There is a lot of dissatisfaction with our government these days. Anyone wonder how much lower it can go?

The Democrats promised at the last election that they would straighten it out if elected. They have done nothing but attack Bush.

Isn't anyone disturbed that we have no way to turn? We can't trust anyone in Washington to do the job? It's business as usual no matter who is elected.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Congress_AP_Poll.html

Well, Pelosi passed in the House what she promised in 2006 in her first 100 hours. But most of that legislation has gone nowhere in the Senate. With only 49 Democrats (48 with Tim Johnson still recovering) and only one vote giving them control over the Senate, it's difficult to end a filibuster and pass anything when the minority blocks it. I guess Republican obstructionist efforts mean that the Democrats are do-nothing, huh?

I've already explained on other threads why you can't compare directly the Presidental approval rating with Congress's approval rating. It's like asking, who's better: Tiger Woods or the LA Lakers based on game scores.

Andrew

Speaking as an independent who leans democratic but might vote for Romney over Clinton if it goes that way in '08 ...

We really are in a position where a competent, focused leader has the opportunity to step in and start representing the people. Bush, Cheney, Pelosi and Reid are four people all in over their heads when it comes to their level of competence. Not that they all don't have difficult jobs ... but to my eye, Bush is a power-hungry CEO who, when it comes to being a manager, can't manage his way out of a paper bag. Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid can't figure out a focused plan, much less stick to one day in and day out.

Even if you can't compare the Prez & VP's poll ratings with congress's poll ratings, they are all unbelievably horrible, and show the dissatisfaction that is rampant in the country.

Looking ahead to '08, Hillary scares me because of the dynasty question, although I believe she would be a careful, prudent president. W. is such a monarch-wannabe in part because he is a member of the lucky sperm club ... he grew up in a family of privelege, used to being in charge. Hillary spent eight years as an occupant of the White House, meaning she is suspect as to her level of feeling that she just deserves power.

I really like the things Obama says about a new kind of politics, but I don't know that he has the experience to carry it out. And John Edwards just sets my BS-meter and weasel-alarm off every time he talks.

Rudy G. is a one-note guy who was a decent mayor of NY, but I don't trust him on a personal basis. McCain looks sick to me and I don't think he has what it takes to get to the election next year, funds-and-enthusiasm-wise. However, I wish Mitt Romney would do less pandering to the right and stand up for his record of being a good, successful, consensus-seeking government administrator (as Governor of Mass.), and a hell of a successful businessman. I don't agree with lots of the stuff he says, but I trust him to know how to be a government executive.

Fred Thompson is the Republican's version of Gen. Wesley Clark from '04. Attractive on the outside ... empty suit on the inside.

Didn't mean for this to turn into such a rant!

Now some people around here - when and if shown Republicans failings, would threaten future retailliation. As in " You just wait. We'll get you later! "

That's not my take. My take is that I am surprised either of those ratings are as high as they are. I would rate them significantly lower. I can take my lumps. Democrats are fucking blowing a GOLDEN chance. To say nothing of the tangible shunning I get from them.

Shunning. I sound like Lou Dobbs.

"Nowhere to turn." That's EXACTLY it Deane.

I'll also add that part of my frustration in Congress is that they made it sound like they would fix things. They can't get anything important done anymore. They try - and FAIL.

Bush is the decider. He doesn't have to answer to anyone anymore. Nobody.

Sutton, it's no rant. Some well thought out comments.

A couple of things to add. Reid and Polosi pretty much get their marching orders from George Soros. MoveOn.Org communicates with them almost daily.

I won't disagree with you that Bush is weak. I think he'd like to be another Reagen, but is shooting blanks in that regard.

Rudy G. probably doesn't have a second act, and Obama certainly doesn't.

McCain is history.

A lot of people don't like Hillary for a lot of different reasons. I think you might have pointed out the best one and that is we don't need another dynasty. The last one hasn't worked out well.

We need a fresh start in Washington, both for reasons here at home, and in the eyes of the world. Romney might be that person. I wish the Democrats had one, as I suspect they may win the next Presidential election. I'm afraid Edwards is an empty suit and there is nobody else on that side. Richardson is a good guy, but not dynamic enough to win.

Where are the leaders like we had yesterday. Moynehan, Sam Nunn, etc.

