Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies

[RunInRed 16,492]

Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies

Six in 10 think it’s a good idea to meet with president of Iran

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.

This is according to a Gallup Panel survey of a representative national sample of 1,013 Americans, conducted May 19-21.

Although separate Gallup polling shows that few Americans view Iran favorably, and that Iran leads Americans' list of top U.S. enemies in the world, the new Gallup survey also finds high public support for presidential-level meetings between the United States and Iran, specifically.

About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran. This includes about half of Republicans, a majority of independents, and most Democrats.

Bottom Line

McCain may eventually persuade more Americans that there is nothing for the president of the United States to discuss with hostile foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that to do so only undermines U.S. efforts to destabilize such regimes.

However, for now, whether it's the leader of an "enemy" country, generally, or the president of Iran, specifically, Americans think it's a good idea for the president of the United States to meet directly with the nation's adversaries.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/American...US-Enemies.aspx

[autigeremt 6,717]

As long as there are conditions in place, I have no problem with it either. No pre-conditions, no meeting.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Of course talk would not have stopped Hitler, and it will not stop radical Islamic Extremism. Count on that!

It did, however, set the stage with the old U.S.S.R. (which may rise up again soon).

[RunInRed 16,492]

Depends what the conditions are. In the example of Iran, the conditions can't be the topic of negotiation (i.e., suspension of nuclear weapons program) because if so, you have what we have had the past 8 years - a stale mate with Iran defying the world and continuing to gain in strength. But obvioulsy, front-end due diligence would have to take place.

I still get a good chuckle out of this poll...being how "naive" the majority of the country is on this issue. Another Republican talking point, down the drain.

[CCTAU 3,350]

As long as there are conditions in place, I have no problem with it either. No pre-conditions, no meeting.

This poll, obviously design to be skewed toward achmed, failed to ask if pre-conditions matter. I don't think one republican has said "not" to meet. Nobody in their right mind wants to meet without any conditions at all....

Polls are crap unless they ask the right question. This one did not.

[AURaptor 1,126]

No we don't. Not when it's properly explained to them why meeting w/ rogue leaders of terrorist nations is a real REAL bad idea.

Designer polls which offer up nothing but hoped for results don't impress me. Sorry.

[RunInRed 16,492]

No we don't. Not when it's properly explained to them why meeting w/ rogue leaders of terrorist nations is a real REAL bad idea.

Designer polls which offer up nothing but hoped for results don't impress me. Sorry.

Bush approval rating = ~27%....the poll must not have asked the right questions.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Democratic Congress approval rating: +- 17%. Now what, Run???? Spin, Spin, Spin.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Bush is still 10% points higher than the "promised land party".....that's why Obama will not win this election soley on the Kicking Ass beside his name come November.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Democratic Congress approval rating: +- 17%. Now what, Run???? Spin, Spin, Spin.

I'm glad the Republicans in Congress aren't part of that approval rating.

This has been discussed before - what you have in Congress is a stalemate. The Dems don't have enough votes to turn back a Veto from the President and the Republicans no longer have enough votes to push their measures through unchallenged. That combination = nothing getting done = low approval ratings. Call it spin if you want to, but that is the truth. FWIW, I think our entire Government has failed us for 8+ years - which is why, continuing with more of the same is not a path I'm too excited about travelling.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Of course......it's a stalemate. I forget all about that, run. The Dems have a large majority in the house, and yes, the senate is tighter. But they have the upper hand and yet nothing has happened with it.

Having a Dem. controlled Congress and White House is not what we need. We need a balanced system. That way people can't force feed their far left or right issues down everyones throat.

Recent history (Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc.) has shown that a Congress split with the White House makes for a more fair and balanced government. I don't want YOUR ideas and ideals forced down my throat just because YOUR side thinks it's the ONLY way. It may happen, but I will not support it.

I respect the office of the President. He, if elected, will be my Commander and Chief. I will respect the office he may sit in.

I will not, however, respect a the man who sits in a church for 20 years that slams me to the dirt for something I did not do. I am not racist, I am an American. I serve and protect us all. I am not interested in hate speech and reperations. If they were preaching and teaching God, and God alone, I could support him. I even thought highly of him at the start. I know now he is not what I believe America is. That's why I am so against his candidacy.

I see him as a man who took advantage of the very people he represents by aligning himself with the worst elements of our country. I see him as a man who turns his nose up at the very force that gave his father freedom and allows himself to be where he is today. It's in his character. He doesn't have to say it......I watched Bill Clinton do the same thing to us in 1992 shortly after he became president. I will not make that mistake again. Obama may win, but it will not be because of my help. I pray he proves me dead wrong if elected.

[RunInRed 16,492]

You certainly have the right to have any opinion you want to about Obama. Doesn't bother me one bit. There are millions that feel just like you do. But there are also millions who think differently..

