Congress’ Poll Numbers as Bad as Bush’s

by Sean Hackbarth

After being given the majority the Democrats need to earn the voters’ trust by governing in a responsible manner. They have to contrast a Democratic Congress with a Republican one they claimed was ineffective.

So far, the public rates Congress as highly as President Bush:

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

The divide between Bush and Congress on Iraq has sucked up all the political energy. Few other things are getting done. But it is a liberal Democratic Congress. Not getting bills passed isn’t a bad thing.

The time could soon be ripe for a populist third party candidate. That person would have to be charismatic like Ross Perot but without the nuttiness. New York mayor Mike Bloomberg wouldn’t cut it.

Sen. John McCain at one point was in a position to go third party. He distanced himself far from President Bush. The press adored his “maverick” label. A grand union with Sen. Joe Lieberman would have gotten people talking as much as people are talking about Fred Thompson. But McCain wants the Republican nomination, and he’s gunning for core conservative support.

There’s a vacuum in the body politic waiting to be filled. A vast number of voters want a fresh voice. The opportunity is there.

“Poll: Congress’ Approval Same As Bush”

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

13 Responses to “Congress’ Poll Numbers as Bad as Bush’s”

1

We had a little debate about this a few weeks ago which I guess you missed. If you look closer at the more detailed numbers, you see that the Democratic parts of congress actually get really high approval ratings, like they always do. It’s the Republican side of congress that, as always, drags the whole thing down.

The American people understand that with only a one-vote majority and an antagonistic president, there’s not exactly a whole lot congressional Democrats can do except investigate. (Luckily, the polls show that’s exactly what people want.) The reason that Congress’s approval ratings as a whole are so low is because people are fed up with the obstructionist agenda of Bush and Republicans.

And the numbers prove it. Not a story you’ll hear from the media, of course, which is too busy promoting the false narrative of “everything that happens is bad for Democrats.”

2

Chet,

What are you smoking. Spin away it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that the democrats have not done one thing in 5 months besides have a couple witch hunts. No bills, soldiers being killed everyday in Iraq and they stall funding for our troops in hopes of “picking up some seats”. Gas has hit $3.00/gal again and I see no Democrat at the gas pumps whinning about the price of gas this time. Last year before the election you couldn’t pump gas without running over a democrat to get to the pump. You also have an uptick in graft in Congress with Feinstein and Jefferson’s, Murtha (abscam) names coming up with a D beside it instead of an R. So the AMerican voter voted for change and what did we get? same old same old except this time they want to raise our taxes, take our freedoms away in the name of Global warming, etc etc. And I personally think the biggest reason for the decline is the failure of the Congress to pass noticable ethic reform. The people are sick of corruption and hyporcisy.

3

The previous two comments add little clarity to the debate. Chet brings up a good point- prior polls did show that Democrats in Congress polled a good deal higher that Republicans in Congress and Congress as a whole. I haven’t seen this new AP poll so I don’t know if this is still the case.

My assumption is that the lack of meaningful action on Iraq is why Congress polled so low rather than Chet’s view of an obstructionist president and GOP minority.

Unseen, you’re smoking exactly what Chet is smoking. Polls approve of the congressional investigations. And the House has approved a number of ethics rules and I believe each house has passed ethics legislation (Sean had a story on this about a week ago). Your suggestion that the Democrats want to give away our freedoms in the name of global warming is pure gibberish until you provide a single fact to support your assertion.

Get your eyes checked (or simply check the Washington Post) if you fail to see Democrats complaining about high gas prices.

4

No bills, soldiers being killed everyday in Iraq and they stall funding for our troops in hopes of “picking up some seats”.

They got funding through faster than any of the three previous years of Republican congresses. True fact. No “stalling” occurred – but George Bush vetoed a bill that would have funded his own war. Who exactly is stalling, now?

Gas has hit $3.00/gal again and I see no Democrat at the gas pumps whinning about the price of gas this time.

WTF? Do you even read this blog? Or did you just conveniently forget Sean’s bitch-fest about Sen. Schumer’s investigation into gas price fixing and refinery “shortages”?

You’re astoundingly ignorant of the facts.

5

One example. Hmmm let’s see. Mandating CFL that’s one. Proposing higher gas milage on consumers even when those consumers show by their pocket books that they would rather have SUV’s than subcompact cars. That’s two. Gore proposing that we sign on to Koyoto treaty which will mandate CO2 levels being monitored by the UN not the US. That’s three.

Democrats complaining about high gas prices at the gas stations? Nope haven’t seen any lately not since the election that is. I also have not seen any laws or funding bills having anything to do to help at the pump. No major energy policy changes, no major projects to get us off of other countries’ oil, no call to drill more of our own oil, no call to fund a switch to nuclear, solar, wind, hydrogen, tidal power. In short nothing. No major bills, just alot of hotair. If we want to reduce CO2 emmisions than we should gag Congress. That would cut down the CO2 rate by 1/3 at least.

