http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008...cord_lows/4833/ Approval of U.S. Congress ties record lows WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates. The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992. Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because "rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution." The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president. Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008...cord_lows/4833/ Approval of U.S. Congress ties record lows WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates. The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992. Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because "rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution." The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president. Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.</div> Well with the stagnant nature of congress due to filibusters and such, it's no surprise. Once Democrats get a 60/40 majority though, things will be different.
Yeah, higher taxes to go on top of higher gas prices. BTW, the filibuster works in the other direction. If the congressional Democrats wanted the troops home, they'd simply not vote to fund them. That's a pretty big bargaining chip to get Republicans on board to vote for some of the things you might think they want. It's OK, tho, since Nancy fixed everything in the first 100 hours once she assumed power.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, higher taxes to go on top of higher gas prices.</div> I don't approve of every Democrat of course, but filibusters are at a record high Denny. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>BTW, the filibuster works in the other direction. If the congressional Democrats wanted the troops home, they'd simply not vote to fund them. That's a pretty big bargaining chip to get Republicans on board to vote for some of the things you might think they want. It's OK, tho, since Nancy fixed everything in the first 100 hours once she assumed power.</div> Not vote to fund them and sacrifice lives? Pretty damn risky. It's a quagmire.
Nonsense. If the funding stopped, the government would have no choice but to bring the troops home. They'd run on fumes for a while, but that's about it. Bill Clinton was able to get a republican congress to pass a lot of legislation he wanted by playing politics. Filibusters didn't matter when the govt. got shut down (which I applauded) and the republicans got the blame... And, the end of the 2007 congressional session set the record for filibusters - when Democrats were the minority. Sauce for the goose and all that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nonsense. If the funding stopped, the government would have no choice but to bring the troops home. They'd run on fumes for a while, but that's about it.</div> Exactly, they'd run on fumes, it seems like a dangerous tactic. I can see why they may be hesitant to put the troops in that position. Hillary and Obama voted for funding for this precise reason. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Bill Clinton was able to get a republican congress to pass a lot of legislation he wanted by playing politics.</div> Get out of here! Really? : O <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Filibusters didn't matter when the govt. got shut down (which I applauded) and the republicans got the blame... And, the end of the 2007 congressional session set the record for filibusters - when Democrats were the minority. Sauce for the goose and all that.</div> Why are we in record filibuster territory to begin with?
The reality is the voters that bought these people in should have seen this coming a mile away. Everything Congress would pass which would slow down the war in Iraq would be vetoed by Bush. And unless they get a 60/40 majority, there would be nothing they could do until the 111th Congress came into session. Yet, the Democrats kept pushing and pushing the fact they were going to end the war, and they got elected in droves. It all turned out to be bullshit. LOL I can remember watching NBC's coverage of the elections after it was all said in done on Election night '06. Brian Williams had back to back interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain played the humble loser, as if his team just lost a seven game series, talking about how they needed to work together. Obama however was talking about how the time of change was "now" (not in 2008), and how the Democrats were going to end the "failed policies" of George Bush. Not much has changed, except the empty promises of course.
Congress stopped the vietnam war by halting the funding for it. There's a precedent. Regardless of how it was done, 6M people were massacred in Cambodia once we left the region - you'll likely see the same kind of thing in Iraq, which is more why the Democrats talk out one side of their mouth about pulling the troops but don't when the rubber meets the road. If the republicans can stop legislation with a minority, the democrats can do so easier since they have ~40 more votes in the house. Why are we in filibuster territory? Sauce for the goose. That's how the game is played in D.C. It'll be interesting to see if Obama gets any kind of honeymoon if he's elected (goose) - Bush got none (sauce).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reality is the voters that bought these people in should have seen this coming a mile away. Everything Congress would pass which would slow down the war in Iraq would be vetoed by Bush. And unless they get a 60/40 majority, there would be nothing they could do until the 111th Congress came into session. Yet, the Democrats kept pushing and pushing the fact they were going to end the war, and they got elected in droves. It all turned out to be bullshit. LOL I can remember watching NBC's coverage of the elections after it was all said in done on Election night '06. Brian Williams had back to back interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain played the humble loser, as if his team just lost a seven game series, talking about how they needed to work together. Obama however was talking about how the time of change was "now" (not in 2008), and how the Democrats were going to end the "failed policies" of George Bush. Not much has changed, except the empty promises of course.</div> Their majority simply isn't large enough to get change done. And there's no reason for Obama to try and admit that ugly fact back in 04, the guy was trying to be hopeful at least.
