Gallup: 55% Now Back U.S. Pullout from Iraq Within a Year

[kpete]

Gallup: 55% Now Back U.S. Pullout from Iraq Within a Year

By E&P Staff

Published: August 03, 2006 11:55 AM ET

NEW YORK A new Gallup poll released today revealed another upward bump in the number of Amercians who now want a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in the next 12 months.

That number now stands at 55%, with 19% supporting immediate withdrawal and another 36% wanting it done by August 2007.

"While the percentage of Americans who favor a withdrawal of all U.S. troops either now or within a year is not a supermajority, it is a majority, suggesting that the Democratic leadership is speaking to an issue that resonates with many Americans," Frank Newport, director of the Gallup Poll, writes today.

Another majority, 54%, now say that the U.S. invasion in 2003 was a "mistake."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950052
via:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[blm]

1. Would the senate like to revote on the Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan now?

Come on Harry - do it.

[mom cat]

26. We have taxation without representation! Support the tea party!

The majority of Americans have no representation:The majority of Americans want:
the war to end
single payor health care
action on global warming
a balanced budget
no expansion of our nucleat program
no torture by America
free and fair elections
accountability for government spending
the truth about 9-11
answers abour how the Iraq war really started

the list goes on and on.
Where are our representatives?

We the people have no representation, yet we have taxation of the average person that has increased in proportion to the mega-rich.
The first American revolution started because of these injustices. The second one must start now!

feel free to add to the list!

[Renew Deal]

2. Of course

Because no one knows what exactly we are doing there. We got rid of Saddam, killed Zarqawi and found no weapons. Mission accomplished. Time to go home.

[skyblue]

3. Emphasis Not A supermajority, and how does it play in btlgrd states???

[ps1074]

4. good

An unified dem message is very important. The Kerry - Feingold plan is a good starting point. Getting rid of Joe is even a better starting point.

[skyblue]

5. And the Washington Post, CT Post and Hartford Courant agree!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072900680.html

Oh and most Democratic politicians.

Yeah, having Lamont a Businessman with no political experience who says he's against the war and has investments in Halliburton is a solid idea.

What's he hiding that he can't show his tax returns anyway???

[ps1074]

6. How is the no political experience a liability?

I'll take Lamont over Joementum any day. Politicans should listen to the people they represent. Joe was deaf about CT residents' concerns about the war. Instead of listening to the people that elected him, he was enabling Bush ever since the war started. And now he is bearing the sequences. This primary is a healthy debate between the people of CT and Joe Lieberman. And I think this time the people of CT will be deaf about what Joe has to say about the war.

[skyblue]

11. But have other candidates who are anti-war-esq winning?? The people of

CT may not have that much feeling that is anti-war. How do you know that the majority of CT voters are in favor of withdrawing the troops within the year? Perhaps he helped Bush out because he felt that many Dems were prowar and had to have their voices heard or that the Democrats need people who are prowar and not to lose people because they may look weak on defense. At any rate whoever gets elected the war will continue unless a significant amount of people come out and say they are against it. But it has been said by many newspapers and groups that not to vote for Joe because of your stance in the war is a bad idea. Lieberman brings people into the Democratic Party who would possibly ordinarily vote for a Republican. Lieberman makes the Democrats seem reasonable. Lieberman helps to bring significant business to the state, and has a strong influential presence on various committees.

Sure Bush kissed Lieberman, he also hugged the German woman leader, but both happened in a very public place, and I'm sure that there are many Democratic leaders who would also love to kiss Joe Lieberman. The kiss meant nothing except maybe that Bush is a little wierd.

A little more about Lamont's lack of experience. Lamont has a lack of experience and may have made a few mistakes early on making him to appear to be inconsistent. These early on mistakes can be caught. And were probably to partisan to be acceptable to the general CT population which will probably elect a Republican Governor and re-elect it's 3 republican representatives and 2 democratic representatives. No we're not all that Blue as you'd think.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Mr. Lamont's investments in halliburton are genius IMO

Profiting off of a war and then spending the money in the interest of ending the war is a pretty good way of beating the system.

BTW, Senator Lieberman said in his book that going after your opponent's tax returns is unethical. And personally I'll take the New York Times over the Hartford Courant and the Connecticut Post, both of which endorsed Bush.

[skyblue]

12. I'll take Bill Clinton, and a plethora of others over

someone whose motivation as shown by the investments in Halliburton should be questioned. His motivations when he voted for cuts in the Greenwich budget which hurt many groups should be questioned. His alliance with former tobacco lobbyist Lowell Weicker should be questioned. His alliance with Republicans who are running his campaign should be questioned. Why didn't Lamont put his money where his mouth was when he voted with the Republicans as Greenwich rep. I'll take the Washington Post.

He probably wanted to see if Lamont had done anything which might make him an even less viable candidate, something which might turn out to be scandalous, and cost the election of a Democrat. I like open government.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Yes, Lamont voted with the Republicans on fixing the potholes

Frankly I'll take Ned Lamont's ties to Lowell Weicker over Senator Lieberman's ties to Sean Hannity any day. Not to mention Lieberman has now been endorsed by the likes of Ann Coulter and Tom DeLay. You can hang Lowell Weicker around Ned Lamont's neck, but Senator Lieberman doesn't keep the best of company either.

