Bobo, you are so good at submitting articles with bias and incomplete facts! All the dems defeatist (?); hardly, but they do all want to get the real perpetrator of 911. And, where are the accompanying political accomplishments?
Why do you ignore all the generals and Dumya who have said only a political solution will solve Iraq now. Let's see, the Turks continuing to invade a near autonomous Northern Iraq, and Iran money is worth more and used more in Southern Iraq then ever before. Where is the oil deal and the compromises in the Iraqi government?
I'm glad our soldiers have after almost 5 years been able to do something without Dumya/Rummy interference, but it is nothing without the political effort from this president who has shown only failures in his foriegn policy!
I would submit that the Iraqi parliment is not any more disfunctional that the current Pelosi-Reid Congress currently sitting a an 11% approval rating.
Perhaps if the Democrat leadership could actually get anything done with compromise and accommodation instead of continually grandstanding, their Iraqi counterparts would be inspired to do the same.
You should know that Bobo in Texas is part of the same Republican Political Party machine that Karl Rove is a part of.
NOW do you understand?
Karl Rove/Bobo in Texas are single minded in their 'paid' quest to disseminate disinformation or twisted logic of the Neo-Con philosophy.
Just think of Bobo as a Karl Rove sock puppet. Yes - its important not to discount him - because - liek Karl Rove, they can prove to be perilouss to our nation.
I would caution you to think of Bobo and Karl this way - they are purveyors of a discredited, shameful ideeologie FIRST and FOREMOST. What happens to our nation due to the implementation of this ideeologie is well down the list of their concerns.
"don't you think that all-time record low approval ratings for the Pelosi-Reid Congress are worthy of note?"
You are ignoring the fact that a little less than half of the members in Congress are REPUBLICANS and that Congress' low approval ratings are partially attributed to the fact that Democrat-sponsored legislation has been obstructed and vetoed by Republican congressmen and Bush.
Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between the job approval rating of an individual (like Bush's) and that of an institution. Bush's 29% job approval rating reflects directly on the public's perception of his job performance.
The poll that has Congress at 11% is this Reuters/Zogby Index. It goes month by month and yes CURRENTLY congress is at 11% for November, same in September and October 11%. In August congres had a rating of 15%.
This is an interesting poll ya should give it a look. Bottom line Americans think our gov is screwing the pooch.
"The poll that has Congress at 11% is this Reuters/Zogby Index."
Oh, ok. I see now. Although, I'm not quite sure why the Reuters/Zogby Index should be any more reliable than the ones I cited. For example, Reuters relies on a single poll (11%) while the RealClearPolitics averages several national polls:
Fox News: 26%
Gallup: 20%
AP Ipsos: 25%
NBC: 19%
RealClearPolitics.Com Average: 22.5%
My sources also split the approval rating among Congressional Democrats (36% in one and 48.3% in the other) vs. Congressional Republicans (32% in one and 38% in the other).
What's interesting is that Congress' approval rating as a whole sits ~22.5%, yet Congress' approval rating by party is ~36% for Democrats and ~32% Republicans--both higher than the 22.5% for Congress as a whole! Strange isn't it? Well, actually it's not if you read my other posts below explaining the difference between the approval numbers of an individual and that of a group of individuals.
"Oh, ok. I see now. Although, I'm not quite sure why the Reuters/Zogby Index should be any more reliable than the ones I cited. For example, Reuters relies on a single poll (11%) while the RealClearPolitics averages several national polls:"
Actually Reuters is 1 poll and Zogby is another 2 polls total. Is 1 more accurate than the others? Who knows. It is interesting that the Reuters/Zogby Index keeps asking the same questions and tracking them
However, Congress' collective "job approval rating" is more of a reflection of the public's disdain for the institution of Congress (and its current impotence in standing up to the White House). That is why almost all members of Congress poll higher INDIVIDUALLY than Congress as an institution polls collectively.
"But unlike the president, Congress usually has low approval ratings no matter which party is in control, and poor poll numbers have not always meant the majority party suffered on Election Day. Voters usually show more disdain for Congress as an institution than for their own representative - whom they pick. A majority in a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey in late June said Democratic control of Congress was good for the country."
"Congress is rarely loved. In the 17 years since 1990, Congressional approval has risen above 50% only twice...For the vast majority of the time since 1990, approval of Congress has been below 45% and below 40% . In 1995, approval stood at just over 30% and did not break 40% until mid-1997. By contrast, Presidents routinely enjoy approval over 50% and are seen as in some trouble politically when their approval falls below 50%. President Bush's lengthy record below 40% is unusually low and long...In this light, while approvals of 35% apiece may be numerically equal, the political implications are not the same. The most obvious difference is that in 2007 Congressional approval has been rising while that of the President has been stagnant. Democrats in Congress are not enjoying very high levels of approval, but they are doing considerably better than Republicans."
"Congress is rarely loved. In the 17 years since 1990, Congressional approval has risen above 50% only twice...For the vast majority of the time since 1990, approval of Congress has been below 45% and below 40%"
True! But why did you leave out that Congressional approval has only been BELOW 20% 4 times since 1973? 1973, 1992, 2007, 2007. Is there a pattern here?
First, the average across the other 4 polls is above 20%.
Secondly, you are implying that there will be a change in power in Congress, with Republicans regaining control. But there are far more Republican seats up for grabs in the 2008 election than Democratic seats. And most analysts are predicting that Democrats will increase their majority after 2008.
