Bush Job Approval Hits Another All-Time Low

[Jay]

elgusano said:

jay said:

Thankfully, the founding fathers were much wiser, and saw the danger of putting complete control in the hands of a few elite cities and/or states.

That's funny....cuz that's exactly what is going on with the electoral college... A few *BIG* elite states win and they get a ton of electoral votes...while it doesn't matter if more people actually voted for the other guy...

[TNBear]

Heh, one of my brother-in-laws who has a BS in Electrical Engineering, and an MBA, who recently retired from Hewlitt Packard after many years damn near burnt down the house trying to make coffee. He was a staunch Republican till lately.

[damnyankee]

Approval rating for the democrat Congress plunges to 19%

There's republicans in congress too!!

[traveler]

But the dems control the agenda.

[bernardjenkins]

the immigration bill is a fine example of that.

[legaltender]

A 'fine example' of what?

Republicans voting Yes

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burr, N.C.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

[Dreamwebber]

I think the reason Congress' numbers are so low is the fact they can't get any agenda passed and I think most voted for dems (even though it's pretty evenly split in the senate and pretty close in the house 201/230 I believe) because they expected change but, not being able to get the 60 votes they need in the Senate on some issues because Republicans won't come over to their side makes me wonder if the reason their numbers are low might have more to do with the Repubs and not the dems. Maybe if the Repubs would move over to the dems side the congress would have higher numbers

[Bryan Stone]

I love it how everytime somebody starts ripping on GWB and the administration the Grand Old Pompous Reps play the "yeah but Jimmy Carter did so&so" card

[TNBear]

As for my own very humble opinion, I feel it may be time to line Congress up and shoot every third one of them. Then send them back to work and tell them they have a week, then it's every other one.
That should get the message across.

[siddhartha]

Just to toss another stick on the fire.

Unless one side has a major lead in an election, the election might be decided my how much rain the nation gets on election day. Republicans go out and vote more often in the rain than Democrats.

There have been several studies about this issue. One mentions that the weather in FL may have been more of an issue in 2000 than those hanging chads on the butterfly ballots.

Oh and one source can be found by doing a google search on The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather Turnout and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections

It appeared in a Lexis Nexus search with a little effort in a recent Poli Sci journal and matches the article there.

[bernardjenkins]

I notice LT that you did not add the DEMS WHO VOTED NO. There were 12. One being the president pro tem, Byrd.

[legaltender]

There were 12

There were nine.

[alltherage]

There were 9 on only one of the four votes taken on the issue. There were 12 (+ 3 NV which in that case, acted similarly to a nay) Democrats who voted nay on vote 204, and 15 who voted nay on vote 235.
I'm trying to figure out what your point is. That the Senate isn't currently headed by the Democratic Party, that the Democratic Party doesn't control the Congressional agenda? That was the point you were arguing.

[legaltender]

Look at the date of the posts and rebuttals. The early-week, 64-35 vote to bring forward the immigration bill was being discussed. More Dems bailed later.

[bernardjenkins]

Sorry there were 12 and Sanders (I) Harkin, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor, Tester, Stabenow, Webb, Byrd, Baucus, Brown, Dorgan, & Bingaman.

[legaltender]

Again, you're not tracking the timeframe. By June 27th, the Senate had voted to revive the immigration bill. We started this exchange on that date.

Among the 64-35 roll call by which the Senate voted to reconsider the bill to grant legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants:

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to resume Senate debate on the bill. A "no" vote was a vote against reconsidering it. Supporters of the legislation needed 60 votes to bring it up again.

Voting "yes" were 39 Democrats, 24 Republicans and 1 independent.

Voting "no" were 9 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 independent.

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-26-immigration_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Democrats joined Republicans in much greater numbers yesterday, when it was obvious the compromise was going down in flames.

I agree with Tim Russert: "I think there's a growing sense, a strong sense, that Washington is just broken."

You might argue they were listening to the 'will of the people.' But it's hard to argue the same Congress is paralyzed on Iraq listening to the people's will.

[TNBear]

Some people have to much spare time.

[mikeydokey]

Going back to an earlier argument, about whether more educated people were Republican or Democrat. Switch the word educated to informed and make this statement, "I believe the more informed Americans tend to side with the Republican Party." About 75% of the people that I come in contact with on a daily basis know the difference between Iran and Iraq, not because they're dumb, just uninformed. These are the same 75% that when polled would say that they are not in support of the president and his policies.
Thus the Democrat sponsored bill to limit and curtail talk radio, because too much information is getting out to the American people, at least too much of the wrong information in their minds. AIR AMERICA was a total failure because the Americans who seek information side with the Republican Party and the ones that do not could care less.

[el Gusano]

While spending a lot of time with bus drivers that I'm not familiar with, this concept has been hammered into my brain. (Most of the firefighters from Alaskan villages were very conservative; most of the white ones from Oregon were a bunch of bran eaters.) They cannot grasp the concept of monetary inflation being caused by simply printing more money, nor can they grasp the concept that if you simply mandate a higher wage that no one is really better off in the long run. (I asked one if she would support a $100 per hour minimum wage, and her reply was that those fat cats would never go for it because they don't want us to succeed.)

