| |
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/10/2008 4:44:02 AM | Not much should be read into this sort of thing.
Congress never rates very high in the polls. Congress invariably rates below 50% and usually only in the high 30's to mid 40's%, regardless of which party is in the majority.
Gallop has recorded Congress's approval above 50% only 3 times since 1975. Once it was 55% in the late 1990's. It hit an all time high of 84% right after 9/11 and has steadily declined ever since.
It should be remembered that people tend to disapprove of Congress as a whole but give their own Congressmen substantially higher ratings when asked. | |
|
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/10/2008 5:24:30 AM | THAT RECORD LOW WAS BROKEN!!! 9% approval
It's even lower now. So, NOW it's at a NEW LOW.
The Democratically Controlled congress has reach a new bench mark. Lowest in history.
Of course it's all Bush's fault.
Oh I don't blame Bush for this one, I blame pointless fillibusters.
Now as for bush...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/
WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
he has his own record. | |
|
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/10/2008 6:46:00 AM | gil111 ,,, you must be just as smart as Congress...
So tell me ...
Where are the pieces of a plane that hit the Pentagon??
There was never any pieces found because that explosion was set to kill people that would have told truths ..
America is a fallen country.. We was taken over by hostile forces that came from within our own country..
Congress SOLD US OUT !!! | |
|
| |
| |
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/11/2008 9:15:49 AM | Alot of of junk was throw out with earmarks which was a plus. Harry R. what a pansy, just listen to his words that he speaks in a position he is in of importance as he panders not making any common sense. I think if more American people got together and voted many of these politicans out by their "how it makes me money" we could clean up alot of this in due time. Sending millions and billions of dollars overseas to third world countries that never pay back. The dollars spent on aids and you better not disagree "its never enough" thoughts for these countries with guilt. Handing out our dollars we generate in taxes to many useless causes and then going into corupt leaders hands.
The bills and checks politicans bounce with their credit cards knowing they will be paid personally by government. So much involved but the people own the government not the politicans who make the rules for us. Its time to clean it up as the internet has helped bring to forefront, how bills are written etc. The talk of low ratings of government doesnt matter if you don't do something about it for change. It should be whats best for the people of the U.S. not for a slezy politicans gain. Not all politicans are bad , just many...Alot to do to make it better with these few words spoken. | |
|
| |
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/11/2008 4:20:07 PM | President Bush is now where President Truman was in 1952: eight years into a presidency with a record perceived by many to be a "failure" and unable to be elected dogcatcher. I say "unable to be elected" because Truman could have run again whereas Bush cannot and his approval rating (22%) was lower than President Bush's 28% as of May 2008. (Nixon's 24% was not even as bad as Truman's and he was worse than GWB as well.) History has been much kinder to Truman over time and the same will happen with the current president even if ultimately he is not looked at as good historically as Truman looks now.
I'd be more inclined to think it has something to do with not forcing issues that the executive has been pushing to a head. But When you president has the option of a "pocket veto" then it really isn't a democracy and the lack of action is understandable.
Your lack of knowledge of history is unfortunate and common to the populace at large. President George W. Bush has had one pocket veto out of ten bills vetoed. Not only is that nothing but you seem to presume that the pocket veto is something new to GWB's presidency. It is time for a bit of historical perspective here...
GWB's Republican presidential daddy (1989-1993) had 29 vetoes of which 15 were pocket vetoes.
Half of the vetos of Republican President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) were of the pocket veto variety.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) had more pocket vetos (108) than regular ones (71).
Democrat President F.D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) pocket vetoed 41% of his 635 vetoes.
Republican President T. Roosevelt (1901-1909) had 42 regular vetoes and 40 pocket ones: roughly half of each.
Republican President William McKinley (1897-1901) had six times as many pocket vetoes (36) as regular ones (6).
Democrat President Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897) had roughly 100 of his 400 first term vetos of the pocket variety and more than three times as many pocket vetoes (128) as regular ones (42) in his second term.
Republican President Ulysses Grant (1869-1877) had more pocket vetoes (48) than regular ones (45).
