PDA

View Full Version : Congress' Approval Rating at a Whopping 9%


revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 10:27 AM
"But, but, but....it's all Bush's fault!"

Fact is, the Dems took control of congress on a platform to end the War in Iraq and lower gas prices. We are still at war, and gas prices have gone up $1.50. Nice job!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/08/congress-hits-single-digits-rasmussen/

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category. …
The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Stlrs4Life
07-09-2008, 10:32 AM
Yeah considering your Empreror vetoes everything.. And it isn't like the Dem controlled Congress has a majority by much. TYypical Rep. Blame it on the other side, none of there own fault. And your boys Presidency ratings seem to be pretty low also.

Vis
07-09-2008, 10:35 AM
I'm amazed at anyone who has ever given congress a positive rating. Who are these 9%?

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 10:40 AM
Yeah considering your Empreror vetoes everything.. And it isn't like the Dem controlled Congress has a majority by much. TYypical Rep. Blame it on the other side, none of there own fault. And your boys Presidency ratings seem to be pretty low also.

Dude, you need to ease up a bit. This whole "Republicans are evil" thing is way over the top and completely insulting. You blame everything on the GOP and take absolutely no blame on your own party, yet the proof is in the pudding...they are both to blame. THAT'S what my message is...not some one-sided diatribe hate mongering against the other party as being a bunch of evil Satan worshippers who kill kitty cats.

Stlrs4Life
07-09-2008, 10:43 AM
Oh, there is no doubt we are to blame also. Your fellow conservatives need to ease up.

Mosca
07-09-2008, 10:46 AM
It's not Republicans that are evil; it is the ones who tried to wipe out the opposition that are evil, and they just happened to be Republicans. It wasn't a battle between left and right; it was a battle between far right and everyone else, including traditional conservatives, and traditional conservatives had to join up or be annihilated in the wake of the reactionary attempt to take over the country.

Left and right can get along just fine. It's the nut jobs on both ends that we have to look out for. Low approval ratings of Congress (which is 49.5% Republican) is just the dregs of the battle we've all waged against the nuts.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 10:49 AM
It's not Republicans that are evil; it is the ones who tried to wipe out the opposition that are evil, and they just happened to be Republicans. It wasn't a battle between left and right; it was a battle between far right and everyone else, including traditional conservatives, and traditional conservatives had to join up or be annihilated in the wake of the reactionary attempt to take over the country.

Left and right can get along just fine. It's the nut jobs on both ends that we have to look out for.


Woah! Exhibit A: The Clintons. The left have their hatchetmen too. Just yesterday that nut (and he IS getting a little nutty) Bill Clinton claimed that because John McCain is an ex-POW, he could "snap at any time".

Even Karl Rove has to blush at that kind of slimy smear.

TackleMeBen
07-09-2008, 10:57 AM
they are both to blame.. politicans dont care about the people... they care about themselves and putting money in their own pockets...

Godfather
07-09-2008, 11:17 AM
Woah! Exhibit A: The Clintons. The left have their hatchetmen too. Just yesterday that nut (and he IS getting a little nutty) Bill Clinton claimed that because John McCain is an ex-POW, he could "snap at any time".

Even Karl Rove has to blush at that kind of slimy smear.

Wow, WJC has lost it.

But Rove not only wouldn't blush at that kind of smear, he was behind the push polls in 2000 that said the same thing, as well as the racist attacks on McCain's adopted child.

MACH1
07-09-2008, 11:23 AM
Why aren't we drilling for oil or building new refineries? Oh wait you would have to go ask the dems that question.

Dino 6 Rings
07-09-2008, 12:24 PM
I find it funny, from the media and the left wing that Bush gets all the blame for everything wrong in the world and zero credit for anything positive, and yet Clinton gets all the credit for the "great times" in the 90s and none of the blame for anything that went wrong or was bad.

Bush, went to war on Terror which includes battlefields in Irag and Afghanistan. There hasn't been a terror attack on our soil since 911 because of this tactic, moving the battle field. The best defense is a great offense.