Show me a poll that supports the witch hunts. To date not one of these investigations have turned up ANY wrong doing. NOT one. Even Libby investigation failed to turn up one adminstration wrong doing. They are nothing but Political posturing by the DEMS. The AG is a good case. So what if the President or the AG fired 8 DA’s. Last time I looked I could be fired if I was not doing as my boss requested. Clinton fired 93. Bush should have fired all of them when he came into office. The longer the witch hunts go on the more the American people will be turned off by them. Look at Clinton’s Impeachment and the effects on the REPS poll numbers at that time for an example of this.

For 5 months of witch hunts we have nothing.

As far as ethics each chamber has passed nonbinding rules. They have not passed any laws to require these ethics be followed. A ZOBY poll in march stated that 68.5% of people believed that corruption is a BIG problem in Congress. HMmm 35% approval 100-35=65 Hmmmm I wonder if there is a corrolation? Nah…It’s the war. Yeah that’s it. Its the war. It has nothing to do with ethics or corruption. Nope nothing at all.

To sum up this post. It appears that the DEMS have decided the best way to win votes in 2008 is to do nothing but “investigations”, call Bush a “liar/idiot/evil/fill in the blank, and to pass laws that have no chance of passage to appease their base. They are not working for the greater good of our country, our soldiers, or our citizens on anything. They have one branch of government. Until 2008 for the good of the country they must work with the WH to pass meaningful laws that will help solve a host of the nations ills.

Until they do this. They are just as much to blame as Bush. And the American people see and understand that.

6

“They got funding through faster than any of the three previous years of Republican congresses. True fact. No “stalling” occurred – but George Bush vetoed a bill that would have funded his own war. Who exactly is stalling, now?”

You know and I know Congress held back the bill so that it showed up on the Presidents desk on the 4th “Mission Acomplished” date. Pure grandstanding nothing more. Bush vetoed a bill that would have given victory to our enemies. How is that stalling. Give the President the money to do what needs doing or cut off the funds. Quit playing games with our soldiers lives.

I didn’t see the Senator from NY at any gas stations this year so far have you. Maybe I missed the politcal grandstanding this year since it wasn’t an election year I don’t look for any either. Of course he has began more “investigations” on the problem. For some reason the Congress must “investigate” for years on end before they even start to fix some of the problems. Could it be because they get alot of campaign money from big oil? Nah that can’t be it. Goes right back to corruption doesn’t it?

7

Well looks like the Congress is going to have less approval than Bush.

This should knock Congress down another 5-10%

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3165636

Lobbying Reform Losing Steam in House

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They’re also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats’ campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

8

So what if the President or the AG fired 8 DA’s.

As it turns out, firing AG’s based on their loyalty to Republicans is against the law.

Just a heads-up. If it were legal to fire AG’s on that basis, Gonzales wouldn’t be doing his little kabuki dance on capital hill, now would he?

Bush should have fired all of them when he came into office.

The 8 men and women he fired were his own appointees. Wrong on the facts, as usual.

You know and I know Congress held back the bill so that it showed up on the Presidents desk on the 4th “Mission Acomplished” date.

I know no such thing, and neither do you. And until you have some facts to back up your conspiracy theories you’re just making it obvious what a moonbat you are.

9

“As it turns out, firing AG’s based on their loyalty to Republicans is against the law.”

Wrong again: The law states :

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000546—-000-.html

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—
(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

and it also states:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000541—-000-.html

a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

Section C is the Key here. It says they serve at the whim of the President. End of story. He can fire them for any reason except if they are conducting a corruption case in which his party or he is the subject. Even then the firing would be legal but he would be obstructing justice which is illegal.

“The 8 men and women he fired were his own appointees. Wrong on the facts, as usual.”

They were appointed during his first term. Per the above law their 4 year term was up and they were living on borrowed time. The WH determined that they were not doing what was requested by their boss and were let go. end of story.

” I know no such thing, and neither do you”

Oh really? It was a coincidence that the Speaker took almost an entire week to “read” and sign a bill that she had already VOTED for. AND this “reading” just happened to take the exact time needed to land the bill on the President’s desk on the 4th anniversary of the “Mission Accomplished” date. If you do not understand the political grandstanding at issue here, maybe you do not have the required intelligence to debate the issue. If you would like to learn all about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01cong.html?ei=5088&en=28d2e2c463f87dc0&ex=1335672000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1178971293-yZwlkno4iFeRnq2ysmu5PA

So what we have is Congress acting unconstitutional in two different cases. The Congress has no power to say why and how a United States attorney can be fired. It does have the power to advise and consent on the hiring not the firing. Secondly the Congress has no power to conduct a war. It can declare war and it can defund/fund a war but it has NO power to conduct war. Congress should instead of witch hunts concentrate on the powers it does have. Funding/defunding the war, passing laws for the good of the COUNTRY (not their party) and dealing with corruption within itself.

10

The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

None of the new guys were approved by the Senate. And firing an AG to prevent investigation of certain crimes, which is obviously what happened in the case of Carol Lam, is obstruction of justice (at the very least) and very illegal.

And, again, if it weren’t illegal to fire AG’s based on their loyalty to a political party, Gonzales wouldn’t be desperate to conceal the fact that that’s exactly what he did. Your cut-and-paste doesn’t explain why Gonzales has been so dishonest on this issue.

