Posted on 08/23/2003 4:31:16 PM PDT by Brian S
Sunday August 24, 6:48 AM
A growing number of Americans don't want to see US President George W. Bush re-elected next year, and fear US troops will be drawn into a long, costly occupation of Iraq, according to a Newsweek poll.
For the first time the poll has found that more registered voters -- 49 percent -- would not want Bush to return for a second term in office if the elections were now, compared with 44 percent who would.
Only 23 percent said terrorism and homeland security would be the most important issues for them in the November 2004 election, compared with 48 percent who said deciding factors for them now would be the economy and jobs.
Meanwhile, 69 percent are now convinced the United States will become bogged down in Iraq, without achieving ostensible goals in getting the country back on its feet.
Some 40 percent of them are now "very concerned" US troops will be there for the long-haul.
A majority also fears that US forces will be overextended in the event of a security threat elsewhere, according to the poll in the latest edition of Newsweek -- 29 percent very concerned and 30 percent somewhat concerned.
Americans also think that reconstruction costs in Iraq are too high at one billion dollars per week -- 66 percent said they do not support such spending, compared with 34 percent who said they support current spending levels.
And 53 percent said they would oppose an increase to the figure being spent, with only seven percent not opposed to an increase.
Almost half of people polled -- 47 percent -- said they were very concerned that maintaining troops in Iraq is too expensive and will cause a higher budget deficit, seriously damaging the US economy.
Despite some indications the US president's popularity is on the wane, a majority still approves of the way Bush is handling his job. Some 53 percent supported him compared with 36 who did not, with 11 unsure.
In a Newsweek poll released a month ago, 49 percent said they would like to see Bush re-elected compared with 43 percent who would not.
Voters said they prefered Republican President Bush's stance for dealing with terrorists than what they have seen so far from leading figures among the Democrats.
Some 57 percent said they prefered Bush's position on terrorism to 21 who prefered the Democrats. But 45 percent felt the Democrats had more to offer on stimulating the economy, compared with 36 percent who thought Bush had a better approach.
The survey was taken between August 21-22 on some 1,011 adults aged 18 and above. The poll has a plus or minus three percent error margin.
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha
Good one !
Please explain.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Give that man a prize!
How do you know I don't know that?
I hope you include most of FR in that group. We are always and forever doomed with this crowd.
I'm not sure the Democrats are smart enough to steal it, though, and it also causes some problems with them holding their coalition together.
On the other hand, it costs the GOP virtually nothing (politically speaking), and gains them huge numbers of concerned voters.
Three. While Perot and the flip-flop on taxes were fatal to Bush on their own, in that order, IMHO, he also lost a number of single issue voters on the 1989 Assault Weapons Ban, where he banned some 40 types of weapon from importation based on a "sporting" test. That decision probably cost him between 60,000 and 200,000 votes, and gained him zero (anyone who's a single-issue voter for gun control never votes Republican).
Gun owners, and particularly owners of these expensive, collector-oriented weapons, tend to be significantly wealthier and more politically active than the median. So he probably lost a lot of grass-roots, rank-and-file sign holders, poll workers, telephone bank volunteers, and drivers (he got my vote on the "lesser of evils" principle, but didn't get my effort, my volunteer work, my classic car driving around with a three foot long sign on the roof, all of which he had in 1988). He also didn't get my max contribution -- I gave to the Senatorial and Congressional committees instead.
I just can't get excited enough to really support someone who will bargain my rights in an attempt to pander. GHWB was (and is) a very nice fellow, and a courageous man, and on balance he was a good president, but he threw the election away by dumping his base to pursue praise from the fickle press.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Firstly, it will take many years and billions of dollars before Iraq can begin to ship oil in the quantities that could affect world price. Meanwhile, the continuing fighting against our military and the sabotage of oil producing equipment cancels any type of foreign investment that is needed. Iraq does not have, nor will it for many years, an effective justice system under which long-term oil contracts can be arbitrated. Companies would be insane to invest there. Practically speaking, there is as much chance that Iraq will dissolve into civil war as there is it becoming an American friendly democracy.
Secondly, it is more than likely that an independent Iraq would re-join OPEC. OPEC will continue to establish official production ceilings and the US, UK and Russian oil companies will gladly fall into OPECs price lines (as they always do). The price of oil will continue to be in the hands of OPEC and prices in the US will not be reduced.
So the oil companies want to lose the war? I thought they wanted to win the war. Which is it?
Secondly, it is more than likely that an independent Iraq would re-join OPEC.
How do you know this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.