The first Republican President Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) had five pocket vetoes to two regular ones.
The first Democrat President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) had seven pocket vetoes to five regular ones.
President James Madison (1809-1817) was instrumental in the creation of the Constitution and several of its guidelines and is often called the "Father of the Constitution." He had two pocket vetos of his seven vetoes overall.
President George Washington (1789-1797) who set many of the precedents that continue to shape how presidents today govern had six vetoes, four of which were of the pocket variety.
Not only does the concept go back to the earliest days of the Republic but it has constitutional sanction as well if you review the text and notice what is required by the president and by congress to get a bill passed, vetoed, overridden, etc.
But as is common these days, people like you whine about anything the current president does: it is often this way in the final years of a two term president so on one hand it is understandable.
But one reason this current congress is so unpopular is not only are they arguably the worst congress in history. Considering the congresses since 2001 and those during Bush's daddy's presidency and the presidency of Reagan, that is no small achievement.
This goes to show that even a weakened lame duck executive can still control the legislature more times than not -heck it explains why President Clinton's vetoes were rarely overridden even in his final years and why even the weakest of executives (such as President Ford after Nixon's resignation and President Johnson after Lincoln's assassination) still sustained the lions share of their vetoes from being overridden.
You may see this as a problem but the Founders with good reason wanted a strong executive: they had lived in the days of the old Articles of Confederation and seen how a lack of strong executive leadership almost was the end of the US in its infancy. Meanwhile, today's contemporary ignorant because they do not like the incumbent president claim to want an Articles of Confederation style government.
Hence George Santayana's dictum "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat history": precisely what will happen if we have an Obama presidency (aka "Carter II").
Meanwhile, whatever you think about this president notice that the same media which salivated and repeated again and again last year the then-"failure" of the Iraqi government to satisfactorily meet ten of eighteen "benchmarks" last year as a sign of how we were "losing" and in a "quagmire" and "another Vietnam" are now as silent as a whore in church over that same Iraqi government satisfactorily meeting fifteen of eighteen of those same "benchmarks" as of May 2008. Gee, {{{in my best sarcastic tone of voice}}} I wonder why that is?
| |
|
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/11/2008 4:40:55 PM | | I think it's because the Democrats were elected to end the illegal occupation of Iraq, and then completely and utterly failed to do just that. They have continually bent to the wishes of one of the worst, if not the worst Presidents in history. And now Barack Obama is changing his views on Iraq....how convenient. On top of that they have also failed to accomplish much of anything, and we have Senators/Congressmen wasting time with issues such, for example, as whether or not some overpaid sports stars took drugs. All in all they have continually failed the American public by disregarding their wishes and failing to address the true problems in this country, but as long as the American people are content to keep being distracted from the real problems by arguing about which presidential/ political candidate/party will screw the country over less we will continue to be dissatisfied with the quality of their "lesser-of-the-two-evils" leaders. Here's an idea, why don't we all sit back and watch as our Government spends our economy into the ground by printing worthless money, inflating the dollar, and refusing to reign in our needless global empire, all the while restricting our freedoms under the guise of "homeland security?" Oh, that's right, we already are. | |
|
| Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever - Why is that?
Posted: 7/11/2008 5:13:57 PM | Something occurred yesterday that, if it happened twenty years ago, would have gotten front page news coverage, but it doesn't. Rep. Dennis Kucinich read articles for impeachment of George Bush.
The silence is defeaning and revealing. Not with a bang but a whimper. With a yawn of insouciance. With the stupid look of the morbidly ignorant.
This is what it takes to destroy a thing of beauty: No one carries out their authority, or at least as ignorant of their own authority as the people who put them in power. Doing one's duty can be difficult, and sometimes require courage. Other than Kucinich there are no courageous souls willing to stand and be counted. No matter what your political leaning, the unwillingness to do one's job and in a way that is willfully negligent to avoid difficult situations, should be justification for dismissal.
My own policy is no matter how much I like my senators or representatives I automatically vote for a new candidate. I think for me this is a way I can be satisfied that I am doing my little part to minimize the impact of international corporate greed and power over our elected representatives. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
