No Confidence in a Congress that Bends to Bush

Confidence in Congress has hit an all-time low. A mere 14 percent of Americans tell Gallup pollsters that they have a great deal or quite a lot of faith in the US House and Senate.

Since Gallup began using the current measure of confidence in Congress in 1973, the worst rating had been the 18 percent figure accorded it in the early years of the 1990s, when the House was being rocked by scandals that would eventually see a number of top Democratic lawmakers rejected in their own party primaries and the "Republican revolution" vote of 1994.

To give a sense of just how bad things are for Congress, consider this notion: Americans express more confidence in corporate HMOs--the most despised manifestation of a health-care industry that lends itself to all of the scorn heaped upon it by Michael Moore's new film Sicko -- than in their elected representatives at the federal level.

It is true that confidence in Congress had been sinking in recent years, in large part because of frustration by the American people with the acquiescence by the formerly Republican-controlled House and Senate to the neo-conservative foreign policies of the Bush administration and to the Wall Street-driven domestic policies.

But the shift in control of both chambers after last November elections was supposed to change that.

No one expected Democrats to fix everything that was wrong with the United States, let alone the world.

But there was an expectation of progress--especially on the central issue of the moment: ending the war in Iraq.

That expectation, a basic and legitimate one in a functioning democracy, has not been met. And it has created a sense of frustration, and in many cases anger, on the part of Americans who really did want the Democrats to succeed--not in gaining partisan advantage but in the far more essential work of checking and balancing the Bush administration. Some leading voices of opposition, including anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, have simply given up on the Democratic Party. And no one should underestimate that, even if Sheehan says she no longer wants to be the face of the anti-war movement, Sheehan's denunciation of the Democrats for failing to seriously challenge Bush's management of the war is an honest and clear expression of the sense of betrayal that a great many Americans who voted Democratic in 2006 are now feeling.

That's the bad news for Democrats.

The good news is that they still have time to change course.

Doing so is easier than political pundits and cautious politicians would have Americans believe.

If Congressional Democrats want to reconnect with the great mass of Americans who want this war to end, they need only turn to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold for advice and counsel. Feingold, who voted against authorizing Bush to attack Iraq and has been the steadiest voice of Senate opposition to the war since then, has been calling for the better part of two years for Congress to establish a timeline for withdrawal.

For a long time, Feingold stood alone. But, slowly, he has built a base within the Senate Democratic Caucus for the premise that Congress must lead.

Earlier this year, Feingold got Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, on board with his proposal to begin redeploying US troops from Iraq in 120 days. Under the Feingold-Reid plan, the process of withdrawal would be completed by April 2008.

When the Senate considered the Feingold-Reid proposal in May, as an amendment to a broader war funding measure, it received 29 votes--far short of a majority. The problem then was that leading Democrats in the Senate, particularly Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin and a key Democratic senator on military matters, Rhode Island's Jack Reed, actively criticized the plan Feingold had offered. Levin went to far as to echo White House talking points that suggested setting a timeline for withdrawal might undermine both the security of the troops on the ground in Iraq and the prospects for a smooth transition of that country from US to Iraqi control.

But Levin and Reed now seem to be changing their tune. Levin indicated this week that he and Jack Reed would introduce an amendment to the upcoming Defense Authorization bill that is likely to mirror the Feingold-Reid proposal's call for redeployment in 120 days and the completion of a fuller withdrawal by April 2008. Levin is now trying to suggest that his proposal is an improvement on Feingold's plan. It's not. And Levin's inability to gracefully acknowledge that his colleague from Wisconsin has been right all along is both embarrassing and counterproductive.

But the acceptance by the Senate Armed Services Committee chair of the wisdom on a time a timetable for redeployment with a hard deadline represents genuine progress. For Congressional Democrats it is, as well, essential progress. If they want to win the confidence of the American people, they must do something. And the "something" most Americans want most at this point in an end to a war that should never have been launched in the first place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (124)

1. "To give a sense of just how bad things are for Congress, consider this notion: Americans express more confidence in corporate HMOs--the most despised manifestation of a health-care industry that lends itself to all of the scorn heaped upon it by Michael Moore's new film Sicko -- than in their elected representatives at the federal level."

   That's interesting.

   Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 1:53pm

2. NICHOLS: But the shift in control of both chambers after last November elections was supposed to change that....

   But there was an expectation of progress--especially on the central issue of the moment: ending the war in Iraq.

   ....Americans who really did want the Democrats to succeed--not in gaining partisan advantage but in the far more essential work of checking and balancing the Bush administration...

   ------------------------------------

   I'm sorry, Mr. NICHOLS, you are just flat out wrong! Sorry, again, "I told you so!" (even if not publicly here as MASK has so often done!).

   The Dems' refusal to see that the American people do NOT want to Cut-n-Run in the fashion most stupid, yes, very stupid, Dem pols want to do (to pander to the Far Lefties and some centrists).

   "checking and balancing the Bush administration"???? You guys are NUTS! People want to move forward to address job insecurity, healthcare, etc... NOBODY but the mouthy Far Lefties give a SHIT about 'checking and balancing" folks that won't be in office! Wake Up!

   As cyncial as I'm of Congress, I had to do a double take! Wow, 14% Approval! Way to Go!

   Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 2:01pm

3. OK, I'm actually `gloating' a bit!

   14 amazing %!

   story time: Yesterday, I took my son and visited a used car lot, not a preferred place to buy, but a good place to look over several cars! We took a particular liking to a 1999 Honda and took a test drive. To give you an idea of how low 14% is, I placed more `trust' in the USED CAR SALESLADY than 14%! Now, does everybody know in all the jokes on trust, which `profession' is at the bottom?

   The Far Lefty w/brains, like The Nation's own Mr. Corn, warned/told you what the Dem Congress ought to do, though he wasn't 100% correct in that he did want to see some "checking and balancing", I'm sure he did NOT want to see the Dem Congress turned into a one-way suicide "checking and balancing" track!

   As bad as it is for the country, at least 86% of the people know exactly who to blame! "Heck of a job, Dems!"

   Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 2:12pm

4. no shocker people put dems in congress to end the war and they haven't done nothing cause their all bought and paid for by big corps just like the repukes ,the dems have proven to be NO BETTER,welcome to 21st century nazi america

   Posted by studlyguy at 06/22/2007 @ 2:24pm

5. Sheehan gave up too soon! The Democratic base is seriously annoyed with Congress over Iraq, but so are many Republicans, and the growing number of Independents. Either the Parties change, or there will be new parties.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/22/2007 @ 2:52pm

6. "checking and balancing the Bush administration"???? You guys are NUTS!

   Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person

   So, HAPPY I guess you are like Darth Cheney and don't believe that that old "piece of paper" the Constitution is still relevant. Lets just leave it in the National Archives for people to look at as a relic of the old days as it has no meaning in the 21st century.

   Hell, Cheney doesn't follow laws anymore, like he ever did, now that he has declared his office isn't part of the Executive branch and not part of the Legislative branch and surely not part of the Judiciary branch. I'd have to guess he's part of some branch of government that our founders forgot to add into the Constitution.

   Now you're suggesting "NOBODY.... give a SHIT about 'checking and balancing" folks that won't be in office!" So, what? We stand back and let these morons that have been running our country into a ditch just go with their idiot plans until 1/20/2009?

   I know you believe that if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, but no, HAPPY, you're the one that's NUTS!

   "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George Bush

   itmfa

   Posted by COProgressive at 06/22/2007 @ 2:58pm

7. Sorry, HAPP...don't see your logic in that.

   Poll after poll show that the American people want us out of Iraq, thought it was a mistake, think it IS a mistake.

   Congress fails to stand up for that and knuckles under to Bush and gives him his blank check.

   Even if you could prove your theory with some polling, why would the "We don't want cut & run" "majority" not give Congress credit for "finally seeing the light and doing what they and President Bush wanted" when they sent him a "clean" Iraq supplemental spending?

   Occam's razor....the American people want us out of Iraq (the polling shows it) and Congress caved on doing that....ergo, they (Congress) is unpopular. Simple as that.

   Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:01pm

8. At some point, we should all hope, a genuinely effective turning point needs to be reached in the American political scene as a whole.

   Most every American citizen acknowledges that there is a certain level of corruption in our government, but in general it hasn't been spotlighted nearly to the necessary effective illumination that corruption, under the Bush administration in particular, has reached epic proportions.

   We have heard of the explosion in the number of lobbyists in DC --at last count over 32,000-- and virtually everyone has heard of the infamous $1,200 toilet seats at the Pentagon or similar tales of rot that seep out occasionally.

   The Democratic Party's inablity to attack an obviously badly wounded and terminally incompetent Bush administration is further strong evidence of a deeply rooted cancer in our national political scene that is threatening the very existence of our constitutional government.

   This isn't idle speculation on my part. The signals are emanating from seemingly every direction if one simply looks and listens.

   The "crux of the biscuit", as Frank Zappa might have put it, is that the black hole of Washington DC continues to accrete and the hopeful markers of its dissipation are fleeting at the moment.

   One would have hoped that a singular rock raising moment would have helped illuminate the infestation of writhing worms, and although there is still hope for that to happen the time appears to be running out.

   The next several months will give a better indication of where things are headed, but the stranglehold we're dealing with is ominous.

   Is there anyone who can break the spell?

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/22/2007 @ 3:12pm

9. Is there anyone who can break the spell?

   Posted by B_KOOL_66 06/22/2007 @ 3:12pm

   Well, I hear Ralph's pondering another run!

   Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:34pm

10. Happy,

    I don't think it would be fair to assess the lack of intelligent analysis found in your embarrassing commentary as the sole responsibility of Happy 'the Individual,' due to the critical elements of environment and social conditioning so instrumental in mass-manufacturing such stupidity in this day and age. That being said, just who do you think you're trying to impress with those derisive remarks regarding such trivial and loathsome American concepts as "checking and balancing?" Seventy percent of Americans hate this war and if history has any relevance on human behavior, the numbers are only going to deteriorate for your "team" (since you guys like to reduce the complexities of war to the jackassian simplicity of sports metaphors).

    Posted by Oustbush at 06/22/2007 @ 3:35pm

11. Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 06/22/2007 @ 2:58pm

    Exactly. And yes, itmfa.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/22/2007 @ 3:42pm

12. ...the American people want us out of Iraq (the polling shows it) and Congress caved on doing that....ergo, they (Congress) is unpopular. Simple as that.

    Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 3:01pm

    I've said it before but I'll repeat! Most Conservatives "want us out of Iraq"....where the chasm is, much like what MARY & yourself have been arguing on healthcare, is that there are COSTS that MUST be considered.......even when we can't always reliably quantify such `costs'.

    In today's WSJ Op-Ed, Page A10, Brendan Miniter penned "Vietnam's `Dark Years'"....as a warning to a likely repeat of history following a Dem-style Iraq withdrawl (as in ASAP, aftermath be damned). His is NOT stridently pro-War (somewhat akin to my position) but simply asking if we will "...be haunted by a similar history..." decades from now.

    IMHO, Congress' ridiculous approval is much more than just Iraq. 3,500 American lives (+wounded) are sacrificed for somethings that Americans did approve (remove Saddam for just one) and the overall goal even now, is NOT something people DON'T approve. Except for the Far Lefty anti-anywar types and some centrists like you, most people are conflicted. I just think it would have been best to let Bush handle it and let Congress focus on domestic (non-checking & balancing) agendas.....The next Prez would have a relatively clean `slate' to do what he/she thinks best! Like a corp. changing CEOs' to adopt different strategies

    Finally, again, not in anyway devaluing the lives of our soldiers, rational folks know that the number of American lives lost & wounded in Iraq, are numerically small. Reality check: two weekends ago in Houston, over a 3-day weekend, 6 kids drowned in ponds and swimming pools! ALL PREVENTABLE! ALL SENSELESS!

    Overall, my foreign policy views are closer to Pat Buchanan than the Neocons whose heros are....you surely know....Wilson, FDR, Truman.......all Dems! I agreed w/much of what Buchanan said in his 2004 "Where the Right Went Wrong" after Reagan!

    Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 3:47pm

13. CONGRESS – Job Rating in recent national polls

    Dates______Survey____Approve_Disapprove_Unsure___Dif

    Newsweek__6/18-19/07_____25_______63_____12____-38

    Gallup_____6/11-14/07 _____24_______71______5____-47

    NBC/W S J__6/8-11/07______23_______64_____13____-41

    Quinnipiac RV__6/5-11/07___ 23 ______ 66_____11___ -43

    L.A. Times/

    Bloomberg____6/7-10/07____27_______65 _____8____-38

    FOX/Op Dyn___6/5-6/07_____29_______55 ____15____-26

    XXXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxxXXxxxXXXXxx

    Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. May 30-June 3, 2007. N=762 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Democratic leaders in Congress are doing?"

    Date_________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    5/30 - 6/3/07______34______49________17

    4/18-22/07________36______43________21

    XXXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxxXXxxxXXXXxx

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 29-June 1, 2007. N=1,205 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?"

    Date_________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    5/29 - 6/1/07______44_______49_______6

    4/12-15/07________54_______44_______2

    XXXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxxXXxxxXXXXxx

    The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

    Date______Excellent/Pretty Good__Only Fair/Poor

    4/20-23/07___________22______________74

    2/2-5/07_____________26______________69

    XXXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxxXXxxxXXXXxx

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 29-June 1, 2007. N=1,205 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"

    Date____________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    5/29 - 6/1/07_________36______58________6

    4/12-15/07___________39______59________2

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2007 @ 3:48pm

14. The Dems' refusal to see that the American people do NOT want to Cut-n-Run in the fashion most stupid, yes, very stupid, Dem pols want to do (to pander to the Far Lefties and some centrists).

    Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 2:01pm

    This makes no sense. In case you missed it, Congress AIN'T cutting-n-running. So why 14%?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 3:48pm

15. It's never been more clear that the number one imperative facing this nation is a massive energy reconfiguration, yet, the Mid-West Democrats remain in the pocket of the failing American auto industry. Of course, most Republicans would oppose eliminating tax payer handouts to the oil industry and oppose mandating more efficient mileage from cars, but for Democrats to vote against the larger interests of all Americans in this particular manner is shameful.

    Posted by Oustbush at 06/22/2007 @ 3:52pm

16. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/22/2007 @ 3:48pm

    Little confusing there, HSUB.....YOUR poll data (1st 3:48pm) shows NO "14% approval" rating?!??!?!

    Yet Mr Nichols does...and then you accept that number here (2nd Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 3:48pm)

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:54pm

17. "Where the Right Went Wrong" after Reagan!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

    So, the current batch of Republicans (many were in office making policy decisions for the old actor in the 80s) should have stuck with the Reagan playbook: support Saddam Hussein/ sell weapons to Iran/ support the worst mudering dictators all over the globe, as long as they're pliable to Ameican corporate interests and hostile to social reforms to the domestic population. And of course, re-create the most wasteful, bloated military infrastructure the planet has ever seen.

    Posted by Oustbush at 06/22/2007 @ 4:04pm

18. This makes no sense. In case you missed it, Congress AIN'T cutting-n-running. So why 14%?

    Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 3:48pm

    Not actually cutting-n-running but constantly talking about it, thus hampering Bush, our military and sapping Iraqi will, conspired to lead to low approval.....but as I said, I don't believe Iraq ALONE is the cause! Maybe it's just me but IMO, all the non-Iraq NON-achievements, an orgy of useless "checking and balancing" are every bit as important!

    In the big showdown w/Bush, had the Dems refused to buckle...and forced an Iraq withdrawl, while many of us on the Right will think it was NOT strategically wise, I'd bet Congress' approval would be higher....History WILL, for better or worse, credit the Dems with ending the Iraq War!

    Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 4:11pm

19. Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/22/2007 @ 4:04pm

    Go read his book! Buchanan is a Nationalist and patriot, not that I agree w/all his points! You Lefties would love his foreign trade policy prescriptions!

    His book addressed everything you mentioned. Reagan was very practical....as I am....a Realist who focused on defeating the major evil of his time, Communism....Islam & the ME were very secondary foreign policy concerns.

    Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 4:18pm

20. had the Dems refused to buckle...and forced an Iraq withdrawl, while many of us on the Right will think it was NOT strategically wise, I'd bet Congress' approval would be higher....Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 4:11pm

    The Dems' refusal to see that the American people do NOT want to Cut-n-Run in the fashion most stupid, yes, very stupid, Dem pols want to do (to pander to the Far Lefties and some centrists).---Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 2:01pm

    Uh, HAPP....am I missing the subtle non-contradiction here?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:21pm

21. well, as soon as the dems either

    a) get a solid 66.6% majority or...

    b) win the white house

    the dissatisfaction is unrealistic and based at least partly on something other than rationalism and knowledge of how the system works.

    its also emblematic of the sickening, slothful, bllshitty, "everything sux" mentality of apolitical adult adolescents.

    that said, the dems have been kind of lame in their challenge to the neofascists... but again, 66.6% or 50.1% and the presidency. otherwise...what do ya want, people? do you even know? do you even possess an understanding of how things work sufficient to have a legitimate, non "everything sux" opinion?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 4:26pm

22. Wow - Happy does a complete 180.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 4:28pm

23. Did anybody bother to watch Frontline this week? How many of you bother to read or listen to what the pros have to say about the situation in Iraq? In order to pacify the country, create a stable environment for an Iraqi government friendly to US interests, well over a hundred thousand additional troops would be needed for roughly ten years. This is no secret, nor is it something new.

    Cut and run? Yeah, sure. As someone posted earlier, the Dems are corporate lackeys just like the Repubs; furthermore, there is a butt load of oil in Iraq (and next door in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran). The world economy is dependent on that oil, and the US economy is dependent on the world economy; a country like China goes down the tube because of an out of control conflict in the Middle East and the US will go down with it. Does anybody have any idea what that would mean?

    The Dems are doing nothing more than blowing a bunch of smoke up their gullible supporters' asses. There is no cutting and running option available. It's going to require more troops and a decade, maybe longer, as well as the cooperation of the nations bordering Iraq.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/22/2007 @ 4:35pm

24. country like China goes down the tube because of an out of control conflict in the Middle East and the US will go down with it. Does anybody have any idea what that would mean? ---Posted by MTSPENCE05 06/22/2007 @ 4:35pm

    Uh, you finally get that "national crises" by which your kind of politics come into vogue and you can start voting again?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:41pm

25. What a queef. And that's an "f" not an "r".

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/22/2007 @ 4:43pm

26. 14%??

    Bloomberg isn't going to announce unless he thinks he can win (he's much to pragmatic to enter to be a spoiler).

    Based on the disatisfaction the country has with the Democrats to end the war and the dissatisfaction the Republican base has with the Republican President led "amnesty" plan I think Bloomie gonna be spending his money and gonna be moving to DC in late 2008 / early 2009!

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/22/2007 @ 4:45pm

27. Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 3:54pm

    Yeah, it'd be nice if John put a link to the poll he's cited so we could compare similar ones and dates... look for a trend.

    All the polls I see show a downward movement, but faster and steeper for repubs, hsuB/cHeney. As dems are part of the gov, no way not to go down too-- unless, until dems are able to counter hsuB's policies, especially Iraq.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

28. Happy, I would refer you to The American Conservative if you're not already familiar with it's, and Buchanan's, opposition to the Iraq War from before Day 1.