Clinton, goes to war with the Serbians, bombs former WWII allies while siding with the terrorists in Albania, has an affair while serving in the oval office, gutted the military, had a Dot. com bust that was worse than the housing mess we are now in, WACO, OKC Bombing, WTC Bombing 1, 2 Embassy Bombings in Africa, Cole Bombing, gave technology to the North Koreans that allowed them to take their Nuclear Weapons development to the next level. Failed miserably in his Mid East Peace Initiative that lead to the Intifada in Israel under Arafat, did nothing for health care while in office, started the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy in the Military which tricked the homosexuals into voting for him and turns out is worse for them than the old policy, he was Disbarred, and is still trying to figure out the definition of the word "IS".

But yeah, the woes of the world are all Bush's and the GOP's fault.

And before anyone replies. I am 100% in favor of torturing any suspected Islamic terrorist to prevent any further attacks on my country. Jack Bauer style. If they believe that it is their place in the world to get me to convert to Islam or kill me, I see nothing wrong in imprissioning them and getting whatever information we possibly can from them by any means necessary. And in fact, we take it too easy on them and they see that as a sign of weakness. I have NO MERCY for anyone that wants me to Submit. None.

excuse me now while I go clutch to my religion and guns.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 05:57 PM
Don't forget about suitcases of cash for China, Whitewater, Travelgate, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, etc, etc...

The moral (cough cough) of the story? There are shady guys on both sides of the aisle. I don't actually think either McCain or Obama are shady. They may both flip-flop, but they are both decent enough guys (for politicians).

Dino 6 Rings
07-09-2008, 06:00 PM
You may want to think about Obama a little more. The Guy is campaigning out of Chicago...that in itself is Shady. Nothing good every happens Politically out of Chicago.

Do Dead People still vote up there? I wonder.

Oh, and if Obama is raising all this cash online, is anyone checking to make sure that none of that online cash is coming from say...somewhere Not in America? Just wondering...I'm curious. Is there going to be a release of every name of people that donated to his campaign online? Cause legally, you can't put money into the pot if you aren't a citizen. But he's from Chicago, so we should trust his finances are in order. Especially since Rezko is now out of the picture.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 06:07 PM
I think him and McCain are both honorable men, but honorable in very different ways. I'm staying out of personal attacks on either, since I think neither deserve it. Just my perspective...

Preacher
07-09-2008, 06:11 PM
Yeah considering your Empreror vetoes everything.. And it isn't like the Dem controlled Congress has a majority by much. TYypical Rep. Blame it on the other side, none of there own fault. And your boys Presidency ratings seem to be pretty low also.

:chuckle: No, you're not extreme at all.

Of course, you wanted to blame the GOP controlled congress for all the bad in 2001-- even though the Dems controlled the senate.

Nope, you're mainline. :rofl:

Dino 6 Rings
07-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Questioning his finances or where he's getting the money isn't a personal attack. Just to clarify.

I think he's a great "figure head" that the Dems have rallied behind that has no real idea on any issue and talks in platitudes and speaks of "hope" yet really...has no idea what the heck he's doing and is seriously over his head. But Tom Daschelle has his back and so do the Kennedy's so he's now in a position of power to become their "man" in the white house.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 06:56 PM
Oh, he's definitely in over his head. He's about to get chewed up by the "monster" (Nixon's perfectly apropos description) that is the political system of the most powerful country in the world. McCain has been seasoned and has the battle scars to show it (and I'm not talking about being a POW).

It's already very evident. The guy is changing positions on almost a daily basis, and is pandering to so many internal party interests that his platform may look more like Ronald Reagan's than Jimmy Carter's by time the Democratic Convention hits. I get what he's doing, but I don't have to like it.

Vis
07-09-2008, 08:32 PM
wishful thinking. obama is something new.

revefsreleets
07-09-2008, 08:37 PM
wishful thinking. obama is something new.

