Sen. Lindsey Graham (in photo), R-S.C., continues to be hopeful that Congress can pass immigration reform and that the surge strategy can work in Iraq. But he was aptly harsh Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” about the job performance of Congress, and not just that of the Democrats. He noted the public approval rating of Congress is “20-something percent” and asked: “Who the hell are the 20-something percent? How could you like what you see in Washington? How could you be favorable to your government when every hard problem is demonized and never solved?”
The most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll put public approval of Congress at 27 percent, down from 36 percent in January.
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
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
51 Comments
“What’s the Matter with Kansas?”
No one seems to care that our Kansas Senators have tied themselves to the Bush debacle…
Mr. Roberts was the Chairman on the Senate Intelligence Commitee and had knowledge of the NIC (National Intelligence Council) reports that told them what would happen in Iraq! No,”Second Phase investigation”, he left the post! Now GWB comes to Wichita with his hand out trying to keep his waterboy in office.
Mr. Brownbacks lobby ties to Abramoff were dismissed by Kansans because he gave the money back (unlike GWB). I never heard an explaination of why he took it in the first place!? Now he takes money for, what is obviously a failing presidential campaign. Go figure from whom!
Ex-Senator Dole (remember him?) is busy working the big money corporate lobbyists to try and sell our ports (ahem, remember?), and any thing else of value he can get his greedy little hand(s, sob story) on!
“What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Is anyone paying attention?
Problem is that nearly every honest, intelligent man or woman with leadership ability wouldn’t consider an elected position in Government. The firestorm that’s called a campaign is hard in families, and it just doesn’t look good on resumes anymore!
Part pf the problem is the fact that the Democrats overpromised on Iraq. When they took over and then pursued essentially the same policy Bush has, it pissed alot of their base off which Harry Reid aknowledged yesterday. Hopefully the Democratic presidential hopefuls will take a cue from that and not repeat the same mistake. A better approach would be to simply tell people “look I was opposed to this war, thought it was stupid and dumb BUT the Republicans got us into it and we are there now. And we have to stay and win and, to be honest with you, it is going to be a long and hard slog. It is going to take alot more money and alot more blood and probably a decade or longer to win this thing but we have to do it”. I think this would be a better and more honest approach rather than just saying “I want to end Iraq” knowing full well that they cannot “end Iraq”.
“What’s the Matter with Kansas?”
What is the basic matter with Kansas is this- they have too damn many Rapturefarians and religious nutcases that actually vote there. What is needed is more people on the sane side of the political spectrum to vote. Signs are hopeful though with the defeat of neo rightist Jim Ryun. Hopefully we can turn Kansas into a Democratic state yet!
The two major parties are only interested in acquiring and keeping power. It’s no surprise when the actual business of governing does not get done.
Good point ProudMan. Both parties main priority is getting more people of their party elected.
Really, if you compare the parties on what they Actually do once they are in office, I think they are no different, probably within 1 standard deviation on a normally distributed bell curve.
The only thing that separates them are the few but divisive fringe issues. And these serve as no more than talking points, since they are so polarized and touchy few Congressman are brave enough to actually Try to pass legislation on them.
Remember that the dems only have a slight majority in Congress. They do not have enough votes to override a presidential veto. So it may seem like they are a “doing nothing Congress” but lets be honest about how much power they truly hold. A small majority. The political “third rail” is to leave the troops on the battlefield without funding. This would have played directly into the GOP’s hands in 08. So they did what they had to do and sign on to the funding bill without a timetable.
When September comes and Patreaus gives his report(of course it will be…”we are starting to see progress)and funding is up again for approval, then the dems will have a chance to “end Iraq”. Moderate republicans are moving away from the president and the dems may have enough votes to override a presidential veto.
Let’s remain honest about how much control that the dems really have.
Overpromise? Is that a new Democritic word for lying? :D
“He noted the public approval rating of Congress is “20-something percent” and asked: “Who the hell are the 20-something percent”
That’s the same thing I ask about President Bush–who are the 29% that approve of him?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. meanwhile the matrix lives
ProudMan (at 6:46) has it exactly right. And that NEVER changes, no matter which party, no matter what label they call themselves. It has been so since the beginning of time, and will always be so, this side of heaven.
Which is why smaller government is nearly always better government.
Well the problem isn’t with the dems, it’s the same old crap the cons have been pulling for the past umpteen years now. Give the dems a real majority and then you’ll see some good news from Congress.
Political Mom-
But the problem is with the Dems-
In this case, they said they would get out of Iraq, something KNEW they could not deliver. The parties are the same in this, they care nothing about you or me, they only care about the perpetuation of their power. The Republican Party see their best chance by catering or at least pretending to cater to one group, the Democrat Party to another. Witness the very observable shifting of candidates to the farther extreme of either party during the primaries, then shifting towards the middle during the general election. They don;t give a damn about anything but power and their own ego.
My bet is that there will be a veto-proof anti-war majority in Congress next session. Either congresscritters will “see the light,” or they’ll get voted out of office.
