Congressional approval rating lower than Bush's
 

Ap Poll

This is really not intended to say neener, it's an observation about what happens when politicians try to move to the middle.

Dem support came largely (but not only) from an anti war sentiment during this last election. They aren't making progress on stopping it, and are getting opposition from many of their most ardent supporters (for example Cindy Sheehan says she may run against Pelosi).

Similarly, Bush has such low ratings because he isn't satisfying his base in many ways.

It is rare that moving to the middle satisfies anyone. I believe that compromise on many issues simply doesn't work and that it should be one way or the other, either of which has a better opportunity to succeed than a combination of the two.

I don't really know where I am going with this....there isn't a politician out there who is a great uniter, and I don't even know if it is possible.

Compromise may not positively efffect poll numbers ... but "one way or the other" is not something likely to happen in Congress. Even when Republicans or Democrats have had "control" of one house or the other, they have rarely had veto-proof or fillibuster-proof levels of control.

So the American people may poll one way ... but they vote another. They vote to keep compromise the only likely way of passing legislation. Even as one who'd like things one way rather than the other, I have to applaud the result of not letting either "side" run tyrannical over large swarths of the American population - - even that swarth that I disagree vehemently with.



The president is a different story. His administration does not have to compromise on matter of foreign policy. The Bush administration not only can, but HAS run tryannical - in both foreign policy and domestic security policy.

As we will see in the next presidential election, his nasty poll numbers will more match up with the way people vote than do the poll numbers for Congress.


So, um ... neener. :p

Congressional poll ratings often run to the low end - I have rarely, if ever, seen a Congress with over 50% approval, and they are frequently down in the thirties. It's not really a surprise. Everyone dislikes Congress. Though, when asked, most people also say that their particular Congressman does a good job and deserves to be reelected.

Someone once said that you don't want to know too much about how your sausages are made or how your laws are passed (or something to that effect).

You won't hear me say that about my congressman. Heh.

Nor mine....

Deservingly so ...

We need politicians who are not afraid of polls, like Bush!

If Congress were to follow Bush's lead and just act, even if it means being unpopular, so long as its for the common good, the polls will eventually come around.

Such is the nature of a representative republic. We do not live in a democracy.

Since when has Bush acted for the common good?

WRONG! The United States is a Democratic Republic. Our representatives are elected democratically. The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutualy exclusive.

From Merriam-Webster:

This "America is not a democracy" sound bite is relatively recent rhetoric - put forward by the right to further their own agenda. None of our Founding Fathers would have stood still for such rubbish.

Bravo.









Or do I find myself reflexively agreeing with everything you write, JWBear, simply because Mr. Avatar is staring at me so intensely and persuasively??

Whatever works! ;)

And... Here's something else. President Bush seems to think that we are a democracy...

Yep...It's official. The US Government considers itself to be a democratic republic.

Yikes. (Scaeagles reattaches his head) How about we don't live in a direct democracy.

My point was that electing a representative does not ensure that the representative will agree with us. This was in response to alphabassettgirl saying her representative is going to vote however they please (though I doubt it was worded in that fashion).

I happen to like the referendum process because it puts issues back into the hands of the people by direct vote. My representative, once elected, has no obligation whatsoever to vote in any particular way. That person will face election again in two years.

Yikes.

....and to the "democracy" for which it stands...

or is it?

...and to the "republic" for which it stands...

Sometimes I forget;)

Sorry to go off. It's a sensitive issue for me.

You are correct in that we are not a direct democracy - something the Founding Fathers did not want, for very good reasons.

Yes, the pledge says "republic". This in no way negates the fact that we are also a democracy. Why does it have to be either-or? It is, in fact, both.

I was discussing this subject with Bill earlier, and he made a very good analogy. "Republic" is the form of our government, "democracy" is the method.

I would agree with that...........

Going back to what you said earlier about it being a fairly recent(the America is not a democracy soundbite) thing. That's because right after the 2000 election all we heard was "Gore won the popular vote...why isn't he President". There was even a movement to get rid of the Electoral College((which, btw, was when Bill Richardson gained my attention and respect...he was one of the few dems to lead the fight against it)).

But yes, we are a Democratic Republic...thank heavens; because if we were ever a true democracy we would quickly fall into mob rule followed shortly by anarchy(make Chris happy) and finally a dictatorship.

My problem is with those who say we are only a republic. (Yes, they are out there. Believe me, I know.)

That's cool.

Well, on a national level we don't vote for anything(not even the President) directly....so I suppose they may have an argument(although I am not taking it up here....just saying I can see what they mean) in that regard.

While I understand what you meant by this short, rather terse statement, you should not be surprised by the vehement rebuttal. You said 'yikes' to the responses, but when I read this I was a bit angered. I don't think JW was out of line in his response, Scaegles- if one of us makes a post like this that you know to be wrong, you are pretty good at pointing it out as well.;)

Well, why it isn't a big deal, I don't think I've ever started a post with "WRONG!". I do, of course, point out what I disagree with - as is the nature of discussion.

Well, if you had posted that in response to my comments about an elected representative, I must say I would have responded in a similar manner. JW was right, your statement as it stood was wrong. These sorts of things strike a nerve in people, and with all the merde we have been subjected to since this whole strange McCarthy-like era began I expect more and more people are going to start speaking out when these quaint little hate-radio ideas are espoused. (Not saying you were intentionally doing so, but it definitely smelled like Rush for a few minutes in here). You made a strong (and somewhat cynical) statement kind of blowing off ABG's post regarding her own representative's response to her concerns and JW provided information that pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement.


Have I mentioned our air conditioner is still broken and it's 95 degrees in our house? I think I need one of these::cheers:

If you hadn't gone on that cruise you'd be able to afford a new AC.:p

But back on topic.....

How can I expect my elected representative to have the time to give a rip about what I think? Seriously. There are about 300,000,000 people in the US, and 435 representatives, or about 690,000 people per representative. How is it possible to even begin to hear all of the opinions of constituents? How is it possible to respond to letter without it being a form letter? I think there is an unrealistic idea of what a representative can do.

So I make no apologies for not being sympathetic regarding an unresponsive representative. It isn't possible to respond to everyone, or even have a staffer do so. We elect officials and sometimes those officials have vastly differing points of view than we do and we have to live with it.

I know- graft and corruption can be soooo time consuming.;)

Oh, and I am going to post from the ship, just to torment you.

really, scaeagles, your last post seemed almost designed to invite the unpleasant notion - borne out by reality - that our representatives have only the wherewithal to respond to the constituencies who finance their re-election campaigns, rather than those who actually re-elect them.

We directly elect our representatives to the federal government. Our votes for President tell our state's Electors how to vote (at least in theory). I'd call this democracy at work.

Quite true....what I meant to say is that we don't decide, directly, any of the laws we live by, or how much we pay in taxes, or where our money gets spent, etc.

Such is politics.

This is why I don't understand why there are restircitions (well, actually I do understand, but it irritates me) on PACs and various special interest groups in how they can lobby and spend money, etc. The only chance that I have an individual is join with other like minded individuals to combine our resouirces to get noticed.

I have often believed that corporations contribute to campaigns - and typically they donate to both sides of the aisle - as something like protection money.