"There is a famous question in political science: "why do voters hate Congress but love their Congressman?" The simple answer is that the institution is a convenient whipping boy for the President but also for its own members. Many members (who often enjoy personal approval levels well above 50%) run for reelection by running against Congress as an institution. The result is approval ratings of the Congress that are poor in comparison to those of the President or of its individual members. Thus it becomes a dangerous thing to make direct comparisons of Presidential and Congressional approval. The two are quite different in their norms and dynamics."
"Why, if Americans are dissatisfied with how the government represents them, do they elect and then reelect their members of Congress? One possible explanation may be that, though they perceive a problem with the aggregate behavior of Congress, they are less apt to see this problem in the behavior of their own member. Numerous polls have found that respondents give substantially higher approval ratings to their own members than to Congress as a whole. In November 1998 47% approved and 45% disapproved "of the way the US Congress has been handling its job." But 62% approved and only 14% disapproved of the way their own representative had been handling his or her job—a difference of 16 points between the approval of Congress and their own representative. Comments in the focus groups also suggest that Americans see the problem with the government as being a function of the system as a whole, rather than with individuals."
"The analysis presented below supports the hypothesis that citizens' attitudes toward Congress respond in the aggregate to veto overrides, intra-Congress conflict, and the passage of major bills."
And FYI:
Bush's approval: 33.1%
Congressional Democrats: 36% or 48.3%
(in fairness, I'm a little unsure of 48.3% figure since it's unclear to what "Generic Congressional Vote" refers)
They were obstructionist, for the simple reason that they opposed practically everything for purely partisan advantage.
Perhaps you also remember that the Republican majority was widely criticized for not "reaching out" to the minority and acting in a "bipartisan way". I'm simply holding the Dem's to their own standard that they droned on about for seven years. The need to learn to compromise, at least enough to get basic items like the budget passed which hasn't happened since the Pelosi-Reid Congress became the majority almost 2 years ago.
Hey - aint NOBODY that does OBSTRUCTION as well as us Conservatives!!
Dont you remember them 8 Clinton years!?
We orchestrated a media campaign all around a fake scandal called White Water all so we could harrass and obstruct any movement by Clinton - who we Christian Conservatives hated with a blind fury that is STILL unexplained - other than that our Right Wing media told us to hate him.
In fact - there is NO GREATER example of obstructionism than when our own loveable hypocrite, Newt Gingrich SHUT DOWN the entire goverment in a little tiff with Billy Boye!!
See what little regard we Conservatives care for National Security?
With Osama runnin around blowin up US facilities - Newt Shut Down the Goverment!!
Just think if Osama had attacked us THEN!
Well - we Neo-Cons dont care.
We Neo-Cons dont even LIEK the ding dang seculirist goverment.
I am so tired of hearing all this wish wash of moral judgment about what we are doing in Iraq and why. It would be one thing if what you guys are arguing about was at all true, but it's not true, none of this is true, and every moral argument is a moot point because of that.
If someone would just write an article and replace the words "we want to spread democracy" with the words "we desperately need to control more oil", then maybe Americans will start to get the picture of who we are as a country and what we have become and will resort to to get it. Remember also that WE elect who will run this place and make decisions for us. So in the end, this is our fault, or is it?
This may seem a bit off track to some, but I believe this whole dem/rep argument is too distract us and keep us busy so that the World Bank and The Reserve can keep running smoothly and keep it's control over the economy...
If that doesn't work, then they lie to us and feed us false info to buy time, all to sooth the over stuffed pockets of mega corporations who barrow federal funds... so how does this tie into Iraq and this argument?
Well, I'll leave that to someone who knows a little more about foreign economic structure, but this IS the only reason we are in Iraq, if there were no oil, we wouldn't be there period. Also the fact that many countries are switching their trading currency to EU for oil was a huge factor as well.
So does it matter if you vote dem/rep in the election? Why would it matter if anyone you elected has the same ideology?
If you swing with the The Fed and World Bank, you're guaranteed a set life as a politician, you get perks, money, you and you're family are set for life, all you have to do is play along and do what you're told, and whatever happens, you take all the risk personally, even going to jail for these slugs, but hey, they're still set for life...
So it's the bankers and greed that gives power to the political people that will help them the most, greed and money shapes our government now, you're choices of what you perceive to be a moral difference between candidates(dem/rep), leads you only to the same ideology.
Suffice it to say, The Fed and more so The World Bank have been controlling us and buying congress and the White House since the beginning of the century and beyond, and has set it's hooks into the American people who have no choice any longer. Any politician who wants to do the right thing for the American people, well, I believe that culminated on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas. We were shown what happens to people who go against the Fed and organized crime and want to make this country great again. That day a big part of America died with him.
There isn't a Democrat or Republican in any true sense of the word to be found in Washington, so it is fruitless to argue morals that don't even exist today.
Which is really my point, it only matters if the people you elect do what they said they would do to get elected and do it for you and the people. It doesn't matter whether they're dem or rep, what matters is that they're honest to the American people and their vow to uphold the constitution.
I believe right now, with most of the fore running candidates, we seem to hear and see differences on TV and newspapers, but we know TV and newsprint can be bought and sold just like politicians, and everything is biased one way or the other.
