<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Congressional Performance Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever Tuesday, July 08, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisement 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. Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008. 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. Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month. Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America. Voters hold little positive sentiment about the future. Just 41% find it at least somewhat likely that Congress will address important problems facing our nation in the near future, while 55% find this unlikely. Despite these negative attitudes towards Congress, Democrats continue to enjoy a double digit lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people. A separate Rasmussen survey found that half of all voters believe America’s best days are in the past. However, another survey found that 64% of voters also believe that the world would be a better place if more countries were similar to the United States.</div> Link I'd like to send my congratulations to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid for this milestone.
The Democratic party has become Socialist in way too many ways for me to be comfortable. And the approval rating does not surprise me in the least. They literally have no idea how to reduce gas prices, handle the situation in Iraq, or turn the economy around. They've been grandstanding in congress forever now and Obama has been taken along for the ride. Whats funny is this poll proves that the majority of Democrats do not agree with what is going on in congress, but still they will vote for Obama despite the fact that he will act in an almost identical fashion as President. Ignorance at its finest.
Why is this all on the Liberals? Edit- Lol I'll be more clear then: "Why is this all on the Democrats?" I'll say it again, there have been a record number of filibusters thanks to conservatives. This is an entire "team" chokejob.
I don't know that the Democratic party has fully embraced socialism. It could be stated there are some socialist ideas in the Democratic party. Though, after reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, I'd say the DP is no longer Liberal rather Progressive w/ fascist/socialist leanings. The aforementioned book is a phenomenal if not disturbing read especially the chapter on Woodrow Wilson. It did help clarify IMO what Nazis were/are; militiant, racist, new age socialists.
Earlier this week, on America's nightly scoreboard (FBN), Ron Paul said approval rating might be inflated.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 16 2008, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know that the Democratic party has fully embraced socialism. It could be stated there are some socialist ideas in the Democratic party. Though, after reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, I'd say the DP is no longer Liberal rather Progressive w/ fascist/socialist leanings. The aforementioned book is a phenomenal if not disturbing read especially the chapter on Woodrow Wilson. It did help clarify IMO what Nazis were/are; militiant, racist, new age socialists.</div> A fascinating post. I don't know the democrats were ever Liberal. Historically, they've mostly been the party opposed to civil rights and for slavery and that kind of thing. As late as 1968, people we think of as "liberals" were violently protesting at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. I actually think of JFK as a rather conservative fellow, not a whole lot different than Reagan. There was a socialist movement that was strong early in the 1900s, but they were a 3rd party and reasonably successful (they elected governors, for example). Progressive is the right term for what the party really is these days. They believe govt. is the solution to all problems, there's always more problems, so we always need more government. Though it's hard to tell the republicans from the progressives anymore, since they bloated govt. by a huge amount under Bush and republican congress. Goldberg gets a lot of heat for his description of the Nazis, but I've always believed what he says about them to be the case. Fascism isn't right wing, it's left wing; left wing regimes resemble Stalinist Russia, Castro's Cuba, Mao's China, or Saddam's Iraq. Those guys all were militant and even wore military uniform much of the time. The big difference between Fascist left-wing dictatorships and Communist ones are how the power is obtained - Fascists arise in well developed industrial nations with populist appeals to the middle class, while Communists arise in under developed nations with populist appeals to the lower class. Some argue that Fascists are right wing and their close relationship with big business differentiates them from the left wing Communists. I don't believe this makes much sense, as the left wing regimes either control big business through regulation or nationalizing the businesses after the entrepreneurs have finished building them. I also don't see that much difference between the FDR's relationship with big business during WW II and Hitler's - both nations converted big business to a war materiel machine while working with those businesses' owners. I don't know anyone who'd say FDR was a right winger.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know the democrats were ever Liberal.</div> The Democratic party (unless I'm way off) was started by T Jefferson and the part was known as Democratic-republican or something like that but TJ was a classical liberal i.e Libertarian. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>There was a socialist movement that was strong early in the 1900s, but they were a 3rd party and reasonably successful (they elected governors, for example).</div> As well as a Progressive movement of which T Roosevelt was a key figure. Its no bully that TR is a hero of McCain. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Fascists arise in well developed industrial nations with populist appeals to the middle class, while Communists arise in under developed nations with populist appeals to the lower class.</div> Hence, the third way movement mentioned in the book by Goldberg. He does mention John Kerry & Bill Clinton as key example of this type of leader. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Some argue that Fascists are right wing and their close relationship with big business differentiates them from the left wing Communists. I don't believe this makes much sense, as the left wing regimes either control big business through regulation or nationalizing the businesses after the entrepreneurs have finished building them. I also don't see that much difference between the FDR's relationship with big business during WW II and Hitler's - both nations converted big business to a war materiel machine while working with those businesses' owners. I don't know anyone who'd say FDR was a right winger.</div> Again, the book mentions, Speer and German industry was a johnny come lately/bandwagon hopper. Nationalizing something like Chavez does is a conversion process and socialism is way to describe it after i.e. Saudi Arabia's oil industry. Little difference IMO.