He was. But other than his internet campaign funding, he's pretty much becoming just more of the same. He's pandering and not holding true to his principals, which was the whole appeal of being "change".

millwalldavey
07-10-2008, 12:13 PM
They didnt ask my my approval... it may have magically skewerd those numbers down to negatives!

GBMelBlount
07-10-2008, 12:21 PM
revefsreleets;412134]He was. But other than his internet campaign funding, he's pretty much becoming just more of the same. He's pandering and not holding true to his principals, which was the whole appeal of being "change".

Perhaps this "change" campaign is referring to his positions on issues.
:hunch:

revefsreleets
07-10-2008, 03:43 PM
I wasn't really joking about the Reagan thing. At the rate he's going, he may just adapt the entire Regan platform plank by plank.

Saw this today, so the Reagan comparisons are not just mine (although the context is different):

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/24304239.html

Obama and JFK? No, think Reagan
By Darrell M. West



Published on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008

WASHINGTON: The youthful and charismatic Barack Obama may often be compared to John F. Kennedy, but Ronald Reagan poses the more interesting parallel. Like the Republican who swept into the White House in 1980, Obama is an outstanding orator whose national political rise coincides with a grass-roots movement demanding fundamental change in America.

Many Democrats underestimated Reagan because of his inexperience, ardent ideology, and lofty but sometimes vague rhetoric. Yet the former Hollywood actor and California governor surprised opponents by leading a revolution in domestic and foreign policy.

Aided by shrewd advisers and outside activists, Reagan cut taxes, slashed social service spending and ushered in a tough international stance. In so doing, Reagan became one of America's most influential presidents in the post-World War II era.

Obama has the same capacity as Reagan to produce surprising changes, albeit with different policy objectives than Reagan. The Illinois senator, with a liberal voting record, has divergent views on virtually every issue from taxes and use of American force to health, education and welfare.

But like Reagan, Obama can motivate grass-roots activists on behalf of policy change. Record numbers of voters have helped Obama upset the favored Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. In state after state, grass-roots activists knocked on doors, wrote blogs, raised an unprecedented amount of money, and provided intellectual energy for the Obama campaign. Their fervor echoed the conservative activists who propelled Reagan to victory in the last century.

Also like Reagan, Obama holds the potential to use activists to reformulate this country's prevailing public philosophy. His campaign message of change has activated supporters across the country and this grass-roots support gives him political capital with which to seek alteration in the status quo.

For three decades now, progressive forces have sat on their political heels. They have been afraid to utter the word taxes in public for fear of being labeled tax-and-spend liberals. Democrats have downplayed talk of government activism and using the public sector to help those in need. Many have been quiet on matters related to family and cultural values because they didn't want to be seen as outside the prevailing mainstream.

Reagan captured the public trust as Jimmy Carter fell from grace and gas prices were a factor. Now, popular dissatisfaction with Bush's handling of the Katrina debacle, the domestic economy and the Iraq war have given a fresh party another opportunity to reshape America's governing philosophy.

Armed with majorities in the House and Senate, a President Obama could reposition government as a solution rather than a problem. He could promote fairer tax policies, improve access to health care and return America to a more consultative foreign policy.

Major redefinition does not come easily. Institutional barriers remain that will slow action, news reporting will focus on daily blips rather than the new president's substantive priorities and citizen cynicism will make many Americans doubt his sincerity. Large-scale change may prove elusive even if Democrats control Congress and the White House.

Yet just as Reagan harnessed the financial, organizational and intellectual energy of activists, so could Obama. He can push the activists' values, as Reagan did, but cannot pursue every idea that his supporters propose.

Most important, Obama should study Reagan's style. Reagan was a strong leader who left an enduring legacy because he thought big, hired smart people, delegated details to staff and did not let the highest office in the land overwhelm him. Obama must keep his focus on broad vision and large-scale change, not minute policy details.

