I see another linkfest up at memeorandum with the usual suspects all lining up (those crazy kids at Hot Air leading the way), all talking about this Gallup poll of Congressional approval ratings.
I have not read the poll data (and you will just have to take me at my word on that). I have not read any of the blogosphere commentary. I have seen only the headline at Memeorandum and the people linking to it. As such, I have only one question.
Will anyone consider that the reason ratings are so low is not a universal rejection of Democratic principles as enacted by the new Majority party, it is because the Democrats are also mad at the Democratic majority for not standing up to Bush? Because I guarantee the drop is from Democrats angry at Democratic cowardice, and not a yearning for a Republican Congress.
Any bets? Because I am betting it is all “RAH RAH BUSH HAS HIGHER RATINGS THAN THE DHIMMOCRATS IN CONGRESS.” I can almost guarantee it. I will leave it to you guys to explore the data and the reactions and get back to me.
I am going to take a nap.
*** Update ***
Well, there is a real shock. At least one person does understand it- Glenn Greenwald. It really isn’t rocket science. Hell, Tim is going to do what he can to get Pelosi and Reid fired in 2009.
Andrew
In other news, “approval of congress” is fairly meaningless. Congressional approval should be the average of the approval ratings of representatives in their own districts. Et voila, “congressional approval” is actually 60-70%, and 90% of all incumbents get reelcted.
ThymeZone
Yes, exactly, and that spin about how unpopular the Dems are is simply a cover for the GOP, whose insiders know that as of next year, they are toast on the Hill.
Completely toast. Their strategy right now, as near as I can tell, is to just tough it out. They can’t bring themselves to repudiate the last 6 years of bad government and refresh their thinking and thereby their party.
Their reward comes next November. As they say, good riddance to bad trash.
myiq2xu
Go check out Glen Greenwald’s latest at Salon. He does a breakdown of the numbers.
My sense is people are pissed because they want the Democrats in Congress to at least try to stop the war and put an end to Der Monkey’s business.
Incertus (Brian)
Congressional approval should be the average of the approval ratings of representatives in their own districts.
Yep. That would show that people aren’t pissed at their own Congresscritter–they’re pissed at everyone else’s.
The Other Steve
Obviously we should go vote for Republicans if we want out of Iraq!
Tim F.
The approval is low because Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of their Congressional delegation. Why is not hard to figure out.
Mr. Moderate
You hit the nail on the head, John! I am most supremely dissatisfied with their FISA law and their inability to stand up to the President with barely more efficacy than the GOP congress did. There are certainly some dirty pool stuff that they have been pulling that I’m not thrilled about either. However the level of that is still lower than the GOP.
Dreggas
Let’s also not forget the obstructionist republicans who refuse to allow any dem legislation to get passed without a bunch of bull shit. Yet dems were obstructionist?
I am amazed that these idiots in the wing-o-sphere aren’t wearing depends undergarments to bed so they don’t piss all over the sheets. After all to be touting this as somehow good for the GOP requires that one be an infant or a retard, or some combination of both.
Xenos
As a Democrat, I disapprove of my delegation. As for the Republican delegation, I approve of their immediate imprisonment.
Kevin K.
“Why is not hard to figure out.”
The same people who are having a hard time figuring it out are the same people who still think invading Iraq was a great idea.
RSA
Exactly right. Is anyone thinking that disenchanted Democratic voters are going to vote for Republicans in the next Congressional election? I think that when they run a Congressional approval poll, a good question to ask is, “Would you rather that the minority party were in charge of Congress right now?” That would tell us a bit more about why people are happy or unhappy.
cleek
my god, those people at Hot Air are So Fucking Stupid.
Jake
PotD
Not to gloat but this little MaryDem has only been driven to swearing once, by only one of his legislators. (Milkulski on FISA.)
Psycheout
Liberalism obviously doesn’t work. The anti-war blame America first crowd is angry because their representatives aren’t as stupid as they are. The left will eat itself.