Actually, we've traded one culture of corruption for another. The act will get old pretty quick. My bad, the polls say the act has already gotten old.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reality is the voters that bought these people in should have seen this coming a mile away. Everything Congress would pass which would slow down the war in Iraq would be vetoed by Bush. And unless they get a 60/40 majority, there would be nothing they could do until the 111th Congress came into session. Yet, the Democrats kept pushing and pushing the fact they were going to end the war, and they got elected in droves. It all turned out to be bullshit. LOL I can remember watching NBC's coverage of the elections after it was all said in done on Election night '06. Brian Williams had back to back interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain played the humble loser, as if his team just lost a seven game series, talking about how they needed to work together. Obama however was talking about how the time of change was "now" (not in 2008), and how the Democrats were going to end the "failed policies" of George Bush. Not much has changed, except the empty promises of course.</div> Their majority simply isn't large enough to get change done. And there's no reason for Obama to try and admit that ugly fact back in 04, the guy was trying to be hopeful at least. </div> But they sold it as such in order to gain power immediately, when they knew all along it wasn't going to happen. They made empty promises to the people.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Congress stopped the vietnam war by halting the funding for it. There's a precedent. Regardless of how it was done, 6M people were massacred in Cambodia once we left the region - you'll likely see the same kind of thing in Iraq, which is more why the Democrats talk out one side of their mouth about pulling the troops but don't when the rubber meets the road.</div> It's a touchy situation Denny, we don't want to stop the funding due to the risks. Their's a precedent but Congress is cautious. Getting into this war was the biggest mistake. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If the republicans can stop legislation with a minority, the democrats can do so easier since they have ~40 more votes in the house. Why are we in filibuster territory? Sauce for the goose. That's how the game is played in D.C. It'll be interesting to see if Obama gets any kind of honeymoon if he's elected (goose) - Bush got none (sauce).</div> What the Republicans are doing now is ridiculous. http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/1927 There's no precedent for it. .<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987–88 and 23 in 1977–78. In 1967–68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed. [...]</div>
Speaking of congress... The people aren't so stupid to realize that filibusters and the like have been used to prevent us from exploring for oil here in the USA where the oil is. Now look at the price of gasoline.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reality is the voters that bought these people in should have seen this coming a mile away. Everything Congress would pass which would slow down the war in Iraq would be vetoed by Bush. And unless they get a 60/40 majority, there would be nothing they could do until the 111th Congress came into session. Yet, the Democrats kept pushing and pushing the fact they were going to end the war, and they got elected in droves. It all turned out to be bullshit. LOL I can remember watching NBC's coverage of the elections after it was all said in done on Election night '06. Brian Williams had back to back interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain played the humble loser, as if his team just lost a seven game series, talking about how they needed to work together. Obama however was talking about how the time of change was "now" (not in 2008), and how the Democrats were going to end the "failed policies" of George Bush. Not much has changed, except the empty promises of course.</div> Their majority simply isn't large enough to get change done. And there's no reason for Obama to try and admit that ugly fact back in 04, the guy was trying to be hopeful at least. </div> But they sold it as such in order to gain power immediately, when they knew all along it wasn't going to happen. They made empty promises to the people. </div> How will they reach the majority without making promises? Republicans are hardly infallible.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, we've traded one culture of corruption for another. The act will get old pretty quick. My bad, the polls say the act has already gotten old.</div> Don't know what's the use in complaining then if you really think that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Congress stopped the vietnam war by halting the funding for it. There's a precedent. Regardless of how it was done, 6M people were massacred in Cambodia once we left the region - you'll likely see the same kind of thing in Iraq, which is more why the Democrats talk out one side of their mouth about pulling the troops but don't when the rubber meets the road.</div> It's a touchy situation Denny, we don't want to stop the funding due to the risks. Their's a precedent but Congress is cautious. Getting into this war was the biggest mistake. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If the republicans can stop legislation with a minority, the democrats can do so easier since they have ~40 more votes in the house. Why are we in filibuster territory? Sauce for the goose. That's how the game is played in D.C. It'll be interesting to see if Obama gets any kind of honeymoon if he's elected (goose) - Bush got none (sauce).