These politicians all come from the same place, they're all on the same side off the fence. Dem/rep? Bla bla bla, it's all hogwash and all it does is create drama. It hasn't meant anything to the politicians for 40 years, they use the parties perceived differences to give us moral arguments so we won't notice what really just happened. Drama buys and takes precious time, and we argue it hook, line and sinker.
"Which is really my point, it only matters if the people you elect do what they said they would do to get elected and do it for you and the people."
--That seems a bit simplistic. How realistic is it to anticipate that our every elected official will always be able to adhere to the exact letter of all of his or her campaign promises when we both know that unforeseen circumstances can sometimes make doing so either imprudent or impossible? And isn't at least part of doing it "for you and the people" working to achieve a degree of political power sufficient to accomplish the people's agenda?
"It hasn't meant anything to the politicians for 40 years, they use the parties perceived differences to give us moral arguments so we won't notice what really just happened."
--I guess I'm a little more optimistic than most and I think we as individuals bear the responsibility of filtering out much of the noise in the media to which you refer.
Immigration reform was started, I believe, to get American minds off the war for a moment and to mask what this administration did to our constitution, signing many directives to Homeland Security that are detrimental to our so called 'free society'. You are probably going ask yourself, "what directives?"
So, while we are arguing about immigration and party bashing, Shrub signs one of many directives this year, on may 9th, that would give himself sole authority over all branches of government in case of a "terrorist attack" or "disaster", and where is immigration reform today? Which democrat ever said he would reform immigration to get elected? Who would have voted for them anyway? It was a ploy, a diversionary tactic by some, (not all) to keep us and the media away from the important things that happened.
It actually is more simplistic, but they brainwash us to think we have this great moral diversity which keeps us from uniting, divided we fall.
Almost as 'grown up' as you - for inventin derogatory labels liek the "Retreat and Surrender Caucus" - to demean those who attempt to hold accountable the incompetents who twisted intelligence to promote the Iraq war.
Oh - and to those who try to hold an administration accountable for the Treason of 'outing' a CIA operative.
What do you expect from people who think consenting adults in an illicit affair is as bad or worse than lying to send fine young Americans to die for .... (what is Dumya's reason today, its changed so often)!
Here you go buddy. Do yourself a favor and read this. The dems were screaming about wmds in Iraq and calling for war years before President Bush was even elected.
Tang, that is why the Duelfer Report and 911 Commision said they were all basically destroyed in '98, so any quotes you right wingers bring up from '98 and earlier are valid from either side, but not good for 2003. Then if you take the canned intell Dumya used after '98, most of which was already refuted by the CIA, you do get Dems agreeing with the Bush lies or they are trashed. heck, only recently has Tenet admitted he could have stopped the lies, but didn't. Dems want to believe their president. It is hard for the average American to believe a president would lie and deceive so much, and at the cost of our young soldiers lives!
Cheney, the VP who visited the CIA more than any other VP, didn't get what he wanted, so he had Rummy create a new intel gathering group in the Pentagon to get Cheney the lies he wanted. Its all there in several books: 911 to Abu Ghraib, Assasin's Gate, Cobra II and Joe Wilson's book... if you care to really know the truth.
" The dems were screaming about wmds in Iraq and calling for war years before President Bush was even elected."
Very true because they saw a quick way to get re-elected by cashing in on the war rhetoric. Very patriotic and patronizing of them at the time. Now it is patriotic and patronizing to be anti-war now that the dust has settled and the WMD issue has been tactfully presented as a non-issue that was used as a form of political misdirection to have an emotional issue to go to war against Saddam.
You're right ..he's too stupid to lie. He just allowed and encouraged those around him to fabricate evidence, which really wasn't evidence, and then got people like Colin Powell to damage their integrity by lying for him..Now, what is worse is that he is too stubborn to admit that it was wrong and makes up any excuse to allow more young Americans to die...
He is worse than a liar, he is the Evil Wizard of senseless death..
and now all of those AlQuaida badguys who we were better off fighting there than here, who we "drew in" to figjht ovwr there instead of here are "scattering and fleeing"..
So now how do we fight them??...
Remember, that was YOUR plan! (as full of bull as it was)
By the way, RONALD REAGAN sold/gave them those WMD's, just as he and George Sr. supplied the Taliban..Are they better
"Perhaps you also remember that the Republican majority was widely criticized for not "reaching out" to the minority and acting in a "bipartisan way"."
I clearly remember Cons rubbing MANDATES in our faces. Now that the GOP has been bounced, Cons suddenly do not recall their position on mandates. Imagine that, a Con not recalling?
I remember when Cons rubbed polls in our faces telling us that the nation wanted war. Now that the polls have flipped, Cons suddenly do not recall their position on polls.
How exactly would you like the Democrats to compromise? They put forth proposals and all they get back from The Grumpy Obstructionist Party is, "Nuh Unh!!!" It's a little hard to compromise when the sore losing opposition STILL isn't interested in participating.
What do you expect from a party of the Contract to America lies and the only convictions at the presidential cabinet level for three different administrations (watergate, Iran Contra and now Plamegate) in modern times?
whoopi that`s one out of how many.I guess that makes the repugs good in your eyes they supported the Democrats once.I wonder what they got in return. I guess we`ll find that out later.
whoopi that`s one out of how many.I guess that makes the repugs good in your eyes they supported the Democrats once.I wonder what they got in return. I guess we`ll find that out later
That jrmunro is because you make it soooo simple to prove you wrong. It only takes 1 example when you state.