    Regarding the aftermath of the Vietnam War, I think of James Pinkerton, another conservative, who has written smartly about what Americans would have thought if the Brits or the French had gotten involved in our Civil War, and of the libertarian magazine, Liberty, which ran a similar piece on what if the French had stayed on as an occupying power after Yorktown instead of allowing those naive so-called "Americans" to rule themselves. And I remember that a revolution, social or political, is not a garden party. I can't remember the figure off-hand, but tens of thousands of Loyalists had to flee the United States after the British gave up the fight. They were our boat people, and some left in similar circumstances to their Vietnamese counterparts.

    But such humanitarian concerns don't give us the universal right to interfere in other people's lives, or other nations' wars or civil wars. We may have a national interest (Buchanan's standard) or a class one (mine), and we can argue over the particulars, but by any stretch of the imagination, can you say that the contined occupation of Iraq serves the national interest of the United States of America?

    The best thing we could do is listen to the will of the Iraqi people, expressed often enough in poll after poll, and get the hell out, sooner rather than later. And take our bases with us.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

29. I missing the subtle non-contradiction here?!?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 4:21pm

    Wow - Happy does a complete 180.

    Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 4:28pm

    NOT so fast!

    The seeming contradictions lie with the incremental Dem seats who believed they were elected to just Cut-n-Run, which is NOT what I think the majority of Americans wanted....Out, yes, but not the ASAP way the incrementalists believed.

    Now, had the `incremental Dems' been able to convince the re-elected Dems of their ASAP approach and ended the War by now, I believe Congress probably would have gotten far higher than 14% approval....say 30 to 50% (or even higher?) on this issue! Some conflicted people, including myself, would resign ourselves and mutter, well, "maybe this IS what the majority wanted"! NOTE the word "maybe"!

    Now, do either of you actually think it would be lower than 14% today...had the Cut-n-Run incrementalists prevailed?

    It's a conflicted issue and some seeming contradictions abound for those w/Big Picture views (me)!

    Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 4:54pm

30. Cut and run? What do the know it all business people out there do when a stock tanks? Do you hold on to it, watch it sink lower and lower, or do you cut your losses, get what you can out of the loser? I guess it's much easier to stay in when it's some poor slob's ass on the line and not your money, huh?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/22/2007 @ 5:07pm

31. Think everyone is getting th Gallup 24% congress aproval mixed up? Maybe it was a typo 14% somewhere and everyone keeps repeating it? 14% doesn't make sense if dems are polling around 34-44% approvals.

    24% for all the congress makes sense because the repubs in congress are polling at 22% approval on some. And hsuB is just at 26-30% All congress would be close inbetweentheirabouts... one would think.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2007 @ 5:28pm

32. What a queef. And that's an "f" not an "r".

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 06/22/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Why the clarification, Empty? You said yourself you're not afraid of the speech police and use terms like "fag" and "fruit" for "people like me", but OBVIOUSLY don't mean anything homophobic about it.

    Why you trying to cover your bases, if you're innocent of the homophobe rep?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 5:45pm

33. It's a conflicted issue and some seeming contradictions abound for those w/Big Picture views (me)!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person

    Happy,

    The big picture is that the American military, according to the Department of Defense, lists 725 military installations in 120 countries, operating or training in 130 of the 189 nations of the United Nations. The reasoning behind this monstrosity of militarism is due to the declining grip on power of America; evidenced by the lack of competitiveness of American corporations in many areas where they previously dominated and the declining standard of living among the 4/5 of American workers who've seen their wages decline over the past 30 years. American policy planners have adopted in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a "paranoiac" view of the world, and would prefer to maintain hegemonic authority and dominance through seizing control of the Middle East's energy supplies and establishing satelite states surrounding Russia and China.

    American consumers, like our government, are dependent on debt to finance current lifestyles and militaristic fetishisms. The dollar is losing out to the Euro, and sooner or later the global monetary system with make the market corrections away from an overdependent reliance on American consumerism (fed by debt) as the engine of global economic growth.

    Posted by Oustbush at 06/22/2007 @ 5:46pm

34. "satelite" should read satellite. oops.

    Posted by Oustbush at 06/22/2007 @ 5:49pm

35. Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 4:54pm

    Again, HAPP....am I missing the non-contradicton?

    "the incremental Dem seats who believed they were elected to just Cut-n-Run, which is NOT what I think the majority of Americans wanted....Out, yes, but not the ASAP way the incrementalists believed"

    then

    "had the `incremental Dems' been able to convince the re-elected Dems of their ASAP approach and ended the War by now, I believe Congress probably would have gotten far higher than 14% approval"

    Unless you're saying that the Dems would have had more popularity among those who want us out ASAP, but since they didn't convince them to do that, THAT group hates them as well as the Right/pro-war crowd?

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 5:49pm

36. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/22/2007 @ 5:28pm

    No. Its a true figure. I found it on Gallup's site. On the bright side "great deal or quite a lot of faith" is a bit different than "approval" (I guess?) and the best Congress does on this poll is in the 40's. On the bad side, this is the worst rating ever.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 5:52pm

37. Again, I do not think the low approval numbers are necessarily directed at the dems in congress and even if they are slipping some are not slipping as drastically as they are for the repubs:

    CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide.

    "Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress?"

    Date_______Good_____Bad__Neither__Unsure

    5/4-6/07_____51______37______9______3

    3/9-11/07____59______29______6______6

    "Do you approve or disapprove of what the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have done so far this year?"

    Date________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    5/4-6/07_______49_______44_________7

    3/9-11/07______47_______40________13

    Can the dems do better and/or do I want them to be successful fixing a lot of shit hsuB/cHeney and a repub congress created -- of course. But 6 years of shit is a lot to clean up in 6 months.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2007 @ 5:55pm

38. The Congress has submitted two bills recently that were vetoed by the President. One dealt with stem cell research and the other with timelines for the Iraq War. Both reflected the will of a majority of the people, which Bush ignored because he's the Decider. The Senate can't override those vetos without 66 votes, which they don't have right now. If you want to see this changed write or call your Republican Senators. It will get more and more uncomfortable for them as they see that standing with the President no longer means they are reflecting the will of the people they represent.

    Posted by loria at 06/22/2007 @ 5:59pm

39. So, HAPPY I guess you are like Darth Cheney and don't believe that that old "piece of paper" the Constitution is still relevant... Posted by COPROGRESSIVE

    COPROGRESSIVE, Happy is happy as long as his ilk are screwing the rest of the country. I love the way these redneck morons wave the flag around and thump their bibles. These guys have the values of alley cats and try to push their BS down everyone elses throats. All they care about is making their bank accounts as big as possible without having to share a damn thing with anyone. They would be the first to bitch if the police didn't respond to an incident at their house, or if a fire truck were to be delayed in getting to their house to put the fire out, but damned if they should have to pay taxes to fund these kinds of things. Republicans are like little kids getting into the cookie jar. They just keep taking and taking and taking until there are no cookies left. Well, the cookie jar is damn near empty and these greedy bastards still want to take, take take without giving anything back. Ya, these folks are real Christian like. I'd say they are more like the Romans of old and we know what happened to that empire. They all got rich, fat, and lazy and eventually got their fat butts kicked up to their ears. All these armchair warriors who are soooo tough from the safety of their homes are the ones saying we shouldn't "cut and run". Happy, use your own damn brain for once and quit using the chosen republican catch phrases. All you guys seem to be able to do is quote Karl Rove sound bits word for word. Keep in mind Karl Rove, Cheney and about 90% of the people accusing the dems of cutting and running never served a day of military service in their lives. Since they've never shouldered a rifle, they have no right to talk about cutting and running. Cheney would pee all over himself if he were to be put into actual combat as would that fine physical speciman Karl Rove.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/22/2007 @ 6:15pm

40. ...the Dems would have had more popularity among those who want us out ASAP, but since they didn't convince them to do that, THAT group hates them as well as the Right/pro-war crowd?

    Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 5:49pm

    I should've kept it simple and at the least, stated it just as you did ....which you know would have led to something higher than 14%.....However, I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something more....on Iraq that conflicts many, including me! I can even say I envy you and your likes on the war, so sure of yourselves and worry-free while yelling "End it, Now!"

    I could go along with a ASAP abandon the Iraq ship approach IF I knew the country is otherwise prepared and united to deal with Radical Islam as a real war. That means the Patriot Act and Executive powers that the Left won't go along with. Europe is ahead of us on this War.....interesting isn't it? The more liberal Europeans getting more & more serious w/radical Islam but without the contentious debates of our Constitution!

    My life is relatively secure to the end of my (useful) days....but, not sure for my children.....the Iraq War, like it or not, IS part of the War on radical Islam, including Iran!

    Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 6:22pm

41. Remember that this is an 'ANNUAL' report and thus I would also consider a lot of the lack of confidence in congress be direct at all the repub scandals of the last year: K steet, Bob Ney and Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Foley and the pages, Duke Cunningham, etc. --oh and yes Jefferson too.

    Also, in June of 2004, confidence in congress was at 30% and by June of 2005-- it was 22%, an 8% drop. Last year it was 19%... it's a 4% drop-- So if the dems are responsible of 1/2 the drop it would be 2%.

    But it could also be said that the confidence of congress was going to drop another 8% as it did the previous year before-- but the dems stepped in and increased the confidence level 4% to the repub disaster! It could have been at 10% if the repubs had stayed in control considerring the repub established trend.

    "Americans' confidence in the presidency has dropped concomitantly with the drop in Bush's approval ratings. In 2002, 58% were confident in the presidency compared to the current 25%."

    As a point of reference, June of 2002, congresses confidence was at 29%.

