republicans never finger point, right? ;) And I think you missed my point. I don't like the Dems either. Just saying that you don't have to be one to dislike Bush. If either party gave me a reason to support them, I would. At the moment, I can only find fault and get mad at those I pay to deal with stuff like this (via my taxes).

Just because I don't have a better solution, doesn't mean I can't complain that those who should have screwed up.

[rdowns]

I am a Democrat, and I am forced to agree that my party is a lot better at finger-pointing than at recommending solutions.

The guy who stands up and exhibits leadership right now is the guy who will jump to the forefront of presidential candidates for 2008.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, doing that.

Sadly, you're right. The Democrats are nothing ore than the "I hate Bush" party at this point.

[zimv20]

Sadly, you're right. The Democrats are nothing ore than the "I hate Bush" party at this point.
it's a generalization, that. if we look, we can all find examples of dems looking for and recommending solutions.

also, the dems wouldn't have to shout so loud if anyone listened.

[rdowns]

it's a generalization, that. if we look, we can all find examples of dems looking for and recommending solutions.

also, the dems wouldn't have to shout so loud if anyone listened.

Maybe if the Dems had something to say, people would listen. Have you seen the hypocrisy on display at the Roberts hearings? Sickening.

(disclaimer- I am not a Republican)

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe if the Dems had something to say, people would listen. Have you seen the hypocrisy on display at the Roberts hearings? Sickening.

No, I haven't. Care to elaborate?

[mactastic]

Maybe if the Dems had something to say, people would listen. Have you seen the hypocrisy on display at the Roberts hearings? Sickening.

(disclaimer- I am not a Republican)
All I've heard are the extended breezy emanations from Biden's piehole. That and Roberts picking a new way to say "I'm not gonna tell you that."
:rolleyes:

[zimv20]

link (http://rasmussenreports.com/2005/Katrina_September%2018.htm)


Bush Katrina Ratings Fall After Speech

September 18, 2005--Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans now say that President Bush has done a good or excellent job responding to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. That's down from 39% before his speech from New Orleans.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 41% give the President poor marks for handling the crisis, that's up 37% before the speech.

Fifty percent (50%) of Americans favor the main proposal from that speech--a federal commitment of $200 billion to help rebuild New Orleans. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed and 23% are not sure.

The spending plan has not been well received by conservative voters--just 43% favor the huge federal commitment partisan while 37% are opposed. This is especially striking given how supportive the President's base has remained throughout his Administration.

The President's reconstruction plan is favored by 66% of liberal voters. Still, only 10% of liberals give the President a good or an excellent rating for handling the crisis.

(more)

[solvs]

Hm, I figured it would go up after the speech. People tending to believe what he says and all. Guess we really do pay more attention when it affects us. Words don't mean squat, action does, and apparently the conservatives don't like either. Liberals just still don't trust him because they've been burned so many times. This is going to be an uphill battle for the administration, as they've dug themselves quite far into a hole they can't get out of no matter which way they dig.

Feel free to make fun of my analogy, as I am tired and it is not very good.

[zimv20]

Hm, I figured it would go up after the speech.
as did i. perhaps we're seeing that "turning a battleship" effect, and right now it's heading fullsteam for the rocks.

[skunk]

as did i. perhaps we're seeing that "turning a battleship" effect, and right now it's heading fullsteam for the rocks.Or I suppose it's just possible the American public is waking up.

[Thomas Veil]

Sadly, you're right. The Democrats are nothing (m)ore than the "I hate Bush" party at this point.To be the "I hate Bush" party in and of itself is not a bad thing. Somebody has to point out the corruption and incompetence, and it sure ain't gonna be the neo-cons.

But the flip side of calling someone out for their screw-ups is offering something better. The Dems can't rely solely on negative publicity pushing people away from Bush. They need to give them a positive reason to vote for them.

[solvs]

as did i. perhaps we're seeing that "turning a battleship" effect, and right now it's heading fullsteam for the rocks.
Or I suppose it's just possible the American public is waking up.
Maybe they're just angry that he changed his mind about something when the situation changed... flip-flopped, if you will.

