August 21, 2007

The Limbo Congress!

How low can you go? Chubby Checker once asked that of dancers, but Gallup's new poll must have Congress wondering the same thing. They have reached the all-time nadir of approval in the latest polling, dropping to the same level as when Congress started bouncing personal checks after years of public deficit spending:

A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress, leading many states to pass term limits measures for U.S. representatives (which the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional). Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.

Americans' evaluations of the job Congress is doing are usually not that positive -- the vast majority of historical approval ratings have been below 50%. The high point was 84% approval one month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Americans rallied behind the federal government. Since then, Congress' approval ratings have generally exhibited the same downward trajectory seen in those for President George W. Bush. Currently, 32% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a far cry from the record-high 90% he received in September 2001. Bush's current job approval rating is just three percentage points above his lowest.

How bad has it gotten? Even the normal partisan split has all but disappeared. In April, there was a 15-point difference in approval ratings between Democrats and Republicans (43-28). Now the difference has been reduced to the margin of error (21-17), with independents at the average 18%.

Disapproval rates have skyrocketed to 76%. Even in 2006, with Republicans beset by scandal, disapproval only got as high as 71%, and then only twice. It reached 74% after the election, in December, when the GOP decided to sit on its hands in their final stanza on budget matters. Throughout most of the Republican years of control, however, Congress enjoyed much higher approval ratings and much lower disapproval ratings, even during the impeachment process in 1997.

Democrats have created a monster for themselves, and they seem unable to free themselves from their rut. They have accomplished almost nothing of their agenda, save a minimum-wage hike. They have punted on Iraq, surrendered on FISA and the TSP, and have allowed themselves to get outmanuevered on immigration. They have spent hundreds of hours on investigations to no real benefit while legislation languishes. Their so-called ethics reforms have done nothing but allow lobbyists even more ways to influence Congress, and earmarks are murkier than ever.

It's the Limbo Congress. How low can they go? Just wait. They have over a year left to plumb the depths.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Limbo Congress!:

» Congress Approval Rating: Historical Trend? from TFS Magnum
While it would be nice to put this at the feet of the current bunch of yahoos in DC, I'm not sure it would be right. Disapproval of Congress didn't start in January of 07. [Read More]

» Poll: Congress Sets New Low Approval Rating Record from The Moderate Voice
A new poll spells big trouble for Democrats, but it should not cause Republicans to salivate, either: A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure... [Read More]

Comments (41)

Posted by TheRealSwede | August 21, 2007 9:32 AM

18%. Satan himself would get a 10.

Posted by enntk | August 21, 2007 9:39 AM

"Congress enjoyed much higher approval ratings and much lower disapproval ratings, even during the impeachment process in 1997."

I suppose you mean 1998. Unless something impeachment-related happened in 1997 and I didn't notice...

Posted by FedUp | August 21, 2007 9:43 AM

As long as congress is more concerned with their political agendas, ignoring our constitution, allowing activist judges free rein and spending all their time on meaningless pursuits with non-binding referendums, investigations and name calling, the numbers will go lower.

Our current crop of presidential wanna-bees are helping to drive these numbers down.

Secure the border!
Eliminate Pork!
Pass comprehensive tax reform...
OR... Get out of office and let people in who are not mired in politics and their greed for power!

We are being pushed (no one is leading) by a circus of clowns!

Posted by Artie Curtis | August 21, 2007 9:53 AM

These polls are meaningless. The same people will be elected time and time again.
Until there is a clean sweep down fore and aft this will continue.
It's time for term limits and a viable third party.

Posted by bulbasaur | August 21, 2007 9:57 AM

Consider that the History Channel 9-11 conspiracy documentary last night said that 13% of the folks immediately after the attack said it was Bush who did it.

So I consider 13% sort of a rock bottom for potential Pelosi/Ried believers. The ones whose hatred of America is so toxic it's practically reflexive.

Posted by TomB | August 21, 2007 9:57 AM

Haven't heard of Nancy P. lately. Is she still working on the travel report from her "groundbreaking" mission to Syria, or is it simply "Summertime-and-I-don't-give-a-damn" ting?

