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.
And don't believe for one minute the malarky their promulgating here that only 23% of the electorate is concerned about terrorism. Pure and simply, that's MAJOR LEAGUE BS.
When the power went down last week, everyone's first thought in my workplace (to the last man), was 'the terrorists did this'.
Hopefully, the democrats will buy this line of faulty reasoning and campaign accordingly.
And though Perot may have been motivated by a hatred of Bush I- there had to be something in it for him. Businessmen just don't flush money down the toilet on stupid runs for President or because they hate someone. He hated Bush- yes- but also got paid. Perot Systems was doing very well in those days. Their number one customer was? Yep- the Federal government.
Yeah, surely that has nothing to do with oil being $32/barrel thanks to Iraqi sabotage, Nigerian riots, and Venezuelan problems. Good analysis, WhiteGuy (I'm sure Ralph Nader would completely agree).
Perot got 19% of the vote with only one issue: Anti-NAFTA, Anti-GATT, and Anti WTO. Bush 41 (or even Clinton) could have easily collected those votes, but neither's handlers would tolerate an anti-globalization stand.
Bush got more votes in 2000 than Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
If you didn't vote for him before, you can't do so again. Sheesh!
What the heck..? This makes it sound like half the people who voted for him in the last election wouldn't vote for him now.
That is not what the poll says.
Hey! The Saudis do that ... and it is far less than $1 billion per week.
"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The terror attack that killed at least 20 people in Riyadh Monday night "had the earmarks of Al Qaeda," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday.
Guess their check bounced huh? ;-)
Maybe alot of Freepers agree with that, but not me. Freedom matters to me. The Patriot Act doesn't make me feel secure - It makes me feel sick. Give me Freedom -I'll provide my own d@mn security.
Exactly. And as bad as some people claim things are under Bush, I believe they would have to get a lot worse for a Democrat to beat him in 2004.
In today's world, how many people are going to trust the Dems with national security?
And without national security, everything else goes down the crapper.
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.