11% approval of the new Democratic controlled congress is proof positive that the american people don't like what they were sold last November!

11% approval of the new Democratic controlled congress is proof positive that the american people don't like what they were sold last November!

There is nothing more hilarious then when Democrats talk about their "mandate" from the American people when they have an 11% approval rating!!!!

Captured on hidden microphone in the stall next to mine, "I'm Larry Craig and I can count to eleven without using my toes. Wanna see?"

Ouch, and to think that they are nearing the margin of error...I'm sure that a lot of incumbents on both sides of the aisle are pretty nerbus right about now.

"There is nothing more hilarious then when Democrats talk about their "mandate" from the American people when they have an 11% approval rating!!!!"

Of course, the GOP assumes that the 11% approval rating is the sole responsibility of the Democrats, as if their behavior has been totally overlooked by the people.

OCU

Of course, the GOP assumes that the 11% approval rating is the sole responsibility of the Democrats, as if their behavior has been totally overlooked by the people.

The Democrats vociferously took control of Congress last November. Congress' ratings stayed the same for several weeks as the people waited for them to make their promised changes. The changes didn't come about. Congress's ratings subsequently plummeted.

Maybe the Democrats don't have sole responsibility for those numbers, but only a partisian hack would ignore the facts and not place the bulk of the blame where it belongs.

but only a partisian hack would ignore the facts and not place the bulk of the blame where it belongs.

On the fact that it now takes 60 votes in the senate to pass anything, and no one even blinks?

Maybe the Democrats don't have sole responsibility for those numbers, but only a partisian hack would ignore the facts and not place the bulk of the blame where it belongs.

Wow! Casting those stone in the glass house can be risky!

Do you honestly think the American people don't understand were the real problem lies!

"Maybe the Democrats don't have sole responsibility for those numbers, but only a partisian hack would ignore the facts and not place the bulk of the blame where it belongs."

Since the Republicans are on a record pace for fillibusters, you must be hoping the bulk of the country doesn't understand that 41 Senators and the sudden discovery of the Presidential veto pen can stop all Democratic initiatives in their tracks.

Maybe the Democrats don't have sole responsibility for those numbers, but only a partisian hack would ignore the facts and not place the bulk of the blame where it belongs.

A self retorting retort....Yep!

Do you honestly think the American people don't understand were the real problem lies!

11%. Lower than the president's numbers. Obviously they know.

but only a partisian hack would ignore the facts and not place the bulk of the blame where it belongs

Touched a few nerves, I see!

Ahem, Goatman

Democrats have a higher approval rating than Repulicans in Congress. Were it not for the Republicans, Congress's approvals would be higher.

In America, 50% identify themselves as Democrat, and only 32% of Republican.

Once a Democrat supermajority takes hold watch those numbers skyrocket upwards.

Democrats have a higher approval rating than Repulicans in Congress.

I'm not doubting you, but I'm curious where you got that fact.

In itself, I don't think the overall Congressional approval rating is all that meaningful. A more useful statistic is the approval rating of an individuals own Representative.

For both political parties, incumbents almost always win irregardless of how low the overall Congressional approval rating is.

11% approval of the new Democratic controlled congress is proof positive that the american people don't like what they were sold last November!

There is nothing more hilarious then when Democrats talk about their "mandate" from the American people when they have an 11% approval rating!!!!


Posted by Bowa


Gee, what an unexpected post!!

God you guys are preposterous.

There are REPUBS in the Congress, too, and it is ALWAYS easier to criticize an ENTITY than an INDIVIDUAL.

A more meaningful poll would be of INDIVIDUAL members - We both know that the DEMS would have higher ratings than the repubs, on average, as INDIVIDUALS.

Of course, if that were to be demonstrated, it would remove one of the staples of your diet: the willful misrepresentation and/or over simpflication of issues in order to fit them into your little bush world.

Don't be too hard on them, Midiman, despite their pathetic posts. Drowning men clutching at straws, you know.

The low approval rating for Congress is really an expression of the public's frustration about the Republicans' obstructionism. The same liars who whined so loudly about Democrat threats to fillibuster now do so as their normal way of doing business. The same right wing posters here who were so upset by the Dems threats to fillibuster now cheer on the party who will implode at the next election. I can't wait, American can't wait, the troops in Iraq can't wait, the world can't wait.
Do you think Bush will even show up at the next inauguration to welcome the incoming president or will he just sulk off into hiding with his head hanging in shame???

