Jump to content

Bush Numbers Continue


Recommended Posts

I wonder if the the terror threat will push those numbers up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14301521/

He hopes so.

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on both sides have hopes for the polling numbers. Dems hope people assume this latest threat proves the U.S. has lost the war on terrorism and drop Bush like a cheap lawn chair. And Republicans hope people assume Bush is keeping the country safe and support him. Whats new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on both sides have hopes for the polling numbers. Dems hope people assume this latest threat proves the U.S. has lost the war on terrorism and drop Bush like a cheap lawn chair. And Republicans hope people assume Bush is keeping the country safe and support him. Whats new.

Traditionally, when a President's numbers are this low in his second term, he loses many seats in Congress. That's what's new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditionally, when a President's numbers are this low in his second term, he loses many seats in Congress. That's what's new.

Since it's traditional, it's not so new. But it could be an interesting electoral season. I was hoping the Republicans could squeeze a few more seats out of the senate and get a majority of 60, which I believe is the threshold to force votes on things like judge appointments which the Dems have had stalled for several years.

The Republicans could lose seats, or the best laid plans of terrorists could end up helping Bush. Poetic justice if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it's traditional, it's not so new. But it could be an interesting electoral season. I was hoping the Republicans could squeeze a few more seats out of the senate and get a majority of 60, which I believe is the threshold to force votes on things like judge appointments which the Dems have had stalled for several years.

The Republicans could lose seats, or the best laid plans of terrorists could end up helping Bush. Poetic justice if you ask me.

And what would they do with 60 seats that they aren't doing now? Bush has only had to veto once. He has gotten everything he wanted except when members of his own party didn't want it such as his Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats have been no serious challenge for 6 years.

It is the Iraq war going on another 2 or more years that is finally making 60% of the population say "enough."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans could lose seats, or the best laid plans of terrorists could end up helping Bush. Poetic justice if you ask me.
I am sure that Bin Ladin and crowd are big supporters of Bush. They need a US who is willing to play the role of bully and bad guy in the Islamic world. A less trigger happy adminstration would provide fewer recruiting opportunities for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what would they do with 60 seats that they aren't doing now? Bush has only had to veto once. He has gotten everything he wanted except when members of his own party didn't want it such as his Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats have been no serious challenge for 6 years.

It is the Iraq war going on another 2 or more years that is finally making 60% of the population say "enough."

I believe they call it a filibuster. Even though the Dems have a minority in the Senate they have been succesful in stopping most of Bush's nominations(dozens) from being voted on for many years, by filibustering. A majority of I believe 60 seats in the senate would force a vote on these nominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans could lose seats, or the best laid plans of terrorists could end up helping Bush. Poetic justice if you ask me.
I am sure that Bin Ladin and crowd are big supporters of Bush. They need a US who is willing to play the role of bully and bad guy in the Islamic world. A less trigger happy adminstration would provide fewer recruiting opportunities for them.

I am sure you are wrong. They would much rather have someone in the oval office who is a wet noodle rather than someone who doesn't take sh@t from those who fly planes into buildings.

Bin Laden would rather have someone in the UN mold like Bill Clinton who signed a Nuclear treaty with North Korea around '95, paying them much cash to not develop nuclear weapons. And we now know how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they call it a filibuster. Even though the Dems have a minority in the Senate they have been succesful in stopping most of Bush's nominations(dozens) from being voted on for many years, by filibustering. A majority of I believe 60 seats in the senate would force a vote on these nominations.

Bush has had over 200 nominees go through the senate already. According to a recent Patrick Leahy press release at http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200504/042705.html:

"[The most recent appointment] is only the second judicial nomination Senate Republicans have been willing to consider all year. There has been no filibuster of judicial nominees this year. Instead, it is the Senate Republican leadership that, through its deliberate inaction, is keeping judgeships unnecessarily vacant for months. "

You calling Leahy a liar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no I don't know who leahy is and if you examine my remarks you will find I did not call him anything. Your link doesn't work so I wasn't able to see what you're talking about.

Here's a link from MSNBC that talks about the previous log jam in the Senate that apparently Leahy knows nothing about. The deal they made in that story still left many in "limbo" and preserved filibuster rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they call it a filibuster. Even though the Dems have a minority in the Senate they have been succesful in stopping most of Bush's nominations(dozens) from being voted on for many years, by filibustering. A majority of I believe 60 seats in the senate would force a vote on these nominations.

When was the last filibuster? And how many have there been during Bush's government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they call it a filibuster. Even though the Dems have a minority in the Senate they have been succesful in stopping most of Bush's nominations(dozens) from being voted on for many years, by filibustering. A majority of I believe 60 seats in the senate would force a vote on these nominations.

When was the last filibuster? And how many have there been during Bush's government?

And how many vetoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...