Look, I'm not meaning to praise the Democratic Congress, because I'm not thrilled with them myself. But, I think the Democrats are taking some very unfair criticism. As I've said, the biggest problem (other than Iraq legislation, which is extremely challenging) is the Republican filibuster threat in the Senate. I have no doubt that with 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats would have sent Bush a whole ton of legislation by now. The Senate simply isn't a body where the controlling party can get much done without close to 60 votes.

Without knowing how many seats they'd gain in 2006, how could anyone hold them to a promise to pass a bunch of legislation in the Senate? If all Democrats running for Senate in 2006 had won, maybe they'd have 55 votes and close enough to 60 to pass some stuff. Instead, voters gave them barely control with one vote (depending entirely on two independents). It's not Harry Reid's fault that he can't pass much with only 49 Democrats (48 voting).

Andrew

What bothers me more than anything is that instead of being the "uniters" the Democrats told us they would be, the ones to reach across the aisle, that they have become, for the large part, guilty of doing exactly what they have had done to them for the last six years in just doing whatever it takes to alienate those to the right of them.

There is ZERO negotiating here. Sure, next to none will come from the White House, but why not do SOME amongst yourselves, as lawmakers, and send it up the flagpole?

Sam Nunn. Now THERE'S a democrat I could easily back.

But like Governor Casey, they're both non-starters with democrat leaders since neither is sufficiently extreme.

Herb

Casey wasn't a "non-starter." His pro-life son was recently elected to the Senate in Pennsylvania, defeating Rick Santorum.

Andrew

BrianL writes:
What bothers me more than anything is that instead of being the "uniters" the Democrats told us they would be, the ones to reach across the aisle, that they have become, for the large part, guilty of doing exactly what they have had done to them for the last six years in just doing whatever it takes to alienate those to the right of them.

Can you give me a few examples of what you mean?

The Senate recently passed an energy bill. Democrats had to compromise with Republicans by getting rid of new taxes on oil companies that would have paid for rewable energy projects.

The House and Senate recently passed a Stem Cell research bill that Bush vetoed (again).

Of course, Democrats in the House and Senate caved on the Iraq war funding bill in May, infuriating a lot of Democrats. If what you say is true, wouldn't they simply have refused to pass any bill? Didn't Democrats have to work with and compromise with Republicans to pass a few of these things?

Andrew

I think the Democrats could improve their success rate right now, if they largely ignored the law and ethics and just act. This is what the Bush administration is doing, and it's why we are having so much trouble getting started on a more solid path.

In short, the dems are handicapped because they are working within the boundaries set. People don't approve of course, but expectations have not been properly managed.

IMHO, some strong messaging about these issues, their legal and political implications, would go a long way toward improving approval. The "get things done no matter what" attitude of the Bush administration is effective, if misguided. Unless we want to just devolve into a tit-for-tat system, where the biggest ego and pile of money wins, what else can they do right now?

When people claim to be above accountability, it's either get ugly (which might happen as congress does have some power here with inherent contempt, funding, etc...), or limit the damage and fix it later when the primary obstacles are gone.

Said obstacles are the obstructionist Bush administration and friends. That is the root of this gridlock. (which some here support fully and I don't know why. Must be the pet issues only being important, or something like that.)

If I were the dems, I would be totally getting that message out hard, along with the general plans for correction. This done right now would get people thinking past the, "get this bozo out of office" revenge mindset.

Screw the payback. That can happen with far fewer GOP votes over time. The party will either reform or just continue to get smaller each election cycle. I'm ok with that because we then will see new faces.

For that to happen, we need far more people on board.

I strongly suspect this is part of why impeachment is off the table. If so, I agree, but the messaging is totally lacking and that's gonna marginalize how effective this whole affair really is.

The thing is, the Democrats are not a cohesive, united group. Moreso than the Republican party, they are a coalition of different viewpoints. Many of the Democrats elected to Congress in 2006 were not liberals but moderates. Their viewpoints differ from the old-time liberals like Teddy Kennedy or the more libertarian moderate Democrats from the west.

So, it's hard to ask the Dems to speak with one voice, because there isn't one voice.

Republicans had some of the same problem when they were in power. Newt managed to coalesce the House Republicans for a while in 1995 but as history shows, not too long. Look at all the Senate Republican leaders from Dole through Frist and you can see that they always struggled to get a coherent message out. It's much easier for one person, the President, to get his message out vs. trying to get hundreds of people in the same party to agree to one message.