Posted by filistro | August 21, 2007 10:00 AM

These polls largely reflect public anger at the failure of Congress to get Iraq under control and end the war. How they are any comfort to Republicans is beyond me.

Joe Q Public is in the voting booth making his choice. He is furious with the Dem candidate for not ending the war, which he hates. So... he votes for the Republican who has staunchly supported that war?

I don't think so.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | August 21, 2007 10:02 AM

How about some real ethics reform and a purge to go along with the surge.

Time for Senator Stevens to take that Bridge to Nowhere. : ))

Posted by viking01 | August 21, 2007 10:09 AM

San Fran Nan and Dingy Harry Reid have noticed that it's a lot more difficult for them to undermine our troops without Walter Cronkite around.

Posted by capitano | August 21, 2007 10:14 AM

In an effort to boost her sagging poll numbers, Nancy Pelosi took time out from her busy schedule of courting dictators to return to her family farm, Rancho Sensimilla, to conduct some much needed "brush" clearing.

Asked if she was copying a page from President Bush's photo ops at the Crawford Ranch, she snapped: "I'm no Johnny-come-lately, I've been harvesting at the ranch for years. How do you think I've been able develop such consistent policies?"

Posted by NoDonkey | August 21, 2007 10:17 AM

"These polls largely reflect public anger at the failure of Congress to get Iraq under control and end the war."

That's what the fever swamp, pro-terrorist left believes, but it bears no resemblance to reality.

The Democrat's raging incompetence, corruption and sheer, unadulterated ignorance, is finally on display for all to see.

Please relate to me a Congressional Democrat that the American people overwhelmingly admire. Or one that has at least a few admirable traits. Or one that shouldn't have been locked up or deported long ago.

You can't. The American people are not going to stampede to the voting booths next fall, in some desperate effort to hand the reigns of government over to the Democrat Clown Congress and whatever unaccomplished, unqualified nitwit they offer up as a nominee for President - just isn't going to happen.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | August 21, 2007 10:23 AM

From today's WSJ:

"Transforming a negative image hardened over a period of years is no easy task. Still, there's a lot Republicans can do. First, they should clean house of Republicans caught up in scandal. Forcing two or three House members and at least one senator to retire would involve more than friendly persuasion and no doubt provoke strong resistance. But the effort would attract national attention--favorable attention, for a change."

Thats it. Freddy "the Beetle" Barnes agrees. Stevens must go.

Adios and enjoy your retirement.

Posted by MarkJ | August 21, 2007 10:35 AM


18%. Satan himself would get a 10.

I disagree: Satan would get at least a 20 or higher because at least...

a) he makes no secret of his intentions


b) he gives you something in return for your soul.

Posted by Steven Ravine | August 21, 2007 10:37 AM

Remember, all politics is local. This is a national poll of Congress as a whole. Voters in each district probably rate their own representative much higher. No matter how low Congress sinks, at least 95% will return in 2008.

Posted by kingronjo | August 21, 2007 10:48 AM

dont be so sure Steve about 95% returning. A lot of these new Dems are from Repub districts whose voters wanted something different. When they see how incompetent the Dems are and the fact that there was no difference, well lets see.

Plus throw in Hillary at the top of the ticket in quite a few places those Repucbs who sat at home in 2006 will crawl over broken glass to vote against her- and vote for the Repub down the ticket..

One more thing, about the passage of the MInimum Wage. That was not a victory for Congress and should not be spun as one. It was attached to the Iraq supplemental which the Dems said they were killing. They lost. Thier sop was putting this onto it. It was a complete victory for Pres Bush and no one should forget it.

Posted by John | August 21, 2007 11:15 AM

Barnes is right that i would serve the Republican interests in the new few months to actually make an effort to get rid of their scandal-plagued members. Unlike the 1993 House Post Office scandal, when the Republicans had been out of power in Congress for 40 years and the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, this time the disapproval is bi-partisan, so the potential for angry voters to either stay at home or vote the other way can hurt both sides.

My guess is Hillary, or whoever get the nomination, is going to try and obscure the fact that Reid and Pelosi run things now on the Hill, and try to tie the scandal-plagued Republicans in Congress with the White House in calling for wholesale changes in 2008. While you'd think this strategy would be too disingenuous to work, remember the big media outlets won't ask the Democratic nominee any tough questions, while their stories in the run-up to next year's vote on dissatisfaction with Congress will focus on Republican anger at Republicans, and ignore any problems voters have with the other side of the aisle.