"The repugs will only endorse something the Decider wants".
Key word: ONLY, this is an ABSOLUTE word. Don't use it unless you know you have an ABSOLUTE FACT, or your 12 years old
Injest, the Repugs still support Dumya on the big items: torture, preemptive war, demanding accountability for the war/sole source contracts, loss of habeas corpus, Gitmo, eavesdropping without a warrant, Cheney's not giving up files, Dumya's advisors not testifying regardless of national security not being involved, 10 million more poor children getting health insurance.... so how more unscrupulous can you get as a party? Finally, these Repugs would never join to convict on impeachment! Party over the rule of law and conscience on what counts... and the repugs fail as human beings!
Injest, the Repugs still support Dumya on the big items: torture, preemptive war, demanding accountability for the war/sole source contracts, loss of habeas corpus, Gitmo, eavesdropping without a warrant, Cheney's not giving up files,
Schip wasn't a BIG issue/item? If it wasn't why push for and get a veto override?
If that wasn't why should I believe these others are "big items"?
BTW, on the rest of your list, the Dems support those things as well. If they didn't they wouldn't have happened.
Do you need me to beat you over the head point by point with each and everyone of the items on your list?
"Hey Dumbsh!t, correct me if I'm wrong (and You know I'm not) didn't congress just over ride a Presidential veto? Why yes they did!"
"Could that happen without Republican support? Why no it can't."
You just proved the point that the Democrats cannot get anything done in Congress without Republican support. This really does put the blame of an inept Congress back on the shoulders of uncooperative and uncompromising Republicans.
Unfortunately, this discussion is merely a distraction away from the real talking points of the article.
"You just proved the point that the Democrats cannot get anything done in Congress without Republican support."
Oh please stop with the "victim whining" this IS how congress HAS acted for the last 200 years.
Nothing gets done unless there is across isle support. WE elect split government to ensure this. It is rare, vary rare to have 1 party in charge of the Congress and the Executive branches. Educate your self and research it in a historical sense, like over the last 200 years.
I don't understand your "victim whining" reference. I was pointing out how your quote proves that the Democratic Congress, which you have stated many times on how low their approval ratings are and how they are now the problem (as a Democratic majority), has minimal power with a mere 51-48 majority.
You can rant and name call all you want, but you can't deny that you've said what you said. And, what you said proves what many have stated. Between Bush and the Republican Senate, Democrats will remain ineffective. It will take another Congressional election and a Democratic President to make any real change. Even then the course we've been steered toward will be hard to break free from. Although, I'm hoping that we can at least get a reasonable and sane President this time that isn't going to flush us further down the crapper.
Well BoBo, bushie and his zioncons are becoming irrelevant in Iraq, as in America. Can they fool you long enough to "cut and run" before the elections?
U.S. Scales Back Political Goals for Iraq
...Bush administration has lowered its expectation of achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections...
... American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after recent improvements in security â;; which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure "reconciliation" among Iraq's deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, officials now refer "accommodation." ...
"The toll of US soldiers killed in Iraq reached 853 this week, making 2007 the deadliest year for US forces since the 2003 invasion. With nearly two months remaining in 2007, US troop deaths in Iraq are set to far exceed the 850 killed in 2004, the highest previous annual total. While attacks on US troops and sectarian killings may have fallen in recent months, the decline appears to be mainly limited to the Baghdad area, where US troop concentrations are the highest. Outside Baghdad conditions have improved little. Violence in Northern Iraq is increasing. Once the quietest region in the country, tensions are on the rise as Turkey threatens to attack Kurdish insurgents."
384)
The latest good for America, bad for the Retreat and Surrender Caucus news update.
Bobo, you are so good at submitting articles with bias and incomplete facts! All the dems defeatist (?); hardly, but they do all want to get the real perpetrator of 911. And, where are the accompanying political accomplishments?
Why do you ignore all the generals and Dumya who have said only a political solution will solve Iraq now. Let's see, the Turks continuing to invade a near autonomous Northern Iraq, and Iran money is worth more and used more in Southern Iraq then ever before. Where is the oil deal and the compromises in the Iraqi government?
I'm glad our soldiers have after almost 5 years been able to do something without Dumya/Rummy interference, but it is nothing without the political effort from this president who has shown only failures in his foriegn policy!
I would submit that the Iraqi parliment is not any more disfunctional that the current Pelosi-Reid Congress currently sitting a an 11% approval rating.
Perhaps if the Democrat leadership could actually get anything done with compromise and accommodation instead of continually grandstanding, their Iraqi counterparts would be inspired to do the same.
Hey Bullsh!t in texas perhaps if the repugs in congress would support some of the bills the Democrats could do something.
The repugs will only endorse something the Decider wants.
When Democrats stood up when they were in the minority, Cons called them obstructionists.
However, now that the GOP is doing it, Cons are strangely silent.
Cons, not all of us have short attention spans. Does anyone remember the term "nuclear option"? I sure do.
Why aren't you calling the GOP obstructionists, Cons? Does your hypocrisy taste to good going down for you to let go of it? Why, Cons, why?
Hey - are you talkin LOGIC?!
You should know that Bobo in Texas is part of the same Republican Political Party machine that Karl Rove is a part of.
NOW do you understand?
Karl Rove/Bobo in Texas are single minded in their 'paid' quest to disseminate disinformation or twisted logic of the Neo-Con philosophy.