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27946

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/22/2007 @ 6:38pm

42. Posted by CKA2ND 06/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Buchanan's opposition to the Iraq War is well known.....as well as, today, his opposition to some of Reagan's policies even as he served the Gipper. Most of your comments sound straight out of his "What Went Wrong" book on American military bases! Just so you know, for starter, I am all in favor of pulling out of Europe, today!

    As for the American Civil War, not a parallel comparison. One, Iraq was not in a civil war when we went in....two, many will argue that Iraq is NOT in a civil war? Back to our own Civil War that you cited, imagine the North & the South's politicians continue to report to work on a daily basis while the two armies are killing each other in the tens of thousands.....Inconceivable, right?

    It is however, probable that after we leave Iraq, within months, there will be definite divisions (central Gov't collapses, many more folks leaving for `their' sectarian areas, etc..) and thus,the beginning of a true 3 or more ways civil war.

    Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 6:38pm

43. Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/22/2007 @ 3:35pm

    A closer look at the figures and a little simple arithmetic will indicate that the conclusions drawn by John Nichols and most here are in spite of the numbers.

    If about 14% are unhappy with the Democratic Congress and 30% support the war is it not the case that up to 30% of those polled are unhappy with the Democratic led Congress solely because it is in opposition to the Iraq war. That of course could be headlined as "Dems opposition to Bush's war causes loss of confidence in Congress".

    Then of course if 70% oppose the war, and the Democratic Congress also does, what is their reason for dissatisfaction with Congress? It certainly cannot be about the Iraq war as the numbers (again) indicate there are not enough who want to pull the plug on the money bills. Which rules out a protest vote of this dimension. Thus the existence of 86%, who do not approve of Congress, is unlikely to be primarily because of any anti-war sentiment.

    Though I'm a great believer in the ultimate wisdom of the electorate in a representative democracy you will, I trust, forgive me if I have some doubts about the logical consistency of the electorate in your country. That probably is about all that could be said about this poll. It seems pretty obvious that the only poll that really matters in your country is the election of the president.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/22/2007 @ 8:16pm

44. Posted by LRJONES4 06/22/2007 @ 8:16pm

    we don't really understand ourselves too much either, croc. thats what happens when you think too much about yourself, you know?

    but part of the problem is that the country elected this gob of democrats and expected everything to change, POOF! thats just impossible, both literally and realistically, and yeah, the nature of the presidential system is kind of screwy...with your system, we'd have a new head of gubbament, would we not?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 8:28pm

45. Rio,

    Is the spin coming from the red propellar?

    Posted by john maasch at 06/22/2007 @ 11:51pm

46. Ria Brovo,

    BWahahahah, the new con supporter, servicer of dic'tator philosophy, brain has blown up!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 12:27am

47. Posted by LRJONES4 06/22/2007

    Yes Ibbie. You'll have to get that president of yours to get you up to date with the rest of the civilised world. Its 6.43 pm Saturday evening here.

    We took the best of the Brit and your system. The House of Reps runs the show and the party that wins elects the boss. We call him the PM. As far as the electorate goes they can only remove him at an election by removing his party. The present Senate is controlled by the PM's party but rarely is (the old checks and balances motive from the nervous nellies) and is a house of legislative review. That's about it.

    Aus is a constitutional monarchy. In 1999 a national referendum was held about becoming a republic. It was defeated conclusively. One of the grounds was we didn't want to be like the Americans (surprising that that sentiment was prior to GW's ascension. Looks like even your friends don't like you at the best of times). Suppose it will come back for another vote if things get a bit boring over here sometime in the future. My guess is that the general Aussie contemplation of GW will ensure good queen Bess is our head of state (or her imbecile son) for some time yet.

    Parliament can move a motion of no confidence in the PM but he is generally safe as long as no one in his party rats on him. We haven't had a her yet.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2007 @ 04:42am

48. Posted by LRJONES4 06/23/2007 @ 04:42am

    i agree - u guys have a better government and system than we. yup.

    i think ours can be reformed, but it will be a titanic struggle. reminds me of the late 19th/early 20th century here - robber barons and all that crap.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2007 @ 07:36am

49. Posted by LRJONES4 06/23/2007 @ 04:42am

    Didn't catch the fact you are from that Island land...I would love to visit the place, every Aussie I have met I have enjoyed and many visit here.

    A copy of your PMs speech or paper on the Muslims and being in the right place if you want to become an Austrailian and in the wrong place if you want Sharia Law or want to change Austraila instead of becoming Austrailian...I wish our President had the balls to make a speech like that...but...our liberal friends here would have a cow, scream discrimination and then make the issue the president and not the Muslims nut burgers who are cause the problems for the entire world.

    You may be liberal over there, but this site, the Nation, as fun as it is, is a slice of the far left here in the good old US of A, and they have disappeared out of the mainstream current of US political thought...even their own party, the Democrats, ignore then at no peril..

    On my next trip to China I am going to stop over in your land of strange Marsupials, check out the Shelias, sample the beer, and taste the shrimp...

    Posted by john maasch at 06/23/2007 @ 10:14am

50. JM,

    What happened to the great 'melting pot', statue of liberty and all that-- US history 101? You do sound kinda more like the AWOL "wt' us or agin' us " BS resident hsuB. Are you really describing balls or just the 'lack of an education' brain droppings? New con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, kinda missed that nuanced stuff in school I guess...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 10:33am

51. One more time concerning this poll-- it's done once a year. There's no way to tell if it's about the confidence in the dems leading congress until next year.

    This poll dropped from 30% to 19% during the repub controlled congress, 11%. That it dropped another 5% (sorry not 4%, I was looking at other polls too), just as dems started their tenture can't really indicate whether it would not have been worse if repubs had retained control since the repubs were already spiralling down fast to begin with and dems have been polling better than the repubs for some time now.

    Next year will definitely show whether the confidence level with this particular 'annual' poll reflects more positively or negatively because of a dem control of congress and any issues resolved or not.

    Thus everyone is just speculating 'excessively'. For this poll to be more significant it would help if it were run monthly or at least every other month. Otherwise for a trend you need to look at 2-3 years with similar congressional leadership-- if you can't look at 2-3 months. To read a lot into this poll-- ranks up there with speculating about who's the father Anna Nicole Smith's baby... Best to just wait for the science, which for this poll is next year. Right now, all this poll indicates is that Nicole is pregnant.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 11:24am

52. Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person

    Juan Cole describes 8 separate wars in Iraq now.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2007 @ 11:40am

53. Is it okay now referring to the far left as '14 percenters'? I hear Harry Reid is even lower. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that he has already declared the war lost?

    Polls are like tea leaves; what they mean to you often has everything to do with your pre-existing biases, and what you WANT to believe. People on this site often make the logical error that because Bush has low approval ratings, that must mean that all of the sudden most of America has become a part of the raving left America-hating fever swamp that The Nation serves. This is obviously wrong, and only illustrates why polls need to be read and interpreted very carefully.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 11:41am

54. Overall, my foreign policy views are closer to Pat Buchanan than the Neocons whose heros are....you surely know....Wilson, FDR, Truman.......all Dems! I agreed w/much of what Buchanan said in his 2004 "Where the Right Went Wrong" after Reagan!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/22/2007 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

    this is convenient. it allows you to thrash the left with neocon talking points, yet remain untainted by the disastrous failure of those same neocons. my compliments.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2007 @ 11:44am

55. Here's a Zogby poll that shows half of New Yorkers believe that the government knew about 9/11 in advance and 'consciously' failed to act. To me, that proves that half of New Yorkers are idiots. As evidence, I point out JR.

    Released: August 30, 2004

    Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

    On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 11:45am

56. Pon,

    You're wrong. Again. Never tire of being wrong do you...:

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Harry Reid is handling his job as majority leader of the Senate?"

    Date__________Approve___Disapprove__Unsure

    4/12-15/07______46_________33_________21

    VVVVVVvvvvvVVVvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVvvv

    Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 21-25, 2007. N=750 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Harry Reid is handling his job as Senate majority leader?"

    Date_________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    3/21-25/07______32_______22________46

    VVVVVVvvvvvVVVvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVvvv

    CBS News Poll. Jan. 1-3, 2007. N=993 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    "Is your opinion of Harry Reid favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Harry Reid yet to have an opinion?"

    Favorable__Not Favorable__Undecided__Haven't Heard__Refused

    ___5___________8___________16__________70_________1

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 12:55pm

57. Maasch-In the real world you are as irrelevant to your politicians as the far left is to Democrats.You seem to live in a fantasy world where you believe that you're relevant,but,as far as the GOP is concerned, you aren't.They know you'll vote for them no matter what.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2007 @ 1:18pm

58. Another recent (conservative leaning) poll with a better indication of current trends than the one this topic is concerned with:

    Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats 45% Republicans 38%

    rasmussenreports.com Mon Jun 4, 2:45 PM ET

    If the Congressional Election were held today, 45% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district while 38% would pull the voting lever for a Republican. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 5% favoring a third-party option while 12% are not sure.

    Democrats now lead by five percentage points among men and by nine points among women. They lead by sixteen percentage points among voters under 30. While that's a significant lead, it's down from their 2-to-1 advantage a month ago.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) (D) is now viewed favorably by 47% of American voters and unfavorably by 45% (see favorability ratings for Members of Congress). During her tenure as Speaker, Pelosi's favorability ratings have ranged from 38% to 49%.

    During the past month, George W. Bush's Job Approval rating fell to the lowest level of his Presidency. Additionally, the number of Americans considering themselves Republicans has once again fallen to a new low.

    Seventy-five percent (75%) of American voters now believe it is likely Democrats will retain control of Congress following the 2008 elections. That's up slightly from 73% a month ago.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070604/ pl_rasmussen/congressballot20070604

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 1:34pm

59. When an overwhelming number of congress members voted for Bush's Iraq blank check, I felt I had seen the Democratic Party's true colors. The party has been my party since birth, and at age 59 I realize it is my party no longer. In fact, it hasn't been since the Democratic Leadership Council made it corporate-friendly in the early 1990's. I am now a newly-minted independent voter and will remove my affiliation with the party on my next balloting opportunity.