But did you see the video of Fred! Thompson riding around in a motorized golf cart? Heh, indeed.
Jimmmmm
John: Glenn Greenwald is ALWAYS right. He’s canny, perspicacious, and a stylish writer. Yet for some reason, his Salon page rests a notch or two beneath your site on my morning blogroll.
What can I say, I really like Balloon Juice, and as much for your quick hits as for the commenter community.
Oh yeah, and I’m so disgusted with the Democratic 110th that I’m going to vote for different Democrats.
Dave
Wanna see Congress’ numbers tank even more?
They will if this is true.
John Cole
Most people prefer steak to a burger, but for whatever reason eat far more hamburgers every year than they do steaks.
S.W. Anderson
SHow me where Democrats have a majority in the Senate for anything beyond organizing the body? On any issue where Republicans vote en bloc — e.g. Iraq — Harry Reid finds himself nearing a waterfall in a leaky canoe, with popsicle sticks for oars.
Sixty percent is required to get anything gritty passed along to Bush. Republicans’ enthusiasm for straight up-or-down votes disappeared in early November ’06.
Pelosi has some margin to work with in the House. Reid has Tim Johnson recuperating and Joe “Quisling” Lieberman. IOW, what you call Democratic cowardice is the “so near and yet so far” reality Reid must contend with every working day.
Mindful Democrats invented the circular firing squad and with liberals leading the way patented several techniques for grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, I’m not at all surprised by all this piling on.
Just, please, quitcherbitchin long enough to grasp a simple concept. Divided, we pave Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney’s way to the White House and fix it so Republicans are back at their old stand in the Senate, demanding up-or-down votes — for judges who’ll make Sam the man seem like someone Rahm Emanuel sent over.
Believe it.
ThymeZone
Hanburger, cheap. Steak, dear.
Dave
Well that’s a fine concept, but since the Dems control the agenda, they can put up whatever bills they want when then want and make ’em look like they want. FISA, Iraq supplementals? All of it.
Instead what we get is:
Dems: Here’s out bill.
WH: I don’t like it. Gimme these things or else.
Dems: Ok.
srv
You’re either with us, or against us. And Nancy and Harry aren’t with us.
myiq2xu
If the Democrats cave in on the war after Bush’s sockpuppet General Betrayus presents Bush’s his report, be prepared for a revolt in the Democratic Party.
People are angry and frustrated and want something done. Sometimes anger simmers for months and years and then something relatively small can ignite a firestorm.
It doesn’t take an assassination or an egregiously bad verdict to start trouble. The Watts Riots started with a traffic stop.
If the Dems once again drop their collective panties and bend over for Der Monkey, things will get uglier than Bill O’Reilly’s first piece of ass.
ThymeZone
Nope. The goal for 2008 is to pick up seats. Nothing that interferes with that will take place in the Democratic Party.
There will be no “revolt” largely for the reason that it would require a nationwide move to unseating Dem incumbents in Dem primaries. Those battles will not be fought, there isn’t the money or time for it.
Please, are we going to have to go through this every month now for the next year? Doesn’t anyone around here know how the process and politics really work?
S.W. Anderson
I note that Dave, srv and myiq2xu (1) did not answer my challenge, “SHow me where Democrats have a majority in the Senate for anything beyond organizing the body,” and (2) indulged instead in more piling on.
Go ahead, guys, beat your breast and bark at the moon all you want. Just stock up on crying towels because you’re probably going to need them after the next close election goes the Republicans’ way.
srv
It doesn’t work. That’s the point. For the confused TZ’s and S.W. Andersons of the world, there will always be an excuse. There will never be enough democrats to wield absolute power.
You people need to stop making excuses. It’s pretty damn obvious at this point that Bush got more out of the FISA bill with Democrats than if Republicans still held a majority. At what point do you get a clue?
I can just see the S.W.’s of the world in ’09. President Giuliani versus a Democratic Senate with 59 votes. And Lieberman is number 60. Let’s just declare the world lost, right now, move to Canada and start thinking about 2016.
