Maybe withholding funds isn’t so scandalous after all

There are some interesting insights in the new LA Times poll published this morning, but I think Greg Sargent is right that the newspaper may have buried the lede. This question from the poll seems to have been largely unnoticed.

Q: If George W. [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]veto[/tag]es 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?

That’s a surprisingly helpful, politically salient question. Bush’s veto now seems likely, and far too many people believe Dems will have to cave to the president’s demands in order to keep funding the war. But is that the approach Americans want to see? Apparently not.

A plurality of 45% in the poll said Congress should withhold funding for the war until Bush accepts a withdrawal timeline, while 43% argue that lawmakers should fund the war without conditions. A majority of Dems (66%), a plurality of independents (43%), and one-in-five Republicans (21%) back the withholding funds approach.

This is a pleasant surprise. As Greg explained, “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.”

Note to Dems: they’re playing your song.

As for the rest of the poll, the news was also bad for the administration and its allies on the prosecutor purge scandal.

Most Americans believe Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales should resign because of the controversy over his office’s firing of federal prosecutors, and a big majority want White House aides to testify under oath about the issue, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.

The survey, conducted Thursday through Monday, found that 53% said Gonzales should step down because he claimed he had no role in the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys last year — an account later contradicted by Justice Department documents and congressional testimony by his top assistant.

Senate and House Democratic leaders have asked White House aides to testify under oath about the firings, in part to answer questions about the roles of Gonzales and Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political strategist. Bush has rejected those requests, but the poll found that 74% of the public believes his aides, including Rove, should comply.

Even among Republicans, 49% said they thought the aides should testify; 43% said they should not.

“I don’t know whether Gonzales needs to resign; I think he’s going to have to seriously think about it,” said David Brennan, 43, a poll respondent who is a telephone technician in Bend, Ore., and described himself as a conservative Republican. “But I do think, no matter what, [the aides] should have to speak about it under oath. They should tell the truth, Republican or Democrat.”

I seem to recall hearing something about an administration public-relations offense, restoring Gonzales’ credibility and assuring voters that the scandal isn’t as bad as it appears. How’s that working out for them?

Even among Republicans, 49% said they thought the aides should testify; 43% said they should not.

That is the canary in the coal mine. It just died.

Once they testify, their lies become more obvious, and more testimony will be required, which will expose the whole rancid plot to politicize the Justice department.

Even the nasally-challenged Republican voters won’t be able to stand the smell, so then we’re in impeachment territory.

The Overton window only needs to be dragged a bit more for this to become the new normal.

Restore America
Impeach BushCo

  • I keep hoping that what we are hearing from Reid and Pelosi is a strong signal that caving-in is not “on the table,” but then I hear Carl Levin categorically stating that funding will not be cut off, and I wonder which side of this will hold sway. The more polling that indicates that the people want Congress to assert its authority and stand up to the president, the better – even if Bush isn’t listening to us, it’s well past time that Congress did.

  • I always believed that the Bush administration had a tin ear, but if Congress backs down on this, they have gone deaf. Backing down on this one, especially in view of this poll, which I think mirrors the sentiments of the people I come in contact with, would be a political disaster, and will cost much treasure and many more lives.

  • Barack Obama in the MoveOn event from yesterday:

    “Now, I recognize that President Bush has indicated that he is going to veto a timetable that is attached to any supplemental, and my belief is that we’re gonna have to continue to ratchet up the pressure and re-present to him legislation that contains some constraints on his actions and has some mechanism whereby we can start getting combat troops out. ”

    66% of Dems polled by the LA Times:

    “Senator, we repectfully disagree. We like our leaders to have larger cajones”

  • I think Pelosi and Reid owe it to the American people, the troops and their congressional colleagues and supporters to make it emphatically clear — even to the mush-brains in the MSM — that the current legislation is their last best offer. Our way or none at all. If Bush vetoes support for the troops, even if it is more than he’s signed off on in the past (e.g., troop safety and veterans care), the burden for what happens next falls on Bush alone. As the icing on that cake, threaten impeachment of the whole Crime Family.