Posted by TheRealSwede | August 21, 2007 11:43 AM

"I disagree: Satan would get at least a 20 or higher because at least...

a) he makes no secret of his intentions


b) he gives you something in return for your soul."

Well put MarkJ.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 21, 2007 11:44 AM

"Remember, all politics is local. This is a national poll of Congress as a whole. Voters in each district probably rate their own representative much higher. No matter how low Congress sinks, at least 95% will return in 2008."


Might I add, however, that Dems only took Congress by skin of their teeth, and the blue dog Dems are gonna have a tough time pointing to the "difference" they made when they've made no difference in those R districts.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | August 21, 2007 11:50 AM

Here are two key quotes from the Gallup website that tries to spin away these ratings:

"Americans' evaluations of the job Congress is doing are usually not that positive -- the vast majority of historical approval ratings have been below 50%."


"Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress."

Got it? Microscopic approval ratings are no big deal and it's all the fault of Bush, the GOP and timid Democrats. If only the Democrat Congress would be even more partisan Congress would have higher ratings. Not that it matters, according to Gallup.

The MSM is going to have to do a lot better than that if they want to hang onto Congress next year!

Posted by bayam | August 21, 2007 11:50 AM

Given what's occurred over the last 6 years, I'd take a stagnant Congress in a heartbeat.

No more trillion dollar plus wars that weaken regional security and polarize the world while inspiring global terrorist movements and enriching oil sheiks. No more massive domestic spending bills that send the deficit spiralling out of control. An end to lobbyist-driven reforms that kill or bypass as many environmental safeguards as possible in order to enrich corporate America.

For all the whining that the Democrats want to cut and run, in reality they have been willing to give the troop surge a chance and even offer their support when the results start to look promising...

Posted by MaryT | August 21, 2007 11:55 AM

Wonder what the result would be is every reporter ect was required to ask every candidate, or want a be candidate, during all debates, appearances on talk shows or interviews the same questions. Notice George S. did not ask any democrats questions on religion or abortion, but zeroed in on those questions to republicans.
Isn't it democrats who want the fairness doctrine reintroduced.

Posted by Rose | August 21, 2007 1:09 PM

18%. Satan himself would get a 10.

Posted by: TheRealSwede at August 21, 2007 9:32 AM

I'm sure Satan himself would get at least 45-65%, in reality. At least, this side of the reality of Hell.

People in America are voting with more than ballots - they vote with show tickets, purchases of videos, pornography, music, etc.

But the Dims are trying to sell OPPRESSION, not FUN. :)

Posted by Rose | August 21, 2007 1:17 PM

Don't assume the Conservatives will stampede the ballot boxes to vote for GOP candidates who are nothing more than DIM ENABLERS, either - we will not.

There should be a strong stream of us who do go and VOTE - but IT WILL NOT BE FOR A GOP CANDIDATE if it is one of the present "TOP TIER", when the GOP doesn't care enough about what people are screaming for to help promote a lesser known but HIGH INTEGRITY CONSERVATIVE above the RINO DEGENERATES they are shoving at us with the "LABEL", "Ah'm THE ~REAGANITE~ CANDIDATE".

We'll sue them for FALSE ADVERTISING the only way they understand, I gawr-own-TEE.

Posted by Rose | August 21, 2007 1:25 PM

For all the whining that the Democrats want to cut and run, in reality they have been willing to give the troop surge a chance and even offer their support when the results start to look promising...

Posted by: bayam at August 21, 2007 11:50 AM

They were HARDLY "WILLING" - they had no choice and they felt the cowboy boots on the back of their necks - and by "COWBOY" don't think I meant "BUSH" - I meant those who support the troops!

And Congress knows it!

Posted by Sharpshooter | August 21, 2007 1:46 PM

Yet, even in the turn-around election of 2006, 90 some percent got RE-ELECTED.

More typically, the retention rate is 96-98%.

Someone is really full of poop.