The WH determined that they were not doing what was requested by their boss and were let go.

There’s zero evidence of that, and the White House’s “explanations” of what exactly the AG’s weren’t doing has flip-flopped more times than Mitt Romney in a debate. These AG’s clearly were performing admirably in any objective respect – one of the guys they fired had one of the top prosecution records in the Justice department. The only thing they weren’t was sufficiently loyal to the Bush administration to suborn perjury and obstruct justice at their request. These AG’s were fired because they refused to put politics over justice – and firing them for that reason is against the law, 100%. You simply couldn’t be more wrong on this issue – which is why Gonzales is getting hammered on capital hill.

Congress should instead of witch hunts concentrate on the powers it does have.

Investigation is one of those powers, and to the extent that the Bush administration has engaged in one illegal expansion of power after another, I’m more than happy for congress to exercise oversight of those activities – and the American people agree.

11

“I’m more than happy for congress to exercise oversight of those activities – and the American people agree. ”

Oh I agree Congress should exercise oversight. And if they are going to exercise oversight they should clean their own house first. Feinstein and Jefferson come to mind. Failure to investigate their own along with Republicians shows them for what they are political hacks.

Several Republician crooks have been found guilty of fraud and have been punished (during a REP controlled admin and Congress). I expect the same from the DEMS. Instead we get witch hunts only against REPs. If you try to tell me only REPs are guilty of abuse of power you’ll be lying.

“And, again, if it weren’t illegal to fire AG’s based on their loyalty to a political party, Gonzales wouldn’t be desperate to conceal the fact that that’s exactly what he did. Your cut-and-paste doesn’t explain why Gonzales has been so dishonest on this issue.”

It looks bad political. The law is the law and under the law they did nothing wrong. The problem with the Bush admin is they will not fight back. They let the Defeatocrats form the debate. They play on defense. What the AG should have said is we fired them. Tough it was in our power and they are gone end of story. But that would have looked bad POLITICALLY so they started trying to explain themselves. Anyone who knows anything about witch hunts knows that if you dig deep enough you will find some little thing that doesn’t appear on the surface to be ok.

Hell they found enough evidence of witchcraft in Salem to execute people. At the time most believed they were witches. Were they?

“And firing an AG to prevent investigation of certain crimes, which is obviously what happened in the case of Carol Lam, is obstruction of justice (at the very least) and very illegal.”

Hmmm if this was the case then those investigations would be dead in the water then Right? If that was what the purpose was. Right? I mean if the firing of Lam was the DOJ version of a cover up they probably would have had the case dropped after the firings. Right? Well well it appears that’s not the case imagine that:

Exits of two U.S. attorneys didn’t slow probes of GOP lawmakers, sources say

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-yang11may11,1,4879835.story?coll=la-news-politics-california

Let me repeat this one last time. The firings were due to differences of views on which cases should take the limelight. It was also in response to political debts owed IMO. But all of this is moot. Because as the LAW states the USDA’s serve at the whim of the President and the AG. Period end of story.

Show me one law broken. And I will agree with you that the oversight function should be continued in this case. However after months of “oversight” Congress can not find even one law broken. So let’s stop GRANDSTANDING for the left wing of the party that have BDS and move on to the people’s business.

12

Feinstein and Jefferson come to mind.

Jefferson is under investigation, so I’m not sure what you think you’re talking about. And I don’t know what you think Feinstein did.

If you try to tell me only REPs are guilty of abuse of power you’ll be lying.

No, but only a moonbat could conclude that they’re not the most guilty, by far. And I notice you make no mention of the Republican minority leadership replacing the corrupt John Dolittle with the corrupt Ken Calvert. Probably because, to you, corruption can only be what Democrats do.

The problem with the Bush admin is they will not fight back.

When has that ever been true? The Bush administration always fights back. Honestly, your view of the poor, benighted Bush administration doesn’t square with the facts – if they had grounds to stand on, those grounds would be all over their house organ Fox News, for starters.

They’re floundering because they’re guilty as hell on this and they know it.

Hmmm if this was the case then those investigations would be dead in the water then Right?

They did go dead in the water. Lam had announced her intention to expand the Cunningham bribery investigation beyond Duke Cunningham; then, suddenly, she was let go. As a result the investigation was not expanded.

The firings were due to differences of views on which cases should take the limelight.

Right. That’s obstruction of justice, clear and simple.

So let’s stop GRANDSTANDING for the left wing of the party that have BDS and move on to the people’s business.

The people’s business is the investigation of lawbreaking by the executive branch, an agenda supported by a majority of Americans.

13

[...] There may be as much discontent for the major parties as Hagel thinks. However, I can’t see Hagel or Michael Bloomberg leading the charge. Neither of these men have sparkling personalities. Hagel has become the dour curmugeon Republican always complaining about his party. At the moment he says the Republican Party has “been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors.” Bloomberg, the bland billionaire mayor, is best known for banning smoking in his city’s bars. That type of leadership wouldn’t play at all with populist middle Americans. [...]

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>