[Thomas Veil]

...when Bill Clinton criticizes Bush (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050918/ts_alt_afp/usweatheriraqeconomy_050918194340;_ylt=AiJpO3H7auWVQhohqjTr_N6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg ), he sure hits it right on the nose.

Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

FEMA boss Michael Brown quit in response to criticism of his handling of the Katrina disaster. He was viewed as a political appointee with no experience of disaster management or dealing with government officials.

"When James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that," Clinton said, referring to FEMA's head during his 1993-2001 presidency.

"But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people."

On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense." Now Clinton was no angel, but since he's been out of office, he's come across as positively statesmanlike, especially in comparison to his successor, Clouseau...er, I mean Bush.

[mactastic]

If Clinton can raise those points, how come other Democrats can't seem to manage to do the same?

[mactastic]

link (http://rasmussenreports.com/2005/Katrina_September%2018.htm)
SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=05d974a1-27bf-4e94-8bc2-2906534803fc)
3 polling days after George W. Bush's prime-time speech to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans, a "can't win" dynamic is unfolding for the President, according to exclusive SurveyUSA data gathered Friday 9/16, Saturday 9/17 and Sunday 9/18. The number of Americans who now approve of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina is down: 40% today compared to 42% before he announced the Gulf Opportunity Zone. The number of Americans who disapprove of the President's response to Katrina is up: 56% today compared to 52% before the speech. Bush went from "Minus 10" on his Response to Katrina before the speech to "Minus 16" today. One way to make sense of these numbers is to look at the number of Americans who today say the Federal Government is doing "too much" for Katrina victims. That's up to 16% today, more than triple what the number has been on 7 of the 19 days that SurveyUSA has conducted daily tracking since the storm. The more cash President Bush throws on the fire, as compensation for what some see as an inadequate initial response, the more it antagonizes his core supporters. Consider, for example: the number of Whites who today say the Government is "not doing enough" for Katrina victims is statistically the same as the number of Whites who say the Government is doing "just the right amount." (41% "right amount"; 40% "not enough.") The number of Blacks who today say the Government is "not doing enough" is 51 percentage points higher than the number of Blacks who say the Government is doing the "right amount" (70% "not enough"; 19% "right amount.") That's a 53-point disagreement between Whites and Blacks on this question. What other poll results point to the conclusion that the President is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't? 41% of Americans today say that the city of New Orleans should be rebuilt with "private money," the highest that number has been in the 19 days since the storm. The number of Americans who today say New Orleans should be rebuilt with "public money" is 27%, as low as it has been in 19 days of daily tracking.Bush is losing support among those who think throwing money at the problem isn't the way to fix it -- otherwise known as his base.

Everyone else has decided that Bush has F'ed this up completely, and now his staunchest supporters are being turned off by his reckless spending in response. Note that they didn't care when it was for a crusade in Iraq, nor did they care when Medicare 'reform' suddenly ballooned from $300 billion to $500 billion. Somehow the fiscal conservatives managed to support those massive boondoggles, probably because most of the boon would go to the rich and powerful and they were at lease OK with that. But when the money is going to rebuild a city for the general public it was a different story.

Now Bush is in a no-win situation. Damned if he spends like crazy and damned if he doesn't. But it's a problem of his own making, so he gets to wallow in it.

[zimv20]

Now Bush is in a no-win situation. Damned if he spends like crazy and damned if he doesn't. But it's a problem of his own making, so he gets to wallow in it.
i shall shed a tear for him.



....still trying...

[Thomas Veil]

I feel his pain.

[mactastic]

i shall shed a tear for him.



....still trying...
I had to chop some onions up to get there myself...

Poor, lonely Dubya. No one loves him anymore. :(

I wonder if Karl will be able to pull his buns out of the fire this time...