Posted by Drew | August 21, 2007 2:14 PM

Could we get an independant opinion here, say from Barbara "Bouncer"? Surely, as someone in the forefront of Congressional activism during both episodes, she would be able to give a thoughtful, lucid, and completely un-biased opinion on the role of Congress in society today.

Posted by feeblemind | August 21, 2007 2:29 PM

Dem Congress has not got much done, but no legislation is better than bad legislation.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 21, 2007 2:55 PM

What bothers me the most is that the GOP is stuck with terrible leadership in congress. You gotta tell me how congress critters got suckered into voting for the likes of: Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, and a few other "petunias."

I mean both groups hold elections to hand-pick their leadership. Sure, the Bonkeys led the way with the worst picks. But the GOP? What's the excuse, here?

It seems McCain held some cards (prior to his meltdown). And, he forced Trent Lott on reluctant GOP kiesters. It's still a very poor excuse.


IF the GOP wants to be a mainstream party; and it does not hold a record at being such ...

Because for the longest time the Bonkeys represented "the average American." Just as people arrived and came off the boats; they worked hard, yet found time for night schooling. And, they became citizens. Bringing with them some "old world ideas." So socialism "bloomed."

While over in the COUNTRY CLUB TENT! Of all things, what was "most important," was the BLACK BALL. As if wielding membership in this club gave you "rank."

Of course, there were errors. Profound ones. That put Warren Harding (an empty suit, if there ever was one! Into office. Followed by Herbert Hoover. And, of course, when FDR nailed the charisma magic; the GOP, in FDR's last run. For a 4th term. When he was even too sick to campaign. Produced John Dewey.

Guess what? Dewey lost. (And, it wasn't because of his tailor! He was a swell dresser. A very big hit with the country club set, let me tell ya!)

Truman won in 1948, when the GOP disgraced itself by running John Dewey yet again. To lose. And, ignoring General Douglas MacArthur. (Truman destroyed MacArthur.)

Only to meet IKE in 1952. Did you know that once IKE's name reached the People, all campaigning after that was an exercise in useless rhetoric? Everybody like Ike. Except for a pocket of elites who worked at the New Yuk Times.

Some people just never learn.

It didn't help the GOP, either, when the Junior Senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy, began his "shtick." Like it or not, the New Yuk Times beat the crap out of MaCarthy. And the GOP lost points.

Why don't we get better candidates?

That's like asking "why can't the girls in the whore houses be prettier?" The question wastes everybody's time.

The GOP, however, has to learn that the Internet is now spending time focussing on the congress. Even more so than in the days of C-Span.

And, either someone will emerge with real ledership skills; telling a freak like Trent Lott to "just go home." And, also removing the "keys of the kingdom" from McCain's pocket.

Well, I know how McCain got to have his clout! People thought he'd be the GOP front runner. And, everybody bought in early, to be close to the "next president."

Well, in wholesale, you can make mistakes like that. You buy enormous quantities of crap, up front. And, when you stick this crap on your retail shelves, nothing moves.

It's worse than constipation. Because it leads to bankruptcy. How many times can something go bust?

Well, I read somewhere that these "busts" which are personal misfortunes; are actually good for business. Bursts the bubble. Leads to changes.

Among the random choices, ahead, there is that, too.

I love the Internet! YES! We're better than C-Span! ANd, unlike the pictures on the tube. Here today, and gone a split second later; you'll find people coming back, again and again, looking for more and better solutions. When did Dan Rather ever deliver a piece of that!

Posted by docjim505 | August 21, 2007 2:57 PM

Gotta throw in with Steven Ravine: the vast majority of the thieves, perverts and wardheelers currently infesting Capitol Hill will be returned to office by comfortably wide margins in the '08 election.

Consider: both sides of the poltical divide in America (well, those who pay attention, anyway) are disgusted:

We Republicans are disgusted with porksters like Lott and Stevens, we're still mad as hell over the immigration / amnesty bill, and we would like to see SOME efforts by the GOP caucus to defend the war .

The dems, for their part, are mad as hell that we haven't surrendered In Iraq yet and that Bush and Cheney haven't been impeached, ejected from office, and drawn and quartered.