Just think of Bobo as a Karl Rove sock puppet. Yes - its important not to discount him - because - liek Karl Rove, they can prove to be perilouss to our nation.
I would caution you to think of Bobo and Karl this way - they are purveyors of a discredited, shameful ideeologie FIRST and FOREMOST. What happens to our nation due to the implementation of this ideeologie is well down the list of their concerns.
BOBO:
"Pelosi-Reid Congress currently sitting a an 11% approval rating."
Where do you get your numbers. I see 22.5% for Congress collectively and 36% for Congressional Democrats in particular.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
BOBO:
"don't you think that all-time record low approval ratings for the Pelosi-Reid Congress are worthy of note?"
You are ignoring the fact that a little less than half of the members in Congress are REPUBLICANS and that Congress' low approval ratings are partially attributed to the fact that Democrat-sponsored legislation has been obstructed and vetoed by Republican congressmen and Bush.
Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between the job approval rating of an individual (like Bush's) and that of an institution. Bush's 29% job approval rating reflects directly on the public's perception of his job performance.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
The poll that has Congress at 11% is this Reuters/Zogby Index. It goes month by month and yes CURRENTLY congress is at 11% for November, same in September and October 11%. In August congres had a rating of 15%.
This is an interesting poll ya should give it a look. Bottom line Americans think our gov is screwing the pooch.
http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/rzi
The Reuters/Zogby Index Election '08
The RZI asks voters the same questions every month to gauge how America is feeling as the presidential race accelerates.
The Index Breakdown
Respondents who rated President Bush's job performance excellent or good, in 28%
Rated Congress's job performance excellent or good 11%
Said the U.S. is headed in the right direction 24%
Rated the performance of U.S. foreign policy excellent or good 20%
Rated the performance of U.S. economic policy excellent or good 27%
Rated their personal financial situation excellent or good 55%
Said they were very or fairly proud of the U.S. 89%
Felt very or fairly safe when thinking about threats to America from abroad 79%
Felt very or fairly secure in their current job 65%
Very or fairly confident their children will have a better life than they do 61.5%
INJEST:
"The poll that has Congress at 11% is this Reuters/Zogby Index."
Oh, ok. I see now. Although, I'm not quite sure why the Reuters/Zogby Index should be any more reliable than the ones I cited. For example, Reuters relies on a single poll (11%) while the RealClearPolitics averages several national polls:
Fox News: 26%
Gallup: 20%
AP Ipsos: 25%
NBC: 19%
RealClearPolitics.Com Average: 22.5%
My sources also split the approval rating among Congressional Democrats (36% in one and 48.3% in the other) vs. Congressional Republicans (32% in one and 38% in the other).
What's interesting is that Congress' approval rating as a whole sits ~22.5%, yet Congress' approval rating by party is ~36% for Democrats and ~32% Republicans--both higher than the 22.5% for Congress as a whole! Strange isn't it? Well, actually it's not if you read my other posts below explaining the difference between the approval numbers of an individual and that of a group of individuals.
"Oh, ok. I see now. Although, I'm not quite sure why the Reuters/Zogby Index should be any more reliable than the ones I cited. For example, Reuters relies on a single poll (11%) while the RealClearPolitics averages several national polls:"
Actually Reuters is 1 poll and Zogby is another 2 polls total. Is 1 more accurate than the others? Who knows. It is interesting that the Reuters/Zogby Index keeps asking the same questions and tracking them
However, Congress' collective "job approval rating" is more of a reflection of the public's disdain for the institution of Congress (and its current impotence in standing up to the White House). That is why almost all members of Congress poll higher INDIVIDUALLY than Congress as an institution polls collectively.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_CON...
"But unlike the president, Congress usually has low approval ratings no matter which party is in control, and poor poll numbers have not always meant the majority party suffered on Election Day. Voters usually show more disdain for Congress as an institution than for their own representative - whom they pick. A majority in a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey in late June said Democratic control of Congress was good for the country."
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2007/05...
"Congress is rarely loved. In the 17 years since 1990, Congressional approval has risen above 50% only twice...For the vast majority of the time since 1990, approval of Congress has been below 45% and below 40% . In 1995, approval stood at just over 30% and did not break 40% until mid-1997. By contrast, Presidents routinely enjoy approval over 50% and are seen as in some trouble politically when their approval falls below 50%. President Bush's lengthy record below 40% is unusually low and long...In this light, while approvals of 35% apiece may be numerically equal, the political implications are not the same. The most obvious difference is that in 2007 Congressional approval has been rising while that of the President has been stagnant. Democrats in Congress are not enjoying very high levels of approval, but they are doing considerably better than Republicans."
"Congress is rarely loved. In the 17 years since 1990, Congressional approval has risen above 50% only twice...For the vast majority of the time since 1990, approval of Congress has been below 45% and below 40%"
True! But why did you leave out that Congressional approval has only been BELOW 20% 4 times since 1973? 1973, 1992, 2007, 2007. Is there a pattern here?
It's only below 20% in the Zogby poll.
First, the average across the other 4 polls is above 20%.
Secondly, you are implying that there will be a change in power in Congress, with Republicans regaining control. But there are far more Republican seats up for grabs in the 2008 election than Democratic seats. And most analysts are predicting that Democrats will increase their majority after 2008.