[Lyle]

Have you seen the hypocrisy on display at the Roberts hearings? Sickening.All I've heard are the extended breezy emanations from Biden's piehole. That and Roberts picking a new way to say "I'm not gonna tell you that."Due to a timely illness, I was at home last week and was thus able to watch a lot more of the confirmation hearings than I would have otherwise. I didn't observe much (if any) of what I'd call "hyprocrisy" at the hearings. Yes, Biden did some grandstanding, but I chalk that up to him getting started early on his 2008 campaign. ;)

The only thing that has riled me up slightly is the post-hearing interviews, where someone like Leahy will say with an admirably straight face that he's still "on the fence" about how he'll vote on Roberts. I don't know why it irks me. I guess that's just what they have to say. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Due to a timely illness, I was at home last week and was thus able to watch a lot more of the confirmation hearings than I would have otherwise. I didn't observe much (if any) of what I'd call "hyprocrisy" at the hearings. Yes, Biden did some grandstanding, but I chalk that up to him getting started early on his 2008 campaign. ;)

The only thing that has riled me up slightly is the post-hearing interviews, where someone like Leahy will say with an admirably straight face that he's still "on the fence" about how he'll vote on Roberts. I don't know why it irks me. I guess that's just what they have to say. :rolleyes:

Why, are you certain that Leahy will vote against Roberts?

[Lyle]

Why, are you certain that Leahy will vote against Roberts?I will be pleasantly surprised if any of the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to confirm him, especially considering the number of interest groups who are opposed to Roberts.

[IJ Reilly]

I will be pleasantly surprised if any of the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to confirm him, especially considering the number of interest groups who are opposed to Roberts.

...and the number who are lobbying for him. Don't forget them.

I think Roberts will get at least three Democratic votes from the committee. They may come with speeches about how judicial nominees should say something tangible about their views in confirmation hearings, but they will vote to confirm nevertheless.

[Lyle]

...and the number who are lobbying for him. Don't forget them.Are there special interest groups that are both typically aligned with the Democratic party's interests and supportive of John Roberts for the Chief Justice? I'm not doubting your word, I just hadn't considered that possibility. Yes, if the power of those interests outweighs that of, say, NARAL (or whoever) I can see how that could tip things for some of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee.

I think Roberts will get at least three Democratic votes from the committee. They may come with speeches about how judicial nominees should say something tangible about their views in confirmation hearings, but they will vote to confirm nevertheless.I admittedly am having trouble remembering all eight Democrats, and who said what, etc. without cheating and looking it up. I specifically remember seeing Biden, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Leahy (on the Democrat side). I don't anticipate any of those five voting in favor of Roberts. Maybe the three votes you're thinking of are the three I can't remember. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Are there special interest groups that are both typically aligned with the Democratic party's interests and supportive of John Roberts for the Chief Justice?

Are there special interest groups that are both typically aligned with the Republican party's interests and opposed to John Roberts for the Chief Justice?

I don't understand why you think this is strictly a one-way street. And are you suggesting that Republicans get lobbied only by Republican special interest groups, and Democrats only by Democratic special interest groups? Nay, I say! Nay!

And just because some of the Senators ask tough questions doesn't mean they are necessarily going to vote against him. Not only is some of this posturing for effect, the members of the committee are actually supposed to ask tough questions of nominees, not just throw them a bunch of softballs -- even though that what most of the Republicans did for Roberts.

[IJ Reilly]

I think Roberts will get at least three Democratic votes from the committee. They may come with speeches about how judicial nominees should say something tangible about their views in confirmation hearings, but they will vote to confirm nevertheless.

Kohl, Feingold, and Leahy

I hate to revive an old thread (and to quote myself back), but what I want to know is -- what do I win? :)

[maya]

I hate to say, "I told you so." However I believe many knew this was coming a while back.

Same thing happened when they went to war. :eek:

Plus, I believe this is Bush's last term in office. :rolleyes: :)

[zimv20]

what I want to know is -- what do I win? :)
your fifteen minutes start..... now.

[im_to_hyper]

Kohl, Feingold, and Leahy

I hate to revive an old thread (and to quote myself back), but what I want to know is -- what do I win? :)

Feingold was recently at my public library and explained why he would vote for Roberts... I didn't go see him though, so I have no clue as to why an ultra-liberal like him would vote this way....

*Clinton-Feingold '08* !!!!!

[IJ Reilly]

your fifteen minutes start..... now.

Sheesh. In the middle of the night. Just my luck. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

aaaaaaaand stop.

[skunk]

but what I want to know is -- what do I win? :)Let me guess: a dismembered Constitution?