An AP-Ipsos nationwide poll indicates that approval of Congress is at 40 percent — the highest in a year — with disapproval at 57 percent. The same percentages apply to the job the newly Democratic-controlled Congress is doing on Iraq. Meanwhile, President Bush’s approval rating remains in the mid-30 percent range, with 39 percent strongly disapproving of his foreign policy and the war on terror. Still, how long will the public favor a Congress where bills get through the House but stop cold in the Senate?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Chas on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Jed on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Public was correct to be concerned about Kline
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/22
41 Comments
I am thirty percent sure that only one half the Polls are less than ten percent accurate on fifty percent of the true story.
Sorry Republican I only believe in polls 8/100th of a percent!
I suspect the problem with the Senate will be taken care of in 2008. The voting public recognizes obstruction when they see it.
XXX,You are right that “the problem with the Senate will be taken care of in 2008. The voting public recognizes obstruction when they see it.”The Democrats will have a higher majority in the Senate so that even if a Republican becomes President (highly unlikely, but $hit happens), his veto threats will be meaningless.
The key is to make it clear that the problem in the Senate is the obstructionism of the Republican minority. This will enable a Democratic candidate for president run a comprehensive campaign with Democratic candidates for Congress.
Might just be time for brown-nose Roberts to go.
“President Bush’s approval rating remains in the mid-30 percent range…”
That’s not an approval rating. That’s the hard core, unthinking partisan base saying they’d rather see the nation go down the toilet than even consider criticizing God’s anointed president.
Tim Russet’s “Meet the Press” is an ever shrinking look into our government, and to clutter the first 15 minutes with “why we must stay in Iraq” by some worn-out general, without the majority view of the American People being represented is bad enough, but to devote the next 45 minutes to some “shock jock” insulting a girls basket team wreaks of government censorship.
As far as Iraq is concerned it’s passed time to leave { and the sky won’t fall } and it’s time to “get over” insults while our troops are dying as they speak.
We’ve a madman in the While House urged on by another Vice-madman and that precious hour needs to be direct toward matters that matter, and certainly not the badgering of diversity.
Ben,
Obstructionism? What do you think the dems in the Senate have been doing for the last 6 years?
A rational look at the upcoming Senate races in ‘08 still look pretty good for the republicans, especially if the dems nominate one of the nitwits for president currently leading in the polls.
Hank
Hank,
How many filibusters did the Democrats maintain while they were the minority party?
How many have the Republicans maintained in the three months they’ve been in the minority?
Who’s the obstructionist?
Obama is a nitwit? Funny, he sure doesn’t sound like one.
All I want from the government is gridlock.
Dear Ed,
Yes, Obama is a nitwit. Other than not having a record on anything, what do you think are his qualifications to be president?
Hank
Dear Hank,
You’re down to finding the lessor of the evils.
Obama is fresh. intelligent, values integrity and honesty, comes from a good upbringing which instilled those values.
Obama is miles ahead of whatever you could or would come up with among your limited choices.
My Best, Ed
Oh, I agree Ed,
When I vote for the republican candidate for president I will flinch. But when it comes down to what is best for our country none of the qualifications you listed for Obama rise above the qualifications of a Boy Scout workng toward his merit badge in government. (Even if they were all true!)
Hank
Hank
So you seem to think that a candidate without those qualifications, as the one we have now, would better serve this country. I think that you seriously need to reconsider your evaluation process.
An intelligent Eagle scout with Obama’s attributes would better serve this country than all but a few now in government.
Obama is the best this country has to offer this time around, and judging by the whirlwind of support, I’m not the only one who apparently thinks so.
Ed
Obama’s just a canvas for the hopeful to project their wishes on.
We have a REPUBLIC, with duties and checks and balances in each branch.
Remember how Democrats came up with a crazy story about a spy plane being used to negotiate between Iran and President-elect Reagan??
When Republicans are accused of foreign policy meddeling, the left goes nuts, when a Democrat is in office.—–President Bush has a right and a duty to make sure Syria and other nations understand that Pelosi is a lose cannon speaking her own mind.Also, Pelosi has contradicted herself.Try to do a little research, folks.One day, Pelosi says she and the administration are “speaking with one voice” on terrorism.The next day, she speaks of “an alternative foreign policy.”Typical Dem.She wants it both ways.
By the way, pure majority rule is what out founders tried the hardest to check.
True, Paul, although some of our founders were at least sympathetic thereto, IIRC. One thing I recall from discussions about the choice of a Republic over a Democracy was the lack of education in the body politic.
The Electoral College is one prominent symbol of the desires of the founders, through compromise, to ensure no Democracy. Obviously, the existence of the House of Representatives and the Senate are also representative of the idea that the federal government was to be a Republic.
Dear Ed,
“An intelligent Eagle scout with Obama’s attributes would better serve this country than all but a few now in government.”
I’m having a problem coming up with a rational argument for this statement.
You win.
Hank
Bush’s threats to use atomic warfare against Iran made crude spike from 30 to 80 dollars a barrel, and 3 dollar gasoline is destroying our economy.
Finally a clear-minded Pelosi made a trip to the Middle East not as a loose cannon, but to counter the loose canon Bush, signaling there is more than just a madman in the United States.
Pelosi saved the day.
Bush can’t even build a sentence, nevermind peace in the Middle East.
Bush’s foreign policy is little more than “Dr. Strangelove.”