"There is a famous question in political science: "why do voters hate Congress but love their Congressman?" The simple answer is that the institution is a convenient whipping boy for the President but also for its own members. Many members (who often enjoy personal approval levels well above 50%) run for reelection by running against Congress as an institution. The result is approval ratings of the Congress that are poor in comparison to those of the President or of its individual members. Thus it becomes a dangerous thing to make direct comparisons of Presidential and Congressional approval. The two are quite different in their norms and dynamics."
http://www.policyattitudes.org/ems3.htm
"Why, if Americans are dissatisfied with how the government represents them, do they elect and then reelect their members of Congress? One possible explanation may be that, though they perceive a problem with the aggregate behavior of Congress, they are less apt to see this problem in the behavior of their own member. Numerous polls have found that respondents give substantially higher approval ratings to their own members than to Congress as a whole. In November 1998 47% approved and 45% disapproved "of the way the US Congress has been handling its job." But 62% approved and only 14% disapproved of the way their own representative had been handling his or her job—a difference of 16 points between the approval of Congress and their own representative. Comments in the focus groups also suggest that Americans see the problem with the government as being a function of the system as a whole, rather than with individuals."
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-5853(1997...
"The analysis presented below supports the hypothesis that citizens' attitudes toward Congress respond in the aggregate to veto overrides, intra-Congress conflict, and the passage of major bills."
And FYI:
Bush's approval: 33.1%
Congressional Democrats: 36% or 48.3%
(in fairness, I'm a little unsure of 48.3% figure since it's unclear to what "Generic Congressional Vote" refers)
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
They were obstructionist, for the simple reason that they opposed practically everything for purely partisan advantage.
Perhaps you also remember that the Republican majority was widely criticized for not "reaching out" to the minority and acting in a "bipartisan way". I'm simply holding the Dem's to their own standard that they droned on about for seven years. The need to learn to compromise, at least enough to get basic items like the budget passed which hasn't happened since the Pelosi-Reid Congress became the majority almost 2 years ago.
Hey - aint NOBODY that does OBSTRUCTION as well as us Conservatives!!
Dont you remember them 8 Clinton years!?
We orchestrated a media campaign all around a fake scandal called White Water all so we could harrass and obstruct any movement by Clinton - who we Christian Conservatives hated with a blind fury that is STILL unexplained - other than that our Right Wing media told us to hate him.
In fact - there is NO GREATER example of obstructionism than when our own loveable hypocrite, Newt Gingrich SHUT DOWN the entire goverment in a little tiff with Billy Boye!!
See what little regard we Conservatives care for National Security?
With Osama runnin around blowin up US facilities - Newt Shut Down the Goverment!!
Just think if Osama had attacked us THEN!
Well - we Neo-Cons dont care.
We Neo-Cons dont even LIEK the ding dang seculirist goverment.
This article is nothing but rhetoric!!
I am so tired of hearing all this wish wash of moral judgment about what we are doing in Iraq and why. It would be one thing if what you guys are arguing about was at all true, but it's not true, none of this is true, and every moral argument is a moot point because of that.
If someone would just write an article and replace the words "we want to spread democracy" with the words "we desperately need to control more oil", then maybe Americans will start to get the picture of who we are as a country and what we have become and will resort to to get it. Remember also that WE elect who will run this place and make decisions for us. So in the end, this is our fault, or is it?
This may seem a bit off track to some, but I believe this whole dem/rep argument is too distract us and keep us busy so that the World Bank and The Reserve can keep running smoothly and keep it's control over the economy...
Cont.
If that doesn't work, then they lie to us and feed us false info to buy time, all to sooth the over stuffed pockets of mega corporations who barrow federal funds... so how does this tie into Iraq and this argument?
Well, I'll leave that to someone who knows a little more about foreign economic structure, but this IS the only reason we are in Iraq, if there were no oil, we wouldn't be there period. Also the fact that many countries are switching their trading currency to EU for oil was a huge factor as well.
So does it matter if you vote dem/rep in the election? Why would it matter if anyone you elected has the same ideology?
If you swing with the The Fed and World Bank, you're guaranteed a set life as a politician, you get perks, money, you and you're family are set for life, all you have to do is play along and do what you're told, and whatever happens, you take all the risk personally, even going to jail for these slugs, but hey, they're still set for life...
Cont.
So it's the bankers and greed that gives power to the political people that will help them the most, greed and money shapes our government now, you're choices of what you perceive to be a moral difference between candidates(dem/rep), leads you only to the same ideology.
Suffice it to say, The Fed and more so The World Bank have been controlling us and buying congress and the White House since the beginning of the century and beyond, and has set it's hooks into the American people who have no choice any longer. Any politician who wants to do the right thing for the American people, well, I believe that culminated on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas. We were shown what happens to people who go against the Fed and organized crime and want to make this country great again. That day a big part of America died with him.
There isn't a Democrat or Republican in any true sense of the word to be found in Washington, so it is fruitless to argue morals that don't even exist today.
"So does it matter if you vote dem/rep in the election? Why would it matter if anyone you elected has the same ideology?"
--It matters. The difference between the two parties is like night and day.
Which is really my point, it only matters if the people you elect do what they said they would do to get elected and do it for you and the people. It doesn't matter whether they're dem or rep, what matters is that they're honest to the American people and their vow to uphold the constitution.
I believe right now, with most of the fore running candidates, we seem to hear and see differences on TV and newspapers, but we know TV and newsprint can be bought and sold just like politicians, and everything is biased one way or the other.
