CE Week #5: “Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut”
Bush’s Approval Rating Ties All-Time Low
By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; A01
Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush’s $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority support an expansion of a children’s health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.
The new Washington Post-ABC News poll also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress. Bush’s approval rating stands at 33 percent, equal to his career low in Post-ABC polls. And just 29 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, its lowest approval rating in this poll since November 1995, when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. It also represents a 14-point drop since Democrats took control in January.
Despite discontent with Congress this year, the public rates congressional Republicans (29 percent approve) lower than congressional Democrats (38 percent approve). When the parties are pitted directly against each other, the public broadly favors Democrats on Iraq, health care, the federal budget and the economy. Only on the issue of terrorism are Republicans at parity with Democrats.
Part of the displeasure with Congress stems from the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy. Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party’s failure to force the president into a significant change in policy.
At the same time, there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush’s plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction, and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.
John Csanadi of Nanuet, N.Y., said he has mixed feelings about what to do next in Iraq. Asked about Bush’s proposal for a modest drawdown of troops, he said: “It’s a start. Not the best solution, but at least it’s a start.”
Sara Carter, a schoolteacher from Westland, Mich., called Bush’s plan “better than it might be, not as good as it could be.”
But Don Hiatt of Las Vegas said he sees the proposal as a holding action by a president stalling for time. “I think he’s trying to just play it until he gets out of office and let the next president handle it, and that’s not a good thing if that’s what he’s doing,” Hiatt said.
Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president’s Iraq policies, while a third think the Democrats have gone too far. The level of agitation for more action in opposition to the war has not dissipated since August 2005, when Democrats were the minority party in Congress.
Lee Martin, an information technology consultant from Chicago, said that after last year’s midterm elections, he and others anticipated a change in Iraq policy. “The reason Congress is down is they’re [Democrats] in there and basically nothing is changing,” he said.
Robert Holtzman of Philadelphia said there is not much Democrats can do, given the ability of Republicans to block most action in the Senate. Still, he expressed frustration: “I’m satisfied with the Democratic Congress on small things, but they haven’t gotten it together on the bigger issues.”
More than eight in 10 liberal Democrats said Congress has been too restrained, while about the same percentage of conservative Republicans said it has been too aggressive. A narrow majority of independents, 53 percent, want more congressional action.
A central challenge for all policymakers is that those who want more congressional action are not unanimous in what they would like done. Almost all of those who would like congressional Democrats to do more to oppose the Iraq war disapprove of how the president has handled it, but about a quarter want U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until civil order is restored. More than a third see Bush’s plan to withdraw the “surge” troops by next summer as about right or even too fast.
There is broader public agreement on how Congress should approach war funding. About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration’s $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.
Democratic leaders are increasingly anxious about the perception that they are not accomplishing much on central issues. The House will vote tonight on a measure that would give the Bush administration 60 days to report to Congress on its planning for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, then require reports on withdrawal every 90 days.
Bush and the Republicans may also be headed for a political setback from the fight over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), even if Congress does not override Bush’s threatened veto.
More than seven in 10 in the poll support the planned $35 billion spending increase, and 25 percent are opposed. About half of all Americans “strongly” support the increased spending; 17 percent are firmly against the additional funds. Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans are in favor.
Democrats hold a big edge over Republicans on health-care issues. Overall, 56 percent said they trust Democrats to handle health care, and 26 percent side with the GOP.
Democrats also have a greater share of the public trust on other key issues, including Iraq (a 15-point advantage), the economy (18 points) and handling the federal budget deficit (23 points). On the campaign against terrorism, 41 percent put more faith in Democrats, 40 percent in Republicans.
But when Americans look more broadly at Congress as an institution, they are increasingly unhappy. Barely a third of liberal Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing; in April, 59 percent approved. Among independents, 24 percent approve, equaling last year’s pre-election low mark for the GOP-controlled Congress.
Deteriorating reviews of congressional job performance are linked to a broad-based assessment that Congress has not accomplished much this year. Although Congress has passed four of the Democrats’ “Six for ‘06″ agenda items and a promised overhaul of congressional ethics and lobbying rules, more than eight in 10 Americans, including large majorities across party lines, said Congress has accomplished “not too much” or “nothing at all” this year.
By a 2 to 1 margin, those who see little accomplishment in Congress’s first nine months blame the inaction on Bush and the GOP more than they do the majority Democrats. Fifty-one percent place primary fault with the president and congressional Republicans, and 25 percent on the Democrats. Among independents, 43 percent blame Republicans, 23 percent Democrats and nearly three in 10 blame both sides equally.
The poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday among a national random sample of 1,114 adults. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/02/ce-week-5-most-in-poll-want-war-funding-cut/trackback/
The statistical content in this article, in my opinion, is redundant and only serves to prove a very tedious point: a disparity exists between the agenda of the present administration and public opinion. Personally, I have grown weary of this particular repeated sentiment. Bush’s low approval rating, at 33%, is no shocker – at least every few weeks Newsweek features a political cartoon parodying this fact. Nevertheless, I was pleased to discover that I am not the only American disillusioned with Congressional performance. Twenty-nine percent is a pathetic number; it appears the President is scoring more points than our publicly elected representatives. I had rather hoped that after last year’s election and with the number of House seats filled by Democrats the nation would see some action regarding Iraq policy. The present stalemate between Democrats in Congress and the White House is tiresome and wearing on a lot of American’s nerves. You cannot entirely blame them, though, when many Americans are indecisive over where they stand on national issues. Common ground exists among the majority on the mess that has been made of Iraq, but a gap occurs concerning how best to clean it up: do we pick through the pieces and try to reassemble a semi-structured and trustworthy nation, or do we shove it under the rug and hope it cleans itself up? Unfortunately, I do not foresee much progress regarding the present divided government until after the 2008 presidential elections.
Who Do We Trust?
When the Democrats took over the majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, what did we think? Did we think that Congress would change automatically and all our cares be heard and the Iraq War would go away and President Bush would be “contained” and finally change would happen. Well, the unexpected happened: nothing. Nothing happened. Its as if the candidates told us exactly what we wanted to hear and then as soon as their spot became cemented their views grew less and less liberal. We wanted change, they promised change, yet their actions do not line up with their words. Its interesting, today in class we discussed how a candidate (for presidency, for instance) will lean extremely right or left in their party and then after they achieve the nomination begin drifting more and more moderate. Here is living proof that this does happen. The Democrats told us exactly what we wanted to change, promised change and, once they got their seats, turned their back on the people. It’s interesting because their approval rating—29%—equals the same amount as the past Congress without the Democratic majority. This article rather brought up some interesting points and informed me of how corrupt and unreliable politicians can be.
DPorter
A few statistics in this article were alarming to me. The first one was that a majority of Americans agree with Bush’s troop removal plan. Only 43% of Americans think that a faster withdrawal is needed. Comparing Bush’s approval rating with the approval rating of his troop removal plan, I am actually impressed. I think Americans have come to the conclusion that we can’t just leave Iraq quickly, its going to be a slow process, and I think we can all agree with that. Another thing about this article that I found interesting was the amount of gridlock Congress is in. Although, having a Republican President, and a Democratic majority, adds for more dimension within our government, I think we might be even worse off. Like the article said, so far Congress has been accomplishing small goals, but when it comes to bigger issues, like the war in Iraq, we are struggling. It is just frusterating to know that Congress is not getting the things done that really do need to be handled. The Democrats have always wanted a much revamped health care system, but it is going to be hard for them with a Republican President. The way I see it, America voted a Democratic Congress into office long after they voted President Bush. And the reason the Democrats control both the House and the Senate is because Americans want some change, and maybe Republicans could accept that a little more, so maybe we can get something done.
I agree in some areas of Porters response. Even though the Democrats took the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, we still did not see a change in the Iraqi war. But what did we expect to happen. We couldn’t just get up and leave. What we needed was containment. Though we look at it like its bushes fault. Congress played a big part in it. They could have reduced funding so we could slowly start getting out. I think I a way the democrats support it. They have to. Saddam Hussian was a man of power that shouldn’t have it. Now that he’s out we should have reduced troops. Now Congress is letting Bush send in a surge. That’s all he need is more troops. That is exactly what the candidates did. They told us what we wanted to hear. Take Bush for example when he was running for his second term he made a promise to start reducing troops in Iraq as of June 2005. Did this happen? No, It still hasn’t happened. Our system is set up in the way that reelection always comes around and if a candidate dint follow trough put someone else in. This also makes me think are the democrats going to stay in Iraq or will they start to pull out.
“Take Bush for example when he was running for his second term he made a promise to start reducing troops in Iraq as of June 2005. Did this happen? No, It still hasn’t happened. Our system is set up in the way that reelection always comes around and if a candidate dint follow trough put someone else in.” That was Rory’s quote. This is very true. What Bush did was he “tricked” us into thinking he’d pull out, just so he could stay in office, and then change his war strategy (since he can’t get a 3rd term). Now, I put tricked in quotes because I don’t think that he flat out lied to us about a time table for troop withdrawal He might have felt it was possible back then, but then things happened and required a longer American presence. Either way, I’m glad Bush got re-elected, and not Kerry; you just can’t change presidents in a time of war…the two different strategies would completely change the war. As far as war funding and troop withdrawal, I also agree; I think the Democrats have realized that we can’t just abruptly end the war right now, and that’s why they keep funding it. Ending the war today would leave a big mess for our next president to clean up. The best option now is to finish the war strong.
-Jason Wong