Hang tough Sens. Feingold, Kerry, Reid and Leahy, Americans are getting the message on cutting funds

[ProSense]

Poll: More Americans Favor Congress Withholding Funds In Face Of Veto

By Greg Sargent

Buried in today's Los Angeles Times poll is a fascinating number that's gotten no attention as of yet:

It finds that if President Bush vetoes the Dems' bill attaching a withdrawal date to troop funding, more Americans by a very slim margin want Congress to refuse to send the President another bill without withdrawal timetables than want Congress to give him the no-strings-attached bill that he's insisting on.

Here's the question:

Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?

Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
Don't know: 12%

This is striking, and here's why. Until now, virtually every poll asking whether people support or oppose defunding the war has asked the question in complete isolation, and public opinion has generally tilted against defunding. But this is to my knowledge the first poll that has asked the question in the political context of the President's current veto threat and the resultant standoff with Congress. In other words, this question is basically asking whether Americans favor Congress caving to Bush after his veto or whether they want Congress to stand up to him. As you can see, a slightly larger group wants the latter.

more

One poll means little, but this is progress.

[bdamomma]

1. I would like the Congress to stand up to Lord Pissy pants.

[Morgana LaFey]

2. I think this is really, really big. I do.

I think the nation wants us OUT of there, no matter what. There's one thing that needs to be well explained, though: no matter when we get out (sooner, or later), there's going to be chaos remaining in our wake.

[garybeck]

3. Personally, witholding funds is not the best plan in my view

I think this is playing into their hands. I think it's exactly what Rove et al, want the the anti-war folks to do. and they'll play it hard with all the lies about how the troops will suffer. with the media on their side, it will suck to see it all play out like that.

I'd rather just have them pass a law effectively ending the war. It could just state that the stated purpose of the law giving Bush the power to use force has been accomplished, and he no longer has that power. It should not be tied to funding. That's just my take.

[ProSense]

4. Rove has nothing. The reality is Dems have Bush in a corner:

Kerry: No, I'm against funding the war no matter what. And today I've joined up with Senator Harry Reid and Senator Feingold. The only thing we should fund is to complete the training of the troops, to prosecute against Al Qaeda and to protect American forces and facilities and interests in the region.

We should not be engaged in Civil War in Iraq. And I would vote a year from now, which is the date we said we should be redeploying our troops, we ought to be cutting off those other activities.

"The President's promise of a veto rings as tragically hollow as his pledge of 'mission accomplished,'" said Kerry. "Congress must enforce a one year deadline for redeploying most U.S. troops from Iraq. President Bush stubbornly refuses to change the disastrous policy in Iraq, so this Congress has no choice but to force a change in course. No more open ended commitment, no more leaving American troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The American mission in Iraq will be to train Iraqis and chase Al Qaeda, not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. Unlike this administration, when it comes to standing by our troops, we mean business.

"An administration that misled America into war is once again trying to mislead when it comes to supporting our troops. If the President uses his veto, he is the one denying funding for our troops. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice. Congress has done its job, now the Administration needs to do its job and force Iraqi politicians to do their job. Get the funds to our troops, and get Iraqis to achieve the political compromise this misguided escalation was supposed to make possible.

link

[garybeck]

5. the problem with that is...

your remarks and those of Kerry et. al, are based in reality.

Rove et al is not based in reality.

but they can get on their microphone and blast it all over the airwaves, whatever spin or lies they want to make up.

It reminds me of the Pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

No matter what the reality is, they will spin and lie and accuse the democrats of preventing the troops from getting food, armor, etc. that they need. Just watch.

I say, just take money out of the picture. Take away his legal right to conduct a war, send troops, etc, because the mission actually has been accomplished. Even if we lie to ourselves and pretend there was a good reason to go there in the first place, like Saddam was trying to get nukes, well he's gone now so we don't have to worry about that anymore. Mission accomplished. That is not playing to their game, it puts them into a corner. Much moreso than defunding.

[ProSense]

6. There is no problem with that as most people are coming around to reality,

even the staunchest Republicans.

When death hit homes, it's no longer about perception. Even so, Democrats should lead despite Rove's spin. At this point only the warmongers (some have defected) and wingnuts believe him.

[garybeck]

7. I agree in essence that many people are coming around

but there are still many people who believe it's important to support the troops and the president is the commander in chief.

and as I've seen in many instances, the power of the media echo chamber can never be underestimated. It can actually legitimize bald face lies, and it has done so many times.

At some point an announcement is made that the emporer wears no clothes and all is well once again. But we're not there yet. Even though many people can see he has no clothes, the loudspeakers are talking about how lovely his clothes are. And at least 30% of the people think his clothes are very lovely.

So I'd rather see something that is unrelated to funding the troops.

[ProSense]

8. The media spin is not working if 70% of Americans don't believe it.

Why be concerned about the people who will never be convinced? The goal is to end the war because it's the right thing to do, which doesn't require that everyone, specifically those among the 30% who never will, be convinced. Even in Congress, 67% of the 100 Senators is all it takes to override a veto. Congress needs to exercise leadership.

[garybeck]

9. I'm concerned because I still hear it all the time.

Sitting at lunch the other day I overheard someone spewing the lies of Rush Limbaugh.

don't underestimate the hold they have on the media. there are still millions of people tuning in to the news and talk shows every day. every issue is its own entity.

sure 70% of the people are against the war, and not much can change that. but the numbers are not that good on many other issues and it's still because of the media.