Democrat-controlled Congress meets an all-time nadir:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

More proof that socialism doesn't work.

Herb

Remember, the Democrats don't hold enough of a majority to do much of anything without GOP support. So, those ratings also reflect the GOP as well. If you ask me, 18% means that more GOP lawmakers will be booted in 2008 so the Democrats can move forward with their agenda that a majority of Americans favor. 2006 was a warm up for what's gonna happen in 2008.

This would be the same as applying the approval rating for the New York Yankees as a team to A-Rod as an individual. Not apples to apples.

"So, those ratings also reflect the GOP as well."

As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Not so fast."

Nice attempt at spin. However, that didn't keep the left from their attempts to tar the Congress when Mr. Gingerich was Speaker of the House.

No, no, no. Ms. Pelosi is your leader. She calls the shots. If Congress goes down like the Titanic, she's the captain. Take responsibility for once.

Herb

Pelosi proves that a woman's place really is in the house.

ouch, I can't believe this liberal guy would say that, but she is a joke.

Yet another "The Sky is Falling" thread from HerrB.

Resist the troll.

Herb said>>>
However, that didn't keep the left from their attempts to tar the Congress when Mr. Gingerich was Speaker of the House.

Like Newt was spending every waking hour trying to find out the wrong doings of Slick Willy while he was having an affair with someone his wife was dying of cancer.
Family values at work with Newt "THE TOOL" Gingerich.

Smear away, leftists, for that's all you have.

Don't like it so much when you can't simply attack but actually have to try leading for once? I expect little more than miserable excuses ad nauseum why your side is failing miserably and cannot lead. Of course, it will have nothing to do with your own failures. You'll play the blame game yet again.

The facts are now out. The Democrat-led congress is on the ropes and at an all-time low since polling data has been collected. It's a familiar theme for the left: All talk and no leadership.

Herb

I know.....put all of the candidates in the ring and book it as a "Battle Royal"......last person left standing in the ring wins!

Wars should be fought by the leaders in a "Steel Cage Match"!

Herb: It is not because they are Democrats. The public has lost trust in Democrats and Republicans equally. With no leadership from the president who will not listen to the majority of the public, no one should be surprised that the public will not trust anyone who has been elected and still does not pay attention. The Democrats are behind because they cannot do what the public wants: Get use out of Iraq.

Radioblogman, excuse my caution but your point doesn't really face reality. If voters are so upset at Mr. Bush, they would be running to the democrats. They're not. If the left actually had a workable plan, other than blame Mr. Bush, it would make a big difference.

Just as leadership is important to the president, it is important to the democrat-controlled congress. You can't have it both ways.

Herb

>>>"Get use out of Iraq."

What is your plan for doing that?

Deane: As an ex-military man I know we cannot just pack up and leave immediately and the way things are going now, I'm not even positive a slow withdrawal is possible. Like Cheney said in 1994, we are now in a quagmire. What I would do id order a curfew and give the troops the right to kill anyone violating that. And I would require all weapons be turned over. Then I would start a slow withdrawal and let the civil war continue.

Radioblogman, you appear to have more of a plan than democratic leaders.

Herb

Radioblogman, at least you have some thoughts on what should be done. Most who want us out of Iraq haven't a single thought on whether or not that is even possible.

I too want us out of Iraq, along with most people I suspect.

One thing that flashes through my mind is that perhaps we should hold a referendum (election). One question on the ballot. Do you want us to stay, yes or no. If the answer is no, then we pack up and leave and let the shit hit the fan once and for all. That will mean Iran takes over and scares the bejeezes out of all the other Arab countries.

Iraq, is an arean where the US has very high national interest. The US has to ensure the free movement of trade in the area, its not a popularity contest, if the US fails to ensure the free movement of trade in the area, the US economy will be in shambles, and many Americans will die, because they wont have heating oil, basic necesswities wont be transported in the US, etc.

MONTEBELLO, Quebec (AP) — President Bush acknowledged frustration with the troubled government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday but said it's up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to continue supporting him.

Stopping short of offering an endorsement, Bush said it was not up to the United States to give a verdict on al-Maliki's government.

"The fundamental question is, will the government respond to the demands of the people," the president said. "And if the government doesn't ... respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."



Does this guy even listen to what he says?:

And if the government doesn't ... respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government.

"If voters are so upset at Mr. Bush, they would be running to the democrats. They're not."

So voters didn't run to Democrats in 2006 when the GOP lost both the House and the Senate?

The Democrats have all sorts of plans for Iraq, yet none of the GOP or the President will listen. If you want to see what will happen in 2008 to anyone that still supports Iraq, all you need to do is look and McCain's current standing in the polls today. Bush is poison, and any Republican that stands with him stand to lose.

My crystal ball says that America wants better, and will only achieve that by getting rid of a Republican president and further erode the Republican minority in both Houses in 2008. A quick look at money raised between the parties should have you pretty worried.

If the democrats are ineffective in running their do-nothing Congress, why in heck would we give them power over anything else?

The ineffectiveness of the democrat-controlled congress is yet another major issue that will end up biting the left in the behind.

Herb

Herb, what's the cause of the ineffectiveness? GOP obstruction.

Sorry, but I see it as more of a liability on the right, than the left. And with 22 GOP Senate seats up for grabs, you'd better hope your guys do a better job of playing defense than they did in 2006, because the GOP got the broom treatment bigtime.

>>>"The Democrats have all sorts of plans for Iraq,"

Name some other than "cut and run".