Andrew

Agreed.

However there are common themes. It's totally possible to differentiate core American matters that need to be addressed from more specific policy decisions.

eg: Harriet Meiers declared immune to a subpoena. Every last American should be on board with that being wrong. All Democrats can be weaving that message in with their particular viewpoint.

Highlighting these things and tying them back to our core principles strikes to the heart of this whole executive power trip causing all of us so much grief right now.

Democrats are all about process and ideas. That's why there are so many viewpoints. This is a good thing and should continue.

However, everyone involved also needs to hammer the process message home, or we get this mess until enough people do.

In that sense, all Democrats are united, period.

(All Americans should be, but my focus was on the Dems.)

Democrats should forget about accomplishments and just go after Bush until the end of his term. investigate and scrunitize everything. In 2008 both the Democrats and GOP can start anew.

The Miers thing is just another reason we need to kick Bush again and again right now, and when he's down, kick him some more. This is exactly what he doing to us right now.

Only George W Bush was able to make me admire previous thugs like John Ashcroft, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Union guys should stay as far as possible from words like "thugs".

I'm one of the new breed of "union guys". Thugs belong in jail, union members or not.

>>>The thing is, the Democrats are not a cohesive, united group. Moreso than the Republican party, they are a coalition of different viewpoints. Many of the Democrats elected to Congress in 2006 were not liberals but moderates. Their viewpoints differ from the old-time liberals like Teddy Kennedy or the more libertarian moderate Democrats from the west.

So, it's hard to ask the Dems to speak with one voice, because there isn't one voice.

Andrew, I don't disagree with you. And, overall, I like the fact that the Democrats tend to "work it out in public."

Thanks for the chance to clarify my thinking about this ... Pelosi and Reid could have spent more time, in advance, working out what THEIR OWN real points of focus would be. The congressional Democratic leadership should have figure out in advance what few, limited points they should have focused on, start to finish ... no matter what Bush said or did, no matter what other congresspeople said or did.

Only with focus are we able to solve any problem. Both Reid and Pelosi have both been unfocused during this process. They don't control what their members do, but they can control what they each, personally, do.

Democrats should forget about accomplishments and just go after Bush until the end of his term. investigate and scrunitize everything.
I bet a lot of people voted for Democrats in 2006, hoping that by doing so, Bush would be a goner. Instead, he's still there. I think the lower congressional rating might have to do with people disgusted that they're not getting what they wanted from the people they elected - the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and 100% Iraq pullout.

In 2008 both the Democrats and GOP can start anew.
No, no, NO! We've seen this before (the mentality of 'I don't like the Democrat, so I'm voting for the Republican,' and vice versa).

Maybe time to fire up track #9 from Ted Nugent's "Spirit of the Wild..."

Lastly, while at the Woodstock Neighborhood Street Fair yesterday, a thought at one of the booths (I think it was one where they were doing postcards to pullout of Iraq) scared me, and that was that Jeb Bush might run in 2008.

You lefties do live in a fairy tale world don't you. It never ends.

Whimper and whine, whimper and whine.

George Bush won the election. George Bush will be President until the next one is inaugurated. Get used to it.

Deane, if you think the "lefties" are worse than the "righties" in terms of whimpering and whining, then you live in a pretty dense fantasy world of your own. You hear more whining about Bush from the left because Bush is in power. It was exactly the same type of whining from the right when Clinton was in power - in fact, they are STILL blaming bill Clinton at every opportunity for today's woes.

Andrew

Got over Bush being President loooong ago Deane. I wish the guy who is currently in the White House would actually pull his head out of his ass and face reality

Deane sez: "Whimper and whine, whimper and whine."

Geez, you've dropped down to near troll status with this hypocritical comment.

Chris sez: "I wish the guy who is currently in the White House would actually pull his head out of his ass and face reality"

*shocked*

I occasionally have a little fight in me.

Just tired of the same old rightie comebacks that offer nothing while spewing nothing is being done. It's so typical of our current political division.

Chris said>>>>
I wish the guy who is currently in the White House would actually pull his head out of his ass and face reality.

Kind of summed that one up! LOL!
LOVE IT!