If the opposition party is interested in go-along, get-along, maybe win, maybe lose in 2008, don’t rock the boat, don’t force an Article II issue with the Supreme Court so we can have a basic clue where Unitary Executive Theory lies 200+ freaking years after the Constitution was signed, then I don’t give a flying fuck. Either these theories are on the ash heap of history forever or we live in a authoritarian empire where there is, literally, no hope.
Bruce Moomaw
The popularity of Congress is virtually always a lot lower than the President’s, because people who disapprove of Congress come from TEWO groups instead of one: those who belong to the current minority party, and those who belong to the majority party but are mad that it hasn’t done more to trample the minority Congressmen underfoot. Now is no exception. The REALLY relevant poll is how much more popular Congressional Democrats are than Congressional Republicans — and the answer (according to the most recent polls, from ABC, Harris and Fox) is: 12.5% more popular, 11% more popular, or 6.5% more popular.
Sho’nuff, the new Gallup article says flat-out that the drop in Congress’ popularity comes ENTIRELY from Democrats and Independents who are pissed off that the Congressional Dems haven’t been MORE effective in opposing Bush’s policies:
“The nine-point drop in Congress’ job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats’ ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents’ ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans’ 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month…
“Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006’s midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats’ repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership’s domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress.”
srv
It is far, far more important that the opposition starts opposing something (anything would do) than they gain a tinsy majority in 2009. I would rather sacrifice the next couple of elections for a small chance of real change than find a comfortable moderation of the current status quo for the lot of you.
S.W. Anderson
srv wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder if Blogs for Bush or Free Republic sent you over to help teach the regulars how to tie their shoes together in preparation for the coming race.
Look, impeachment is a legal process requiring solid, unimpeachable evidence. When solid, unimpeachable evidence is to be had, even members of a wayward president’s own party can find it hard to vote against impeachment, because they know they’ll come off looking like accomplices. So, if someone can come forth with the solid, unimpeachable evidence to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, I’m all for doing that.
So far, that solid, unimpeachable evidence appears to be thin on the ground. Meanwhile, no matter how frustrated all of us who feel Bush is the worst president ever get, Senate Democrats still lack the votes to make anything stick — unless and until a sufficient number of Republicans cross over to make doing something decisive feasible.
I’m not happy about that reality, but I like to think I’m sensible and mature enough to accept and work with it.
John Cole
I am not disagreeing with your larger point- I think Democrats going for a pound of flesh against their leadership right now is ill-conceived and premature, and the sort of thing that should be discussed after it is clear a Republican will not be President.
Having said that, I think you are vastly overstating how clever Blogs For Bush and the Freepers are. They just aren’t smart enough to send in undercover agents to sabotage. Remember, these folks deny evolution.
Dave
Actually I believe I did. Being the organizing body is all they really need. They put forth the agenda, the put forth the bills to be voted on, etc, etc. If they don’t like Bush’s reaction to a bill or Bush’s proposed changes to a bill, the can table it and move on to the next one.
FISA is a fine example. Why did this have to be done before the August break? Answer: no reason. Dems put up Bush’s version of it, without reading it, for no reason. There was no gain or benefit to the Dems. It did not advance a Democratic agenda. It did nothing but put off the inevitable beating they’ll take for the 28%ers the next time Bush has to ask twice to get something.
myiq2xu
Don’t flatter yourself, I hadn’t even read your post when I made my last comment.
Current Senate rules require a 60% vote to break a filibuster, and the GOP has twisted that into a 60 vote requirement to pass anything they don’t agree with.
I hope they do keep up their obstructionist ways, so that the party of the people will soon have a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
BTW- I’ve been out of crying towels since SCOTUS selected a semi-literate buffoon to be our President.