Deane, my plan would be what Biden has offered. And mark my words, Biden's plan will gain traction as time goes by and people realize we will never win the way Bush wants to win. At this point, Bush is more concerned about saving face and his legacy, rather than doing what's right for America, our troops, and Iraq.

I'm also not opposed to leaving and letting the chips fall where they may. Let the Iraqis figure out what kind of country they want. I firmly doubt that Iran will take over. That would then be the end of them and they know it.

"Herb, what's the cause of the ineffectiveness? GOP obstruction."

Only sounds like more of the blame game. Zero responsibility. Business as usual from the left.

Herb

At this point, Bush is more concerned about saving face and his legacy,

Vitalogy, I wish that were true, but George Jr. is too shortsighted to even see that he has ruined his legacy. History will mark even Herbert Hoover as a better president. Bush lives in a fantasy world that not even Karl Rove or Tony Snow can believe in anymore.

And Herb, both I say again both parties are to blame for how Congress is perceived.

Sounds more like denial on your part.

Look at it this way: If the enough GOP members joined Democrats to end the Iraq war, do you think approval would go up or down? Based on the approval of the war itself, I would say approval would go up. If so, then this points to the GOP as being the part of Congress that TRULY has the low rating. This is why I think they are vulnerable.

Like I said, the voters will speak in 2008, and right now the smart money is on the left, not the right.

"History will mark even Herbert Hoover as a better president..."

Does that mean I can get an 'Amen' on our 37th president, too?

Herb

Slippery!

An "Amen!" is an endorsement. Saying somebody is better than this clown is not saying they were good, only that they were not quite so bad!

In that vein, sure! Amen to the 37th!

Thank you.

Herbert M.

There's a side in freefall and it's NOT the left.

You're scared Herb, your posts show that.

The theorcracy is over.

What you call a theocracy is called by our founders the freedom to worship.

Socialists hate that, so I understand your view.

We're agreed that the atheistic pagan democrat hordes will indeed take over if they can.

Herb

I gave up arguing with Herb long ago, but I couldn't let this one slide by without comment:

Vitalogy>> "Herb, what's the cause of the ineffectiveness? GOP obstruction."

Herb> Only sounds like more of the blame game. Zero responsibility. Business as usual from the left.

Note Herb's response here in the context of his posts of "bring on the gridlock" regarding the 2006 election results.

Herb said>>>
Smear away, leftists, for that's all you have.

LOL! WTF!

Keep it up Herb your showing your true colors and that is why the EXTREME RIGHT BIBLE THUMPERS will be voted out in MASS numbers in the coming years.
YOUR TOO EXTREME!

Herb said>>>
Only sounds like more of the blame game. Zero responsibility. Business as usual from the left.

Sounds alot like the ASSES in the White House the last 6 1/2 years.

"Note Herb's response here in the context of his posts of "bring on the gridlock" regarding the 2006 election results."

You guys just can't stand it when your prideful intellects get beat continually by others whom you deem dumb.

If the democrats are so much smarter than our president whom they love to vilify, then why haven't they manoevered out of gridlock?

Answers:

A. No democrat leadership
B. The left isn't as smart as they thought
C. Liberals are great at sniping, but little else

I agree we could use some more gridlock. It prevents the left from further damaging our nation.

Herbert

>>Business as usual from the left.

There is actually a kernel of truth in this one, as the recent house vote on the FISA bill proves.

Herb said>>>
You guys just can't stand it when your prideful intellects get beat continually by others whom you deem dumb.

Sounds like the stance you take about EVERYONE that doesn't think as you.

"If the democrats are so much smarter than our president whom they love to vilify, then why haven't they manoevered out of gridlock?"

1. Not a big enough majority to overcome GOP obstruction.
2. Bush is still president.

There are no other answers Herb. None.

Actually, you are incorrect.

The correct answer is:

3. Congressional leadership couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. They are very good at playing the blame game, however. In fact, they've elevated it into an art form.

Herb

Damn, Herb is right once again.

No Herb and Deane, I'm right and both of you know it. It comes down to numbers and nothing else. Every item the Dems put up gets voted down by the minority GOP or vetoed by the President.

Vitalogy, what have the Dems passed that got vetoed by the President that was worthwhile?

DA said>>>
Damn, Herb is right once again.

In YOUR mind.

Deane, you can't have it both ways. First you claim that they've done nothing. Then when I point out you're wrong, you jump to use the qualification of "worthwhile". Well, worthwhile is a subjective thing.

The Iraq funding and stem cell research would be two examples of a veto by the way, both of which I feel is worthwhile.

Interesting two examples. The Democrats know they have to fund the troops. They fully expected a veto and knew it would be coming and no doubt wanted it to happen. It was nothing more than a political ploy to make noise for the extreme lefties.

I don't agree with Bush's position on stem cell research.

Deane, most people disagree with Bush on stem cell research. However, it's not fair to blame the Democrats that they "can't get anything done" when they have a slim majority and a Republican as president. The current make up pretty much means things are a stalemate for most left or right agenda items.

Secondly, I would say the Dems have done lots of things by effectively stopping the GOP rubber stamp in Congress on anything Bush wants. So, depending on how you look at it, the Dems have achieved quite a bit, just not as much as we would like. But, that's almost the way it should be, because our system works best with compromise, and that's something the GOP just can't seem to grasp right now.

Vitalogy, the Dems actually have quite a few Republicans in Congress who are equally unhappy with Bush.