  • Ohioan,

    I’m not following your logic. 66% of Dems “said Congress should withhold funding for the war until Bush accepts a withdrawal timeline”. And Obama said Congress must , “…re-present to him legislation that contains some constraints on his actions and has some mechanism whereby we can start getting combat troops out. ”

    How are those two in conflict? is it that Obama’s statement is too ambiguous–that it doesn’t clearly state a withdrawal timeline?

  • A safe Dem option
    fund for 6 months = Sept/October.
    Re-open funding debate in July/August.

    All surge supporters say will not have results till Summer.
    All surge supporters say need to give surge a chance.
    Funding for 6 months undercuts the main opposition.

  • I really believe the administration and most of the Republican Party are simply in “damage control” mode and anything short of a blank check will accomplish their goal. That goal is to preserve some kind of base who can rationalize the war thusly:

    Sure, mistakes were made, we underestimated the time it would take to secure Iraq, the Democrats pulled the plug just when things were starting to look up. Vote Republican in ’08, ’10 & ’12.

    Either way, any idiot (even Bush) can see the war is a total disaster militarily, economically, strategically, etc. If the Congress give the administration what it “wants” (read: purports to want), they are doomed to failure and can blame no one but themselves. If the Congress insist on any conditions (no matter what they are), the administration are doomed to failure, but a healthy percentage of Americans are guaranteed to rationalize this abomination rather than admit that they’re complete fools.

    In the eyes of the ignorant masses and the MSM, the blame will be shared.

  • Two points from comments at TPM:

    1. People are already on board for the Congress to hang tough in the face of a Bush veto.

    2. […] the thing that will market the story best is clarity and consistency — the Dems have to hang tough precisely to make sure their position is clear.

    to which I’d add:

    3) Human nature always gravitates to the winning side.

    The only problem that remains is the highly delicate maneuvering, enticing and cajoling necessary in the Senate to maintain a voting majority. I don’t enjoy reading comments here that seem to ignore the precarious context in which Democratic resolve is being tested. There are still institutional constrains on powers Dems have to exercise their policy preferences.

  • JimK, funding for 6 months will only provide the financial mechanism for the WH to ratchet up the “surge” to an incomprehensible level. Give that idiot 6 months, and he’ll have a quarter-million troops garrisoned in Iraq—daring the Congress to pull the plug. He’s already “playing nice” with NK; that offers him an opportunity to gut all US bases in the Far East to ramp up things in Iraq. US commitments in Afghanistan are at bare minimum levels at best.

    No—six more months of the same failed policy is just that—six more months of the same failed policy. It is time to force this president back into the confines established by the Constitution. He holds the power of the veto-pen, but Congress holds the cash-flow. This “war” can be bankrupted, and the denizen of the Oval Office knows this all too well.

    A Constitutional Crisis might hurt the Republic—but it will BURY this pathetic excuse for a chief exectutive….

  • JTK (@8),

    It ain’t a war any more; it’s an occupation. Now, if we could only convince the MSM to see it that way…A lot of Americans like the idea that they’re bringing freedom to the poor heathens; not so many like the idea of being the opressor.

  • libra, the tinfoil hatter in me agrees that this was an occupation all along, they’ve accomplished their goals, will continue to accomplish their goals, and that our nation has been the victim of a bloodless coup, a reality that we’re all finally waking up to.

    It is the same part of me that didn’t believe these folks would let the Democratic Party actually resume control of the House and Senate in November. I was relieved to find I was wrong and that maybe our democracy still has a fighting chance.

    That being the case, the best the Republicans can hope for is to minimize the damage by forcing the ball into Democrats’ court, and hope to God (or whomever it is they actually bow to) that somebody (besides themselves) pulls the plug on this thing.

  • #6 Edo –

    The poll question says: “refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?”. Obama says we should re-present a new bill (whatever be the content – if Bush refuses to sign any bill with withdrawal conditions, I don’t see why Congress should re-present a bill).

    I see a clear lack of strength in Obama’s statement. Perhaps you don’t, and that’s absolutely your prerogative.

  • Comments are closed.