Paul
The electorate is disgusted. If the Democrats in Congress can’t stand up to a president with a 30% approval rating then what will they do when they’re REALLY challenged? And now we have Hillary Clinton saying the Bush policy in Iraq is working..(?) The presidency is now Mitt Romney’s to lose, in my opinion (unless we stop waiting for AL Gore on his white horse and get solidly behind Obama or Edwards). Who would have thought the Democrats wouldn’t have the temerity to knock Bush over with a feather? Disgusting.
Dave
Don’t be a moron.
Who the hell mentioned impeachment in this thread? Where’d that come from?
All I (and I won’t speak for others) am asking is for our leadership to, I dunno, lead. Stick up for what they say they actually believe in.
srv
You changed the subject. Nobody said anything about impeachment.
I said opposition. As in oppose. As in, several hundred democratic congressfolk, senators and staff can’t come up with a single idear to force an Article II debate, let alone something that might find a way to the Supreme Court? Just a series of endless hearings that go nowhere?
I’m beginning to think that a lot of you really wouldn’t have had many problems with the last 7 years if it had just been Gore doing it. If you aren’t foaming at the mouth by now, what the hell does it take?
Dave in ME
An equation:
Dipshit president who can’t tie his shoes
+
leads country into unneeded war, based on lies, and with no intention of leaving…..evar!!!
=
Democratic Congress elected to reign in the stupid and wind down his quest to subdue all brown people in Persia.
When the public sees the Congress who they elected to reign this stupid fucker in, actually capitulating to him then yeah the public is fucking pissed. I write to my Maine reps on a daily basis and get their replies which all contain some variant of “when the time is right”, “gotta support the troops” or some other idiotic blather.
Its really simple – 70% of Americans or 211,865,364 of us fucking hate George Bush and want him impeached and then deported to the Hague for his war crimes trial along with Cheney, Rice, Rove, Card, Gonzalez Addington et al. Democrats can’t figure this out, then what the fuck are they doing other than fattening their bank accounts and reelection funds?
Anyone? **crickets**
srv
My mistake. Apparently, what Democrats believe in is:
– Unchecked executive authority
– Avoid direct conflict with the executive at all costs
– Since the executive will make everything a conflict, roll over
– Warrantless spying (judged illegal by the FISA court) by the state without consequences. In fact, we’ll Specter it and pass a law to legalize it.
– Habeas corpus is quaint
– The surge
– Bigger military, more troops
– It’s OK if you bomb Iran, just don’t ask us first
– Policies that are never, ever, out of sync with AIPAC
– No paper trail, electronic voting isn’t really a problem
– Support whatever bail-out the mortgage scandal requires
Really, pardon the interruption. I was confused.
Bombadil
Nap, my ass. We all know what goes on out there at WVU.
Robert Fredson
Plenty of people hold reasonable doubt about the theory of evolution. This is not a denial; it is calm, rational, level-headed thought. How typical for you to put it that way, Mr. Cole. Perhaps the wild veer to the left is what broke your website.
As for the extreme loathing demonstrated toward the Democrats, you are ignoring the very likely possibility that while Americans grew tired of the excessive spending and the scandals in Congress, they are still quite a bit more concerned about winning the war against Al Qaeda. Sadly, Democrats are constantly obstructing the military, and, as a result of their defeatism and resignation in the face of the enemy, we are in a time of peril overseas and at home.
The American people sense this. Perhaps if you all could stop name-calling and hate-spewing for more than two seconds at a time, you would be able to sense this as well.
The Other Steve
Supporting Cindy Sheehan?
Psycheout
All the Donks care about is getting power. I think that’s where your frustration lies. You naively seem to think they stand for something more. They don’t.
John Cole
Please sprinkle your bullshit elsewhere. To raise “reasonable” doubts (and those are quotes of sarcasm, as all of the doubts raised are neither reasonable nor backed by scientific data) about the body of evidence supporting evolution is to deny it. Period. I seriously wish those folks with reasonable doubts regarding evolution had reasonable doubts about gravity and would jump off a damned building.