"11% approval of the new Democratic controlled congress is proof positive that the american people don't like what they were sold last November!"

YEAH!

I don't know what's sadder!

Six years of excuse making and responsibility shirking ------ or those very same excuse makers and responsibility shirkers now claiming ten months of performance is equitable to six years!

Either way it doesn't help the argument one bit and quite frankly makes you look retarded!

And when after the next election Congress maintains the status quo, it will still be the republican's fault, right? Either their filibusters, or they dug too deep of a hole to get out of or whatever. The party-of-no-blame will find a way to turn it into a republican issue even if they had 90% majority.

Touched a few nerves, I see!
Posted by goatman at 2007-09-20 04:39 AM




YEAH!

A nerve ------ um, no!

However you seem to be running a clinic on how to insult intelligence!

Six years of excuse making and responsibility shirking ------ or those very same excuse makers and responsibility shirkers now claiming ten months of performance is equitable to six years!


Excuses? self retorting retort.

They are all the same. Dems or Repubs, they are all controlled by special interests. Until the special intrest groups are banned and dis-banded, this will not change.

Sawdust just hit it out the park. Well done.

""And when after the next election Congress maintains the status quo, it will still be the republican's fault, right?""

Well, let's just look at yesterday's failure of Webb's bill to give the troops the same amount of time home as in Iraq. If the Dems had a veto proof majority it would become the law of the land. That is not the status quo. Notice that the REpublican tactic of choice is to threaten fillibuster, in other words obstructionism. If the Dems were only trying to continue the status quo then why would the REpublicans need to threaten fillibuster or why would Bush need to veto bills???
Me thinks that the Republicans are hoping they can convince the public that the Dems are just like the Republicans but the facts just don't support that lie. Nice try though.

Yes, there is no difference between whether the special interest groups in question are big oil, big pharma, big insurance, big military contractors..... or whether they are environmentalists, teachers, doctors, or average wage workers.

Nope, no difference there.

You hit it right out of the park and into the next county, Corky.

If the Dems had a veto proof majority it would become the law of the land.

You are assuming all democrats would vote the party line. Don't get me wrong -- it's a safe assumption since voting records show that republicans are much more likely to be bipartisian. Still, you can cry filibuster (what whiners) but some democrats are splitting with their party.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the projected number of Republican filibusters for the end of this term? 153 just about triples the previous record.

The Democrats deserve their low approval rating. Look at the Webb amendment. It didn't pass becuase of the mere THREAT of a fillibuster. Why didn't the Dems force the GOP to fillibuster? Why aren't Republicans reading from a phone book right now?
Democrat leadership in Congress sucks right now.

If the Dems would defund the war and/or impeach Bush, their approval rating would go to 70%.

Funny stuff Corky, considering the $173B in new spending that Hillary has commited to before the primaries are even here.

""Still, you can cry filibuster (what whiners) but some democrats are splitting with their party.""

You're calling us whiners....hello??? Don't you remember the "nuclear option" and all the bleating when the Dems threatened to fillibuster a year or so ago???

Did you get that figure from WND?

And what does it have to do with special interest groups?

This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in -- and could increase -- the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

Fascinating. It's almost as if the Republicans want to lose power. Could it be that they know they will, anyway, so have decided to be cantankerous curmudgeons while doing so? Seems far-fetched but what other explanation fits this apparent determination to follow Bush over the cliff. It would be hilarious if they weren't trying to take the rest of us with them. But we ain't going.

You're calling us whiners....hello??? Don't you remember the "nuclear option" and all the bleating when the Dems threatened to fillibuster a year or so ago???

Yes I do. Are you saying since one side whines it makes it OK for the other?

OK. I guess there's nothing wrong with the libs lowering themselves to that level if they think it's necessary. It would sure be nice to see 'em take the high road, though.

And what does it have to do with special interest groups?



Posted by Corky

Take a look at who she is making the promises to. It certainly isn't Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public.

My sense is that Cingress' numbers are so bad because Congress is doing nothing to stop Bush and his war atrocity. We elected a Demo Congress last year for just that purpose and Nancy is cheer-leading the war effort. herm

You're calling us whiners....hello??? Don't you remember the "nuclear option" and all the bleating when the Dems threatened to fillibuster a year or so ago???