And while I like President Clinton a lot, I also consider in his endorsement of Senator Lieberman that the two have had a long friendship going back to when President Clinton worked on Senator Lieberman's first campaign for State Senate. The same applies to the other Senators who are supporting Senator Lieberman. I don't expect them to endorse Ned Lamont in the primary because they have long standing relationships with Senator Lieberman. I respect that. However I respectfully disagree with them as well.

And I refuse to believe that Senator Lieberman has noble intentions by asking his opponent to relese his tax returns, because I would refuse to believe that were true of ANY politician.

[skyblue]

16. Republican endorsements.

My guess is Coulter and Delay want to endorse him because they know it will make Dems dislike him it is part of a divide and conquer strategy : get Democrats at each other's throats.

Lieberman does keep the best of company. If you include all his endorsements, and not disinclude every single one of them because they were "long-term".

Lamont has plenty of Republican friends running his campaign and Lowell of course was a Republican.

I'm glad Lieberman asked him to release his tax returns: I don't want a candidate who may have been part of a tax scam that would make him an eventual candidate that is not viable. I would imagine that other subsequent candidates in the General election might ask any other fellow candidate to reveal such information. It's called open government and it is the right thing to do. Sorry but Lieberman probably does want the Democrats to succeed in any event, which would include openness ahead of a primary in case a candidate would present something too late to be fixed. He's not the a-hole you make him out to be otherwise he wouldn't have had so many endorsements.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I am not trying to make Senator Lieberman out to be an a-hole

But I am pointing out what is true. Sean Hannity has genuinely endorsed Senator Lieberman and supported him even before Ned Lamont was running against him. You may be correct about DeLay and Coulter but in those cases your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps they are trying to drum up support for him for his independent bid in the GE. Or perhaps you are correct that they are just trying to divide Democrats. But the Sean Hannity endorsement is real as Senator Lieberman has been on Hannity's program to thank him for the endorsement. Both candidates have been endorsed by people that I find less than stellar but I don't decide who I support based on endorsements anyway.

And you may be correct that it is best for candidates to release their tax returns to avoid a potential scandal. However, that doesn't change the fact that Senator Lieberman said in his books that tax returns should be off limits. And furthermore as I said, I don't care that it's Senator Lieberman, I would not believe that ANY politician would ask his opponent to release his tax returns for the greater good. In an election the goal is to win and Senator Lieberman is attempting to do just that by asking Ned Lamont to release his tax returns. Ned Lamont, BTW, has released his tax returns: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/07/21/lamont_earned_28_million_in_2005_tax_returns_show/

And finally, if Senator Lieberman is so committed to seeing the Democrats succeed, why won't he endorse the winner of the primary instead of splitting the vote with an independent bid, should he lose?

[skyblue]

19. Run as Independent---- Very Important!!

If Lamont would not do well as a General Election candidate because the CT public can be volatile and has elected more Republicans to represent on the federal level than Democrats: ie 3 Republican Representatives and only 2 Democratic Representatives and more likely will also vote for a Republican Governor then it is better that situation be covered by having 2 groups represent the left. (and remember Lieberman is being endorsed by a many major of members of the party and many unions which represent the left and environmental interest groups so yeah, I'd say he's a Democratic candidate) viewpoints concerning the situation overseas can change. This can possibly make a huge difference in who would win in the General. A while back it looked like the polling numbers of Lamont were closer to the Republican candidate. Would Lamont's polling numbers remain high when a commercial would be released by a Republican candidate? Will we always elect a Democratic Senator when the ones we have are basically incumbents and we have 3 Republican Representatives, 2 Democratic Representatives and a Republican Governor? Or should all these questions be ignored and we optimistically put all our eggs in one basket by thinking that the political situation will be hot towards Democratic candidates. Do we know all the points the Republicans will make and how they will sway the public already?

[skyblue]

20. Forgot to address the Hannity thing.

Yes there probably are alot of CT voters who watch Hannity. I am not one of them. I do not watch people who probably would wind up making me feel like projectile vomiting. But it probably would do a candidate well to be endorsed by a Republican TV celeb and even to make an appearance on their show.

But if you look at his endorsements on the whole they are by everyone and his/her grandmother on the left. And many of them on the left do say they disagree with Lieberman, but that they think he is worth it and that there does need to be a big tent party.

[skyblue]

23. Conflict of Interest.

Does his wife's job being involved in an investment partnership present a potential conflict of interest in voting for CT contracts? If not, then why not?

[spooky3]

25. have you investigated the employment of Lieberman's wife as well?

[skyblue]

7. Same Stats in November '05 no big change immed vs long as it takes

Question # 10. There hasn't been much change if you look at it overtime which is important.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-07-24-poll.htm

The response to Q # 11 show that maybe there has been some kind of impact on people's. So hopefully that will affect people's answers to question 10.

[Johonny]

8. What do the other 45 % want I wonder

I'd love to see a breakdown on when they want to leave.

[TahitiNut]

10. They're all enlisting to go over and fight, of course.

:dunce:

[skyblue]

13. The other 45% are probably a mixture of armageddon seekers and people who

like to see things blown up.

[NNN0LHI]

18. They want the Rapture of course

I hope we can give it to them after the November elections.

Don

[skyblue]

21. Swing vote states.

[upi402]

22. they want BEER

:toast:

[npincus]

14. these people had better VOTE

for G-d's sake.

[progressoid]

24. Unfortuantely, that pull out won't happen.

But it's nice to see at least most of Amurica waking up.