As for balance, it is worth noting that from 2000-2006 the Republicans controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - it has only been in the past two years the Congress has even been able to challenge the President's agenda.

[autigeremt 6,717]

I know that......and I stated as such. I wasn't all that happy about that either.

Remember.....I am a centrist. I would be so very happy to see a third party that ran down the middle. The other two parties will not allow that. It will take someone very popular to make it happen on a national level.

[AURaptor 1,126]

No we don't. Not when it's properly explained to them why meeting w/ rogue leaders of terrorist nations is a real REAL bad idea.

Designer polls which offer up nothing but hoped for results don't impress me. Sorry.

Bush approval rating = ~27%....the poll must not have asked the right questions.

They don't distinguish who is being polled, I bet. He's got as many conservatives upset at him over imigration, global warming, expansion of the Fed Gov't as he does Libs who are against America, the war, calling terrorist by their real name, etc...

[CCTAU 3,350]

As for balance, it is worth noting that from 2000-2006 the Republicans controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - it has only been in the past two years the Congress has even been able to challenge the President's agenda.

That's funny. Besides the war, abortion, and gay marriage, what has W done that isn't TOTALLY freaking dimocrat in design? You guys should be so damn happy. You have a republican that spends and acts fiscally like a perfect dim, and you hate him because the doesn't promote baby killing and homosexuality?

And for the last two years, what have the dims actually proposed that might empower Americans to be successful without sucking off the hind teat of government? NOTHING.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Depends what the conditions are.

But then Obama says there would be NO PRECONDITIONS.

No we don't. Not when it's properly explained to them why meeting w/ rogue leaders of terrorist nations is a real REAL bad idea.

Designer polls which offer up nothing but hoped for results don't impress me. Sorry.

Bush approval rating = ~27%....the poll must not have asked the right questions.

Democratic Congress approval rating: +- 17%. Now what, Run???? Spin, Spin, Spin.

Pawned!

[Tiger Al 0]

Unfortunately, the Democrats are paying the price for six years of republican mismanagement.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Unfortunately, the Democrats are paying the price for six years of republican mismanagement.

And it all happened in a vaccum didn't it Al, the dims had nothing to do with it what so ever.

[Tiger Al 0]

Unfortunately, the Democrats are paying the price for six years of republican mismanagement.

And it all happened in a vaccum didn't it Al, the dims had nothing to do with it what so ever.

The Democrats had no power, Tigermike. They could offer up alternative legislation, but, it always got defeated. They didn't have the votes. For the particularly heinous stuff, they could only threaten to filibuster. They had no power to make a difference.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Unfortunately, the Democrats are paying the price for six years of republican mismanagement.

And it all happened in a vaccum didn't it Al, the dims had nothing to do with it what so ever.

The Democrats had no power, Tigermike. They could offer up alternative legislation, but, it always got defeated. They didn't have the votes. For the particularly heinous stuff, they could only threaten to filibuster. They had no power to make a difference.

The speaker of the house is who? What party? Which party controlls the senate?

Poor baby. And they never added and added and added to spending bills did they? Oh I forgot, earmarks are good, according to the dims. Earmarks don't add to the deficit, according to the dims. Earmarks are good, earmarks are good.

And it all happened in a vaccum didn't it Al, the dims had nothing to do with it what so ever.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Since the Republicans had the votes and the President why didn't they balance a budget?

[Tiger Al 0]

Unfortunately, the Democrats are paying the price for six years of republican mismanagement.

And it all happened in a vaccum didn't it Al, the dims had nothing to do with it what so ever.

The Democrats had no power, Tigermike. They could offer up alternative legislation, but, it always got defeated. They didn't have the votes. For the particularly heinous stuff, they could only threaten to filibuster. They had no power to make a difference.

The speaker of the house is who? What party? Which party controlls the senate?

Poor baby. And they never added and added and added to spending bills did they? Oh I forgot, earmarks are good, according to the dims. Earmarks don't add to the deficit, according to the dims. Earmarks are good, earmarks are good.

And it all happened in a vaccum didn't it Al, the dims had nothing to do with it what so ever.

Tigermike, surely you know how Congress works. Democrats didn't chair any committees, any amendments they offered were voted on and either won or lost based on the majority party's decision. republicans allowed any "earmarks" that ended up on a bill. Legislation offered by Democrats was read and then sent to republican controlled committees where they were placed on anonymous hold. In 2000, republicans controlled the House and the presidency. In 2002, they took over the Senate. The Democrats had no power until January of 2007 and as long as a republican is president and/or Democrats don't have enough votes to override a veto, there's not much they can do because it will get vetoed. If you understand our political and legislative process, then you know this.