Yes I do. Are you saying since one side whines it makes it OK for the other?


No ... it means "the other" should make up its mind and stop offering up the criticism of something its own guys do.

The low approval rating for Congress is really an expression of the public's frustration about the Republicans' obstructionism.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-20 09:08 AM | Reply

Danni,
Help the rest of the class remember who created the current 60-vote albatross? Seems like it was just a short while ago when Bill Frist was talking about using the 'nuclear option.'

Politics is always entertaining, but watching Dems cry about tactics they invented is most amusing, in that typical, hypocritical tone they always have.

You're calling us whiners....hello??? Don't you remember the "nuclear option" and all the bleating when the Dems threatened to fillibuster a year or so ago???

That's the problem with childish tit for tat politics. Nothing gets done. If the Democrats want to look like heroes, they'll stop whining, belly up to the bar, stare down the republicans and declare, "give us your worst". They don't have the balls for that, though.

"It's almost as if the Republicans want to lose power."

They're blind if they can't see it's because they're trying to "outdemocrat" the democrats. They jumped into power by promising to carry out the conservative principles of limited government, frugal spending, and observance of the Constitution. They have abandoned all that and it has cost them.

Danni,
Help the rest of the class remember who created the current 60-vote albatross? Seems like it was just a short while ago when Bill Frist was talking about using the 'nuclear option.'

Politics is always entertaining, but watching Dems cry about tactics they invented is most amusing, in that typical, hypocritical tone they always have.

Posted by vernon


Well, that's certainly a mispresentation of historical fact (what a surprise). The dems didn;t invent the FILIBUSTER. Without cloture, debate could go on ENDLESSLY. Furhtermore, filibuster are REQUIRED ... the repubs could allow a vote (""up or down vote", "up or down vote"), if they chose to.

oops.

Filibusters are NOT required.

- It certainly isn't Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public.


Of course it is.... particularly in the form of health care reform. Making ins companies provide service to whomever applies, regardless of pre-existing conditions or income, isn't exactly a perk for the industry.

Dems may be franchisees of big business, but the GOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Yes, there is no difference between whether the special interest groups in question are big oil, big pharma, big insurance, big military contractors..... or whether they are environmentalists, teachers, doctors, or average wage workers.

Not to Hillary there isn't, as a matter of fact she is the friend of big business.

agreed, jest. and to use the much-overused phrase in politics, let me make this perfectly clear. both sides fillibuster, obstruct, etc. and both sides whine about it. it's politics as usual, and if you can't see that, it's time to pull that arrogant head out of your butt and pay attention.

Being friends with business isn't the problem.

The problem is GOP slavery to crony corporatists, letting them write their own laws and put their own people in positions of power in government.

The willing slave trade, the swinging door between corporations and government is the problem.

"If the Dems would defund the war and/or impeach Bush, their approval rating would go to 70%." - Norm

If that's indeed true, ask yourself WHY Dems aren't doing it. And, since Bush isn't going to change, shouldn't your frustration be directed toward the part of the equation you CAN influence - the Dems who took power vowing to end the war?

If people want to point fingers regarding "using our troops as political pawns" then perhaps the Dems take their share of blame. After all, if they truly wanted things to end, they'd continue to offer legislation apart from other legislation (remember the minimum wage battle?) in order to defund the troops.

They haven't. Instead, they've continued to dance around the issue, beating their chests all the while. Real leadership sometimes entails doing things which might be costly in the short term or perhaps unpopular. If Dems feel their cause is just, then they ought to LEAD in the area the Constitution provides: authorization of funding.

The reality is Dems don't want to be saddled with "defeat." Plain and simple. It's Bush's war, they say. Let him end it. Well, he's not ending it. So put up or shut up, basically. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

""but watching Dems cry about tactics they invented is most amusing, in that typical, hypocritical tone they always have.""

Except that the REpublicans are even threatening fillibusters on bills they agree with themselves just to try to create the talking point for use in the election that the Dems were a do nothing congress. Sorry, but the Dems never did that and it is really a very irresponsible tactic. The country has all kinds of problems and the Republicans, including the president, are more interested in playing politics (like stretching the war so that the next president will have to end it) than in governing.

""So put up or shut up, basically. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.""