Name one fucking thing the Democrats have blocked. One spending bill. One appropriation. This administration has gotten everything they have wanted and more as far as funding goes, and pretending otherwise is absurd. Go test-drive your stab in the back bullshit elsewhere. If the end result ofthis war is an American loss, the failure rests SOLELY on this administration. Not on the military, who have done everything they can. Not on the Democrats, who have not stopped one thing and started this war with a blank check for Bush. Not on the war protesters.
Hell, if this administration had listened to people and had the surge when it mattered- in 2003, we might not be dealing with this mess. But they didn’t listen, and I can guarantee that you, like I, were back then mouthing the talking points (“we don’t need more troops,” “disbanding the Iraqi Army is the right thing to do,” etc.) and denigrating the folks who knew what they were talking about. The difference between you and me is that you somehow managed to make it through the last 6 years of Bush without having learned a damned thing.
Now back to Red State with you, before my less reasonable commenters really let you have it.
Psycheout
Oh, I see. You hate teh evil joooos!
Anne Laurie
I am amazed that these idiots in the wing-o-sphere aren’t wearing depends undergarments to bed so they don’t piss all over the sheets.
Especially when the Faux News keeps telling them there are scary Islamofascisterrists hiding under the very own personal beds.
I think this is why Rush and his Palm Beach friends prefer to hire their household servants from the pool of illegal immigrants, who risk deportation if they complain about the “special overnight” laundry loads.
John Cole
I can’t believe I responded to you, Fredson. I just remembered you are the gaping asshole who questioned the loyalty of the 82nd soldiers who penned the NY TIMES editorial.
Ignore what I said in my last comment and just go fuck yourself.
Dulcie
“Mommy, look! A concern troll! Can I keep him, please? I promise I’ll feed him, and walk him, and everything!”
jake
I can not tell the accomplished spoofs from the hardcore dipshits.
Robert Fredson
I questioned their wisdom and understanding of the big picture. Not their loyalty. A rather big difference.
I was not alone in my questions.
On the other hand, you certainly have lived up to your hate-and-names end of the bargain; I will grant you that.
Ah, well, you have convinced me then. Brilliant and good point.
John Cole
Ahem. Robert Fredson, questioning their “wisdom”:
Like I said, GFY.
ThymeZone
Oh cut the crap, please. First of all, no excuses are necessary, as I said to another thread, when the facts are on your side. Dems hold the slimmest possible Senate majority and weild no real power there at all.
There will be no Demo revolt, that was the thrust of my earlier post and the assertion stands. There will be no nationwide rush of Dems to oppose incumbents in congress, and the goal is to gain seats next year.
All the useless horseshit ranting in here notwithstanding, that is the way it is and will be. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will care about summer 2007 when January 2009 rolls around. If you think I’m wrong, bookmark this post and come back in Jan 2009 and let’s see who is right.
Meanwhile, can’t you chestbeaters find another outlet for your puerile tantrums every time something in the real political world goes in a way you don’t like? Because otherwise it is going to be a long tedious fucking year around here.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Wow, this Fredson guy is either a raging idiot or a lazy troll. There’s not even a fig leaf to hide behind on that disloyalty charge.
Talk about caught dead to rights.
incontrolados
With all of the different timetables and different parties connected to different ones, count me as part of the ‘the Dems did a lot, but not as much as I had hoped and that FISA thing, WTF?’ crowd.
I’m in a peculiar position. My congressional rep votes correctly (mostly) but my two Senators are knuckleheads at best. I’m not going to change Kay’s or Cornyn’s minds with my letters. It hasn’t worked so far.
I don’t know why, given that today there are noises that Dems are wavering on the surge (CRAP), but I still have hope. Not just for redeployment of our forces in Iraq, but for the passage of all of the bills that are currently stuck in the process.
Dave
So you’re fine with the FISA renewal.