    Posted by alanlak at 06/23/2007 @ 1:58pm

60. And since Lie berman is pro-war/pro-Iraq occupation and hitching his wagon to hsuB:

    RESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls

    Survey__________Dates__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure___Dif

    ARG, inc______6/18-21/97__27 _______ 67________6_____-40

    Newsweek ____6/18-19/07__26________65________9_____-39

    Gallup_______6/11-14/07___32________65________3_____-33

    NBC/W S J____ 6/8-11/07 __29________66________5_____-37

    Quinnipiac RV__6/5-11/07___28________65________7_____-37

    AP-Ipsos______6/4-6/07____32________66________*_____-34

    USAToday/Gallup_6/1-3/07__32________62________6_____-30

    Pew_______5/30 - 6/3/07___29________61_______10_____-32

    CBS/NY Times__5/18-23/07_30 ________63________7_____-33

    Diageo/Hotline__5/16-20/07_32 ________64 _______4_____-32

    Newsweek_____5/2-3/07 ___28________64________8_____-36

    * American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 2:30pm

61. Ooops, meant for Lie berman post...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 2:31pm

62. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 1:34pm

    Ah, SHUB, you 14 percenters sure are getting desperate! Must be exacerbated in your case by your dyslexia! But of course, Rasmussen says you're wrong; according to them, in fact, Cheney is TWICE as popular as Reid.

    Harry Reid's Favorables Fall to 19% Saturday, June 09, 2007 Advertisment

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.

    Reid has been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform. The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of the Democratic leader. His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senator. Reid's highest ratings were 30% favorable in February.

    Each week, Rasmussen Reports updates favorability ratings for a number of political figures and others in the news. The latest numbers for Defense Secretary Robert Gates reflect a steady decline in recent months. He is now viewed favorably by 36% of Americans and unfavorably by 34%. Last December, 49% have a favorable opinion and only 26% held a negative opinion.

    Vice President Dick Cheney's numbers held steady--38% favorable and 58% unfavorable.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 2:39pm

63. In the real world you are as irrelevant to your politicians as the far left is to Democrats.----Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/23/2007 @ 1:18pm

    If the far left is irrelevant to the Democrats, I'M....where does that leave them?

    Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 3:12pm

64. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/23/2007 @ 2:39pm

    PONTI, on your earlier point, I don't think a Bush 29% approval rating or a 70% disapproval for staying in Iraq means that "America is now full fledged hard-core lefty"...

    but it also doesn't mean "Oh, they just dislike him because of this immigration bill" or "Sure America disapproves of the HANDLING of the war, but they still want to stay in Iraq until 'victory'" either.

    A stronger case can be made that Congress' low approvals are from not following the desires of the people...namely pushing Bush to get out of Iraq (which they didn't...remember, he and you WON that one last month)....than somehow 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq means "they want us to get out AFTER we've achieved security and 'victory over the terrorists'".

    Nobody could say America is now firmly in the Kucinich camp of thinking...but they sure as HELL aren't in the Bill Kristol camp (or Cheney camp or whoever) either!

    Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 3:16pm

65. I see no reason to discourage Congress in their oversight function. I think we should help them in our role as politically active citizens by voting for the National Initiative for Democracy. At the state level, it is a very functional part of California politics. Twenty states and Switzerland use it successfully. The citizen's initiative process should be extended to the national level. However slow and measured, it would be of use in enacting the real will of the people, particularly when power politics gets in the way.

    Posted by willba at 06/23/2007 @ 3:46pm

66. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/23/2007 @ 2:39pm

    Rasm also says: Jimmy Carter is at 53% approval/40% disapproval-- almost equal to Bill Clinton at 55% approval/43% disapproval and not to mention Al Gore at 50% approval/48% disapproval! Colin Powell at 77% approval/20% disapproval, (that's better than anyone else running for pres or not--and why then isn't he running for president?). OK, but why would Harry Reid be equal to Scooter Libby's at 19% approval? When Rasm also polls Ted Kennedy and John Kerry at 43/42%, 5 points better than cHenny! Plus Rasm is the only polling center showing Reid's falling polls 15-20% lower than all the others...

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ favorables/major_political_figures

    When one is that different tfrom the others I tend to discoun it.

    http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/07/rasmussen_updat.html

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007878.php

    http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com/2004/08/ poll-bias-what-numbers-say.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156936,00.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 4:01pm

67. I see no reason to discourage Congress in their oversight function....

    Posted by WILLBA 06/23/2007 @ 3:46pm

    They got to show up for `work', right? So long as they have nothing better to do nor any ideas of how to up its approval from 14%!

    Yeah, I am with you 86% while ROFLMAO!!!!!

    Posted by Happy at 06/23/2007 @ 4:43pm

68. HA,

    I believe it's already been established that the 14% is because there are still repubs in congress and thet hsuB is still in office. Are you saying that you're for getting rid of more congressional repubs and impeaching the hsuB/cHeney admin?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 5:15pm

69. er, that

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 5:19pm

70. Congress is dis-approved of for not standing up to Bush. This is good; it is as it should be; it is only a false comfort to Bush and his supporters. Bush is a Hitler and Congress should stand up to him.

    Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 5:26pm

71. Conservatives? Conservatives? Hello?

    Is the Vice Presidents Office a part of the Executive Branch?

    Yes / No / Dodge ?

    Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 5:27pm

72. The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "How would you rate the job Vice President Dick Cheney is doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

    Date___Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor__Not Sure/Refused

    4/20-23/07________25________________68____________7

    2/2-5/07__________29________________67____________4

    9/8-11/06_________30________________64____________6

    6/2-5/06__________31________________65____________4

    VVVVvvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVvvv

    Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. Feb. 15-16, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV=registered voters

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Vice President Dick Cheney has done in the Bush Administration?" 10/04 and earlier: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Dick Cheney is handling his job as vice president?"

    Date_________Approve____Disapprove___Unsure

    2/15-16/06_______29_________41________29

    11/29 - 12/1/05___32________45________23

    10/6-7/04________51________38________11

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 5:33pm

73. Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 3:16pm

    Nobody could say America is now firmly in the Kucinich camp of thinking...but they sure as HELL aren't in the Bill Kristol camp (or Cheney camp or whoever) either!

    I think it's fair to say that 40 percent of the country hates George Bush's guts and always has (of these, I estimate 14 percent of the country is hard core lefty in mold of The Nation.) Most of these people would hate George Bush if even if it was revealed he was the second coming of Jesus Christ.

    Bush's unfavorability ratings have lowered mostly because of disillusion among Republicans and independents about the CONDUCT of the war, big spending, and immigration. They didn't convert to 14 percenters; they just came to the conclusion that the war was mismanaged and the (erroneous) conclusion that the economy is doing poorly. The war conclusion may be valid, but it also is reinforced by a media that is rougly 85 percent Democratic (9 to 1 Democratic donors) and routinely lets their bias through to their reporting on everything from the war to the economy and everything else under the sun (except in the case of Fox News, of course.) Some Democratic strategists have even estimated that the Democratic media bias is good for 5-15 points in elections, which I think is reasonable. Of course, lefties don't see the bias, just like fish don't see the water they swim in. Doesn't mean it isn't there.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 6:05pm

74. Sorry for the double posts, I have big fingers hit the wrong key...

    Most polls show that cHeney consistently polling lower than hsuB and declining. Thus the Rasm poll indicating that it's not, means it's off in its methodology and is documented as doing that deliberately. And thus cHeney's current approval poll numbers would be, in relation to hsuB, at 23-24% approvals at best.

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 20-21, 2007. N=831 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4. RV = registered voters. Except where noted, results below are among all adults.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Dick Cheney is handling his job as vice president?"

    Date____________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    6/20-21/07_________30________59________11

    11/9-10/06_________31________56________13

    VVVVvvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVvvv

    The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "How would you rate the job Vice President Dick Cheney is doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

    Date___Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor__Not Sure/Refused

    4/20-23/07________25________________68____________7

    2/2-5/07__________29________________67____________4

    9/8-11/06_________30________________64____________6

    6/2-5/06__________31________________65____________4

    VVVVvvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVvvv

    Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. Feb. 15-16, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV=registered voters

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Vice President Dick Cheney has done in the Bush Administration?" 10/04 and earlier: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Dick Cheney is handling his job as vice president?"

    Date_________Approve____Disapprove___Unsure

    2/15-16/06_______29_________41________29

    11/29 - 12/1/05___32_________45________23

    10/6-7/04________51_________38________11

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 6:08pm

75. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 6:08pm

    I especially like your post above which shows that although most (70%) Americans say they don't know who Harry Reid is nor do they know enough about him to make a judgment, 46% thought he was doing a good job. LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 6:44pm

76. MASK, OUSTBUSH,

    Nancy Pelosi will make history on two counts:

    a) Being the first woman speaker of the house

    b) Being the speaker to serve the shortest tenure (2 years)

    Democrats will lose the House in 2008 because Pelosi does not have the presence of mind to stop being a neocon and oppose the rightwing crazies that have sprung from the box............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 06/23/2007 @ 7:10pm

77. All,

    Americans are so dumbed down they don't know what they want from their government or how to obtain it...................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 06/23/2007 @ 7:11pm

78. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/23/2007 @ 6:44pm

    PON,

    I get it now-- you can't read or count!!!

    Those are 3 different polling centers at 3 separate times.