And I’ll bet you a cold one that if we are still in Iraq at that time, we will still not get out of Iraq. :)
What’s the matter with Kansas? Stop and think for a sec.
We got rid of Connie, Phil and Brenda – a refreshing start. Now if we could just sack Abrams and Wagel (and who else, bloggers?), it would be a fine day.
Its definitely a choice of a “lesser of two evils”. We have all witnessed exactly how evil the GOP can be. With the new scandal with millions of emails missing(kinda dwarfs Nixon’s 18 minutes of missing audio)and the current foreign policy decisions, I for one am ready for a change. I do not subscribe to the new boss is the same as the old boss. One boss is stark, raving, paranoid, dillusional. And the other may not be as “conservative” as some like, but they are not paranoid dillusional. Since its a two party system, I will take the party that will not destroy our childrens futures.
Dennis,
I imagine you mean Connie Morris and Phill Kline.
If you mean Brenda Landwehr, I have sad news for you. She’s still in office.
Did you intend to type “Bonnie?”
Littlejohn,
You’re on. Even if I lose the bet, having a beer or two sounds like a win.
Thank you Tom. Good catch. I’m headed for that second cup of coffee.
LJ the problem is NOT with the dems, who fights the legislation to pull out of Iraq? The cons. Who will veto a bill even if it does pass? The cons.
We do NOT have enough majority right now to enact any big changes. If you want to see them right now, you’re going to have to impeach a few people.
“It has been so since the beginning of time, and will always be so, this side of heaven.”
“Its definitely a choice of a “lesser of two evils”"
Why does it have to be this way? We can change it.
Here is a good start: term limits for Congress and no party affiliation identified on voting ballots. Let each person stand on their own merit in the voting booth and get ‘career politicians’ out of office.
Poltical Mom-
Then mpeach them if the goods are there, I got no problem with that.But, seriously, if enough people bought into the Democrat party rhetoric, the Democrats would have a solid majority. The simple fact is, they didn;t. ANd I personally don;t buy any parties rhetoric. I try and look at the individual candidate, not the party. Party line votes really don;t change anything, IMHO.
P_Mom,
In actuality, the congress has the authority to revoke the power of war from the pres. At anytime, they could pull the switch. Our troops would have no recourse but to come home.
And Ron Paul votes to get the troops home as well.
“Our troops would have no recourse but to come home”
This makes it sound like our troops as individuals would have the option of choosing a recourse if there were one.
More accurate would be “The Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces would have no recourse but to bring our troops home”
“congress has the authority to revoke the power of war”
They need a veto-proof majority.
Really, I think people with high ideals (some some agree with, some some don’t–sounds funny, huh) run for office. They get elected. Then the system corrupts them. If they don;t toe the line, the party bosses won;t appoint them to commitees, or work on that indiviuals bills. Deals need to be made. You vote for this, I;ll vote for that. Don;t say anything about my earmarks, and I won;t say anything about yours. The party is what is important, son, not you.Meanwhile, the party bosses guarantee their ownlittle kingdoms, the people be damned. Too much time in COngress and another one bites the dust. Now it’s just another politican.
Even if I lose the bet, having a beer or two sounds like a win.
Posted by: Tom | June 19, 2007 at 09:41 AM
Agreed.
Littlejohn,
The game is the same in Topeka. I’ve seen up waaaay too close & personal.
The good news is there _are_ some good people of conscience. The bad news is, there’s not enough.
That’s only because there were people stupid enough to think that there’s a real fundamental difference between democrats and republicans.
littlejohn, Tom, and Todd, your comments just reaffirm to me the need for change.
From my 09:53 AM post:”Here is a good start: term limits for Congress and no party affiliation identified on voting ballots. Let each person stand on their own merit in the voting booth and get ‘career politicians’ out of office.”
I might agree to term limits, but I am afraid the unintended consequence would be to make the “party” system only stronger. No pary affiliation on the ballots might be a novel and good idea.
[T]he unintended consequence would be to make the “party” system only stronger”
Yep. It would also give more power to PACs and the like.
the 20 something percent are probably those same ones that like George W. And I would be willing to bet these same people are the ones who are making money off the war and oil.
There will always be a certain amount of people who do not care how they make money – just so they get theirs and to hell with the rest of the peons.
When funding for the “war” is cut-off, the troops are not left stranded, but moved back home.
The warmongers would have you believe that the troops would be left stranded, but that simply isn’t true.
When congress votes to cut-off funding, there is still enough money in the hopper to bring them home.
The problem with term limits is that the smaller states (read Kansas) would be limited, whereas the larger states would benefit, having a greater population to draw candidates from.
WS,
I don’t see how that’s true. Each Congressional district has 650,000 or so people in it, no matter how big the state the district is in. That’s your talent-pool.