These politicians all come from the same place, they're all on the same side off the fence. Dem/rep? Bla bla bla, it's all hogwash and all it does is create drama. It hasn't meant anything to the politicians for 40 years, they use the parties perceived differences to give us moral arguments so we won't notice what really just happened. Drama buys and takes precious time, and we argue it hook, line and sinker.
I'm just not falling for it anymore.
"Which is really my point, it only matters if the people you elect do what they said they would do to get elected and do it for you and the people."
--That seems a bit simplistic. How realistic is it to anticipate that our every elected official will always be able to adhere to the exact letter of all of his or her campaign promises when we both know that unforeseen circumstances can sometimes make doing so either imprudent or impossible? And isn't at least part of doing it "for you and the people" working to achieve a degree of political power sufficient to accomplish the people's agenda?
"It hasn't meant anything to the politicians for 40 years, they use the parties perceived differences to give us moral arguments so we won't notice what really just happened."
--I guess I'm a little more optimistic than most and I think we as individuals bear the responsibility of filtering out much of the noise in the media to which you refer.
Immigration reform was started, I believe, to get American minds off the war for a moment and to mask what this administration did to our constitution, signing many directives to Homeland Security that are detrimental to our so called 'free society'. You are probably going ask yourself, "what directives?"
So, while we are arguing about immigration and party bashing, Shrub signs one of many directives this year, on may 9th, that would give himself sole authority over all branches of government in case of a "terrorist attack" or "disaster", and where is immigration reform today? Which democrat ever said he would reform immigration to get elected? Who would have voted for them anyway? It was a ploy, a diversionary tactic by some, (not all) to keep us and the media away from the important things that happened.
It actually is more simplistic, but they brainwash us to think we have this great moral diversity which keeps us from uniting, divided we fall.
bobo (whicch is the name of a monkey anyhow) the genius:
Quote: "became the majority almost 2 years ago"
January 2007 is "almost 2 years ago"??..
No wonder why you are so off..You count like a chimp..
11 months ago was NOT 2 years!!
Gee, I made a mistake and now I'm a monkey. How grown-up of you.
Almost as 'grown up' as you - for inventin derogatory labels liek the "Retreat and Surrender Caucus" - to demean those who attempt to hold accountable the incompetents who twisted intelligence to promote the Iraq war.
Oh - and to those who try to hold an administration accountable for the Treason of 'outing' a CIA operative.
What do you expect from people who think consenting adults in an illicit affair is as bad or worse than lying to send fine young Americans to die for .... (what is Dumya's reason today, its changed so often)!
Here you go buddy. Do yourself a favor and read this. The dems were screaming about wmds in Iraq and calling for war years before President Bush was even elected.
http://videos.propeller.com/story/2007/10/01/vi...
So basically, President Bush did not lie.
Tang, that is why the Duelfer Report and 911 Commision said they were all basically destroyed in '98, so any quotes you right wingers bring up from '98 and earlier are valid from either side, but not good for 2003. Then if you take the canned intell Dumya used after '98, most of which was already refuted by the CIA, you do get Dems agreeing with the Bush lies or they are trashed. heck, only recently has Tenet admitted he could have stopped the lies, but didn't. Dems want to believe their president. It is hard for the average American to believe a president would lie and deceive so much, and at the cost of our young soldiers lives!
Cheney, the VP who visited the CIA more than any other VP, didn't get what he wanted, so he had Rummy create a new intel gathering group in the Pentagon to get Cheney the lies he wanted. Its all there in several books: 911 to Abu Ghraib, Assasin's Gate, Cobra II and Joe Wilson's book... if you care to really know the truth.
Oh yah, I forgot the book FIASCO too!
" The dems were screaming about wmds in Iraq and calling for war years before President Bush was even elected."
Very true because they saw a quick way to get re-elected by cashing in on the war rhetoric. Very patriotic and patronizing of them at the time. Now it is patriotic and patronizing to be anti-war now that the dust has settled and the WMD issue has been tactfully presented as a non-issue that was used as a form of political misdirection to have an emotional issue to go to war against Saddam.
You're right ..he's too stupid to lie. He just allowed and encouraged those around him to fabricate evidence, which really wasn't evidence, and then got people like Colin Powell to damage their integrity by lying for him..Now, what is worse is that he is too stubborn to admit that it was wrong and makes up any excuse to allow more young Americans to die...
He is worse than a liar, he is the Evil Wizard of senseless death..
and now all of those AlQuaida badguys who we were better off fighting there than here, who we "drew in" to figjht ovwr there instead of here are "scattering and fleeing"..
So now how do we fight them??...
Remember, that was YOUR plan! (as full of bull as it was)
By the way, RONALD REAGAN sold/gave them those WMD's, just as he and George Sr. supplied the Taliban..Are they better
at supplying our enemy or distorting the truth??
No..just making fun of your name..
As I have been called Mr. muffin, powderpuff etc..
but, BoBo is a clown's name and monkey..Unless you remember BoBo Brazil the wrestler..
I own a coffe cake company..
You're not a bad guy, you just defend one..
"Perhaps you also remember that the Republican majority was widely criticized for not "reaching out" to the minority and acting in a "bipartisan way"."
I clearly remember Cons rubbing MANDATES in our faces. Now that the GOP has been bounced, Cons suddenly do not recall their position on mandates. Imagine that, a Con not recalling?