Obama may already have the political insulation that gave Reagan the moniker of the Teflon president. He has survived questions about his relationship with a fiery minister and his own controversial comments about small-town American life. In overcoming these land mines, Obama may have demonstrated that he is more like Reagan than many would like to admit.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West is a Brookings Institution vice president and director of its Governance Studies Program. He can be reached by e-mail at www.brookings.edu.

Dino 6 Rings
07-10-2008, 05:16 PM
When was Reagan ever called the Teflon President? Wasn't that Clinton?

sigh...I'm so tired of politics...how long til Kick Off?

Preacher
07-10-2008, 05:26 PM
When was Reagan ever called the Teflon President? Wasn't that Clinton?

sigh...I'm so tired of politics...how long til Kick Off?


Yep to the first one..

not soon enough to the second.

Texasteel
07-10-2008, 05:50 PM
Please don't compare a guy that changes his position depending on who he happens to be talking to at the moment to President Reagan

Hammer Of The GODS
07-10-2008, 05:52 PM
I find it funny, from the media and the left wing that Bush gets all the blame for everything wrong in the world and zero credit for anything positive, and yet Clinton gets all the credit for the "great times" in the 90s and none of the blame for anything that went wrong or was bad.

Bush, went to war on Terror which includes battlefields in Irag and Afghanistan. There hasn't been a terror attack on our soil since 911 because of this tactic, moving the battle field. The best defense is a great offense.

Clinton, goes to war with the Serbians, bombs former WWII allies while siding with the terrorists in Albania, has an affair while serving in the oval office, gutted the military, had a Dot. com bust that was worse than the housing mess we are now in, WACO, OKC Bombing, WTC Bombing 1, 2 Embassy Bombings in Africa, Cole Bombing, gave technology to the North Koreans that allowed them to take their Nuclear Weapons development to the next level. Failed miserably in his Mid East Peace Initiative that lead to the Intifada in Israel under Arafat, did nothing for health care while in office, started the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy in the Military which tricked the homosexuals into voting for him and turns out is worse for them than the old policy, he was Disbarred, and is still trying to figure out the definition of the word "IS".

But yeah, the woes of the world are all Bush's and the GOP's fault.

And before anyone replies. I am 100% in favor of torturing any suspected Islamic terrorist to prevent any further attacks on my country. Jack Bauer style. If they believe that it is their place in the world to get me to convert to Islam or kill me, I see nothing wrong in imprissioning them and getting whatever information we possibly can from them by any means necessary. And in fact, we take it too easy on them and they see that as a sign of weakness. I have NO MERCY for anyone that wants me to Submit. None.

excuse me now while I go clutch to my religion and guns.

WOW!

Dino 5 Rings for President! lol

Man I couldn't have said it better! I am neither Rep or Dem. I am just an man with common sense and a conscience! And all I have to say is...............................

BILL CLINTON IS A PIECE OF SHIT!

Please read Dereliction of Duty, it is the eyewitness account of Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson ,he was a military aide to President Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football"—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. This responsibility meant that he spent a considerable amount of time next to the president, giving him a unique perspective on the Clinton administration.

Being prior military I felt I should read this book. Now I didn't like Clinton before I read the book and I REALLY didn't like him after! This book is a must read!

augustashark
07-11-2008, 01:44 AM
I wasn't really joking about the Reagan thing. At the rate he's going, he may just adapt the entire Regan platform plank by plank.

Saw this today, so the Reagan comparisons are not just mine (although the context is different):

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/24304239.html

Obama and JFK? No, think Reagan
By Darrell M. West



Published on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008

WASHINGTON: The youthful and charismatic Barack Obama may often be compared to John F. Kennedy, but Ronald Reagan poses the more interesting parallel. Like the Republican who swept into the White House in 1980, Obama is an outstanding orator whose national political rise coincides with a grass-roots movement demanding fundamental change in America.

Many Democrats underestimated Reagan because of his inexperience, ardent ideology, and lofty but sometimes vague rhetoric. Yet the former Hollywood actor and California governor surprised opponents by leading a revolution in domestic and foreign policy.