At any rate, if the Dems don’t show some fucking spine some time in the next year, you’re going to be worrying about another long 4 years as the Dem base sits it out, the indys get disenfranchised and the GOP base votes in another nut. You know like has happened since 2000.
ThymeZone
Dont put words in my fucking mouth, amigo. That makes me mad.
I never said I was fine with it. But I did talk about it at length the other day on another thread. If you actually care what I think about it, which I doubt and don’t care about one way or the other, you can look it up.
srv
If you’re the voice of reason for the Dems, consider this a tombstone and not a bookmark.
The way Dems are going with Iraq and Iran, there isn’t going to be a lickspittles worth of difference in swing voters minds between the parties.
John may not vote for any Republicans, but if the Dems keep this shit up, don’t be whining when the mobs don’t show up at the voting booths for Hillary or Barack either.
ThymeZone
Like you, I am an obscure poster on an obscure blog.
Try not to blow so hard in puffing this shit all up, okay?
Jesus.
Jim Treacher
See, those dumb nutters have been getting it wrong all this time… Greenwald uses STEAK puppets!
Andrew
I can only imagine that Fredson falls asleep to the sweet sounds of Horst-Wessel-Lied.
S.W. Anderson
Dave, after getting a little unnecessary ugliness out of his system (“Don’t be a moron”), asked:
For the record, Dave:
myiq2xu: “People are angry and frustrated and want something done.”
srv: “It is far, far more important that the opposition starts opposing something (anything would do) . . .”
In fact, I mentioned impeachment because it falls under the general definition of something.
I mentioned it because Democrats don’t have the votes to do much of anything else about Iraq and the IWOT that will make a difference for now. They can set legislative agendas, wax vehement in debate and hold votes all they want. When the results come back that they’ve lost again, were stymied again, no dice this time, getting nowhere fast, just beating their heads against a wall, etc., they will have done nothing to raise their stock with you or the public.
Indeed, doing what you’ve suggested, Democrats would just come off looking dumb for having run up Bush and congressional Republicans’ score of “wins” over them, leaving many in the public convinced that between the two, Republicans know how to get things done, while Democrats know how to keep standing up so they can get knocked down again.
Pb
I’m not happy with Congress. I’m not happy with the many times the Democratic “leadership” has caved lately. But when it comes down to it, I’m far less happy with the Republicans, their ridiculous obstruction that often goes unmentioned in the media, and their lying bullshit that inevitably makes its way into the media. So kick the leadership in the balls, primary challenge their incompetent asses, and vote the Republicans out.
myiq2xu
The Democrats can do many things they aren’t doing.
They can submit bills at least once a week that have popular support and let the GOP vote against them or use procedural tricks to block them. Then next year they GOP incumbents can explain themselves to the voters.
If, by some miracle, they get enough votes to pass some worthy legislation and Bush vetoes it, they give the public a reason to vote for the Democratic candidate for President, and get a second shot at the GOP members in Congress with an attempted veto override.
The can refuse to pass legislation like the FISA amendment. They can also be more agressive in using their oversight power to demand answers from the White House on all the various scandals.
Instead, they don’t even try to push bills they know won’t get passed, they give Der Monkey anything he wants, and they do nothing when the White House stonewalls them.
So what if they won’t win every battle, or any of them. They should keep hammering away until they win or until the next election. It’s not only politically smart, it’s the right thing to do.
Anne Laurie
Wow, this Fredson guy is either a raging idiot or a lazy troll.
I vote both. It’s the wingnut version of multi-tasking.
S.W. Anderson
myiq2xu wrote:
Agreed.
John Cole
I was not sure it was possible, but that made less sense than my steak/burger remark.
Person of Choler
Mr. Cole, the answer to your question is, as always:
George Bush caused it.
Tim F.