But will angry GOP voters trip the "D" lever? Will irate democrats trip the "R" lever? Don't bet the farm on it! Both sides will try to court the "middle America" vote (you know: the ones who don't pay attention?), and the dems have a tremendous advantage here, i.e. the MSM. Do you really think the MSM will discuss how little the Congress has done since taking office? That they'll get into the nitty-gritty of such an esoteric subject as lobbyist reform? Nope. It'll be "Iraq is a disaster" and all sorts of excitement about the prospect of AMERICA'S FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT! Did you know that she and the democrats in Congress will give you free health care? That'll be the '08 election.

GOP candidates need not apply.

Posted by Neo | August 21, 2007 3:00 PM

I wouldn't call it outmanuevered on immigration.

The whole problem of the "immigration" debate is that noone, neither Democrat or Republican, will explain to the American people why it is imposssible to secure our nations borders. As long as our nation's border are not secured or the nation not placated to the fact that they never will be, anything that looks, walks or talks like amnesty will be on the 3rd rail of politics.

Efforts to "jump ahead" will be given the 3rd rail treatment, just as Reid, McCain and Bush have learned.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 21, 2007 3:29 PM

Drew, there are some things you can't change. Nor can you wish them away. You'd don't live in Barbara Boxer's territory. It's a very small pond, actually. Where she is a "very big fish."

We are also on the cusp of change.

How so?

The Internet is bringing us more information than ever. That's why a drop in congressional ratings are so telling!

As to the Bonkeys, in my book they're the affirmative action party. And, they've got zero to none chances, to grow. As a matter of fact, the truth is that the water's escaping from their pond. Leaving us to see those big fish, better. They're not quite the dinosaurs, yet. But that's what gonna become of them, ahead.

Since politics in America is COMPETITIVE.

The GOP was once there only for "swells." People who did well in business. And, who didn't belong to the "mainstream party." But, instead chose a "more well dressed" one. At their country clubs.

Even this has changed.

Because, as I said, politics is competitive. And, not all religious folk thought of themselves as too good to participate in politics. So they sought a place where they'd have an "edge." The Rockefellers, and other swells, still don't know what to do with the "PARTY OF THE 8-BALL, where not dressing according to Hoyle, would limit your chances at "elevation." But enough mistakes were made.

And, changes are inevitable.

I still think once congress critters get to DC, they look around for stable meals. And, MONEY. Since remaining in office will cost them plenty! (Oh, and they hire marketeers, and advertisers, who as a group come from the far, far left of journalism "skools.") Doesn't take much to see the inherent problems.

Also, there was no signs that McCain wasn't gonna get nominated to the 2008 GOP ticket. Well, McCain thought that was the way he was going. And, in congress he built himself a Trojan. With Feingold. And, a few other lemmings. Who have powers that have gone to their heads.

In a world where politics still has a lot of rich families competing. (Especially after Joe Kennedy showed the way. You could go from mafia to 100% poltician, within one generation. Even on the cheap. Remember Kennedy's remark about his election win? His dad didn't want to pay for a landslide.)

Our world's changed so often, I don't even know where to begin. First TV didn't even run all day long. It was Black & White. And, the screens were so small, people stuck magnifying glasses in front of them. There were no remotes. Only 3 channels. And, still? Families learned to fight over what could be watched. With kids, often-times, relegated to their bedrooms.

Those days are gone, now.

So are the red wall telephones, in the kitchen, that had the longest cords. Meaning you could answer the phone, and take the receiver with you into the bathroom. Cords got to hang and dangle in mighty knotted up arrangements. And, kids got yelled at "for being on the phone too long."

Moms, in that old world, didn't work after the kids came along.

But time shifts the familiar. Till, today, you'd find a lot of that stuff strange. Take typing, for instance. That used to be a woman's job. Heck, even the CEO at IBM (Watson) made the mistake in believing no one would buy a personal computer.

So, with congress's help, to forestall "monopolies" ... Microsoft grew from nothing.

Politics doesn't stay the same.

Heck, even today's wealth is different than the wealth that made Joe Kennedy rich. Give some points to these activities.

Because, up ahead, there are profound changes that trickle through the political system, managing, sometimes to go to the very top. Just like Lincoln did, in 1860.

Turning points.