Aided by shrewd advisers and outside activists, Reagan cut taxes, slashed social service spending and ushered in a tough international stance. In so doing, Reagan became one of America's most influential presidents in the post-World War II era.

Obama has the same capacity as Reagan to produce surprising changes, albeit with different policy objectives than Reagan. The Illinois senator, with a liberal voting record, has divergent views on virtually every issue from taxes and use of American force to health, education and welfare.

But like Reagan, Obama can motivate grass-roots activists on behalf of policy change. Record numbers of voters have helped Obama upset the favored Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. In state after state, grass-roots activists knocked on doors, wrote blogs, raised an unprecedented amount of money, and provided intellectual energy for the Obama campaign. Their fervor echoed the conservative activists who propelled Reagan to victory in the last century.

Also like Reagan, Obama holds the potential to use activists to reformulate this country's prevailing public philosophy. His campaign message of change has activated supporters across the country and this grass-roots support gives him political capital with which to seek alteration in the status quo.

For three decades now, progressive forces have sat on their political heels. They have been afraid to utter the word taxes in public for fear of being labeled tax-and-spend liberals. Democrats have downplayed talk of government activism and using the public sector to help those in need. Many have been quiet on matters related to family and cultural values because they didn't want to be seen as outside the prevailing mainstream.

Reagan captured the public trust as Jimmy Carter fell from grace and gas prices were a factor. Now, popular dissatisfaction with Bush's handling of the Katrina debacle, the domestic economy and the Iraq war have given a fresh party another opportunity to reshape America's governing philosophy.

Armed with majorities in the House and Senate, a President Obama could reposition government as a solution rather than a problem. He could promote fairer tax policies, improve access to health care and return America to a more consultative foreign policy.

Major redefinition does not come easily. Institutional barriers remain that will slow action, news reporting will focus on daily blips rather than the new president's substantive priorities and citizen cynicism will make many Americans doubt his sincerity. Large-scale change may prove elusive even if Democrats control Congress and the White House.

Yet just as Reagan harnessed the financial, organizational and intellectual energy of activists, so could Obama. He can push the activists' values, as Reagan did, but cannot pursue every idea that his supporters propose.

Most important, Obama should study Reagan's style. Reagan was a strong leader who left an enduring legacy because he thought big, hired smart people, delegated details to staff and did not let the highest office in the land overwhelm him. Obama must keep his focus on broad vision and large-scale change, not minute policy details.

Obama may already have the political insulation that gave Reagan the moniker of the Teflon president. He has survived questions about his relationship with a fiery minister and his own controversial comments about small-town American life. In overcoming these land mines, Obama may have demonstrated that he is more like Reagan than many would like to admit.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West is a Brookings Institution vice president and director of its Governance Studies Program. He can be reached by e-mail at www.brookings.edu.


Could'nt even read past the second bolded part. Have you ever heard Obama do a speech that was not written for him? YIKES!

Reagan was the gov of California! Inexperience? LOL
and had already ran for president.

revefsreleets
07-11-2008, 09:21 AM
A) Didn't write the piece, merely displayed it as proof that others are starting to make the comparison
B) My comparison had an entirely different context, namely that the most liberal Senator in Congress is changing positions so rapidly that by the time of the convention, his platform may end up being center/right or, Hell, maybe even conservative.
C) The left is trying like Hell to paint as rosy a picture as possible for Obama. EJ Dionne had a piece last week that basically said Obama taking the opposite position from his earlier one on the Iraq war actually was admirable and made him Presidential. Nevermind that it's a HUGE poicy shift, a literal 180 on the very issue that probably got him the nomination in the first place.

Texasteel
07-11-2008, 01:57 PM
Thats why I don't pay much attention to political writers. Most of them have a pen in one hand and an axe in the other, and are willing to twist the facts and the readers into a pretzel trying to make their point.

Godfather
07-11-2008, 02:17 PM
When was Reagan ever called the Teflon President? Wasn't that Clinton?

sigh...I'm so tired of politics...how long til Kick Off?

They wre both given that nickname by their opponents.