Another insightful on-topic comment by PoC! Conversing with this chap has all the allure of talking to a bumper sticker.
timb
It reminds me again of why I hate George “macaca” Allen. Had that ass not been utterly unable to win a Senate seat as a conservative Republican in a conservative Republican state, we wouldn’t have all these well-meaning (but dead wrong) lib complainers. All the Democrats needed in 2006 was one House of Congress so they could stop the stupid things and investigate the rest. Instead they ended up with such slim majorities in both houses, that they get blamed when it rains on my picnic.
Without 55 to 56 votes in the Senate, the majority leader cannot get anything done. Look at history, for 80 years and throughout the New Deal, the House passed Civil Rights bills and they died in the Senate, because they couldn’t overcome filibusters.
I’m not complaining about Senator Webb, he seems like a decent guy, but being in nominal charge of one branch of government at this moment in history is dangerously close to owning the war, gaining half-ownership of the destruction of Civil Liberties, and looking feckless! Wow, what a great benefit that last Senate added.
Zifnab
You’re joking, right? If the Republicans had held the Senate, things would be infinitely worse. For starters, House DINOs would be more than willing to cut deals and splinter the party if they thought the legislation would actually get through the Senate. You’d have seen the Capitulation Emergency Supplemental get passed without the vetoed Timetable Bill ever seeing the outside of a committee.
Rethugs could have pitched “sense of the Senate” bullshit resolutions and tried to block House inquiries with bullshit pseudo-inquiries of their own. You’d basically have the Congress fighting with itself while Bush got to do whatever he damn well pleased. It would be a fucking nightmare.
Admittedly, with a Lieberman Majority in the Senate, things aren’t much better. But all the progress we’ve seen in the Alberto Gonzales case (yeah, laugh) would never have seen the light of day under a Republican Senate. Sure, Dems are all bark no bite. But with a Senate majority, at least they’re allowed to make noise. No more “cut his mic” hackery like we got to see between ’00 and ’06.
ThymeZone
When people are angry and frustrated and just “want something done” we generally call that “acting out.”
We are talking about government, not group therapy.
An action in government is useful only when it creates a predictable and beneficial result, and its effects are largely limited to good results and not prone to unexpected outcomes.
Does impeachment serve the real imperative here, which is long term and substantive correction of government toward more progressive policies?
I think the answer is “no” and that should be the end of the discussion. Anything else, like making angry folks feel better, is a waste of time and effort. Impeachment of Bush and conviction gives you President Cheney. Hello?
Will you try to do a double impeachment? Also, impeachment will take a year. There’s an election next year. Do you really want this critical election held in that atmosphere?
I wouldn’t mind an impeachment of Cheney if it were three years ago, but it’s too late for that. And it’s the wrong fight to fight right now.
Dave
Again, no one, not me, not myiq2xu has mentioned impeachment. You and S.W. keep bringing it up.
But, let me be very clear, I think impeachment is a waste of time, petty, and will be divisive on the country and as you mention TZ there ain’t time left. Plus if the Dems cave on everything else sent before them, I don’t see impeachment even on the horizon.
myiq2xu sums up what the Dems should be doing better than I can.
and ends with
Agreed.
ThymeZone
Tiresome rhetoric.
Unless we had three parties, it’s hard to configure a thinner majority with less real power on the Hill.
Working within the political realities of a system designed to empower minority representation, instead of stamping feet and throwing useless tantrums, is not ‘caving’. And it is really time that citizens learned how their government actually works.
The blogs, alas, are not helping. Blogowners, like cable tv operators, are all to ready to whip their audiences into useless frenzies to get churn and attention, and they are not beneath using demagoguery to do it.
The Dems HAVE LITTLE POWER on Capitol Hill. If you want to change that, you have to WIN MORE SEATS.
You won’t WIN MORE SEATS by throwing a tantrum every month or two. Or pandering to the small mob that hangs around the Tubes. You win more seats by staying focussed on the goal of winning more seats.
More seats, More votes. More votes, more power.
Everything on the Hill is about counting votes. Votes on the Hill, not votes in Toledo.