Russ Feingold is saying now that it is time to cut off the funds. Ok, that's leadership but watch the Republicans now try to play partisan politics with it...."the Dems don't care about the troops bwaaaanh!"
"The Dems won't give the troops bullets"
"The Dems hate the troops"
"The Dems care more about money than the troops"

Russ Feingold is saying now that it is time to cut off the funds.
Posted by danni

Russ has been saying that for 3 years. It's the only thing Russ ever says.

They haven't. Instead, they've continued to dance around the issue, beating their chests all the while. Real leadership sometimes entails doing things which might be costly in the short term or perhaps unpopular. If Dems feel their cause is just, then they ought to LEAD in the area the Constitution provides: authorization of funding.

The reality is Dems don't want to be saddled with "defeat." Plain and simple. It's Bush's war, they say. Let him end it. Well, he's not ending it. So put up or shut up, basically. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Posted by OohRah


Don't fall over ... but I agree with you, escept for one specific detail- cutting off the funding. I would NEVER support anything that could put these guys in jeopardy.

But the dems ABSOLUTELY should force the repubs to filibuster this, because the repubs would have to explain why the troops can have their tours of duty extended, but don't deserve more time off afterward.

I would enjoy hearing them, and you, for that matter , explain THAT.

The Dems in Congress are a yellow-bellowed bunch of yeller dogs. All this shuffling and jiving about a bunch of loser plans to get out of Vi - I mean Iraq, is just a PR minstrel show, it means absolutely nothing. Am I the only idiot in the country who can't figure out why they won't just stop the Occupation funding? Republicans can't filibuster a bill that aint there! So, give Bush a funding bill for 1/2 what he wants, and say it's for withdrawal, not occupation. Then, let the Republistooges filibuster that! They can then take the blame for no funding bill. It's 1/2 or nothing, pal, take it or leave it! What a bunch of testosterone-challenged, puking, trembling, weak-kneed, painty-waisted Dem legislators! That's why they're at 11%! They disgust the nation!

Fuck it. Let's just spend ALL our money on Iraq and get it over with. $780,000,000,000 (billion) and counting. Gonna cost several hunder billion to replace all the equipment getting worn out there. Deficits (don't matter in Cheney's words) What did it get spent on?

Uh, $500,000,000,000 (billion) in interest on the natl debt Bush and the Republican Congress doubled. Tax cuts for people who don't need the money.

And people bitch about money getting spent here.

Happy?

Well, that's certainly a mispresentation of historical fact

Posted by midiman at 2007-09-20 10:06 AM | Reply

No, it's exactly what happened in the last session, when the Republicans had a slight majority. Dems threatened filibuster at every turn.

I was pissed that Frist wimped out. He should have forced a real filibuster, make everyone stay up all night, etc.

Now the Dems are getting a taste of their own bullshit, and wimpering about how the Republicans are a bunch of meanies.

BTW, I'm all for gridlocked government, regardless of who holds the gavel. When everyone plays nice we end up with an 'omnibudsman' bill loaded with billions in earmarks.

Hey Jerks!!!

During your assinine defense of your respective parties you missed the point...

That being that both parties...

a.) suck
b.) have thier head up thier ass
c.) haven't done jack shit for the American people
d.) but have have bent over backwards to line the pockets of the corporations who are thier true masters

"I would enjoy hearing them, and you, for that matter , explain THAT." - Midi

After getting over the, gulp, shock of your agreement...

I have a short window to post. The rest of the day is shot with business. Funny how that gets in the way sometimes.

Short answer: Companies ask workers to put in longer hours during crunch time. Soldiers are asked to do the same. I think more money ought to be paid for those in the military, particularly those on active duty overseas. That may mitigate some of the issue. Or, pay more to people for signing up to begin with.

No, it's exactly what happened in the last session, when the Republicans had a slight majority. Dems threatened filibuster at every turn.

I was pissed that Frist wimped out. He should have forced a real filibuster, make everyone stay up all night, etc.

Now the Dems are getting a taste of their own bullshit, and wimpering about how the Republicans are a bunch of meanies.

BTW, I'm all for gridlocked government, regardless of who holds the gavel. When everyone plays nice we end up with an 'omnibudsman' bill loaded with billions in earmarks.

Posted by vernon


Actually, I misunderstood your post - my fault.