^^^ Well, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. The king literally owns everything, including the people. Jefferson at one time was a classical Liberal, but it's hard to fathom the guy keeping slaves and doing the Louisiana Purchase as Libertarian things. Jefferson is also responsible for the two party system and party over country. I'm a fan of many things about the guy and despise other things about him. Mixed bag. Clinton's an interesting fellow. I bash him a bit, because he deserves it, but I do happen to think he was a pretty fine president on the whole and a likable fellow. Tho the last bit diminished during this last campaign and made him out to be a rather ugly person. He had the ability to coerce a republican congress to do his will, but he also compromised on long held Democratic Party principles in ways republicans should have been happy (but weren't); like welfare reform. An odd thing is that I'm not really that anti-communist, though I simply don't see any real communists have led nations in any substantial way. I always thought communism was a good fit for some of the underdeveloped sub-saharan nations in Africa, though it's not the long term answer.
China kind of has done well as a country with a lot of government interaction. They do have a lot of big issues still (human rights and poverty), however their economy has been improving nicely.
Yes. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, but, the "state" took over the joint venture between the kingdom & Standard oil and is now"state" owned. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>I always thought communism was a good fit for some of the underdeveloped sub-saharan nations in Africa, though it's not the long term answer.</div> Whatever you do don't let Karl Marx know how you feel. lol. I agree that any form of totalitarianism is not the answer for any nation. Sorry Hugo, Kim Jong Il, Putin, etc...
Dang, to me this has nothing to do with party politics..... And whoever said that Obama will act the same way as Bush has not been following the election closely enough. Obama's theories on how to handle terrorists are unconventional and not the same as Bush's, that alone invalidates your opinion. As for the congressional rating, I am surprised that it was at 9%. With a war that nobody other than anti-Muslims supports, a president who doesn't speak english, and gas prices through the roof, not too many are happy with things right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 16 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dang, to me this has nothing to do with party politics.....</div> True. The posts by RipCity & huevonkiller (#3 & #4) kinda got me off on a tangent. Though, the philosophy driving the DP's rationale (dare I call it that) "may" have something to do with their share of the gridlock and bipartisan bickering.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 16 2008, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dang, to me this has nothing to do with party politics..... And whoever said that Obama will act the same way as Bush has not been following the election closely enough. Obama's theories on how to handle terrorists are unconventional and not the same as Bush's, that alone invalidates your opinion. As for the congressional rating, I am surprised that it was at 9%. With a war that nobody other than anti-Muslims supports, a president who doesn't speak english, and gas prices through the roof, not too many are happy with things right now.</div> I think that people in general might think that Congress will do more than they are actually capable or allowed to do. Who is answering these polls? Are they experts on how the process works, or are they composed of a bunch of idiots who have no idea. As for who's fault it is for the bad rating, the blame needs to be shared. Congress is not composed of only one political party, and the President has done his part in hindering what Congress can or tried to get done. As for the tangent on ideology. I must say that as I get older, I find less use for ideologues or am more inclined to support systems that offer practical solutions for real problems, not blindly adhereing to some politcal doctrine. That is much more flexible for handling the complexities of modern day issues.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 17 2008, 08:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 16 2008, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dang, to me this has nothing to do with party politics..... And whoever said that Obama will act the same way as Bush has not been following the election closely enough. Obama's theories on how to handle terrorists are unconventional and not the same as Bush's, that alone invalidates your opinion. As for the congressional rating, I am surprised that it was at 9%. With a war that nobody other than anti-Muslims supports, a president who doesn't speak english, and gas prices through the roof, not too many are happy with things right now.