You are confused. The next election is the thing that must be hammered at, and you can’t hammer at it with pitchforks. You hammer at it with smart politics, GOTV, hard work, good candidates, raising money, and a progressive message. Putting signs in front yards, registering voters. Not by picking fights with your own party members. You don’t go to war with your own party on the verge of a big shift in party power. You win the seats first, and then you fight the internal battles.
The Democratic Party is flawed, intractable, and infuriating. It is also the only thing standing between you and four more years of you know what.
Sojourner
Thank you.
Sorry, TJ, but there is simply no way to defend the idiot Dems who allowed a vote on the FISA bill. They did it because they were afraid that if they didn’t pass something, they would take the hit if a terrorist attack occurred while they were out on August recess.
That’s just chicken-shit bullshit.
My observations as a now former Democrat.
Sojourner
And you expect these things from the current Democratic party?
Bruce Moomaw
August 8 CNN Poll (recounted on “Polling Report’s” front page): “Do you have more confidence in President Bush or in the Democrats in Congress to deal with the major issues facing the country today?” Congressional Dems win by 48-35.
Jim Treacher
Sock puppets, steak puppets… feh. Hey, they can’t all be gems! ;)
Robert Fredson
You were right on that point, Mr. Cole. I stand corrected.
John Cole
That is progress.
Now, point to me one instance in which the Democrats blocked anything that impacted our prosecution of the war. And I don’t mean a link to some ignoramus being a gasbag in the well of the House or Senate. I mean one appropriations bill that was killed. One platoon that went unfunded. One.
And then, if you can do that (which you can’t, because this administration has received EVERY piece of financial and material support it requested since day one, and has even turned down pay increases and additional equipment requests from Democrats trying to come at the GOP from the right), then ask yourself the following question:
‘Why is it that I instinctively question the motives and patriotism of everyone I disagree with or who ever tells me something I don’t want to hear and then attack them.’
Be careful. If you honestly answer that question, you might not like what you find out about yourself or your politics. I know I didn’t. And I haven’t voted for a Republican since.
Tsulagi
Hadn’t been reading this thread.
LOL, that’s good.
But if they did that, the president’s poll numbers would drop to zero and nobody would be around to say “The Democrats are ALWAYS worse.”
S.W. Anderson
A respectful salute to John Cole, for exhibiting a little good-natured self-deprecation in the midst of a brawl.
Another one to Robert Fredson, for owning up to having gotten something wrong — a too-rare occurrence in the blogosphere.
And yet one more to Thymezone, for stating better than myself realities those of us on the left must accept for now and work our way past.
Person of Choler
Well, Tim F. read the comments in this thread, or most others here for that matter, and count those that end up taking a whack at GWB for any reason, or none in particular.
I enjoy reading this site, it is a veritable Bush Derangement Syndrome ward in an internet loony bin.
Jeff Eaton
Curiously, it was CS Lewis, darling father of Christian apologetics, who noted that once you’ve examined your own beliefs with the same skepticism that you examine those of others, you can never go back. It is a shift that cannot be undone.
S.W. Anderson
Re: talk of impeachment. I want to make clear I’m not calling for impeachment, however much I think Bush, Cheney and Gonzales have it coming to them. As I said, I mentioned it because it is something Democrats could do, and on balance is probably more doable than cranking out a series of no-win legislative measures.
Timing, as Thymezone and Dave mentioned, is all wrong and it would be divisive. Worse, it could backfire.
All that said, impeachment should be a legal proceeding, not a political one.
The current situation brings to mind something law students learn early on about court procedure: Never ever ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer to. In the case of going for impeachment(s), don’t even think about it unless you have rock-solid evidence in hand that makes guilt clear to everyone.
S.W. Anderson
Person of Choler wrote:
A little dioriented, are we? Let me help you find your way. The Bush Derangement Syndrome ward is located here.
Try not to disturb the 28 percenters at feeding time; they get especially ornery in the presence of red meat.
Tsulagi
And don’t stand between them and a congressional page, they’ll kneecap you faster than Jack Bauer.