“Bush’s threats to use atomic warfare against Iran made crude spike from 30 to 80 dollars a barrel, and 3 dollar gasoline is destroying our economy. ”
WHen was crude oil $80/bbl?And national gas price is not $3/gallon, nor is it destroying our economy, otherwise at the very least demand would be reduced. don;t see it. False arguments
“Finally a clear-minded Pelosi made a trip to the Middle East not as a loose cannon, but to counter the loose canon Bush, signaling there is more than just a madman in the United States.
Pelosi saved the day.”
yeah, I see changes already. Fact is, Pelosi’s trip did diddly squat.Damaging or constructive. Waste of time and taxpayers money
In regards to the Electoral College: How many people here can name the six electors they voted for last election? How many have ever met an elector?
The idea of the EC was that we would elect PEOPLE (not ciphers) who would, in turn, exercise judgment in choosing a president and VP.
And, by the way, we also didn’t elect Senators. The state legislature did that.
True, Ben; on direct election of Senators, that was changed by the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913. So, there has been direct election of Senators for less than 100 years.
What are your thoughts on the reasonableness of a direct democracy today? (voting security, voter fraud, and logistics issues of ‘how’ aside)
Do you feel that our populous is educated enough on the issues to make directly voting on them a reasonable idea?
On many issues, what a disaster. I think that many. many, people are captive of “soundbite” media and do any research at all. A good example, in my mind, is the “I don;t know who I will vote for until I get into the booth” person. I almost feel like screaming, If you can;t educate yourself to the issues, don;t vote!Almost, but not quite
$3.09 Texaco, Royal Lane and US 75 Dallas Texas {regular }
As for crude oil, pull-up commodities charts.
Educating yourself might be helpful.
Brian, if you are discussing direct democracy, I believe it would prove unworkable. From things I have read, the “town hall meeting” in the New England states which is the most pertinent example of direct democracy in the U.S. have been, for the most part, abandoned due to many reasons not the least of which is apathy.
If you are referring to direct election of the President by popular vote, then the dangers perceived by the drafters of the Constitution, that is, the ability of a minority in number of the several states which have the greatest concentration of population to determine the presidency still exists. Whether this is good or bad I don’t know; but I, for one, do not see abolition of the Electoral College in the near future.
By “direct democracy” are you referring to electing our leaders or to referendum for everything? The former YES; the latter generally NO.
Dear Hank,
I think that we both wish that that argument couldn’t be “won.”
Best, Ed
littlejohn: ‘people are captive of “soundbite” media … If you can;t educate yourself to the issues, don;t vote!’
I think these are definitely impediments to our govenment’s efficiency. Too many people trying to make decisions with inadequate information.
I would add to this those that vote a party ticket. In my viewpoint, that is no different than the person that knows nothing about the candidates and votes for the ones with the funniest names.
Vaughn, you are right in your thinking that the electoral college will not be changed in the near future. The heartland of the nation would lose any chance to influence the election. Some might find this great but it opens a large can of worms when an extreme element on both coasts would then elect the prez. From some of the functions we see televised we know they don’t represent the opinion of the nation as a whole.No longer would we have any clout, nor would we see any campaigning (maybe not a bad thing). This extreme isn’t something to wish for.
Regarding a minority of states with large populations deciding the Presidency, I do not feel that is much of an issue in our current world.
The state-to-state mobility of people and the disperseness of information have changed a lot since the Founding Fathers were around. A small state like Kansas could never force a candidate into the Presidency, and neither could a large state like California.
I think there would be a larger turnout without the Electoral College. People would feel that their vote actually had a direct impact on the outcome of the election. Each vote really would count
Currently, when I vote for the Independent candidate for President it is a wasted vote. All of Kansas’ electoral votes will go to the Republican candidate because that candidate will always win in Kansas (at least thus far.) However, without the Electoral College, my one vote here would be added with the 15 in Oklahoma, etc to affect the overall totals.
There will always be a problem of apathy in elections, but that is a societal problem, not one of governmental or electoral structuring.
ksgrm,Think of a picture of the US without state lines drawn in. Now think of an election where people from all over that map are polled and the majority of votes decides the winner.
Is that not the best way to elect a candidate that truely represents the desires of most Americans?
Pelosi has been great. Hence the hissy fit thrown by Dick Cheney and others when she went to Syria–where, by the way, she did nothing that hadn’t been fully approved in advance by the White House.
CF2K always said that if Democrats got a pair, that the public would back a more aggressive stance toward this “President.” But who knew that the “pair” he referred to would be ovaries and not testes.
Heh, good one, CF2K.
Only Bush can be so bad that Congress looks good by comparison.
” would add to this those that vote a party ticket. In my viewpoint, that is no different than the person that knows nothing about the candidates and votes for the ones with the funniest names.
Posted by: brian | April 16, 2007 at 12:26 PM
i whole heartedly agree. While I trend Republican, I don;t think I have ever voted a straight party ticket.
“$3.09 Texaco, Royal Lane and US 75 Dallas Texas {regular }
As for crude oil, pull-up commodities charts.
Educating yourself might be helpful.
Posted by: Ed Friedemann | April 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM”
As for texas, it’s not the US. Much as most Texas woould like to think so. :)
I am having computer difficulties, but I checked Nynex and I still don;t see any $80 bbl oil
Carlos Mayans was once an elector.I remember because I think I nominated him, or at leasts promoted the idea — back when my opinion mattered in the GOP