</div> I think that people in general might think that Congress will do more than they are actually capable or allowed to do. Who is answering these polls? Are they experts on how the process works, or are they composed of a bunch of idiots who have no idea. As for who's fault it is for the bad rating, the blame needs to be shared. Congress is not composed of only one political party, and the President has done his part in hindering what Congress can or tried to get done. As for the tangent on ideology. I must say that as I get older, I find less use for ideologues or am more inclined to support systems that offer practical solutions for real problems, not blindly adhereing to some politcal doctrine. That is much more flexible for handling the complexities of modern day issues. </div> It doesn't help that congress ran on promises to do things and people do expect them to deliver. Congress does have the power of the purse, and they could simply stop funding the effort in Iraq, filibuster or not, and the president wouldn't have a say. Then there's the track record. Republicans ran things and ran up the budget and gave us a bigger debt. Democrats have all along done all they could to bring about the energy crisis we're now facing, and people realize it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 16 2008, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dang, to me this has nothing to do with party politics..... And whoever said that Obama will act the same way as Bush has not been following the election closely enough. Obama's theories on how to handle terrorists are unconventional and not the same as Bush's, that alone invalidates your opinion. As for the congressional rating, I am surprised that it was at 9%. With a war that nobody other than anti-Muslims supports, a president who doesn't speak english, and gas prices through the roof, not too many are happy with things right now.</div> I hope your first statement was not referring to my post, if it was, dear god read it again. There are plenty of supporters of this war, way more than any media outlet would have you believe. I saw a poll last night that said the country was divided 48% for the war, 52% against. People following the anti-war sentiment are not near the overwhelming majority you think they are. And as far as the approval rating having to do with party politics, I see it as the Democrats fault for a number of reasons. When Pelosi came in she declared she had the master plan and that things would improve drastically without the big bad republicans in control. Sadly for us, she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics or affecting a positive change within congress. I also find it comical that Democrats blame Bush entirely for the economy and gas prices, however he had little to do with either. Democrats are now trying to drill off-shore and in Alaska, however if they hadn't shot down the exact same proposal 10 years ago when Clinton was in office, we would be well into reaping the benefits of that drilling. And as for the economy, it crashed on September 11th, 2001. I'm sorry Bush wasn't prepared for the most catastrophic attack on our soil in the history of the United States. I know, terrible. Oh and on the note of democratic hypocrisy..I love how they are crying about the national deficit yet they are sending 50 billion to help aids victims in Africa. Makes sense!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 17 2008, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh and on the note of democratic hypocrisy..I love how they are crying about the national deficit yet they are sending 50 billion to help aids victims in Africa. Makes sense!</div> Anyone know off hand how much money in aid we have now invested in Iraq? Maybe we can work those numbers down a bit in the coming years. Would help us out tremendously at home.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 17 2008, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When Pelosi came in she declared she had the master plan and that things would improve drastically without the big bad republicans in control. Sadly for us, she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics or affecting a positive change within congress.</div> I know her ass from a hole in the ground, and let me tell you, its much better than a hole in the ground. That's right Nancy, a little to the left...there you go...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 17 2008, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hope your first statement was not referring to my post, if it was, dear god read it again. There are plenty of supporters of this war, way more than any media outlet would have you believe. I saw a poll last night that said the country was divided 48% for the war, 52% against.</div> That is not true at all. Lets be real, when many Americans will say they support the war when really what they mean to say is that they support the TROOPS. If the question was asked "Do you support the war based on the premise that it was founded upon" the approval rating would be much lower. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sorry Bush wasn't prepared for the most catastrophic attack on our soil in the history of the United States. I know, terrible.</div> I have a friend who says that same crap....sad. Republicans seem to think that Bush's presidency was ruined by 9/11. First of all he's not the first president to ever deal with a terrorist attack on American soil. And lets be clear what a terrorist attack is, it isn't doesn't have to be done by foreigners like the media seems to think, the OKC bombing is an example of terrorism in my book. Nobody expected Bush or any human to be prepared for the attack, simply to handle it much better than he did. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Oh and on the note of democratic hypocrisy..I love how they are crying about the national deficit yet they are sending 50 billion to help aids victims in Africa. Makes sense!</div> I don't want this to turn into a flame war, but that is ignorant. Charity of all things, is not the reason that the deficit is so high.