Just in case you thought life was one smooth ride, it isn't. And, instead of pot holes, what you get is randomness. You just can't guess how things turn out.

You can only see that there's been progress, so far.

And, so far? The major media that once depended on subscribers, got lost in their "church" ... where they believed the aristocrats were born to rule.

How "french." You can't get more french than that in the scheme of things.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 21, 2007 3:45 PM

Politics is a form of BUSINESS. Like it or not, no one works for FREE. EVERYTHING comes with a price tag.

Lincoln, who hated what happened to him, personally, by the idiot ward healers of the WHIGS, still understood he could mend our Union, but he couldn't fix the reality that nobody would devote their lives like Christ did, just for your benefit.

ALL the people who devote time to doing the heavy lifting, so that a candidate can get elected, NEEDS TO BE FED. And, not just with phoney luncheons are award dinners. Sorry. Yo'ull go no place fast, if you dream that one.

Lincoln, knowing how politics rewarded those who did the canvassing, and the "ward work" ... actually exhausted himself in the White House, meeting with all job seekers.

Yes, he also had to deal with the rivals he put in his cabinet.

There's a pretty good book out there: LINCOLN ON LEADERSHIP, written by a guy named Philips, that puts Lincoln's life into this perspective. Because MALICE TOWARDS NONE was a running way Lincoln behaved. And, he wasted no time trying to "fix people" by changing them. YOU. JUST. CAN'T. DO. IT.

Even the famous Dale Carnegie wrote his first "how to" book by writing THE UNKNOWN LINCOLN. Before he wrote his "How To Influence People." You could draw a lot of lessons from that stuff. And, people still do.

In participating in politics from the sidelines, like we do, our personal influence is indeed, very small. But when we see something materializing in the mainstream ... WHich is what you got in the dropping numbers administered to congress, now ... You can assume this has "something" to do with the way the Bonkeys and some of the GOP, went out to UNDERMINE our military.

Ah. From the 1960's, through the 1970's, spitting on our soldiers brought you no ridicule at all.

But if you noticed, when Kerry ran? He didn't win. Bush got 4-million-MORE votes than the Bonkey's got. And, the spread was so big the Bonkeys couldn't steal the 2004 election.

2006? Marginal victories gave the Bonkeys the edge.

It also put the spotlight on the Ma & Pa Kettle Show. And, according to the "audience" ... or better, America's MAINSTREAM. THEY FLOPPED. All of them! So, it's gonna be a slow and torturous lesson to teach these freaks about "earmarks" and pork.

Who know? Maybe, it will take a rabbi to teach the pork eaters about Kosher?

I just don't bet on the future. Except that friends and enemies, alike, we all die.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 21, 2007 5:43 PM

filistro said:

"These polls largely reflect public anger at the failure of Congress to get Iraq under control and end the war. How they are any comfort to Republicans is beyond me. "

Uh, maybe because the newest Zogby Poll says the DEMOCRATS in Congress only get a 3% approval rating on their "handling" of the war.

Posted by filistro | August 21, 2007 5:50 PM

Think it through, Del.

C'mon, I know you can do it, you're a bright lad....

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 21, 2007 6:10 PM

bayam said

"For all the whining that the Democrats want to cut and run, in reality they have been willing to give the troop surge a chance and even offer their support when the results start to look promising..."

Not the Democrat leadership. Reid had this to say 5 days ago:

"“From the very beginning of this war, the Bush Administration has refused to level with the American people about its flawed policy. It has instead done everything in its power to escape accountability and mislead us about the reality on the ground. The result: an open-ended civil war that has taken nearly 4,000 American soldiers’ lives and an Iraqi government that refuses to take responsibility for its own country".

And last week, when one of Pelosi's fellow Democrats, a fellow from Washington State, said after returning from Iraq that things were moving along, the national media totally ignored him.