For me, it's this: if the repubs were SERIOUS about what they said then, they they would allow a direct vote now. They weren't acting on principle then, so let's not pretend they are now, either.

The low approval rating for Congress is really an expression of the public's frustration about the Republicans' obstructionism.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-20 09:08 AM

Perhaps predictably, this months Gallup Poll shows that Republicans are now registering higher approval rates for Congress then Democrats are:

Gallup's 2007 polling from January through August chronicled a nearly relentless decline in public approval of the job Congress is doing. However, after sinking to a record-tying low of 18% last month, Congress approval has rebounded to 24% -- the largest one-month increase in support for Congress seen since the Democrats took majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January.

Nearly all of the recent increase is due to improved ratings of Congress among Republicans. The percentage of Republicans approving of the job Congress is doing rose from 18% in August to 37% in September. At the same time, there was only a two-point increase in approval among Democrats, and a three-point decline among independents (neither of which is statistically significant).

Opps, forgot to turn off the italics after Danni's post...sorry.

During your assinine defense of your respective parties you missed the point...

That being that both parties...

a.) suck
b.) have thier head up thier ass
c.) haven't done jack shit for the American people
d.) but have have bent over backwards to line the pockets of the corporations who are thier true masters

Posted by concrete_puppet at 2007-09-20 11:54 AM

Can I get an amen?

I said it last time, we need to vote out all incumbents, until we get a government for the people that does what we want them to do, not some special interest group(s). Do whats good for the country.

Companies ask workers to put in longer hours during crunch time


For which they get extra pay, or flex time leave, or something, if the company values their efforts as it should. Or at least they would if they belonged to a union, which of course would be favored by the democrats.

More work should mean more pay or more leave. I think that fits better with my side of the aisle than with yours.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-09-20 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

But it's OK for republicans to obstruct everything? Shouldn't they "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." too?

If Congress is at 11% and the Dems hold a 17% lead over the Reps, does that mean the GOP is at -6%?

I just met Harold Ford Jr. He was eating in a diner close to where I work. I wish he was in the Senate instead of Quirky Corker.

This goes to show that elections in America are staged .
No one in their right mind would want the bullshit the libs sell .

This goes to show that elections in America are staged .

That would explain 2000, Nutsac.


No one in their right mind would want the bullshit
the libs sell .

Why not? You still think we're "Turning The Corner" in Iraq.

Posted by rightnut at 2007-09-20 05:24 PM |

An overwhelming majority of americans do not want this war. Americans can see the bullshit...
And the "fight them over there rather than over here" shit isn't cutting it anymore.

My prediction..... Any Congressman who sides with this bullshit war can kiss his ass goodbye come election time.

I am not saying pull the pin and come home tomorrow... But this dime store cowboy in the drivers seat owes us an explanation and a fucking plan!

And Congress's approval is even lower (19%).

Here's my prediction - any Congressman that doesn't support the war after they VOTED (Hillary, Kerry and the rest) to send the guys there ought to be hung for treason.

Foshaffer

You weren't paying atention.

There was no vote for war.

Not one democrat vote was necessary to send the troops to Iraq.

Congress was deliberately lied to by the President.

This conflict is 100% republican.

Congress was deliberately lied to by the President.


So funny. The liberals love to call the president stupid. But they fall for his lies! Who is the more stupid -- the liar or the ones who fall for his lies?

BTW, Bob -- try some of those new synonyms I suggested for "lie". You won't look so repititous.

"But they fall for his lies! Who is the more stupid"

The republicans who still believe him.

The republicans who still believe him.

No, I don't think so. The republicans are blinded by partisianship. However, one's adversaries should be more wary. The Democrats are not. Therefore, I think it is they who are the more stupid. Even with a majority in congress, they keep on eating what those republitards feed 'em.

The republicans who still believe him.


Posted by Lisa at 2007-09-21 06:09 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I think it is they who are the more stupid. Even with a majority in congress, they keep on eating what those republitards feed 'em.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-21 06:18 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Make no mistake. None of the Congress is "stupid" as you say.

They are just trying to pitch the people a curve ball.
Fuck the Partys... I want whats best for our country and I think the majority of Americans do too.
Bush is another Jimmy Carter in the making. He has fucked up everything he touched.
In the years following Nixon, the voters would have taken Howdy Doody for a leader just to get a change. I fear we are paddling in those waters again.