    Boy do make yourself to appear not too bright... Bwahahahah

    OK I get it, you were just kidding, right? Please say you were just kidding.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 7:19pm

79. Democrats will lose the House in 2008 because Pelosi does not have the presence of mind to stop being a neocon and oppose the rightwing crazies that have sprung from the box............

    Posted by POSEIDON 06/23/2007 @ 7:10pm

    POSE,

    And this will happen because new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, will figure out how 'not' to be more hated than dems or just have you figured out how to still use the DoJ as a GOP gestapo and arrest dems for no reason or cage as many black dem voters as possible?

    Surely you can read the polls that say dems are more desirable than repubs by double digits and even Gore without enterring the race is beating the repubs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 7:26pm

80. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/23/2007 @ 6:05pm

    PONTI, you're still making the same argument...."Bush isn't really THAT unpopular, 40% of that are people that hate him and always have!"....okay, well, how did he have like 80-85% approvals right after 9/11?

    and "people dislike the CONDUCT of the war"...no, how about people dislike the fact that we've LOST this war, and were losing it from 2005, if not 2004 onward. How about the fact that Bush's CONDUCT of it is to keep throwing young men and women into a meat-grinder regardless of the situation on the ground or public support?

    Or how about the fact that he keeps forgetting his Sun Tzu (and keeps hiring generals who do)...."No nation has benefitted from prolonged warfare"---Chap 2, para 6 "The Art of War"

    Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 9:20pm

81. Posted by POSEIDON 06/23/2007 @ 7:10pm

    Sorry, POSEI, HSUB is right about Dem vs Repub attractibility in '08. Pelosi can always claim "We tried, Bush vetoed everything, but Hillary will sign stuff!"

    Plus the electoral math is still with Dems, with a buttload of Repub Senators up for re-election.

    Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 9:22pm

82. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/23/2007 @ 10:14am

    Good to see you are not all pilGRIMs over there JM. Our sheilas are more sluttish than most, Bondi Beach in Sydney, with or without sunnies, is a good place to start and shrimps are a bit up market for us but snags (sausages) and beef steaks are more common on the barbie.

    The reason most Aussies don't support the war in Iraq is that they simply don't like Arabs thus don't think they are worth fighting for (if Arabs become "real" Aussies no worries mate but we don't have much time for "them bloody foreigners"). That despite the fact that we are the most multi ethnic society on earth. I've noticed that once the "foreigners" become Aussies they become more interested than older stock Aussies in keeping the "foreigners" out. Probably working on the principle of not stuffing the place up.

    When our liberal elites get together (in a phone box) they send press releases to the newspapers telling us how our neo-con, fascist, racist PM has stifled real debate in Australia. Some papers run editorials, in response to such pleadings, on the irrelevance of the ideas of the left and things like being trapped in a Stalinist-Marxist time warp. Intellectual is a dirty word with most Aussies so your Lefties get it pretty easy over there.

    As you have probably noticed I'm a bit of a Bush fan. He would make a great Aussie.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2007 @ 9:36pm

83. Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 9:20pm

    Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 9:22pm

    Masky, I'm totally impressed!

    Is this some kind of trick?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 9:56pm

84. As you have probably noticed I'm a bit of a Bush fan. He would make a great Aussie.

    Posted by LRJONES4 06/23/2007 @ 9:36pm

    Hey, I'll sell him to you cheap. Just name it-- you got 'em.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 9:57pm

85. Is this some kind of trick?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 9:56pm

    HSUB, the REALITY of Dems likely to hold the Congress is one that cannot be escaped. Nor the REALITY of guys like PONTI trying to spin an abyssmal approval rating and MAJORITY disapproval for the war in Iraq as "not that, but this", because he's locked in with the cult of personality that make up the 28% Club.

    BUT...OTHER realities apply as well. Such as the NON-reality of bills of impeachment coming out in (plus one week) FOUR months from now. Or the NON-reality of all the Hillary, Obama, and Edwards people collapsing into sighs and orgasms at the NON-reality of Al Gore deciding to run less than THREE months and leaving their candidates in significant numbers.

    Sorry...go back to being un-impressived. I pop PONTI's balloons...I disagree with POSEI as you did....but I still see no impeachment and no successful Gore run in '08 (really can't see ANY type of Gore run in '08!).

    Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 10:09pm

86. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 7:19pm

    Those are 3 different polling centers at 3 separate times.

    Boy do make yourself to appear not too bright... Bwahahahah

    OK I get it, you were just kidding, right? Please say you were just kidding.

    I agree that the polls were taken by three different polling centers. Yes, they were also taken at different times. Sometimes I get carried away when making a point. You might have something when you say that when 70 percent of people didn't know much about Harry Reid in January, perhaps 46 percent formed enough of an opinion by April to say he was doing a good job. I doubt it, though; most Americans can't even name the VP after 7 years, how are they going to know who Harry Reid is? Answer: they don't. Fact is, most of your polls are meaningless; people just answer questions one way or the other even if they really haven't a clue.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 10:28pm

87. Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 9:20pm

    and "people dislike the CONDUCT of the war"...no, how about people dislike the fact that we've LOST this war, and were losing it from 2005, if not 2004 onward. How about the fact that Bush's CONDUCT of it is to keep throwing young men and women into a meat-grinder regardless of the situation on the ground or public support?

    I don't agree that people think we have lost this war, PARTICULARLY those who have volunteered to fight it. The only way to really lose the war is withdraw our troops before Iraq is stabilized. I see you are still stuck in that Vietnam mindset, as are most liberal Democrats. Wake up, dude, the 60's are over, and this is a whole new war. Yes, people are sick of the war and they want it ended; that does not mean they favor retreat and defeat, cut and run. That's the key mistake the left keeps making and it's wrong.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 10:32pm

88. Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 10:09pm

    By the way, MASK, you are now officially part of the 14 percent club. That's the fraction of people who are happy with the Democratic Congress's performance. Oh, what, you want to spin that number as being because they won't vote to cut and run in Iraq? Oh, I see...

    Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2007 @ 10:35pm

89. Masky,

    I'm still impressed.

    I know you don't see impeachment (yet) nor Gore winning the nomination (yet). I get that.

    But I do. I'm patient so not going to go wacky trying to convince anyone. Just like popping up the signs when they appear. Eventually they will be overwhelming, like hsuB poll approval numbers in the 20's where I said they'd be last summer.

    I also said back then that hsuB/cHeney admin would try upping the number of troops in 2007, it would be a breaking point and that an ever increasing number of our troops killed. They'd be killed due to regional incursions and other fronts on the borders. Luckily congress and State/Condi stepped in and met with regional leaders to slow that down. However notice if it had been up to hsuB/cHeney, we'd be fighting Iran, Syria, in Lebanon and then Egypt, Turkey would come into it and Israel... by now. This is one scenario I am glad to have had seen intervention, if only for the time being.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 10:41pm

90. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 9:57pm

    Not yet fools. The best is yet to come from this great, Aussie-like American.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2007 @ 10:49pm

91. Posted by LRJONES4 06/23/2007 @ 10:49pm

    But LRJ4, hsuB could do Aussie-like great things there! Wouldn't that even be better?

    Great Aussie-like best-- here in the US of A-- just kinda SSSUCK.

    PPppplllLLLllllEEEEEAAAAASSE TAAAKKE HIIIMMM NOOOOWWWW!!!!!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 11:33pm

92. I'll pay you.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2007 @ 11:34pm

93. I'll pay you.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 11:34pm

    I know,I know fools but I think impeachment is still your best bet as us Aussies can't be bought. BTW have you ever considered posthumous impeachment for Bush and his crew? That gives you a bit more time.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2007 @ 01:12am

94. LRJ4,

    You don't get it. Down under hsuB would be the opposite of here. Actually there he'd be smart and make the right choices, because it's upside down and backwards. He'd be good down there. Up here hsuB's just a shit, something to flush. But there with you he'd be worshipped and really do something great...

    Oh well as you wish. Impeachment it is. As Masky keeps counting, I'll go by what he said before, 4 months and it goes public. And Aussielanders will start their mardi gra ala their great best herr hsuB leader will cellibrate his ascension there, means impeachment here. Backwardsland downunder, sickliness, er, good.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 01:33am

95. bush urges the Congress "to summon the moral courage" to support his immigration plan. He should immigrate to our dependency in the Green Zone of Teheran and Congress should summon the moral courage to impeach the İmperial Vice President once the Executioner is out of town.

    Posted by gore4pres at 06/24/2007 @ 02:58am

96. Yes, people are sick of the war and they want it ended; that does not mean they favor retreat and defeat, cut and run. That's the key mistake the left keeps making and it's wrong.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/23/2007 @ 10:32pm

    PONTI, WHEN does the polling show the people "want the war ended"? Does it say "65-70% of Americans want the war ended, but ONLY after Iraqi is stabilized"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2007 @ 07:43am

97. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2007 @ 10:41pm

    HSUB, one more month I think will do the trick and impeachment will truly be where it was..."off the table". If the damning hearings you expect aren't seriously going by the end of July, taking the month of August to reach their "John Dean testifies moment", and then September becomes "debating the bills of impeachment" month....then nothing comes out in October.

    Gore?....Labor Day the "rumors" must start. Then the exploratory committee by Columbus Day, for ANY type of announcement by Halloween or more symbolically "first week in November" (i.e. Gore announces exactly ONE YEAR before the Elections).

    If no serious impeachment hearings by August 1-15th...it ain't happening.

    If no Gore "rumors are swirling that the former Vice-Pres...." on HuffPost, Atrios, Daily Kos, even Drudge by Sept. 1st....no "Gore in '08".

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2007 @ 07:50am

98. LRJONES-You're correct that Bush would make a good Aussie since he supports wars that he refuses to fight in.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/24/2007 @ 11:28am

99. IN,

    Good one

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 12:02pm

100. Posted by MASK 06/24/2007 @ 07:50am

     Maybe I'm wrong and Gore enters later but I don't think so.