I remember when Cons rubbed polls in our faces telling us that the nation wanted war. Now that the polls have flipped, Cons suddenly do not recall their position on polls.
How exactly would you like the Democrats to compromise? They put forth proposals and all they get back from The Grumpy Obstructionist Party is, "Nuh Unh!!!" It's a little hard to compromise when the sore losing opposition STILL isn't interested in participating.
What do you expect from a party of the Contract to America lies and the only convictions at the presidential cabinet level for three different administrations (watergate, Iran Contra and now Plamegate) in modern times?
"When Democrats stood up when they were in the minority, Cons called them obstructionists."
And the Dems replied " Were the opposition party, that's what we do Opposes"
Welcome to politics 101
jrmunro said:
"Hey Bullsh!t in texas perhaps if the repugs in congress would support some of the bills the Democrats could do something.
The repugs will only endorse something the Decider wants".
Hey Dumbsh!t, correct me if I'm wrong (and You know I'm not) didn't congress just over ride a Presidential veto? Why yes they did!
Could that happen without Republican support? Why no it can't.
So is it fair to say jrmunro your clueless on basic facts? Why yes it is!
whoopi that`s one out of how many.I guess that makes the repugs good in your eyes they supported the Democrats once.I wonder what they got in return. I guess we`ll find that out later.
whoopi that`s one out of how many.I guess that makes the repugs good in your eyes they supported the Democrats once.I wonder what they got in return. I guess we`ll find that out later
That jrmunro is because you make it soooo simple to prove you wrong. It only takes 1 example when you state.
"The repugs will only endorse something the Decider wants".
Key word: ONLY, this is an ABSOLUTE word. Don't use it unless you know you have an ABSOLUTE FACT, or your 12 years old
Injest, the Repugs still support Dumya on the big items: torture, preemptive war, demanding accountability for the war/sole source contracts, loss of habeas corpus, Gitmo, eavesdropping without a warrant, Cheney's not giving up files, Dumya's advisors not testifying regardless of national security not being involved, 10 million more poor children getting health insurance.... so how more unscrupulous can you get as a party? Finally, these Repugs would never join to convict on impeachment! Party over the rule of law and conscience on what counts... and the repugs fail as human beings!
Donald51
Injest, the Repugs still support Dumya on the big items: torture, preemptive war, demanding accountability for the war/sole source contracts, loss of habeas corpus, Gitmo, eavesdropping without a warrant, Cheney's not giving up files,
Schip wasn't a BIG issue/item? If it wasn't why push for and get a veto override?
If that wasn't why should I believe these others are "big items"?
BTW, on the rest of your list, the Dems support those things as well. If they didn't they wouldn't have happened.
Do you need me to beat you over the head point by point with each and everyone of the items on your list?
injest,
"Hey Dumbsh!t, correct me if I'm wrong (and You know I'm not) didn't congress just over ride a Presidential veto? Why yes they did!"
"Could that happen without Republican support? Why no it can't."
You just proved the point that the Democrats cannot get anything done in Congress without Republican support. This really does put the blame of an inept Congress back on the shoulders of uncooperative and uncompromising Republicans.
Unfortunately, this discussion is merely a distraction away from the real talking points of the article.
"You just proved the point that the Democrats cannot get anything done in Congress without Republican support."
Oh please stop with the "victim whining" this IS how congress HAS acted for the last 200 years.
Nothing gets done unless there is across isle support. WE elect split government to ensure this. It is rare, vary rare to have 1 party in charge of the Congress and the Executive branches. Educate your self and research it in a historical sense, like over the last 200 years.
injest,
I don't understand your "victim whining" reference. I was pointing out how your quote proves that the Democratic Congress, which you have stated many times on how low their approval ratings are and how they are now the problem (as a Democratic majority), has minimal power with a mere 51-48 majority.
You can rant and name call all you want, but you can't deny that you've said what you said. And, what you said proves what many have stated. Between Bush and the Republican Senate, Democrats will remain ineffective. It will take another Congressional election and a Democratic President to make any real change. Even then the course we've been steered toward will be hard to break free from. Although, I'm hoping that we can at least get a reasonable and sane President this time that isn't going to flush us further down the crapper.
Well BoBo, bushie and his zioncons are becoming irrelevant in Iraq, as in America. Can they fool you long enough to "cut and run" before the elections?
U.S. Scales Back Political Goals for Iraq
...Bush administration has lowered its expectation of achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections...
... American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after recent improvements in security â;; which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure "reconciliation" among Iraq's deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, officials now refer "accommodation." ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25...
BOBO:
"good for America, bad for the Retreat and Surrender Caucus news update."
Here's the truth. In 2006, there were 822 fatalities according to the DoD. Thus far in 2007, there have already been 871 fatalities.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
hhttp://ww...">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/iraq-...
"The toll of US soldiers killed in Iraq reached 853 this week, making 2007 the deadliest year for US forces since the 2003 invasion. With nearly two months remaining in 2007, US troop deaths in Iraq are set to far exceed the 850 killed in 2004, the highest previous annual total. While attacks on US troops and sectarian killings may have fallen in recent months, the decline appears to be mainly limited to the Baghdad area, where US troop concentrations are the highest. Outside Baghdad conditions have improved little. Violence in Northern Iraq is increasing. Once the quietest region in the country, tensions are on the rise as Turkey threatens to attack Kurdish insurgents."