When you consider that the population of the entire planet in 1776 was less than seven U.S. metropolitan areas in 2000, I don’t think the Founding Fathers could have anticipated the population disparity we have between states today.I think it is time for a second Connecticut Compromise–those states with 10 or more electoral votes are subject to term limits for their congressional delegation.If you have blanket term limits, all the aerospace jobs move to California.
“That’s your talent-pool.”
I should have been more specific – in the Senate…………..
I don’t think talent pool would be a problem. I am quite sure we can find 2 good, new people every 8 years or so, even in Kansas.
What Mr. Grahams proposals will end up doing…
Cant get a job because she cant speak Polish…?? Its coming…just a different language
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401101-details/The%20British%20workers%20denied%20jobs%20‘because%20they%20can’t%20speak%20Polish’/article.do
For not cutting the funding….
Notice: “thought to be”
7 Children Killed in Airstrike in AfghanistanSign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints ShareDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy BARRY BEARAK and TAIMOOR SHAHPublished: June 19, 2007KABUL, Afghanistan, June 18 — Seven children were killed during an airstrike by the United States-led coalition against a religious compound thought to be a Qaeda sanctuary in remote eastern Afghanistan, the coalition said Monday.
The death of the children on Sunday may well add to the crescendoing anger many Afghans feel about civilian casualties from American and NATO military operations. More than 130 civilians have been killed in airstrikes and shootings in the past six months, according to Afghan authorities.
That toll may soon inflate dismally. Afghan officials said late Monday that more than 50 civilians may have died during fierce fighting over the past three days between NATO forces and the Taliban in the Chora district of the southern province of Uruzgan.
“I have seen with my own eyes that women and children were badly hit by bombing,” said Mullah Ahmidullah Khan, head of Uruzgan’s provincial council. “The fighting is inside the villages, so that’s why the civilians are suffering casualties. I have met some families who have lost almost everyone.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/world/asia/19afghan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I don’t know, Brian, WITHOUT terms limits we have come up with Tiahrt, Roberts and Brownback – not much of a track record!
While it is true that incumbents (regardless of party affiliation) have a HUGE advantage, could it not also be true because either1) they are in line with the majority of their district
2) the opposing party (again, either one)allows party bosses to dictate who runs? Instead of who might either get elected, or actually represent the people?
“I don’t know, Brian, WITHOUT terms limits we have come up with Tiahrt, Roberts and Brownback – not much of a track record!”
Hopefully not having party affiliations on the ballots would help with that.
“When September comes and Patreaus gives his report(of course it will be…”we are starting to see progress)and funding is up again for approval, then the dems will have a chance to “end Iraq”. Moderate republicans are moving away from the president and the dems may have enough votes to override a presidential veto.”
The fact is that the Democrats will not be able to end Iraq even if they win both houses and the White House next year. We are far too involved in Iraq now and getting out will take decades if ever. That is why we are spending several billion dollars building 4 huge PERMANENT bases in Iraq. Believe me no matter who is elected, we are going to be in Iraq a very long time. In fact I really do not expect to see it “over” and us “gone” from there in my lifetime.
What? The Democrats have the majority in Congress and approval ratings have gone down since they took the majority?
Why is that a surprise? When the Dems run a NEGATIVE campaign without having a POSITIVE PLAN of their own, we are surprised with what we get now?
The Dems bash Bush, blame anyone else but themselves, have no solution of their own so what did you expect the Dems to actually DO when they took control?
The Dems did nothing but bitch, and moan, and complain, and make excuses during the campaign, and THAT is EXACTLY what they are doing now as our elected representatives!
Go figure.
Ya think during the next election you might vote for someone who presents detailed, realistic solutions or just the one who does a better job of attacking and destroying their opponent?
“But, seriously, if enough people bought into the Democrat party rhetoric, the Democrats would have a solid majority. The simple fact is, they didn;t.”
Well, they did in the house, where ALL the seats were up for election.
In the Senate? Not so much. But remember, the dems lost NO incumbents in senate races. The repukes? Quite a few.
If the same pattern had been extended to ALL senate seats, the strong majority would be there. It just takes time, given senators only stand for election every six years.
Perhaps the job will be completed over the next four years when ALL of the seats have been up for election post iraq invasion.
And CERTAINLY kansas has the opportunity to help change the congress. BOTH ol’rubber stamp and god’s senator will stand for election in the next four years.
Kansas, you know what to do. Now let’s see if you do it.
Just in case you missed it, more bad news from New Orleans:
http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl062007tpbrooks.2142609c.html
And it looks like a Congressman’s family was involved in bribing the School Board.
High Priority Issues For 2008 Political Campaigns
Stop the character assassinations and get on with substantial discussion on the issues of:
*Universal HealthCare
*Bring the troops Home
*Impeach Bush/Cheney
*Halting the export of USA Jobs
*Abuse of Presidential Power
*Public Finance of Elections instead of Special Interest Finance of Electionshttp://www.publicampaign.org/
* Implementing http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
*How much are american citizens willing to pay for a barrel of oil?
http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12
http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182