     Same for impeachment. Congress could do it later but then I would be wrong as to when. I was wrong about number of troops killed 2007 so far, (and I still hope I am wrong) per State and congress intervention and that was not the trend when I initially made the projection.

     However if I'm wrong about Gore and hsuB/cHeney impeachment, that would be troubling as scenarios do not look good with hsuB/cHeney staying in office another year and Gore has the most experience on a whole range of gov/social/global interaction/perspective and has the easiest chance to beat any repub and as well, also then Bloomberg may say he backs Gore instead of stepping in. Bloomberg would eventually pull votes from Clinton and a repub would have a better chance of grabbing the exec again.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 12:18pm

101. I believe it was Bush and his regime that started this war,, that's Republicans in office!!! I still think it has to do with oil over there! After all, what are the President and Vice-President?? Oil mongrels!!! When somebody else takes over, they are going to have to deal with the terrible mess that Bush leaves behind and, quite frankly, he's not going to bring the soldiers home or quit this war no matter what!! The way I see it, the only way to put a stop to this nonsense is to impeach him and his co-horts and force them out!!! Who's got the nerve to do that? I'm still waiting but not holding my breath!! As for the Democrats, well I think they look a darn sight better than the other side at this point!! Even some of the Republicans are fed up with Bush and his fiasco!! I think that says it in a nutshell!

     Posted by kentuckashee at 06/24/2007 @ 1:25pm

102. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2007 @ 12:18pm

     Well, if it makes you feel better...I DON'T think the TIMING of your predictions are wrong....they're the ONLY possible time for them.

     Gore cannot enter the race any later than Thanksgiving. Sorry, but for all the "hoopla", it would still require him SOME time to get an organization together, even if he could win Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire the first few weeks of January. No announcement before November 15th...and it's impossible later. She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed would have some wins under her belt and Gore would sop up some Obama and Edwards people, but the Hillary people would stay loyal to their candidate who had won primaries.

     Same for impeachment. You hit the Thanksgiving/Christmas Congressional breaks any later than Halloween announcement. That would mean the Senate trial would be well after the primaries start and (something you probably won't believe, but it's true) there is a "distraction" quality to that occuring while the Dems (and Repubs) are trying to get the NEXT President picked.

     Hillary doesn't want an impeachment going on while she's celebrating her victories...nor would Obama or Edwards or even Gore. Dual impeachment would present Constitutional problems, so if it was Cheney first, Bush gets to pick the next Veep and if he picks Condi Rice, the political season turns into CHAOS and again Dems don't want that or want to spend time in the House approving a new Veep (they must)....and THEN try to get to impeaching Bush and making the "first female President" a Republican! (again, stealing Hillary's thunder).

     Actually (of course) I think impeachment will be too late within 2 months....for all those reasons.

     Neither of your predictions have much firm ground under them....Gore running has more than impeachment. But time is running out...and fast. And they're STILL trying to figure out how to pass that immigration bill!

     Posted by Mask at 06/24/2007 @ 2:06pm

103. Well, Frito has the first crack at it as far as impeachment, cHeney next, hsuB well sure of course everything points to him sanctioning the corruption.

     No wonder they stopped emphasizing focus on race related fed law infractions in favor of religious ones:

     Suit shines spotlight on immigration judgeships

     By Louie Gilot / El Paso Times

     Article Launched: 06/24/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

     Guadalupe Gonzalez is the chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in El Paso, a lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in immigration law and a stellar record. In 2002, she made the next logical career move, applying to become an immigration judge.

     "I love El Paso. It is my home. I was born and raised here, and it's important for me personally to contribute in a role that is both vitally important to our country and of particular importance to the El Paso community," she said.

     But the job went to a Anglo male candidate with no reported immigration experience. In 2004, when two other judgeships opened, they went to two other Anglo males, both of them Gonzalez's subordinates with markedly less expertise in immigration law than Gonzalez.

     Gonzalez, 56, sued the U.S. attorney general for discrimination on the basis of gender and national origin, and the suit is pending in a court in Washington, D.C.

     In Gonzalez's case, the department bypassed the competitive hiring process by using the attorney general's direct appointment authority.

     In 2002, Gonzalez did apply for a posted immigration judge position, which went to Richard Ozmun, a retired U.S. Navy lawyer.

     But in 2004, two other vacancies were never posted and Gonzalez was not contacted for an interview, even though she had previously expressed interest in becoming an immigration judge. These positions went to Robert Hough, assistant chief counsel at ICE, under the direct supervision of Gonzalez, and Thomas Roepke, a special assistant U.S. attorney for ICE.

     The government tried to have Gonzalez's case dismissed on the grounds that since Gonzalez did not actually apply for the positions she did not know were open, it was not possible for her to have been discriminated against in the selection process.

     But a Washington, D.C., judge denied that motion last year, saying that the agency could no more discriminate in its direct appointments than in more competitive settings. Gonzalez, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan wrote, "had identified a particular policy that has a discriminatory effect on a particular group -- (the attorney general's) direct appointment authority."

     The suit asks for Gonzalez to get an immigration judge position, back pay and compensatory damages. An immigration judge in El Paso makes between $112,633 and $148,031 a year, Gonzalez's lawyer said.

     "In light of all the wrongdoing this case has uncovered, the Department of Justice should have settled this case a long time ago. Now it looks as though they'll have toÊpay the price at trial," Day said. "Being Mexican-American should not disqualify a talented and experienced lawyer from being an immigration judge."

     http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6215604

     Another in a long list of embarrassments for the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy. the hsuB/cHeney admin.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 2:59pm

104. "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George Bush

     itmfa

     Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 06/22/2007 @ 2:58pm

     BUSH MAY GET HIS WISH

     If things keep on the way they've been going. People still ridicule me for suggesting this, but all I can say in response is -- wait till 2009. I know that Happy will be happy, anyway.

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/24/2007 @ 3:10pm

105. HAPPY -- HATE TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT...

     Snow White is seeing another dwarf.

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/24/2007 @ 3:11pm

106. RE IMPEACH BUSH...

     I agree with Mask. Same for dual impeachment and Cheney-first impeachment. Ain't gonna happen, for the reasons Mask states. Therefore, the Left should stop whomping on this particular dead horse and start focusing its energies exclusively on electing a progressive President and Congress in 2008. (Now THAT'S a dead horse of a different color!)

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/24/2007 @ 3:27pm

107. Actually (of course) I think impeachment will be too late within 2 months....for all those reasons.

     Neither of your predictions have much firm ground under them....Gore running has more than impeachment. But time is running out...and fast. And they're STILL trying to figure out how to pass that immigration bill!

     Posted by MASK 06/24/2007 @ 2:06pm

     And that's where we disagree. The timing you speak of sounds too much like the new con August 'new product' marketing scheme as much as the 'inconvenience' argument. Kinda like saying some 'high crimes' are just too hard to prosecute even if the evidence is there and the law enforcement officials have the means, but it would mean vacation time would have to wait... Ok, campaigning isn't as trivial but it smacks of laziness. As well I disagree with the amount of time an impeachment would take especially if the evidence is already discovered, authenticated and overwhelming. And as you say, the congress would not want to drag it out. hsuB/cHeney admin 'would' of course-- but that would be transparent and only harm their own case once it's started. Thus all I can see of your ultimate argument is simply that congress just doesn't have the will even with oversight discovery of criminality?

     As for firm ground for my predictions, stop covering your eyes and ears and singing LALALALALA, every time it's brought up (not just be me) and maybe you'd take notice. Although I've posted lots already, and as I said before, it'll soon be overwhelming soon-- congress is getting angrier and angrier everyday with the hsuB/cHeney admin obstruction and corruption, don't doubt that they're not seriously looking at impeachment more than not.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 3:32pm

108. Snow White is seeing another dwarf.

     Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/24/2007 @ 3:11pm

     Thanks for the concern! It's OK, Sunday is my day off....Thank God there are 7 of us! Snow White is some woman, insatiable! As I'm over-the-hill already, we got room for a BEAR...we can do alternating weeks...but only if you are a studly young bear!

     Posted by Happy at 06/24/2007 @ 4:00pm

109. On Oct. 10, 2002 Congress gave Bush the sole power to go to war based on an intelligence report which the majority of them never read. In Feb. 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, faulted for having turned out a nothing-551 page report on the the 'intelligence' leading up to the Iraq invasion, promised that the results of a further investigation would be made public following the Nov. '04 election.

     By early 2007, with Democrats now in the Senate leadership, there continues to be no sign of the report.

     If Iraq is the basis of our disenchantment and if the promised report will show how the administration cherry-picked, distorted, or manipulated the intelligence to deceive Congress and the American public in its campaign to sell the war, why hasn't it been released? Fourteen percent approval rating is too high.

     Posted by felicity at 06/24/2007 @ 4:27pm

110. As for firm ground for my predictions, stop covering your eyes and ears and singing LALALALALA, every time it's brought up....Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2007 @ 3:32pm

     Seriously, HSUB...you think it's ME who covers his eyes and sings LALALALALA?

     I accept the POSSIBILITY of impeachment and Gore running, just not the likelihood.

     YOU don't seem to accept that it's not likely. If so, you don't act it.

     Seriously, I'm prepared to accept Bush and Cheney NOT "coming to justice"...are you?

     Posted by Mask at 06/24/2007 @ 4:59pm

111. A September 7, 2006, article by journalist Jonathon Weisman in the Washington Post reported that the part of the phase two report comparing the Bush administration's public statements about Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private would not be released before the November 2006 election.[8]

     Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress." The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda.

     After Democrats gained a majority in the Senate during the 2006 midterm election, chairmanship of the committee passed to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). The former chair, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) left the committee; the ranking Republican and vice chairman of the committee is now Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).