You try to explain why some inflation is necessary for a healthy economy, and their eyes glaze over.

Oh, and these same one are usually pro-union and cannot understand why the rest of us don't want the union, even though we are making more money than the union shops, plus we don't have to pay union dues.

[bernardjenkins]

The issue touched off a national debate that gripped middle-class America, much as President Clinton's health care initiative did in 1993 and 1994. In both cases, the more people heard--not all of it true--the less they liked the legislation. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found that a majority of Republicans and independents opposed the immigration bill. Democrats were split evenly.

Worse for Democrats, the poll suggested the reelection of some Democratic members of Congress might be jeopardized if they backed immigration
reform. "Demagogic attacks are not ineffective," Greenberg found. "In terms of the battleground districts, immigration attacks are more likely to play a key role in Democratic rural and exurban districts where opposition towards immigration is stronger and Democrats hold a smaller advantage."

So Democrats in Washington, with the exception of Kennedy and senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Ken Salazar of Colorado, were not enthusiastic about the bill. Reid was lukewarm at best. And all five Democrats running for reelection in red states in 2008--Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia--voted to kill the bill.

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/819ixlbu.asp

[damnyankee]

This immigration bill is being championed by the Worst President Ever in the history Of the US of A..George Dumbass Bush...last I checked he was a Ann Coulter. Rush drug noballs, sean hannity, bill' o dorky,rusty butt hupmers glen beck...republican...

[mikeydokey]

Well could be worse, could be an al franken democrat

[BlackFox]

mikeydokey said:

Going back to an earlier argument, about whether more educated people were Republican or Democrat. Switch the word educated to informed and make this statement, "I believe the more informed Americans tend to side with the Republican Party." About 75% of the people that I come in contact with on a daily basis know the difference between Iran and Iraq, not because they're dumb, just uninformed. These are the same 75% that when polled would say that they are not in support of the president and his policies.
Thus the Democrat sponsored bill to limit and curtail talk radio, because too much information is getting out to the American people, at least too much of the wrong information in their minds. AIR AMERICA was a total failure because the Americans who seek information side with the Republican Party and the ones that do not could care less.

Or maybe some people don't need to be told what to think.

[el Gusano]

What's a radio?

[mikeydokey]

A radio is a box with knobs and dials and speakers and a big long pointy metal thing that is called an antenna.


On being told what to think, most of the democrats I know are democrats because their daddies are democrats, and their daddy's daddies were democrats, and their daddy's daddy's daddies were democrats. Because of the War of Northern Aggression and all them damn republicans came down here telling us good southerners what to do and taking away all our slaves (which 99.5% of the population never owned anyways), they will always be democrats. They have no idea of what the national democratic party is like and they have no desire to find out. Case in point, Polk County, they've had one Republican County official (sheriff) in the last 50 years, lasted one term and was voted out. Now then, remember the GOOD OLE BOYS rally that was held there several years ago, signs there reading no niggers allowed, the only good successful and attractive African-American is a dead successful and attractive African-American, and other similar signs. All this was put together by democrats for democrats, i don't think Barak Obama was invited.
Sure i understand that Polk County is just a small microcosm, but it is one of many scattered throughout the South and throughout the country.

[Felix]

A large number of citizens in this country does not vote based on informed consideration of policies, but on how well the candidates are presented as products. Politicians are marketed in the same way as other consumer goods. Emphasis on sound bites and positive images of the candidate. TV campaigns have a lot more influence on voters than any consideration of positions on major issues, other than taxes and "social issues."

The presidential candidate "debates" are carefully scripted exchanges of stump speeches. Do you remember the debate—I forget which one—in which the sound problems caused about a twenty minute delay? Neither candidate said a word for the duration of the delay, just stood silent in front of the cameras. They couldn't risk a spontaneous comment. Of these sorts of candidates are presidents made. O Tempora, O Mores!

Ascribing this sort of empty voting to one or the other political affiliation is like saying "my toothpaste is better than yours."

[BlackFox]

marvell said:

A large number of citizens in this country does not vote based on informed consideration of policies, but on how well the candidates are presented as products. Politicians are marketed in the same way as other consumer goods. Emphasis on sound bites and positive images of the candidate. TV campaigns have a lot more influence on voters than any consideration of positions on major issues, other than taxes and "social issues."

The presidential candidate "debates" are carefully scripted exchanges of stump speeches. Do you remember the debate—I forget which one—in which the sound problems caused about a twenty minute delay? Neither candidate said a word for the duration of the delay, just stood silent in front of the cameras. They couldn't risk a spontaneous comment. Of these sorts of candidates are presidents made. O Tempora, O Mores!

Ascribing this sort of empty voting to one or the other political affiliation is like saying "my toothpaste is better than yours."

I would agree, but for one..Ron Paul.

[mikeydokey]

Well I for one think Fred Thompson looks mighty good on TV, and I'll bet his toothpaste is the best you can get.