</div> What the Republicans are doing now is ridiculous. http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/1927 There's no precedent for it. .<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987–88 and 23 in 1977–78. In 1967–68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed. [...]</div> </div> Nancy's a great leader. She leads, not enough follow.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reality is the voters that bought these people in should have seen this coming a mile away. Everything Congress would pass which would slow down the war in Iraq would be vetoed by Bush. And unless they get a 60/40 majority, there would be nothing they could do until the 111th Congress came into session. Yet, the Democrats kept pushing and pushing the fact they were going to end the war, and they got elected in droves. It all turned out to be bullshit. LOL I can remember watching NBC's coverage of the elections after it was all said in done on Election night '06. Brian Williams had back to back interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain played the humble loser, as if his team just lost a seven game series, talking about how they needed to work together. Obama however was talking about how the time of change was "now" (not in 2008), and how the Democrats were going to end the "failed policies" of George Bush. Not much has changed, except the empty promises of course.</div> Their majority simply isn't large enough to get change done. And there's no reason for Obama to try and admit that ugly fact back in 04, the guy was trying to be hopeful at least. </div> But they sold it as such in order to gain power immediately, when they knew all along it wasn't going to happen. They made empty promises to the people. </div> How will they reach the majority without making promises? Republicans are hardly infallible. </div> They made promises they knew they couldn't keep. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, is the Republicans ran on the Contract with America, won, and were able to impliment some of it into policy. The Democrats ran on ending the war in Iraq immediately, won, and didn't do anything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Congress stopped the vietnam war by halting the funding for it. There's a precedent. Regardless of how it was done, 6M people were massacred in Cambodia once we left the region - you'll likely see the same kind of thing in Iraq, which is more why the Democrats talk out one side of their mouth about pulling the troops but don't when the rubber meets the road.</div> It's a touchy situation Denny, we don't want to stop the funding due to the risks. Their's a precedent but Congress is cautious. Getting into this war was the biggest mistake. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If the republicans can stop legislation with a minority, the democrats can do so easier since they have ~40 more votes in the house. Why are we in filibuster territory? Sauce for the goose. That's how the game is played in D.C. It'll be interesting to see if Obama gets any kind of honeymoon if he's elected (goose) - Bush got none (sauce).</div> What the Republicans are doing now is ridiculous. http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/1927 There's no precedent for it. .<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987–88 and 23 in 1977–78. In 1967–68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed. [...]</div> </div> Nancy's a great leader. She leads, not enough follow. </div> I could care less about Nancy, the issue's been outlined enough for people to understand at least.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reality is the voters that bought these people in should have seen this coming a mile away. Everything Congress would pass which would slow down the war in Iraq would be vetoed by Bush. And unless they get a 60/40 majority, there would be nothing they could do until the 111th Congress came into session. Yet, the Democrats kept pushing and pushing the fact they were going to end the war, and they got elected in droves. It all turned out to be bullshit. LOL I can remember watching NBC's coverage of the elections after it was all said in done on Election night '06. Brian Williams had back to back interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain played the humble loser, as if his team just lost a seven game series, talking about how they needed to work together. Obama however was talking about how the time of change was "now" (not in 2008), and how the Democrats were going to end the "failed policies" of George Bush. Not much has changed, except the empty promises of course.</div> Their majority simply isn't large enough to get change done. And there's no reason for Obama to try and admit that ugly fact back in 04, the guy was trying to be hopeful at least. </div> But they sold it as such in order to gain power immediately, when they knew all along it wasn't going to happen. They made empty promises to the people. </div> How will they reach the majority without making promises? Republicans are hardly infallible. </div> They made promises they knew they couldn't keep. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, is the Republicans ran on the Contract with America, won, and were able to impliment some of it into policy. The Democrats ran on ending the war in Iraq immediately, won, and didn't do anything. </div> They can keep the promise with more time, if not then I'll criticize them as well.