     On May 25, 2007, the committee released a volume of the phase II report titled, "Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq". This volume of the report includes seven pages of conclusions regarding assessments provided by the intelligence community to U.S. government leaders prior to the Iraq war. The report concludes that the intelligence community had assessed that establishing a stable government in Iraq would be a "long, difficult, and probably turbulent challenge," that Iraqi society was deeply divided and would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power took steps to prevent it, and that the war would increase the threat of terrorism, at least temporarily. The intelligence community also assessed that a U.S. defeat and occupation of Iraq would lead to a surge in political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups, and that the war would not cause other countries in the region to abandon their WMD programs.

     This volume of the report includes an appendix containing two previously classified reports by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) titled, "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq" and "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq", as well as a long list of recipients within the government of NIC assessments on Iraq. The appendix also contains a number of "Additional Views" in which different members of the committee comment on the history of the committee's work in this area, and criticize what they characterize as the politicization of that work by members of the other party.

     As of May, 2007, the portions of the phase II report that have not yet been released are the review of public statements by U.S. government leaders prior to the war, and the assessment of the activities of Douglas Feith and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence _on_Iraq

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 5:14pm

112. I accept the POSSIBILITY of impeachment and Gore running, just not the likelihood.

     Seriously, I'm prepared to accept Bush and Cheney NOT "coming to justice"...are you?

     Posted by MASK 06/24/2007 @ 4:59pm

     Masky there's always a possibility that anything can happen. hsuB could get attacked by another pretzel. cHeney could clog up.

     Bottom line--what is it that you ‘advocate' for? I say that hsuB/cHeney violated the constitution, other laws, lied us into war, will continue the killing, and that impeachment is the right thing to do. hsuB will continue to veto any good legislation coming out of congress. If congress wants to do ‘good' work, impeachment will have to happen or they'll look like a do nothing congress by Nov 2008.

     Poopooing impeachment is equivalent to ‘advocating' against doing the right thing.

     But like I said, when it's overwhelming and congress pushes for it per a disgusted public and no help from hsuB/cHeney admin, a tipping point will hit and BAM.

     But hey if you don't like Gore… No hard feelings. Most of the dems running are better than any of the repubs. I just think Gore will do best.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 5:47pm

113. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2007 @ 5:47pm

     Sorry, HSUB...poopooing impeachment is not advocating against it.

     Anymore than poopooing it raining gold coins and naked Elisha Cuthberts is saying I'd be against that happening....just don't expect it to.

     Posted by Mask at 06/24/2007 @ 6:17pm

114. Saying it can't or won't happen is a lot different from saying that it should happen and/or that you'd like it to happen or that you're actively advocating for it to happen. Calling, writing, marching, ...

     Remember:

     All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. - Elbert Hubbard

     And:

     The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. - Edmund Burke

     But you're going further and saying that it's ok that evil to succeed and to just get out of the way and accept it. Sad.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 7:29pm

115. Hey Oustbush, great to see you're back, or that I've noticed you're among we the living; and condolences about the terrible carnage in Blacksburg.

     And Ibblebibble, your old website doesnt' allow linkage because of some barrier, a window with the # (octothorpe) 403, comes up for me and prevents access. My site is www.home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-megusto if you want to set me straight and allow linkage again.

     Hope you've all had a great weekend, even the ignored.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/24/2007 @ 8:00pm

116. This is funny: Sweet Home GoreObama

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8eR48X_zXU

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 8:13pm

117. Masky-- you think my scenario is as far fetched as this one:

     Al Gore & a "White Horse" Convention in 2008? by barrygordon

     Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:25:16 AM PDT

     I've just finished reading Al Gore's latest book, "The Assault on Reason"; and of course, it only poured more fuel on my already burning hope that Al Gore becomes the Democratic nominee in 2008.

     Gore has the transformative qualities of Obama with far more experience. He has more credibility than Clinton on the war, a similar (if not better) resume with far less baggage. He has the populism of Edwards and the gravitas of Biden, and he has made the improbable leap from politico to icon. Maybe "prophet" wouldn't be too strong a word. And by the way, he's the only potential candidate who has already won the votes of a majority of the electorate ("Re-elect Gore in '08" is a great bumper sticker).

     ...

     Usually, in a brokered convention scenario, one of the lesser lights traditionally known as a "dark horse" wins. In this case, though, don't look for a smoke-filled room filled with power brokers ready to pluck someone out of obscurity. Those guys don't exist anymore. Far more likely is a turn to a known commodity, a "white horse," if you will. And here comes Gore, galloping onto the convention, the sword of truth in one hand and a Power Point projector in the other, ready to save the country, or maybe even the globe, and return us to sanity once more.

     http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/19/11134/2727

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 8:32pm

118. And Masky you had brought up Gore picking Lie berman before... this is a good responce:

     The Lieberman Timeline

     CT voters sent Lieberman to the US Senate.

     CT voters sent Lieberman to the US Senate for another term.

     Gore picked Lieberman for VP in 2000, but they weren't sworn-in. CT voters sent Lieberman to the US Senate for a 3rd term.

     Lieberman and Edwards aggressively hawked the war in 2002. Hillary and Bill Clinton also supported the war. Gore opposed it.

     Gore did not endorse Lieberman and Edwards for 2004 nomination, on the basis of the war.

     Gore did not endorse Lieberman for CT-Sen race. Bill Clinton campaigned for and resuscitated nearly-extinct Lieberman. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also endorsed Lieberman for the CT-Sen Primary. Primarily because of Clinton's help, and CT voters' choice, Lieberman gets sent back to the US Senate to continue where he left off.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 8:35pm

119. OOOoops forgot to add the dates:

     The Lieberman Timeline

     1988 CT voters sent Lieberman to the US Senate.

     1996 CT voters sent Lieberman to the US Senate for another term.

     2000 Gore picked Lieberman for VP in 2000, but they weren't sworn-in. CT voters sent Lieberman to the US Senate for a 3rd term.

     2002 Lieberman and Edwards aggressively hawked the war in 2002. Hillary and Bill Clinton also supported the war. Gore opposed it.

     2003 Gore did not endorse Lieberman and Edwards for 2004 nomination, on the basis of the war.

     2006 Gore did not endorse Lieberman for CT-Sen race. Bill Clinton campaigned for and resuscitated nearly-extinct Lieberman. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also endorsed Lieberman for the CT-Sen Primary. Primarily because of Clinton's help, and CT voters' choice, Lieberman gets sent back to the US Senate to continue where he left off.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2007 @ 8:41pm

120. Regarding impeachment; Some (most notably, Mask) have suggested that the democrats in congress want to be perceived as having acomplished something other than "getting" bush. So their best bet is to focus on a progressive agenda, and keep impeachment "off the table".

     But if any progressive legislation gets vetoed, then what will they have acomplished by the next election? And whom will they blame? A departed president? Then they will just sound as lame as the conservatives who still blame everything on Clinton.

     So, even though a progressive agenda would sit better with the populace, than an impeachment, what other option do they have, if they don't want to be called a "do nothing" congress? (Which is what they look like now).

     No legislation will be passed, til bush is gone. So why not focus on it after all?

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 06/24/2007 @ 8:44pm

121. Hmmmm!! Speaking of Al Gore, does anybody remember how the first election went?? He won that election!! But then Bush put out a stink bomb because he thought the results were skewed! Why? Because ,, ahemmmm,,, there allegedly were some vote tickets that got misplaced, blah,, di di blah blah blah blah!!!! yer right!! Down there in Florida no less!! And who should just happen to be the governor?? Why it's kinfolk!!! Jeb Bush!!! That was the most crookedest thing I ever saw from the get go! And they did it right there underneath our noses in plain daylight!!!!!

     My mom had said to me at another time, "If a person will cheat, they will lie and steal too"!! I've never forgotten that piece of advice.

     I doubt that anybody will get rid of him and his lot since they wanna "let sleeping dogs lie"!! It's too late to do the impeachment thing ya think? Even though...say,, wouldn't it,, couldn't it,, go on record anyways?? Gee!! So I guess we're just gonna let the Bush admin keep on till the elections. It would seem so. Gee I wonder what more damage he can do between now and then...

     Posted by kentuckashee at 06/24/2007 @ 9:45pm

122. Pelosi took a gamble and accepted a minimum wage increase in exchange for "short-term" continued funding of the war. Her belief is that the Murtha crowd (southern Dems and moderate Repubs) will come on board and de-fund the war in Septemeber after giving the surge a chance to work.

     For her sake, I hope she is right!

     Posted by Metteyya at 06/24/2007 @ 9:58pm

123. It was quite obvious that the voters of 2006 wanted us out of Iraq. The Dems. have chosen to ignore that. They have basically said "F*&k off" to the people who voted for them. So what do we do now? That old "Government of the people, for the people, by the people" thing is really taking a beating these last years. It seems that less than 30% of "the people" agree with what "our Government" is doing, yet they keep doing it. What a sick joke. It would be funny, but men and women are being killed every day for oil to fuel SUV's with "Support the Troops" stickers on the back. Personally, if given the choice of walking or having one more mother lose a child over there, I'd walk.

     Posted by decrepittex at 06/25/2007 @ 12:50pm

124. I thinks most posters don't understand that there are a lot of risks on both sides of this issue.

     Pelosi and the Dem leaders don't want to defund too early and be accused of not giving the surge a chance to work.

     I personally do not think the surge will work, even if you had 100,000 troops because the Iraquis do NOT want us there and view us as occupiers of "their" country. So as long as we are there, there will be an insurgent problem regardless of the troop level.

     But politically, I understand that it is probably safer to take away any remaining Repub arguments about the surge and then in September defund "with or without" Republican support.

     Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2007 @ 1:18pm