Posted by dhunter | August 21, 2007 9:55 PM

In their mad rush to pin a defeat on W. in the global war on terror the Dems have sold their party and country to the devil. Don't think for a minute they will give the good General a chance ,they have followed this lie too far off the cliff ,some will follow it all the way to the bottom. The WWII generation should know better they fought a serious war but did not have a liberal media siding with the enemy like today. I really believe the Dems are too dumb to understand the ramifications of a defeat in Iraq ramifications in the ME and serious gas shortages here at home. After all look at the tripe parading as serious discourse Michael Moore? Oh Please, dumb as a brick. Al Gorps Global warming ? Warming caused by the sun the human race has not half the power of say a volcanic eruption. Jon Cary the giggalo? No bigger Buffoon if I ever saw one. Yet there are a lot of our sons and daughters uneducated by public schools that believe this tripe if they see it on TV. Maybe the Dims needed to get elected in 06 so the world could see the idiots at work. After all they never did have a smarter plan for Iraq, it was always retreat ,they just couldn't say it. Like a poker player all in with aces and eights, the dead mans hand, and W has a straight flush the US Military

Posted by Carol Herman | August 21, 2007 11:03 PM

Pork's part of the problem.

There are also leadership woes.

In other words? In the old days a few of the "geezers" held sway in the cloakroom. And, things moved. Or didn't move. On their whims. And, signals.

I think today's congress critters are caught in something they don't quite understand.

At one time to get in trouble, meant the press had to see you jumping drunk and naked, into the fountain. And, the woman with you, wasn't your wife. Then, it was a feeding frenzy.

But the media could supresss stories.

And, the "parties" always told you who was IN. And, who was OUT.

This has changed.

And, then you add to this that our president is a tea totaller. And, what the elite crowd does, is outside anything they understand about "fly over country," and/or George Bush.

In the past?

If the rags got on your case you had no microphone.

That's the BIG change.

When congress critters are told that someone named Glenn Reynolds (not a Beltway name), has put up a link and a thread, mentioning "how YOUNG they are" ... and how much PORK has been earmarked; you'd begin to learn of their discomforts.)

Heck, Hastert had them. WIth a temper tantrum in full view. Now, he's gonna go "home." Ain't gonna run, again. How's that?

It's probable that down the line the "hoofers" who want to win political contests, will learn a couple of new moves? (You think dance steps died with Fred Astaire?)

But right now, there's a shift.

Shift's are like seismic earthquakes. They move earth; where you can't believe you can move anything.

But it's not "just" Irak, either.

It's that the Vietnam syndrome died. And, won't get repeated. "Playing it again?" Well, what have you got? Bush doesn't resign from office.

And, Beau-koo-koo-chump won't grow as rich as Bob Woodward.

As a matter of fact, the first chink in the armor came when Armitage had a fit in Woodward's office. But Woodward REFUSED the bait on Plame.

So, Plame got peddled around.

By the time the scandal blossomed it was too late. And, a lot of reputations got taken into the toilet.

This isn't how the 1970's played out.

Up ahead?

Well, after Nixon left office, Americans voted in the "unknown" candidate; who made a big religious pitch: Jimmah Carter. NEVER AGAIN!

It costs ya money to run with the Edsels.

But so far we just don't know what's gonna sale off the drawing board, ahead.

Except that McCain is smarting from his discovery that the MAINSTREAM hates his guts. He didn't expect it!

So, not just Irak. Not just "immigration." (Except that the headline hunters just sent Elvira back to Mexico.) Means somebody's awake. And, watching reactions.

Just like people were trying to fathom where Dean would hit. And, who would escapt the level #5.

Just like in life.

Posted by Bill Hennessy | August 21, 2007 11:12 PM

Funny. I'd have expected today's New York Times headline to announce, "BUSH TWICE AS POPULAR AS CONGRESS"

Posted by Rose | August 21, 2007 11:32 PM

Posted by: docjim505 at August 21, 2007 2:57 PM


I'd be truly STUNNED if any GENUINE Conservatives voted for DIMS, no matter HOW drastically unhappy with the GOP th ey are - but many of us WILL VOTE FOR WRITE-INS, or THIRD PARTIES.

Posted by Steffan | August 21, 2007 11:50 PM

As it happens, I like my current Congresswoman, Mary Bono.

For Congress as a whole, all I can say is the ancient and honorable battle cry,"Turn the bastards out!!"

Posted by Rose | August 22, 2007 2:59 PM

WOW! The New site looks great, but I liked the bluer version of your ships' battle scene...


Post a comment